|
|
Post by rahafoorum on Aug 6, 2016 7:35:13 GMT
I guess the booking was not so straightforward for the first months and the fees paid later. DCA forwarded full amount and then said: "Pay us some back?"
|
|
|
|
Post by oktaeder on Aug 6, 2016 9:42:06 GMT
I guess the booking was not so straightforward for the first months and the fees paid later. DCA forwarded full amount and then said: "Pay us some back?" Why not? They sended the invoice later until the system was astablished.
|
|
carlos
I'm short Bondora and long p2p.
Posts: 104 
Likes: 21
|
Post by carlos on Aug 6, 2016 10:49:22 GMT
DCA forwarded full amount and then said: "Pay us some back?" Why not? They sended the invoice later until the system was astablished. If I understand it correctly it looks like rahafoorum is right... tThere is some contradiction in what Bondora is saying... Citing Bondora blog: www.bondora.com/blog/reporting-of-collection-and-recovery-write-offs/It implies that everything we've seen before new UI was net payments. They are even more specific in the end of the article. It seems like - as always - we've just found exception to this rule  .
|
|
|
|
Post by oktaeder on Aug 6, 2016 11:29:56 GMT
I don't know nothing. But I see how bondora's I works. Step by step and not allways the same direction so confusion seems more plausible than other explainations.
|
|
|
|
Post by rahafoorum on Aug 11, 2016 9:42:20 GMT
Still no answer? Been a week. Shouldn't be so difficult, considering it was already answered before, but we just need some clarification on that answer, since we didn't quite understand the process behind that.
And another similar case highlighted today in Facebook. Username: BO2AK719A, loan id: 283574
Was sent to DCA 29.03.2016, with payment on 31.03. Also sent to DCA on 28.06. and 06.07. (again) with payment made on 07.07.
Then 20.07.2016 full payment was made and full payment was written off. Yes, 100% written off.
|
|
|
|
Post by marthaskirta on Aug 11, 2016 11:07:49 GMT
Hello. Please do not mistake the cash flow and the amount of claim. Write-off reduces the amount of the claim. We did not charge back the amount already paid to the investors or did not show hypothetical numbers. As I said - the cash flow is correct and shows the amount the investor actually received. Since we were not able to show the claim amount reduced by the collection fees before then it was showed with the latest payment. Please do let me know if this is still confusing and I'll try to explain further.
|
|
|
|
Post by rahafoorum on Aug 17, 2016 19:09:20 GMT
Unfortunately this did not clarify the questions at all. Perhaps it's just me, but after asking a few other people we still couldn't figure it out. Especially since write-off in the case of DCA fees reduces amount of claim as well as cash flow. Loan-id 366083, borrower BO96321A3. Collection messages: Date Event Comment 28/03/2016 Collection InHouse collection Started 05/04/2016 Collection DCA1 Started 21/04/2016 Collection DCA1 Finished 12/05/2016 Collection DCA1 PaidOff 29/05/2016 Collection InHouse collection Started 30/05/2016 Collection InHouse collection PaidOff Can you please give a proper reply with actual dates and amounts received by DCA, Bondora and investors, so it would be easy to understand what actually happened? Something like the following table showing the actual cash flow. In case payment is made directly to Bondora, then mark €0 for DCA. If possible, also include Bondora's management fees in DCA and Bondora columns. | Date | DCA --> | Bondora --> | Investors | | 02/05/2016 | €0 | €165.75 | €165.75 | | 12/05/2016 | €0 | €352.75
| €352.75 | | 26/05/2016 | €0 | €259.25
| €259.25
| | 27/06/2016 | €0 | €259.25
| €259.25
| | 26/07/2016 | €259.25
| €204.00 | €204.00 |
|
|
|
|
Post by rahafoorum on Aug 25, 2016 7:53:54 GMT
Any luck on getting the numbers?
|
|
|
|
Post by marthaskirta on Aug 25, 2016 12:15:59 GMT
Hello, Taavi! I’ll try to explain the process in more detail. Please notice that I’m writing about two different periods - write-offs done for (a) period starting from 1st of April 2016 until we were able to reflect the write-off in our system; (b) write-offs done after the full implemention of the system.
1) Write-offs before the system implementation – in most of the cases the write-off for this period was inserted in one entry but during this period some of the borrowers made several payments. This one entry write-off was calculated based on the several payments done during this period. In some cases the write-off was done from the next actual payment hence the write-off seemed to be higher than avarage. The payments during this period were made in full as is shown in your account, reports, cashflow etc. The write-off was done not from the historic cashflow but by reducing the claim. The movement of the funds were from borrower to third party and from there to bondora account. Again – we did not recharge the amount you received or reduced the cashfow – if you received 5 euros, you received 5 euros even after the write-off.
2) Write-offs after system implemetation – the system in place shows the write-off (reducing of the claim) with each debt payment. So the cashflow, reports etc shows only the actual cash that you have received, and this money actually comes to your account. You are able to transfer it out, reinvest etc. Funds move in the same order – from borrower to third party and then to bondora account. Only difference is that now we have a system in place to reduce the claim when the payment comes in.
In terms of the management fees – write-off is first done on management fee, so if there is write-off done from your extra interest, interest or from principal, then the management fee is most likely fully written off. In terms of pure DCA fees – these differ – depending on the DCA, they might be up to 60-70% of the amount recovered. Since the write-off is done on delinquent portfolio level we are able to keep the avarage write-off significantly lower.
|
|
|
|
Post by rahafoorum on Aug 26, 2016 8:19:49 GMT
I guess that's a no then in regards to the numbers? Also a no in explaining where the money came from to pay full amount to investors if DCA didn't forward the full amount? How about an explanation on cases such as this then at least?  Loan id: 7847 Borrower: villuke Loan defaulted 19.04.2013 and was passed to bailiff on 02.07.2013. It has been paying according to new schedule since December 2013 and now in August 2016 there is suddenly a write-off of 91.6% of the payment, including principal. |
|
Sr. Lobo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 63
Likes: 17
|
Post by Sr. Lobo on Aug 26, 2016 13:11:04 GMT
It looks like a scam. That is kind of thing because I'm running down my portfolio and do not recomend investing in bondora.
|
|
|
|
Post by marthaskirta on Aug 26, 2016 13:27:06 GMT
I guess that's a no then in regards to the numbers? Also a no in explaining where the money came from to pay full amount to investors if DCA didn't forward the full amount? How about an explanation on cases such as this then at least? Loan id: 7847 Borrower: villuke Loan defaulted 19.04.2013 and was passed to bailiff on 02.07.2013. It has been paying according to new schedule since December 2013 and now in August 2016 there is suddenly a write-off of 91.6% of the payment, including principal. Hello again, Taavi. Money flow was exactly as I described in my previous post. We had and have different kind of agreement which our third party service providers and also for the above-mentioned time period. In terms of the user villuke - this is one of the exceptions that I explained in my previous blog post. The write-off for the previous transfers (starting from April) was made from the last payment (there was no payments after we implemented the system). Sorry for the confusion. Write-offs are done from all the loans that are paid back through the third-parties - in this case through bailiff. We have explained it in details in our blog posts. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by marthaskirta on Aug 26, 2016 13:29:30 GMT
It looks like a scam. That is kind of thing because I'm running down my portfolio and do not recomend investing in bondora. Hi, Sr. Lobo. I'm sorry that you feel so. I'm happy to have a chat with you to prove you wrong and go through questions that you might have. Please feel free to let me have your contacts through messages. Best, Martha
|
|
|
|
Post by gmaxkenny on Aug 26, 2016 15:45:53 GMT
It looks like a scam. That is kind of thing because I'm running down my portfolio and do not recomend investing in bondora. Hi, Sr. Lobo. I'm sorry that you feel so. I'm happy to have a chat with you to prove you wrong and go through questions that you might have. Please feel free to let me have your contacts through messages. Best, Martha Martha you are starting to sound like Hal the robot from "2001 A Space Odyssey" and we know how that ended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Aug 26, 2016 16:20:59 GMT
It looks like a scam. That is kind of thing because I'm running down my portfolio and do not recomend investing in bondora. Hi, Sr. Lobo. I'm sorry that you feel so. I'm happy to have a chat with you to prove you wrong and go through questions that you might have. Please feel free to let me have your contacts through messages. Best, Martha marthaskirta I do not envy your role in trying to placate long term Bondora sufferers but I'm afraid you are missing the point; We were mislead, lied to & then cheated out of money due to us & as such will never trust or lend with you again.
When Bondora expanded into Spain & Slovakia investors were told that sufficient due diligence was in place to protect lenders from increased defaults (many of us didn't believe it & were proved right), then when large amounts of the initial loans defaulted in the very early stages, we were told Bondora was doing everything possible to recover the defaults (many of us didn't believe that also & were proved right). All this was documented on the Bondora forum which was then closed & erased.
All the loans were signed under contracts that left the cost of recovery to fall on Bondora NOT lenders, then Bondora suggested changing the terms of the contracts to mean lenders had to cover the recovery costs, many of us disagreed with this approach & haven't lent any money under these new terms, however Bondora chose to retrospectively impose these costs on lenders against their will, even for Estonian loans that were often late payers but needed no DCA involvement. Now small amounts of recovery have appeared they are being almost totally eaten up by DCA fees which just adds insult to injury & no amount of PR or manipulating the data will ever be sufficient to win back the lost trust.
|
|
.
