btb
Posts: 11 
Likes: 14
|
Post by btb on Oct 23, 2016 13:13:03 GMT
That's the problem... I don't see only one current loan in default...I see many current loans in default. You are applying a different definition of "default". SS have explained several times that they default a loan only if / when they become concerned that the security may be insufficient to cover repayment of the loan in full. If a borrower is continuing to work with them and the security is thought still sufficient to cover the loan then the loan, although undoubtedly overdue, will not be defaulted. Coincidentally I've just read a reply given by FC (on the other board) about one of their overdue property loans, explaining that they take the same approach. Defaulting a loan and taking over responsibility for the disposal of the secured asset from the borrower is described as the "nuclear option", incuring substantial costs and potentially undermining the value of the asset. That said, I fully agree that regular updates from SS on overdue loans, especially where previous target dates have come and gone, would help considerably. Yes, I see where you are coming from Steve. But, there is only one definition of default to my mind and that is the 'failure to meet an obligation'. I've been involved in property renovation and new build developments for long enough to know that 70% LTV means nothing when the greedy guys move in and start carving it up (liquidators/recovery etc). So whilst I'm sure SS have their own definition of default and have their recovery plan in place, I would just appreciate being kept up to date in a timely manner - particular when loans are overdue and may turn bad (regardless of whose definition you use). Hopefully the situation will improve in the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Oct 23, 2016 13:33:21 GMT
You are applying a different definition of "default". SS have explained several times that they default a loan only if / when they become concerned that the security may be insufficient to cover repayment of the loan in full. If a borrower is continuing to work with them and the security is thought still sufficient to cover the loan then the loan, although undoubtedly overdue, will not be defaulted. Coincidentally I've just read a reply given by FC (on the other board) about one of their overdue property loans, explaining that they take the same approach. Defaulting a loan and taking over responsibility for the disposal of the secured asset from the borrower is described as the "nuclear option", incuring substantial costs and potentially undermining the value of the asset. That said, I fully agree that regular updates from SS on overdue loans, especially where previous target dates have come and gone, would help considerably. Yes, I see where you are coming from Steve. But, there is only one definition of default to my mind and that is the 'failure to meet an obligation'. .......... In the strange world of savingstream there seem to be at least four definitions of default, the dictionary definition (c.27 have failed to meet their obligations and are therefore in default by this one), the legal definition, the Savingstream/Lendy definition to borrowers (eg by this one PBL056 is almost certainly in default as the loan agreement is likely to state that a loan goes into default if .............. and I would be astounded if this does not include the appointment of a Receiver, in fact it probably has to be declared in default before that event happens and possibly the six Gloucestershire loans where a director of the borrower has become bankrupt) and the Savingstream definition to lenders, by which reckoning there have only been two.
|
|
|
|
Post by karloshi on Oct 23, 2016 13:49:51 GMT
I will go on my definition of a default.
A loan is in default when it is due to repay and the borrower hasn't either
a) extended the loan by paying additional interest in advance.
b) paid me all my money back.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 23, 2016 13:51:24 GMT
"Hopefully the situation will improve in the near future."
I doubt it. It doesn't suit them to do so, apparently.
Investors should not deal with SS if this is too big an inconvenience. Many have pulled out. I have from many loans. My biggest concern is the same as that of many people. I know of the reputations and backgrounds of some borrowers, so for the many overdue loans up-to-date information is a very important subject. SS chooses to make updates vague and widely intermittent.
That we make a "noise" here should make the bigwigs of SS aware of what lenders' perception of their operating methods is. What they intend to do about that is anyone's guess.
PS To be clear. some of the SS loans appear to be very good ones - (I have lost £0.00 so far on SS) I just don't want the platform itself put in jeopardy by ill judged practices. Look how AC is still suffering from some ill judged loans a while back!! Even I have been caught out by (just) three of those (plumber and lensmaker + W**d**ott HPk which will get some money back)!
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Oct 23, 2016 14:11:23 GMT
I would be happy if they would just put a date that interest has been paid up to. Like some other sites do so that we can track if repayments are made on time or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 15:24:35 GMT
Yes, there's another thread saying the borrower received a bankruptcy order. This illustrates the point being made about updates. The poster of the other thread being "in the know" was able to offload his Gloucs loans on SM, presumably to the people like me who didn't know because SS hadn't provided updates. Unfair. Hi Charlie, whilst I do sympathise, to be fair to SS there is also a line to be drawn between them providing updates and our own due diligence. If SS believe loan repayment will not be affected by a bankruptcy, or something like the situation on PBL064 (another fascinating thread somewhere on here), then they don't necessarily need to give us a blow-by-blow account. Personally, I sold the Gloucs ones ages ago when the borrowers husband's history came to light on this forum - look up "C***** (obvious word from the loans) in the hills" on this is money. It was only when I chased the status of these again a month or so back that it was flagged by a good DD'er here that the borrower herself was now also bankrupt too. Anyway, the good news for you is that SM liquidity is still there for those loans. Don't be put off by a £10k queue, they'll still more than likely sell quickly. Alternatively, some would probably argue that the borrower's circumstance is irrelevant and that the asset is the security. But not me! I (we) invest in SS with some acceptance of risk - more risk than a bank savings account, less risk than a casino. To help us manage that risk, or at least understand our exposure, I believe SS owes it to us to provide meaningful updates. It's not sour grapes, I want SS to improve this aspect of their game for the good of all investors/ lenders (regardless of whether I stay on the platform or not). I truly feel if the borrower is bankrupt and SS know that (which they do) then they should tell us. I don't buy the assertion that it's our own job to do due diligence. Do I expect too much?
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Oct 23, 2016 15:38:33 GMT
I think its our job to do our own DD but I do believe that SS should give us the facts as they are, ie when is interest paid up to. When it comes to renewals they can only go off what borrorower tells them and not all are truthful.
However a loan where interest is paid on time monthly with no issues is a lot better then a loan where they have to have drag the interest out the them. The last thing that SS want is a defualt and like all platforms if the borrorwer needs more time they are pretty much going to give it to them until it is clear they have no intention of paying interest or repaying. So SS needs to give this information albrate and assetez are probably the best for actually showing this, ie on time or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 15:46:17 GMT
I will go on my definition of a default. A loan is in default when it is due to repay and the borrower hasn't either a) extended the loan by paying additional interest in advance. b) paid me all my money back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't SS stop paying interest on a loan that's officially classed as defaulted? So let's not push them too hard to default loans. I only request timely and meaningful updates. I think we all know that if neither condition a) or b) is true then most layman feel we are in a heap of trouble.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 23, 2016 15:49:41 GMT
"I want SS to improve this aspect of their game for the good of all investors/ lenders (regardless of whether I stay on the platform or not). I truly feel if the borrower is bankrupt and SS know that (which they do) then they should tell us. I don't buy the assertion that it's our own job to do due diligence."
It is our own job to do due diligence. That includes assessing the loan from the information SS gives us. If SS is avoiding posting on the loan details page any detrimental material changes of which which they are aware which affect the loan subsequent to it being launched, that is unacceptable. That includes such matters as borrower and/or director bankruptcy!
I do hope SS is not skating on thin ice.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 23, 2016 16:03:37 GMT
"I want SS to improve this aspect of their game for the good of all investors/ lenders (regardless of whether I stay on the platform or not). I truly feel if the borrower is bankrupt and SS know that (which they do) then they should tell us. I don't buy the assertion that it's our own job to do due diligence."
It is our own job to do due diligence. That includes assessing the loan from the information SS gives us. If SS is avoiding posting on the loan details page any detrimental material changes of which which they are aware which affect the loan subsequent to it being launched, that is unacceptable. That includes such matters as borrower and/or director bankruptcy!
I do hope SS is not skating on thin ice.
Here, here. Totally agree. Withholding information such as a borrower's bankruptcy is unacceptable. That was my point too, well said.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Oct 23, 2016 18:47:04 GMT
"I want SS to improve this aspect of their game for the good of all investors/ lenders (regardless of whether I stay on the platform or not). I truly feel if the borrower is bankrupt and SS know that (which they do) then they should tell us. I don't buy the assertion that it's our own job to do due diligence."
It is our own job to do due diligence. That includes assessing the loan from the information SS gives us. If SS is avoiding posting on the loan details page any detrimental material changes of which which they are aware which affect the loan subsequent to it being launched, that is unacceptable. That includes such matters as borrower and/or director bankruptcy!
I do hope SS is not skating on thin ice.
Here, here. Totally agree. Withholding information such as a borrower's bankruptcy is unacceptable. That was my point too, well said. I suppose it's possible that with a winging it approach to dd that they don't know until someone posts it up here for them 
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 24, 2016 1:08:31 GMT
Here, here. Totally agree. Withholding information such as a borrower's bankruptcy is unacceptable. That was my point too, well said. This is not the first time this has happened. Previously and publicly SS have said that as long as the asset secures the loan, they don't particularly care about the borrower's background (I'm paraphrasing). If SS know the borrower has a problem and aren't concerned, then I'd be happy for SS to tell me that the borrower has a problem and they aren't concerned. I can then decide if I'm concerned and do whatever I feel comfortable with. If, however, SS know something and don't tell us about it so that we can't take it into consideration, then ISTM that they are withholding info that their investors would appreciate having, and that doesn't strike me as an appropriate way to run a business that depends on trust.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 24, 2016 1:12:37 GMT
On the positive side, SS do seem to have a knack of eventually turning loans around... : I can't remember having seen any evidence of this. Can you provide some specific examples?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 24, 2016 2:18:22 GMT
On the positive side, SS do seem to have a knack of eventually turning loans around... : I can't remember having seen any evidence of this. Can you provide some specific examples? Perhaps a poor choice of words, but I just meant that often even if the loans overrun a'la PBL019, PBL036 for example they've eventually been repaid. That's not to say I'm not concerned, that's why I started this thread, was just trying to give a little balance to my initial point 
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 895
Member is Online
|
Post by averageguy on Oct 24, 2016 9:09:44 GMT
Dragging it back to the thread title....yes an update is well in order!
|
|
