caesium
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86 
Likes: 35
|
Post by caesium on Sept 17, 2016 14:59:35 GMT
No I've not had the email but my allocation has been dished out. It turned up, never mind.
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 838
Likes: 638
|
Post by jcb208 on Sept 17, 2016 15:31:44 GMT
Just Gone Live £1,900 Allocation 1963 Investors @ Live ............ and today's star prize goes to R*****0 (or at least their bot) for picking up £34,157 in the immediate aftermarket on the SM  Maybe savingstream should split large amounts up a bit to give more people a chance.I know is probably to much hassle for them
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2016 15:42:09 GMT
............ and today's star prize goes to R*****0 (or at least their bot) for picking up £34,157 in the immediate aftermarket on the SM Maybe savingstream should split large amounts up a bit to give more people a chance.I know is probably to much hassle for them Since there were less than 2000 investors with pre-funding set, savingstream could have given everyone another £10 from the £34k remainder. Does that mean SS have decided to round larger maximum allocations down to the next £100? If so, it means remainder amounts could be in six figures. That's a rather large amount to dump on the SM for FFF.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Sept 17, 2016 16:42:45 GMT
Maybe savingstream should split large amounts up a bit to give more people a chance.I know is probably to much hassle for them Since there were less than 2000 investors with pre-funding set, savingstream could have given everyone another £10 from the £34k remainder. Does that mean SS have decided to round larger maximum allocations down to the next £100? If so, it means remainder amounts could be in six figures. That's a rather large amount to dump on the SM for FFF. How know how many pre fund?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2016 16:48:28 GMT
Maybe savingstream should split large amounts up a bit to give more people a chance.I know is probably to much hassle for them Since there were less than 2000 investors with pre-funding set, savingstream could have given everyone another £10 from the £34k remainder. Does that mean SS have decided to round larger maximum allocations down to the next £100? If so, it means remainder amounts could be in six figures. That's a rather large amount to dump on the SM for FFF. It's tough enough for the bh'rs these days with bottom up funding of all loans ... they need some perks. 
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2016 19:15:06 GMT
Since there were less than 2000 investors with pre-funding set, savingstream could have given everyone another £10 from the £34k remainder. Does that mean SS have decided to round larger maximum allocations down to the next £100? If so, it means remainder amounts could be in six figures. That's a rather large amount to dump on the SM for FFF. It's tough enough for the bh'rs these days with bottom up funding of all loans ... they need some perks. I really doubt that any of the BHs like FFF allocations.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2016 19:19:50 GMT
Since there were less than 2000 investors with pre-funding set, savingstream could have given everyone another £10 from the £34k remainder. Does that mean SS have decided to round larger maximum allocations down to the next £100? If so, it means remainder amounts could be in six figures. That's a rather large amount to dump on the SM for FFF. How know how many pre fund? : I was basing my comment on... Just Gone Live £1,900 Allocation 1963 Investors @ Live I was presuming that if there were 1963 investors just after the loan went live, virtually all of those must have pre-funded.
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
Member is Online
|
Post by micky on Sept 17, 2016 19:23:37 GMT
Remember not all those who pre-funded would have done so for the same amount.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2016 19:47:37 GMT
Remember not all those who pre-funded would have done so for the same amount. : I didn't assume that, and I doubt that cooling_dude did either. The 1963 number probably wasn't the result of a calculation based on the loan size and the maximum allocation. Every loan's page shows the number of "investors so far", so I'd expect the PBL135 page showed the number to be 1963 immediately after the loan went live. (It's showing 1962 as I write this.)
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Feb 4, 2017 19:23:27 GMT
Anyone in this loan might be advised to read the latest update, which may or may not be of concern, but AFAICS was not mentioned in the General update. Maybe guys smarter than me can say if it matters or not.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Feb 4, 2017 21:18:55 GMT
Anyone in this loan might be advised to read the latest update, which may or may not be of concern, but ASAICS was not mentioned in the General update. Maybe guys smarter than me can say if it matters or not. If you are referring to the commentary on the additional charges on the property, I don't believe it is of any concern given that any security claim is subordinate to our first charge. If anything, it is a positive that another lender was willing to lend additional funds on a second charge basis, ie they believe the LTV.......
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 4, 2017 22:14:38 GMT
Anyone in this loan might be advised to read the latest update, which may or may not be of concern, but ASAICS was not mentioned in the General update. Maybe guys smarter than me can say if it matters or not. If you are referring to the commentary on the additional charges on the property, I don't believe it is of any concern given that any security claim is subordinate to our first charge. If anything, it is a positive that another lender was willing to lend additional funds on a second charge basis, ie they believe the LTV....... On the other hand, 1) The borrowers's director and principal failed to adhere to what SS state are the terms of the loan. (As we haven't seen the terms of the loan we are left in doubt which interpretation was correct.) 2) As the borrower is an SPV whose sole project is the subject of the loan (if am not confused) one wonders why more borrowing was required. So that looks like one smallish uptick on the loan, and two smallish downticks on the principal.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2017 23:24:26 GMT
If you are referring to the commentary on the additional charges on the property, I don't believe it is of any concern given that any security claim is subordinate to our first charge. If anything, it is a positive that another lender was willing to lend additional funds on a second charge basis, ie they believe the LTV....... On the other hand, 1) The borrowers's director and principal failed to adhere to what SS state are the terms of the loan. (As we haven't seen the terms of the loan we are left in doubt which interpretation was correct.) 2) As the borrower is an SPV whose sole project is the subject of the loan (if am not confused) one wonders why more borrowing was required. So that looks like one smallish uptick on the loan, and two smallish downticks on the principal. Dont need to see the loan contract, the SS charge contains a negative pledge so borrower cant do anything without SS consent.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 5, 2017 8:07:56 GMT
More generally, especially as these loans are cross-collateralised, the level of borrowing and additional cash flow our borrower requires may feed into lenders' assessments of their cross-loan and cross-platform exposure.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Feb 5, 2017 8:32:13 GMT
SS charge 18% when backed up by security. What rate will the borrower be paying for this extra loan if it ranks behind the SS loan? Is that a cause for concern about the financial viability of the borrower?
|
|
