SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 3, 2016 10:00:59 GMT
Indeed. Last night's ones amused me though. They were longer but each of mine was the same comment as 2 weeks ago with the words in a different order.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Dec 11, 2016 11:38:45 GMT
For everyone's attention including fundingsecure: Open reply required It is not the "Unchanged" or "Ongoing" which is getting on my nerves but promises that a loan will be paid next week, one week after another while time keeps slipping. Promises that funds are available but no transfer of such funds actually happen. I am specifically referring to Land in Rishton which we had been promised to be paid since mid August (4 months now). Now we have procedural errors that we are told that are the culprit. Wasn't there enough time to notice these procedural errors and rectify them? What about the update of 26/11/2016, the one about "clearance has been authorised". Was there a procedural error at that point? Please note that the word "imminently" used in the last update was also used in the update of 21/10/2016. I do not need to comment further on this. I am quoting the updates below to give context to and support what I am saying. "10/12/2016 The funds to repay this loan were due from the financing of a separate transaction. This transaction is being financed through a standby letter of credit. We have seen copies of the documentation. However, due to procedural errors the funds could not be released. This is expected to be resolved imminently at which point the borrower can complete the transaction and repay this loan. Alternative forms of finance for this transaction are available. 03/12/2016 The timings we reported last week have slipped. However, we have seen evidence that funds are in place and are expecting the loan to be repaid next week. 26/11/2016 We understand that clearance has been authorised and funds should be drawn down early next week allowing the loan to be repaid. The land transaction is also on target for completion next week. 19/11/2016 The situation is the same as last week except that a third exit route has been identified in the form of a potential buyer for the site. 12/11/2016 The borrower has kep us informed on a daily basis. The overseas funds are still awaiting bank clearance. The land transaction has moved forward with contracts being exchanged this week. 05/11/2016 As proceeds did not come in at the beginning of the week as planned, we met with the borrower on Thursday of this week to get a better understanding of the exit route. The borrower has 2 potential routes: the most immediate (the one we are relying on) is an overseas facility where funds are in place but awaiting bank clearance. The second is profit on a land transaction that is likely to take a further 3 weeks. At the meeting we saw supporting documents for both transactions. 29/10/2016 We were hoping that payment would have come in towards the end of this week. We have been advised it is likely to be Monday. 21/10/2016 We are in daily contact with the borrower and we are advised that payment is expected imminently. 17/10/2016 We have had an update from the borrower. The timescales previously mentioned are still on track with full repayment expected within a week. 08/10/2016 We have been in discussion with the borrower and we expect repayment within the next 2 weeks."
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Dec 11, 2016 11:54:46 GMT
I can't help thinking of male bovine waste disposal when certain platforms do this - the words "daily" and "imminent" being especially high ranking in that category.
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Dec 11, 2016 20:57:18 GMT
For everyone's attention including fundingsecure : Open reply required It is not the "Unchanged" or "Ongoing" which is getting on my nerves but promises that a loan will be paid next week, one week after another while time keeps slipping. Promises that funds are available but no transfer of such funds actually happen. I am specifically referring to Land in Rishton which we had been promised to be paid since mid August (4 months now). Now we have procedural errors that we are told that are the culprit. Wasn't there enough time to notice these procedural errors and rectify them? What about the update of 26/11/2016, the one about "clearance has been authorised". Was there a procedural error at that point? Please note that the word "imminently" used in the last update was also used in the update of 21/10/2016. I do not need to comment further on this. I am quoting the updates below ... I welcome the running commentary given by FS. If the borrower is intent on using a delaying tactic FS cannot be blamed for reporting info provided. Eventually FS may have to use stronger measures to obtain the best possible outcome.
|
|
|
Post by jakebullet on Dec 11, 2016 22:12:16 GMT
I wish FS would go back to pawn, they're not working for me with property. I have very little left now, but most of it is overdue, and from the updates I get the feeling it's very easy to say "I'll pay next week honest" and FS goes away for a week. It wouldn't be so bad if they was paying interest every month while they dick around, or you could sell the overdue loans to some gullible fool.
When they do finally give up believing the excuses and default loans it's laughable how they proceed. I'm thinking of 'London parking spaces' here. 2 months of the cheque is in the mail, and it then takes 7 months to come up with the genius plan of "why don't we ask people who live in the building if they'd like to buy a space?"
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Dec 11, 2016 22:33:23 GMT
For everyone's attention including fundingsecure : Open reply required It is not the "Unchanged" or "Ongoing" which is getting on my nerves but promises that a loan will be paid next week, one week after another while time keeps slipping. Promises that funds are available but no transfer of such funds actually happen. I am specifically referring to Land in Rishton which we had been promised to be paid since mid August (4 months now). Now we have procedural errors that we are told that are the culprit. Wasn't there enough time to notice these procedural errors and rectify them? What about the update of 26/11/2016, the one about "clearance has been authorised". Was there a procedural error at that point? Please note that the word "imminently" used in the last update was also used in the update of 21/10/2016. I do not need to comment further on this. I am quoting the updates below ... I welcome the running commentary given by FS. If the borrower is intent on using a delaying tactic FS cannot be blamed for reporting info provided. Eventually FS may have to use stronger measures to obtain the best possible outcome. I disagree. FS should call on the security. After all this is a platform that does not pay interest monthly but at the end, so any delay is a loss.
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Dec 11, 2016 22:58:11 GMT
I welcome the running commentary given by FS. If the borrower is intent on using a delaying tactic FS cannot be blamed for reporting info provided. Eventually FS may have to use stronger measures to obtain the best possible outcome. I disagree. FS should call on the security. After all this is a platform that does not pay interest monthly but at the end, so any delay is a loss. A glance at my spreadsheet shows that of my 2016 FS loans 28 have repaid in full, 1 is in trouble, and 12 are late by up to 4 months. I agree with you that mounting interest liability is a concern but that has to be weighed up against the potential of greater losses in a forced sale. I am trusting FS to decide when to call it a day on the basis of available information. Do you not trust the platform to act in the best interest of lenders?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Dec 12, 2016 0:22:57 GMT
I disagree. FS should call on the security. After all this is a platform that does not pay interest monthly but at the end, so any delay is a loss. A glance at my spreadsheet shows that of my 2016 FS loans 28 have repaid in full, 1 is in trouble, and 12 are late by up to 4 months. I agree with you that mounting interest liability is a concern but that has to be weighed up against the potential of greater losses in a forced sale. I am trusting FS to decide when to call it a day on the basis of available information. Do you not trust the platform to act in the best interest of lenders? When things start slipping week after week with no substantial reason (keep in mind that in the quoted example FS said that they saw evidence of money and that they even identified two other ways out of this - with no further explanation); when I call and every time the person dealing with this loan is not available for one reason or other; Yes, I reserve the right to loose trust in the platform.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Dec 12, 2016 9:58:01 GMT
I disagree. FS should call on the security. After all this is a platform that does not pay interest monthly but at the end, so any delay is a loss. A glance at my spreadsheet shows that of my 2016 FS loans 28 have repaid in full, 1 is in trouble, and 12 are late by up to 4 months. I agree with you that mounting interest liability is a concern but that has to be weighed up against the potential of greater losses in a forced sale. I am trusting FS to decide when to call it a day on the basis of available information. Do you not trust the platform to act in the best interest of lenders? No.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Dec 12, 2016 10:28:00 GMT
''It is not the "Unchanged" or "Ongoing" which is getting on my nerves but promises that a loan will be paid next week, one week after another while time keeps slipping. Promises that funds are available but no transfer of such funds actually happen''Quite so ablender ,daft to quibble about the word used. I now have about 15 loans with repeated promises of imminent payments that never happen. There is no way I can support any furher loans, no matter how good they apppear. I now fear major losses and disaster ahead for FS, yet they keep churning out yet more loans and tell us how wonderful it all is.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 12, 2016 12:47:27 GMT
The type of property deals on FS are unlikely to end exactly on the 6 month mark, so maybe it's worth fundingsecure considering writing into the initial agreement a formal overrun period of say a month. Maybe add a slightly increased rate (+1% p/a?) for the extension period to encourage borrower compliance... +2% in month two, etc. If this is known from the outset there might be more 'on time' renewing of loans with borrowers setting aside the 6 months interest due ahead of time. I agree, especially now that Funding Circle have started applying an automatic 2% interest penalty for all late-running property loans. It would help focus minds amongst the borrowers who seem to think their loan end date is merely the starting point for delaying tactics...
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 12, 2016 13:10:31 GMT
The type of property deals on FS are unlikely to end exactly on the 6 month mark, so maybe it's worth fundingsecure considering writing into the initial agreement a formal overrun period of say a month. Maybe add a slightly increased rate (+1% p/a?) for the extension period to encourage borrower compliance... +2% in month two, etc. If this is known from the outset there might be more 'on time' renewing of loans with borrowers setting aside the 6 months interest due ahead of time. I agree, especially now that Funding Circle have started applying an automatic 2% interest penalty for all late-running property loans. It would help focus minds amongst the borrowers who seem to think their loan end date is merely the starting point for delaying tactics... pepperpot, SteveT: You both appear to be presuming that FS loan contracts don't already include penalty clauses. Just because FS don't pay penalty interest to their investors doesn't mean they aren't charging it to their borrowers. Having said that, though, this all may be a consequence of FS having started as a pawnbroker. Perhaps penalty clauses aren't used in that business.
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Dec 12, 2016 14:05:22 GMT
I would be in favour of doing away with the pretence that these are 6 month loans - open-ended up to a year might be ok. The problem is the repeated updates that promise repayment or renewal in a week or two. There is no better way to destroy investor confidence. It is understood that these loans usually need longer to run, and with the security behind them it is perhaps too soon to panic, but with an ever-lengthening list of 'late' loans, and not a penny of return coming in, and no way to sell them to those more patient, well, it might just freak some lenders out. Like me.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Dec 12, 2016 14:10:58 GMT
And me.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Dec 12, 2016 17:00:58 GMT
The type of property deals on FS are unlikely to end exactly on the 6 month mark, so maybe it's worth fundingsecure considering writing into the initial agreement a formal overrun period of say a month. Maybe add a slightly increased rate (+1% p/a?) for the extension period to encourage borrower compliance... +2% in month two, etc. If this is known from the outset there might be more 'on time' renewing of loans with borrowers setting aside the 6 months interest due ahead of time. I agree, especially now that Funding Circle have started applying an automatic 2% interest penalty for all late-running property loans. It would help focus minds amongst the borrowers who seem to think their loan end date is merely the starting point for delaying tactics... I would be in favour of this but I want the accrued interest paid at the 6 month mark and monthly after that.
|
|