archie
Posts: 1,866 
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Oct 14, 2016 9:18:54 GMT
I agree sm restriction should have been mentioned. I'm curious why anyone would invest if they weren't prepared to keep it for at least a month?  |
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Oct 14, 2016 9:23:22 GMT
I have to say I am disappointed that this was not made clear at the outset. It cannot be right to spring this when the first tranche has been funded. A response from money thing would be welcome. Morning, Happy to make this clear at the start. I would just say that the reason we split these larger loans in tranches is because of the limitation of the size of our float as we pre-fund all the loans. If we used the more common approach with other platforms and launch the whole loan in one go (not pre-funded), I would think that lenders would assume that the loan would not be tradable on the SM until 100% filled. I do however appreciate your feedback and as such will make it explicit in future. Regards, Ed
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Oct 14, 2016 9:25:10 GMT
Morning, The intention is to disable the SM until such time as all the advances have been funded (as though it was 1 x £2.4m loan being launched). Regardless of uptake/progress, we will enable the SM across all tranches 1 month after the first loan launch yesterday (i.e. 13/11/16). Kind regards, Ed I have to say I am disappointed that this was not made clear at the outset. It cannot be right to spring this when the first tranche has been funded. It is the norm to be fair, I was just docile enough to forget on this occasion! 
|
|
keystone
Member of DD Central
Posts: 719
Likes: 590
|
Post by keystone on Oct 14, 2016 10:05:48 GMT
A response from money thing would be welcome. Morning, Happy to make this clear at the start. I would just say that the reason we split these larger loans in tranches is because of the limitation of the size of our float as we pre-fund all the loans. If we used the more common approach with other platforms and launch the whole loan in one go (not pre-funded), I would think that lenders would assume that the loan would not be tradable on the SM until 100% filled. I do however appreciate your feedback and as such will make it explicit in future. Regards, Ed I didn't invest in this tranche, but that explanation makes sense. So will bear that in mind for future multi-tranche loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Oct 14, 2016 10:20:15 GMT
A response from money thing would be welcome. Morning, Happy to make this clear at the start. I would just say that the reason we split these larger loans in tranches is because of the limitation of the size of our float as we pre-fund all the loans. If we used the more common approach with other platforms and launch the whole loan in one go (not pre-funded), I would think that lenders would assume that the loan would not be tradable on the SM until 100% filled. I do however appreciate your feedback and as such will make it explicit in future. Regards, Ed Don't be so reasonable, Ed. It makes it hard to be cross.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Oct 14, 2016 11:39:24 GMT
I agree sm restriction should have been mentioned. I'm curious why anyone would invest if they weren't prepared to keep it for at least a month? I had money allocated for the 'long' term and some spare 'fidgety' money that I put in, knowing I could probably get it out when/if needed.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 14, 2016 12:54:38 GMT
I agree sm restriction should have been mentioned. I'm curious why anyone would invest if they weren't prepared to keep it for at least a month? Someone might be willing to accept the liquidity and concentration risk and put some (extra) money in to get a few days interest while waiting for another loan to come up.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Oct 14, 2016 13:39:43 GMT
Yes, and the liquidity risk turned out to be a bit higher than they expected. 8>. The rules for P2P remain 'don't invest what you can't do without' (either 'forever' or 'for some undefined period'). SM liquidity can turn on a sixpence (see SS a couple of months ago), so even if you are allowed to list it, there's no guarantee it'll sell.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Oct 14, 2016 14:38:03 GMT
Morning, The intention is to disable the SM until such time as all the advances have been funded (as though it was 1 x £2.4m loan being launched). Regardless of uptake/progress, we will enable the SM across all tranches 1 month after the first loan launch yesterday (i.e. 13/11/16). Kind regards, Ed Thanks, do you anticipate it will take a month for all tranches to be released or sooner? This may make the early tranches less desirable and slower uptake as you are tied in for a period of time , would a better solution be to enable tranche 1 on the SM now, but disable it when tranche 2 goes live? Then enable them both when tranche 2 is fully funded, disable them both when tranche 3 goes live, and so on. That way, lenders such as geraldine aren't locked in for up to a month because a loan that isn't available to be funded yet hasn't been funded yet.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Oct 14, 2016 16:32:10 GMT
Thanks, do you anticipate it will take a month for all tranches to be released or sooner? This may make the early tranches less desirable and slower uptake as you are tied in for a period of time , would a better solution be to enable tranche 1 on the SM now, but disable it when tranche 2 goes live? Then enable them both when tranche 2 is fully funded, disable them both when tranche 3 goes live, and so on. That way, lenders such as geraldine aren't locked in for up to a month because a loan that isn't available to be funded yet hasn't been funded yet. This sounds reasonable I think Eds concern is that if there is some on the SM, it will mean less take up of the primary loan, meaning he doesn't get his float to lend out for the next tranche. The above may keep everyone happy though. Particularly as Ed can't give a firm timeline for when the other tranches will be launched
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Oct 14, 2016 17:25:02 GMT
MoneyThing , would a better solution be to enable tranche 1 on the SM now, but disable it when tranche 2 goes live? Then enable them both when tranche 2 is fully funded, disable them both when tranche 3 goes live, and so on. That way, lenders such as geraldine aren't locked in for up to a month because a loan that isn't available to be funded yet hasn't been funded yet. This sounds reasonable I think Eds concern is that if there is some on the SM, it will mean less take up of the primary loan, meaning he doesn't get his float to lend out for the next tranche. The above may keep everyone happy though. Particularly as Ed can't give a firm timeline for when the other tranches will be launched I think it would keep everyone happy.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Oct 16, 2016 6:40:08 GMT
MoneyThing, can you let us know how soon the next tranche will be available.
Also, have you looked at allowing each tranche to go on the sm until the next tranche is due?
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 7:26:42 GMT
Would like to know what loan is to be used for? Just to prop up the club (which appears to have had financial difficulties) This is the key question. The blurb is somewhat ambiguous. I think the borrower has now been disclosed, but as a new poster unsure of the rules I will not specify. If you look at the financial statements for the club in question you can see significant losses and 'overspending' over the last few years. The club's main asset is the ground. There has been plenty of discussion around selling the ground for housing and moving to a new ground. Many supporters are concerned that this will be unaffordable and the debt will cripple the club. There do not seem to be any definitive plans - only speculation/ hot air from the director/s. Besides there is a covenant on the ground that it must be used for sporting purposes, so it would be difficult to redevelop.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehatchet on Oct 16, 2016 7:39:58 GMT
I'm genuinely interested in the risk investors are willing to take on loans like this. The interest may just about be affordable to the club but how is the principal going to be repaid in three years time?
The club has been making losses of around £50k per month for the last few years.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 16, 2016 7:49:15 GMT
Besides there is a covenant on the ground that it must be used for sporting purposes, so it would be difficult to redevelop. Who is the current beneficiary of that covenant and, realistically, are they likely to seek to enforce it? In practice, such covenants are regularly overcome by developers via application to the Lands Tribunal. One of the potential grounds for discharge is apparently that "The restriction ought to be deemed obsolete because of changes in the character of the property or the neighbourhood, or there are other circumstances of the case which the Tribunal may deem material. Alternatively, the continued existence of those circumstances would restrict the reasonable use of the land for public or private purposes without any practical benefit to other persons"
|
|
