guff
Posts: 730 
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Feb 16, 2018 10:50:23 GMT
They put on different hats. Their regular ones are yachtie peaks, whilst the PF ones are full souwesters. And when do they wear ...  On second thoughts, don't answer that ...   When the valuers wear theirs… 
|
|
Jeepers
Member of DD Central
Posts: 818
Likes: 721
|
Post by Jeepers on Feb 16, 2018 12:16:09 GMT
£2.85m in the provision fund.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Feb 16, 2018 12:25:17 GMT
[Mod hat on]
Following a brief discussion with the OP, I've removed several posts from view that were potentially misleading to other forum members given the perhaps overly simplistic nature of the OP.
At the present time there is no evidence available that suggests the borrower of this loan is a current or past borrower on MT. He is, however, potentially the borrower of upto three loans on FS - Widnes plus 2 related to this property, both in default. Details are on DD Central, see the thread for PBL155 on the L-DD board.
[mod hat off]
As far as I am aware, the borrower has been steadily "losing" parts of his property empire for a number of years (both voluntarily and by forced sales such as this), and it is inevitable that some of those parts will now be security for p2p loans to their new owners. It seems to me that a measure of care is needed in assessing the impact (if any) a previous owner of a secured asset has on the risk of a loan to a new owner.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Feb 16, 2018 17:35:21 GMT
It's a proper horror show this one and I sympathise with anyone staring at a substantial capital loss. Regardless of all the standard messaging being put out around risk and diversification etc, the sheer scale of the error here will undoubtedly have a major impact on Lendy's wider credibility and reputation in the sector. It will not be acceptable to punters for Lendy to just point at the independent valuation and abdicate responsibility.
This loan has gone to market on the Lendy platform after being scrutinised by their in-house team who, using their combined industry expertise, validated this loan as of sufficient quality to present to its lenders. How will the wider lender base now view future loans presented by Lendy that have followed the same process by the same people that has delivered this result.
The Lendy update has commented on the further recovery action and I of course hope this will prove as successful as possible but it will of course take some considerable time and a positive result is in no way guaranteed.
Aside from this it's almost laughable that having waited so long for Lendy's accounts to drop that they pop up showing a substancial profit at the same time as this result. Optics are not good and the press will have a field day.
|
|
poppyland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 237
Likes: 243
|
Post by poppyland on Feb 16, 2018 18:41:39 GMT
It's a proper horror show this one and I sympathise with anyone staring at a substantial capital loss. Regardless of all the standard messaging being put out around risk and diversification etc, the sheer scale of the error here will undoubtedly have a major impact on Lendy's wider credibility and reputation in the sector. It will not be acceptable to punters for Lendy to just point at the independent valuation and abdicate responsibility. This loan has gone to market on the Lendy platform after being scrutinised by their in-house team who, using their combined industry expertise, validated this loan as of sufficient quality to present to its lenders. How will the wider lender base now view future loans presented by Lendy that have followed the same process by the same people that has delivered this result. The Lendy update has commented on the further recovery action and I of course hope this will prove as successful as possible but it will of course take some considerable time and a positive result is in no way guaranteed. Aside from this it's almost laughable that having waited so long for Lendy's accounts to drop that they pop up showing a substancial profit at the same time as this result. Optics are not good and the press will have a field day. I think Lendy should seriously consider using ALL those profits to reimburse investors. They have presumably already extracted substantial directors' salaries for themselves, and paid all their staff, so using this 3.3 million to reimburse us for capital losses would be the decent thing to do, and would not hurt them as much, in the long-term, as sitting on their ill-gotten pile of cash would. I also feel that where any loan has gone into default and investors are faced with capital loss, that the P2P platform should immediately return all of the fees etc for the loan, and make zero profit on that particular loan until all investor capital (minus interest paid out, possibly) has been returned. Given that in most cases the fees etc are added to the loan when the borrower draws it down, the fees have been paid out of investor money in any case. A promise to make no money on a loan where investors have lost capital could perhaps form part of a P2P charter which decent honest platforms could sign up to. If defaults with capital losses to investors also wiped out the platform's profits on that loan, then we would finally have a situation where their interests aligned with ours in a very direct way.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Feb 16, 2018 18:58:10 GMT
On or around the 6/7/17 the borrower offered a partial repayment but this was refused by Lendy ?? Don`t know how much it was but surely this should have been accepted as we would still have had first charge on the property. Perhaps Paul could shed some light on that.
I stand to lose (at the moment) almost 20,000 pounds on this disaster. I have diversified and I believed the valuation that Lendy provided.
I also know that in order to get a deal done the valuer will usually take into account the capital required. Did Lendy influence the valuation ?? also why did Lendy not know about the previous auction that failed at around 5M with about 8 acres included compared with the recent auction that had only 3 acres (or so).
I mean that it could not achieve 5M with 8 acres pre brexit (if it matters) How could it get 4.9M with 3 acres post brexit (if it matters) ??
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Feb 16, 2018 19:19:19 GMT
W**** H*** H**** valued at 750,000. actual at auction price will be around 300,000. I live there, I know what a property is worth in a fire sale if it comes to it. Lendy loaned 500K = 100% Loan to monies paid for property = reckless lending of our money. Learned anything ?? Thanks for the warning. Just bailed out. No queue! Roll on the next debacle. My money is on M********e, London.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Feb 16, 2018 20:09:03 GMT
I think Lendy should seriously consider using ALL those profits to reimburse investors. They have presumably already extracted substantial directors' salaries for themselves, and paid all their staff, so using this 3.3 million to reimburse us for capital losses would be the decent thing to do, and would not hurt them as much, in the long-term, as sitting on their ill-gotten pile of cash would. I also feel that where any loan has gone into default and investors are faced with capital loss, that the P2P platform should immediately return all of the fees etc for the loan, and make zero profit on that particular loan until all investor capital (minus interest paid out, possibly) has been returned. Given that in most cases the fees etc are added to the loan when the borrower draws it down, the fees have been paid out of investor money in any case. A promise to make no money on a loan where investors have lost capital could perhaps form part of a P2P charter which decent honest platforms could sign up to. If defaults with capital losses to investors also wiped out the platform's profits on that loan, then we would finally have a situation where their interests aligned with ours in a very direct way. It needs more than that I think. Like a racing tipster, the platform would stand to win on good loans and have wasted a bit of effort on bad ones. It needs to hurt more than that. Platforms should co-invest and stay with the loan until repayment (no offloading on SM) Now that would be aligned interest. Kufflink do it
|
|
MarkT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 190
Likes: 159
|
Post by MarkT on Feb 16, 2018 20:32:22 GMT
I think Lendy should seriously consider using ALL those profits to reimburse investors. They have presumably already extracted substantial directors' salaries for themselves, and paid all their staff, so using this 3.3 million to reimburse us for capital losses would be the decent thing to do, and would not hurt them as much, in the long-term, as sitting on their ill-gotten pile of cash would. I also feel that where any loan has gone into default and investors are faced with capital loss, that the P2P platform should immediately return all of the fees etc for the loan, and make zero profit on that particular loan until all investor capital (minus interest paid out, possibly) has been returned. Given that in most cases the fees etc are added to the loan when the borrower draws it down, the fees have been paid out of investor money in any case. A promise to make no money on a loan where investors have lost capital could perhaps form part of a P2P charter which decent honest platforms could sign up to. If defaults with capital losses to investors also wiped out the platform's profits on that loan, then we would finally have a situation where their interests aligned with ours in a very direct way. It needs more than that I think. Like a racing tipster, the platform would stand to win on good loans and have wasted a bit of effort on bad ones. It needs to hurt more than that. Platforms should co-invest and stay with the loan until repayment (no offloading on SM) Now that would be aligned interest. Kufflink do it I believe that the FCA doesn't approve of "skin in the game" for P2P platforms. Edit: Although they do seem to have full FCA authorisation.
|
|
nush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 396
Likes: 113
|
Post by nush on Feb 16, 2018 21:40:24 GMT
It needs more than that I think. Like a racing tipster, the platform would stand to win on good loans and have wasted a bit of effort on bad ones. It needs to hurt more than that. Platforms should co-invest and stay with the loan until repayment (no offloading on SM) Now that would be aligned interest. Kufflink do it I believe that the FCA doesn't approve of "skin in the game" for P2P platforms. Edit: Although they do seem to have full FCA authorisation. do they get round this by using kuflink bridging, 20% skin in the game
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Feb 17, 2018 6:17:28 GMT
lendy ltd or should i say liam and tim have a few companies registered at CH that could easily follow kuflink example of confidence intheir offerings by taking first 20% of loan and any loss lendy i mean liam and tim would not touch any of our offerings with a barge pole
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Feb 17, 2018 6:43:38 GMT
lendy ltd or should i say liam and tim have a few companies registered at CH that could easily follow kuflink example of confidence intheir offerings by taking first 20% of loan and any loss lendy i mean liam and tim would not touch any of our offerings with a barge pole forgot to mention that lendylltd could fund loans through LENDY PROVISION RESERVE LTD or LENDY GROUP LTD or one of the few others that liam and tim are running at the moment.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 17, 2018 6:51:27 GMT
lendy ltd or should i say liam and tim have a few companies registered at CH that could easily follow kuflink example of confidence intheir offerings by taking first 20% of loan and any loss lendy i mean liam and tim would not touch any of our offerings with a barge pole forgot to mention that lendylltd could fund loans through LENDY PROVISION RESERVE LTD or LENDY GROUP LTD or one of the few others that liam and tim are running at the moment. You want them to use the provision fund to buy into loans??
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Feb 17, 2018 6:58:51 GMT
no not at all but the PF is interest earning at least which is more than a lot of investors on here are doing at the moment. i was just using as an example that lendy have got quite afew tricks up their sleeves and not many of them seem to be in our best interest
|
|
|
|
Post by peterpea on Feb 17, 2018 9:55:23 GMT
It needs more than that I think. Like a racing tipster, the platform would stand to win on good loans and have wasted a bit of effort on bad ones. It needs to hurt more than that. Platforms should co-invest and stay with the loan until repayment (no offloading on SM) Now that would be aligned interest. Kufflink do it I believe that the FCA doesn't approve of "skin in the game" for P2P platforms. Edit: Although they do seem to have full FCA authorisation. They have FCA authorisation but do not fully adhere to their rules. I have mentioned this to the FCA but they will not reply to individuals.
|
|
