twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089 
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Apr 25, 2017 14:56:42 GMT
PBL122 has (finally) Repaid Presumably we can expect imminent drawdown of PBL167.
|
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Apr 25, 2017 15:00:22 GMT
Presumably we can expect imminent repayment also?
yes yippee
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Apr 25, 2017 15:10:55 GMT
Presumably we can expect imminent drawdown of PBL167. Surely it has. I find this hilarious - No way the borrower has physically repaid PBL122, only for us to send new funds. In reality, only the difference has been sent; I see no reason why PBL122 didn't repay on the date PBL167. Or, why on earth didn't LY just create a new Tranche...  Indeed. Handled with all the deftness and subtlety of a drunken gorilla. (Naming no names, OG)
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Apr 25, 2017 15:14:14 GMT
PBL122 has (finally) Repaid I wondered how I managed to claw my 4k back on dfl21. The rookiest of early morning errors...11% ltgdv NOT Rate (luckily cancelled my sales before it reached 5 figs).
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Apr 25, 2017 15:15:04 GMT
And PBL167 has drawn down (16:13).
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 25, 2017 15:15:32 GMT
Presumably we can expect imminent drawdown of PBL167. Surely it has. I find this hilarious - No way the borrower has physically repaid PBL122, only for us to send new funds. In reality, only the difference has been sent; I see no reason why PBL122 didn't repay on the date PBL167. Or, why on earth didn't LY just create a new Tranche... The fact that it is now happening on a consitent basis clearly indicates that there must be a reason probably related to the security, client money and to the FCA disliking balance sheet risk for small platforms. And no i havent work it out either.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 25, 2017 16:23:24 GMT
I find this hilarious - No way the borrower has physically repaid PBL122, only for us to send new funds (and the borrower is waiting for these funds). In reality, only the difference has been sent; I see no reason why PBL122 didn't repay on the date PBL167. Or, why on earth didn't LY just create a new Tranche... PBL122 couldn't be repaid at the time PBL167 went live because it would have meant the default risk would have been Lendy's until PBL167 drew down. ISTM that they couldn't just issue another tranche because they didn't forewarn PBL122 investors that further money could be lent on the same security and be ranked pari passu. (They can add further tranches to DFLs because they do disclose this at the beginning.) They could have issued PBL167 as an add-on loan, as they did with PBL166, but that would have made the new loan a second charge. They could do that with PBL166 because it was a 12% loan and just 18% of the size of PBL084, whereas in this case they might have had more trouble raising funding because the supplemental loan would have been nearly twice the size of PBL122.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 25, 2017 16:43:42 GMT
I find this hilarious - No way the borrower has physically repaid PBL122, only for us to send new funds (and the borrower is waiting for these funds). In reality, only the difference has been sent; I see no reason why PBL122 didn't repay on the date PBL167. Or, why on earth didn't LY just create a new Tranche... PBL122 couldn't be repaid at the time PBL167 went live because it would have meant the default risk would have been Lendy's until PBL167 drew down. ISTM that they couldn't just issue another tranche because they didn't forewarn PBL122 investors that further money could be lent on the same security and be ranked pari passu. (They can add further tranches to DFLs because they do disclose this at the beginning.) They could have issued PBL167 as an add-on loan, as they did with PBL166, but that would have made the new loan a second charge. They could do that with PBL166 because it was a 12% loan and just 18% of the size of PBL084, whereas in this case they might have had more trouble raising funding because the supplemental loan would have been nearly twice the size of PBL122. They could have repaid PBL122 using funds from PBL167. The only "innovation" necessary would be for the "Drawndown" status to allow for (in effect) "partly" as well as "yes" and "no" - the amount that has not been "drawndown" (by repaying PBL122) would still have been held on account.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 538
Likes: 385
|
Post by toffeeboy on Apr 27, 2017 10:56:31 GMT
PBL122 couldn't be repaid at the time PBL167 went live because it would have meant the default risk would have been Lendy's until PBL167 drew down. ISTM that they couldn't just issue another tranche because they didn't forewarn PBL122 investors that further money could be lent on the same security and be ranked pari passu. (They can add further tranches to DFLs because they do disclose this at the beginning.) They could have issued PBL167 as an add-on loan, as they did with PBL166, but that would have made the new loan a second charge. They could do that with PBL166 because it was a 12% loan and just 18% of the size of PBL084, whereas in this case they might have had more trouble raising funding because the supplemental loan would have been nearly twice the size of PBL122. They could have repaid PBL122 using funds from PBL167. The only "innovation" necessary would be for the "Drawndown" status to allow for (in effect) "partly" as well as "yes" and "no" - the amount that has not been "drawndown" (by repaying PBL122) would still have been held on account. That is overcomplicating the matter don't you think. As usual the lack of communication has been the problem but I think that this has been handled in the best way possible to, what I assume is, keep the FCA happy.
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 306
Likes: 667
|
Post by copacetic on Oct 12, 2017 13:00:47 GMT
Anyone holding this loan may want to check the update 28/09/17 in light of the recent loan suspensions. 50% of the loan is to be repaid by Friday (which doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the loan overview).
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 538
Likes: 385
|
Post by toffeeboy on Oct 26, 2017 16:48:59 GMT
Anyone holding this loan may want to check the update 28/09/17 in light of the recent loan suspensions. 50% of the loan is to be repaid by Friday (which doesn't appear to have been mentioned in the loan overview). Well the extension of 50% payment to 25th has now passed as well with no word of a repayment, in most books this would make it a default except Lendy's. An update on at least the 50% payment that is now two weeks overdue would be appreciated Lendy Support
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 306
Likes: 667
|
Post by copacetic on Oct 26, 2017 18:32:26 GMT
Hopefully I'm wrong but I smell another suspension coming. From the investor activity this loan still appears to be trading strongly though so maybe folks have faith in the security.
|
|
withnell
Member of DD Central
Posts: 550
Likes: 491
|
Post by withnell on Oct 26, 2017 18:59:17 GMT
I guess on the basis that I'm happy with holding this 60% loan to term, it shouldn't change my behaviour because a bullet payment that I wasn't aware of when I invested hasn't been made!
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Oct 27, 2017 13:52:28 GMT
LPA Receiver to be appointed.
|
|
fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on Oct 27, 2017 15:44:12 GMT
So if this loan has experienced "... a technical event of default under the terms of the loan facility", why isn't it moved to the DEFAULT LOANS tab?
This seems very misleading - it appears to be still possible to buy parts of it.
|
|
