nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,045 
Likes: 819
|
Post by nick on Oct 4, 2016 8:01:05 GMT
Lendy Ltd has instructed its receiver to control the sale of the property upon which loan PBL056 is secured. We have taken this step proactively in order to protect the interests of investors in this loan. There is no plan to place this loan in formal default on the Saving Stream platform, as we believe that the exit strategy in place renders this unnecessary. Lendy Ltd will pay the agreed interest to investors in this loan until the sale of the property is complete, which is expected to take two to three months. At this point, Lendy Ltd will recover these costs from the proceeds of the sale. We apologise for a short but unavoidable delay in informing investors of the status of the loan while Lendy Ltd awaited final approval from its legal advisers. Whether the loan is in default is a matter of fact and not judgement. Clearly the borrower has defaulted on their obligations under the loan agreement and a default has been declared under the loan agreement to enable a receiver to take control of the property. It is great that a full recovery is expected, but it does not mean that the loan is not in default and I believe it is a material omission not to clearly label this loan as such on the available loan page or the front page of this specific loan. I think SS is leaving itself exposed to justified criticism by not clearly labelling the loan as being in default. I can understand SS reluctance to highlight defaulting loans, but the current case could actually be marketed positively if a full recovery be made in the 2-3 month timescale expected.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,853
Likes: 7,883
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 4, 2016 8:01:32 GMT
For everyone's reference - This Hurley seems to have a bee in his bonnet. We wonder what his motivation is? Perhaps thetimesbusiness would like to respond?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Oct 4, 2016 8:19:16 GMT
Is this the same journalist who wrote the article about PBL064? yes
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 7,731
Likes: 4,352
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 4, 2016 9:06:58 GMT
For everyone's reference - This Hurley seems to have a bee in his bonnet. We wonder what his motivation is? Perhaps thetimesbusiness would like to respond? Date registered: Sep 30, 2016... Pure coincidence, I'm sure.
|
|
paul123
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 1,745
|
Post by paul123 on Oct 4, 2016 9:13:11 GMT
If this article, aimed squarely at the staid times readership, dissuades them from participating in opportunities like P2P because they do not understand the difference between security and trust, then so much the better. Their readership can then continue to line the pockets of the city as they buy unit trusts that invest in tobacco and weapons.  |
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 696
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Oct 4, 2016 13:01:52 GMT
If this article, aimed squarely at the staid times readership, dissuades them from participating in opportunities like P2P because they do not understand the difference between security and trust, then so much the better. Their readership can then continue to line the pockets of the city as they buy unit trusts that invest in tobacco and weapons. Since I have a moral deficit, I was just wondering if SS could provide loans for tobacco companies and weapons manufacturers. But I figured that companies of this size are too large for the current scale of SS. Cannabis growers and arms dealers maybe?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 9,972
Likes: 10,033
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 4, 2016 13:15:01 GMT
If this article, aimed squarely at the staid times readership, dissuades them from participating in opportunities like P2P because they do not understand the difference between security and trust, then so much the better. Their readership can then continue to line the pockets of the city as they buy unit trusts that invest in tobacco and weapons. Since I have a moral deficit, I was just wondering if SS could provide loans for tobacco companies and weapons manufacturers. But I figured that companies of this size are too large for the current scale of SS. Cannabis growers and arms dealers maybe? How about a fine cigar manufacturer to go with MTs fine wine? Might as well go for the luxury end of immorality  [Disclaimer: please note this is a joke - opinions on morality differ and other forms of immorality are available. The above is not a judgment on cigar smokers or conniseurs of fine wine or their providers, neither of which I can afford and so am jealous]
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,853
Likes: 7,883
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 4, 2016 13:24:43 GMT
Mods are no different from any other forum members when posting in a personal capacity, with the one exception that they've volunteered some of their time to help with moderating the forum and keeping discussions in line with the forum rules.
|
|
paul123
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 1,745
|
Post by paul123 on Oct 4, 2016 13:42:53 GMT
If this article, aimed squarely at the staid times readership, dissuades them from participating in opportunities like P2P because they do not understand the difference between security and trust, then so much the better. Their readership can then continue to line the pockets of the city as they buy unit trusts that invest in tobacco and weapons. Firstly there are many people, some of them p2p lenders who earn their living from the tobacco and defence industries and it is grossly unfair to single those industries out with such a comment. These generalities are what we expect from the PC brigade / tree huggers and JC supporters, not from a Moderator. Secondly there seems to be an eagerness of some Mods to jump to the defence of savingstream when any adverse comment is made of them. I was under the impression that Mods were meant to be unbiased. Thirdly savingstream rightly deserves to be criticised when they get it wrong as they clearly did with this loan. All lenders should have been notified by email as soon as savingstream made the decision. AFAIK, to date no email has been sent out to lenders advising them of the new circumstances. Fourthly, savingstream continues to receive criticism for the poor, incorrect and misleading updates / information they post on loans and yet they still do not take cognisance of this. It is no wonder that a newspaper reporter has latched on to this latest action. SS should be thankful it wasn't one of the tabloids splashing this across the front page. Rant over. Excellent. Firstly, I'm pretty sure that MODs can express an opinion occasionally, as long as it's polite and constructive, so I did. It was a bit cheeky though I admit. As it happens, I have shares in tobacco and British aerospace because they pay good dividends. If someone's going to own them, better that a nice person like me profits from them than someone else. My comment was aimed at the times article attempting to take the moral high ground. Secondly, Someone once said elsewhere that in P2P lending you should look at the security first, second and third. Perhaps even to the point of ignoring the borrower. There's no upside in P2P Lending. It's not equity. Even if the borrower does really well, makes a massive profit and gets hired by Alan Sugar, I don't get a penny extra - Only what I was promised when I lent. I *am* biased in various things but hopefully not when I'm wearing my MOD hat. The MODs run as a tiny democracy - if I make bad decisions or act foolishly I'm pretty sure I'll be out on my ear. Thirdly, and I admit this may be an unpopular opinion and I may be proved wrong, I don't think SS have actually done anything wrong. As far as I can tell from the facts, they are taking care to look after lenders funds and it ain't over 'till it's over. Fourthly, I'll give you some of that one - SS could keep us more informed but even then I'd argue against a suggestion that the lack of information is harming my returns in any material way. Hope some of that is helpful to someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Oct 4, 2016 15:53:50 GMT
If this article, aimed squarely at the staid times readership, dissuades them from participating in opportunities like P2P because they do not understand the difference between security and trust, then so much the better. Their readership can then continue to line the pockets of the city as they buy unit trusts that invest in tobacco and weapons. Firstly there are many people, some of them p2p lenders who earn their living from the tobacco and defence industries and it is grossly unfair to single those industries out with such a comment. These generalities are what we expect from the PC brigade / tree huggers and JC supporters, not from a Moderator. Rant over. /mod hat off Did you miss the smiley at the end of paul123 's post (or was it not there when you read it?) I'll leave savingstream to comment on the rest .. I think I've dinged them on most of those points already. Some mods like them, some don't - also true of all the other P2P platforms, near as I can tell. As to whether they needed to advise everyone before they appointed a receiver, I'm wavering. ISTR this is an 'old terms' loan to Lendy, in which case the borrower is not (hopefully) as bankrupt as all that.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 4, 2016 16:51:42 GMT
Firstly there are many people, some of them p2p lenders who earn their living from the tobacco and defence industries and it is grossly unfair to single those industries out with such a comment. These generalities are what we expect from the PC brigade / tree huggers and JC supporters, not from a Moderator. Rant over. /mod hat off Did you miss the smiley at the end of paul123 's post (or was it not there when you read it?) I'll leave savingstream to comment on the rest .. I think I've dinged them on most of those points already. Some mods like them, some don't - also true of all the other P2P platforms, near as I can tell. As to whether they needed to advise everyone before they appointed a receiver, I'm wavering. ISTR this is an 'old terms' loan to Lendy, in which case the borrower is not (hopefully) as bankrupt as all that. The mutterings have not been about SS advising us before they appointed a receiver - but about them not advising us promptly after they appointed a receiver. If it's an "old terms" loan then there is arguably grounds for not considering the loan by youall (to Lendy) to have defaulted. But the same argument applies to the garden centre, which is labelled as defaulted. I don't see why these two loans are treated differently. I'm not in this loan (and never was) - so am I'm not directly involved, but I like to follow things like this as it aids in assessing platform risk. What I'd like to understand is 1) Why was this loan defaulted so promptly, when so many other loans are allowed to overrun? 2) Why did it take Lendy so long to inform us that they had appointed administrators? 3) Why is this loan not labelled as defaulted on the web site (when the garden centre is so labelled)?
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 696
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Oct 4, 2016 16:56:59 GMT
/mod hat off Did you miss the smiley at the end of paul123 's post (or was it not there when you read it?) I'll leave savingstream to comment on the rest .. I think I've dinged them on most of those points already. Some mods like them, some don't - also true of all the other P2P platforms, near as I can tell. As to whether they needed to advise everyone before they appointed a receiver, I'm wavering. ISTR this is an 'old terms' loan to Lendy, in which case the borrower is not (hopefully) as bankrupt as all that. The mutterings have not been about SS advising us before they appointed a receiver - but about them not advising us promptly after they appointed a receiver. If it's an "old terms" loan then there is arguably grounds for not considering the loan by youall (to Lendy) to have defaulted. But the same argument applies to the garden centre, which is labelled as defaulted. I don't see why these two loans are treated differently. I'm not in this loan (and never was) - so am I'm not directly involved, but I like to follow things like this as it aids in assessing platform risk. What I'd like to understand is 1) Why was this loan defaulted so promptly, when so many other loans are allowed to overrun? 2) Why did it take Lendy so long to inform us that they had appointed administrators? 3) Why is this loan not labelled as defaulted on the web site (when the garden centre is so labelled)? I think SS answered most of that higher up this thread: p2pindependentforum.com/post/142457
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,449
Likes: 2,319
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 5, 2016 18:42:50 GMT
If it's an "old terms" loan then there is arguably grounds for not considering the loan by youall (to Lendy) to have defaulted. But the same argument applies to the garden centre, which is labelled as defaulted. I don't see why these two loans are treated differently. One possible significant difference could be that SS may feel that the sale of the PBL056 security will produce sufficient proceeds to repay all investors' capital and accrued interest, whereas they might have felt that the sale of the PBL020 security wasn't going to produce sufficient proceeds to do that and weren't prepared to risk their own funds in case there was a shortfall. (This presumes they didn't intend the PF would cover all that and then be topped up by SS/Lendy.) Another possibility might be that after having seen how the red notice affected PBL020 SM sales, and SM sales in general, they didn't want to cause a repeat. The fact that PBL056 is a quarter of the size of PBL020 also might have influenced their thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Oct 5, 2016 20:52:06 GMT
If it's an "old terms" loan then there is arguably grounds for not considering the loan by youall (to Lendy) to have defaulted. But the same argument applies to the garden centre, which is labelled as defaulted. I don't see why these two loans are treated differently. One possible significant difference could be that SS may feel that the sale of the PBL056 security will produce sufficient proceeds to repay all investors' capital and accrued interest, whereas they might have felt that the sale of the PBL020 security wasn't going to produce sufficient proceeds to do that and weren't prepared to risk their own funds in case there was a shortfall. (This presumes they didn't intend the PF would cover all that and then be topped up by SS/Lendy.) Another possibility might be that after having seen how the red notice affected PBL020 SM sales, and SM sales in general, they didn't want to cause a repeat. The fact that PBL056 is a quarter of the size of PBL020 also might have influenced their thinking. I think you are right here mikes1531 , SS set a precedence here which i reckon they will now be regretting, i would not be surprised if and when 20 is sorted, they will never use a red box again.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Oct 5, 2016 21:06:33 GMT
One possible significant difference could be that SS may feel that the sale of the PBL056 security will produce sufficient proceeds to repay all investors' capital and accrued interest, whereas they might have felt that the sale of the PBL020 security wasn't going to produce sufficient proceeds to do that and weren't prepared to risk their own funds in case there was a shortfall. (This presumes they didn't intend the PF would cover all that and then be topped up by SS/Lendy.) Another possibility might be that after having seen how the red notice affected PBL020 SM sales, and SM sales in general, they didn't want to cause a repeat. The fact that PBL056 is a quarter of the size of PBL020 also might have influenced their thinking. I think you are right here mikes1531 , SS set a precedence here which i reckon they will now be regretting, i would not be surprised if and when 20 is sorted, they will never use a red box again. SS might get away with not naming the old T&C loans in default when they default (and thus avoid the requirement to use a big red box), but not the new T&C loans. When a loan on the new T&Cs defaults, SS will have to tell us and make it clear all investors via a big red box (or simply stop SM activity of trading defaulted loans)
|
|
