|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2016 11:55:09 GMT
This loan is unsecured and is to a high net-worth person (not named).
The description lists a high-value contract this person signed. But if we don't have a charge/precedence or legal right on the contract, why is this mentioned at all? I find the description really puzzling.
This looks to me like a personal unsecured and unguaranteed loan (which is even worse thn the E-rated FC loans, which at very least have a personal guarantee attached).
Why is this on fundingsecure (by definition lending against security...)?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150 
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Sept 2, 2016 12:21:33 GMT
There was previously a discussion about this loan when it first appeared, this being a renewal. It will probably be buried somewhere in the 'new loans' thread.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 2, 2016 12:29:26 GMT
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 5, 2016 18:56:01 GMT
This loan is unsecured and is to a high net-worth person (not named). This looks to me like a personal unsecured and unguaranteed loan (which is even worse thn the E-rated FC loans, which at very least have a personal guarantee attached). AIUI -- and this is just the understanding of an amateur -- if a loan is in the name of the borrower rather than a company or some sort of SPV then a PG is unnecessary. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate it if someone would correct me.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Sept 5, 2016 21:17:17 GMT
This loan is unsecured and is to a high net-worth person (not named). This looks to me like a personal unsecured and unguaranteed loan (which is even worse thn the E-rated FC loans, which at very least have a personal guarantee attached). AIUI -- and this is just the understanding of an amateur -- if a loan is in the name of the borrower rather than a company or some sort of SPV then a PG is unnecessary. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate it if someone would correct me. Correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2016 3:11:08 GMT
This loan is unsecured and is to a high net-worth person (not named). This looks to me like a personal unsecured and unguaranteed loan (which is even worse thn the E-rated FC loans, which at very least have a personal guarantee attached). AIUI -- and this is just the understanding of an amateur -- if a loan is in the name of the borrower rather than a company or some sort of SPV then a PG is unnecessary. If I'm wrong about that, I'd appreciate it if someone would correct me. What usually happens is that in case of personal loans you tend to ask the guarantee of a SECOND AND SEPARATE person, so that in case of difficulties this second person can get in and help.... But fundingsecure seems to trust this person a lot....
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Sept 6, 2016 7:55:16 GMT
I'd have expected that six months later the "Heads of Terms" might have turned into a real contract, with real money paid for "services rendered", but this high net worth individual still needs to borrow money at a very high rate of interest. Doesn't feel good to me.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 24, 2018 8:46:48 GMT
With the latest iteration of FS's only foray into unsecured loans now 2 months late, looks like this could finally be the end of the line for our "high profile individual". I still have no idea what FS were thinking in thinking that this might have been a good idea..
|
|
|
|
Post by angrykittens on Jun 24, 2018 10:37:06 GMT
With the latest iteration of FS's only foray into unsecured loans now 2 months late, looks like this could finally be the end of the line for our "high profile individual". I still have no idea what FS were thinking in thinking that this might have been a good idea.. They thought about the fees and their cut of the interest...
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Jun 24, 2018 12:01:44 GMT
So some media luvvy or whatever has lost an advertising contract - it happens!
What security have FS taken - as I see it exactly zero!
I don't believe it - well actually I do...
So I guess the only option is to make this chap bankrupt - expensive and probably a waste of time especially if he has other charges. Looks like another complete disaster which may well hit a 100% loss...
Gordon Bennett.
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 358
|
Post by jj on Jun 24, 2018 12:36:36 GMT
The first thing that popped into my head was "thats why mums go to Iceland". A famous person would only go to FS if they were a serial bankruptee.
That is incidentally why I go to Farmfoods. To avoid mums like that.
|
|
