jamesc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 447 
Likes: 253
|
Post by jamesc on Nov 10, 2016 9:30:28 GMT
Someone just dumped 150k of this on to the SM!
...and a 20k slice was snapped up in seconds. Not somebody its SS as there is no queue, I wonder if its still from the start that SS was not able to place it all, and noticeable although someone snapped up 20K not selling like hot cake like these blocks usually do and as there is not much in pipeline (SS said lower rates more loans) maybe SS having second thoughts about reduced rates (I hope! )
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Nov 10, 2016 9:37:13 GMT
Someone just dumped 150k of this on to the SM!
...and a 20k slice was snapped up in seconds. Not somebody its SS as there is no queue, I wonder if its still from the start that SS was not able to place it all, and noticeable although someone snapped up 20K not selling like hot cake like these blocks usually do and as there is not much in pipeline (SS said lower rates more loans) maybe SS having second thoughts about reduced rates (I hope! ) So SS took up the slack to make this one look good: appearing to fill with prefunding, which was not really the case.
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Nov 10, 2016 10:57:20 GMT
All gone again... one BH bought 50k. (Well that's a BH in my book at least)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 10, 2016 19:05:48 GMT
Not somebody its SS as there is no queue, I wonder if its still from the start that SS was not able to place it all, and noticeable although someone snapped up 20K not selling like hot cake like these blocks usually do and as there is not much in pipeline (SS said lower rates more loans) maybe SS having second thoughts about reduced rates (I hope! ) So SS took up the slack to make this one look good: appearing to fill with prefunding, which was not really the case. That's possible, but it might not be what actually happened. The loan went live just 12 days ago, and today's release might have been the result of some SS 'housekeeping' due to some investors not paying for the parts they were allocated at the beginning. If SS didn't need the cash urgently then they might as well wait before retrieving and re-offering the parts in the SM, because they're effectively earning 10% on those parts until they're bought by an investor who pays for them. (SS could see from the SM activity that there's sufficient demand for those parts that they could convert them into cash quickly whenever they wanted/needed to.)
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Nov 10, 2016 22:42:20 GMT
So SS took up the slack to make this one look good: appearing to fill with prefunding, which was not really the case. That's possible, but it might not be what actually happened. The loan went live just 12 days ago, and today's release might have been the result of some SS 'housekeeping' due to some investors not paying for the parts they were allocated at the beginning. Really? You suggest that something like 12% of the prefunding was simply not paid for? Is this normal? I'm pretty new to SS and probably make too many judgements based on my own 'standards'. But it certainly would surprise me if that proportion of new loans were regularly having to be repossessed by SS due to defaulting lenders. [Sorry: too many double 's's in this sentence]. Maybe a load of investors prefunded automatically, realising too late that the loan paid only 10%, and decided not to pay up? Possibly... but I think that this hypothesis seriously underestimates the intelligence of the SS community. Call me old fashioned (naïve?) but, when I 'bid' for something, I like pay for it, and I naturally expect that most others do too. I like SS, but they are 'upgrading' their business model and they will most certainly want to make it appear that it's working. I've lent some cash: so, I'm a little suspicious!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 11, 2016 1:35:19 GMT
That's possible, but it might not be what actually happened. The loan went live just 12 days ago, and today's release might have been the result of some SS 'housekeeping' due to some investors not paying for the parts they were allocated at the beginning. Really? You suggest that something like 12% of the prefunding was simply not paid for? Is this normal? I'm pretty new to SS and probably make too many judgements based on my own 'standards'. But it certainly would surprise me if that proportion of new loans were regularly having to be repossessed by SS due to defaulting lenders. [Sorry: too many double 's's in this sentence]. Maybe a load of investors prefunded automatically, realising too late that the loan paid only 10%, and decided not to pay up? Possibly... but I think that this hypothesis seriously underestimates the intelligence of the SS community. Call me old fashioned (naïve?) but, when I 'bid' for something, I like pay for it, and I naturally expect that most others do too. I like SS, but they are 'upgrading' their business model and they will most certainly want to make it appear that it's working. I've lent some cash: so, I'm a little suspicious!
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was just speculating. We have no info about how many investors actually failed to settle their negative balances. We do know that the maximum allocation for PBL145 was at least £4k, so we're probably safe to conclude that demand was much lower than for previous 12% loans of a similar size. There's always a chance that the total pre-funding was less than the loan size, so SS could have been left holding part of the loan. But parts put onto the SM afterwards did disappear quickly so there appeared to be some post-allocation demand. I have wondered whether the release of sub-12% loans might have escaped the notice of some SS investors, but I can only guess. I haven't a clue how many SS investors are -- or were -- trying to use a 'set it and forget it' approach. But we do know that only a tiny fraction of SS investors are interested enough to sign up for this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 19:03:54 GMT
Have a look at the MT pending loans...
Looks like we now know how this one is being repaid
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenbiscuits on May 16, 2017 20:10:08 GMT
Assuming the borrower is getting a better deal at MT (12% to us) than lendy (10% to us) this would be a good argument to show lendy have reduced rates purely to increase their profit margins and "better quality" loans was never a factor.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 16, 2017 20:15:15 GMT
Assuming the borrower is getting a better deal at MT (12% to us) than lendy (10% to us) this would be a good argument to show lendy have reduced rates purely to increase their profit margins and "better quality" loans was never a factor. Lendy put 2% into the PF aswell as paying 10%, so the extra isn't profit after all.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 16, 2017 21:16:44 GMT
Assuming the borrower is getting a better deal at MT (12% to us) than lendy (10% to us) this would be a good argument to show lendy have reduced rates purely to increase their profit margins and "better quality" loans was never a factor. Lendy put 2% into the PF aswell as paying 10%, so the extra isn't profit after all. A good argument against Provision Funds. We're taking a rate cut to bail out people who buy dodgy loans.
|
|
paulg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 312
Likes: 189
|
Post by paulg on May 16, 2017 21:27:29 GMT
Assuming the borrower is getting a better deal at MT (12% to us) than lendy (10% to us) this would be a good argument to show lendy have reduced rates purely to increase their profit margins and "better quality" loans was never a factor. Lendy put 2% into the PF aswell as paying 10%, so the extra isn't profit after all. .... and they take it out again when the loan repays, otherwise the PF would have been forever increasing - and it wasn't. Let's face it, if they're not prepared to tell us what's in the PF after the PBL20 debacle it's reasonable to assume that there isn't one.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 16, 2017 21:47:14 GMT
Lendy put 2% into the PF aswell as paying 10%, so the extra isn't profit after all. .... and they take it out again when the loan repays, otherwise the PF would have been forever increasing - and it wasn't. Let's face it, if they're not prepared to tell us what's in the PF after the PBL20 debacle it's reasonable to assume that there isn't one. The PF is depleted so they won't be taking anything out of it for a long time, probably never. Assuming of course they are true to their word and replenishing the PF.
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on May 17, 2017 5:50:34 GMT
Note the LTV is higher on MT, which goes some way to explaining the rate increase...the additional borrowing probably covering Lendy interest.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 17, 2017 19:25:00 GMT
Note the LTV is higher on MT, which goes some way to explaining the rate increase...the additional borrowing probably covering Lendy interest. There shouldn't be much interest to pay now inasmuch as the remaining term is only -17 days. But there will be a Lendy exit fee to pay -- 2% of the loan?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on May 18, 2017 0:53:09 GMT
Note the LTV is higher on MT, which goes some way to explaining the rate increase...the additional borrowing probably covering Lendy interest. There shouldn't be much interest to pay now inasmuch as the remaining term is only -17 days. But there will be a Lendy exit fee to pay -- 2% of the loan? The increase may also be preparing demolition work as MT suggested.
|
|
