cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Dec 21, 2016 18:16:26 GMT
LIVE LOAN
| Loan Amount | : | £ | 2,270,788
| | Security Value | : | £ | 3,250,000
| | SS Indicated LTV | : |
| 70% | | 180 Day Market Valuation | : | £ | 3,000,000
| | LTV Based on 180 day Market Valuation | : |
| 76% | | Term | : |
| 274 days | % PA
| : |
| 12% |
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 22, 2016 10:36:09 GMT
Now live. £5k pre-fund allocated in full
|
|
|
|
Post by fiatlender on Dec 22, 2016 11:02:18 GMT
Looks like £6700 was max, asked for £10k.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2016 11:13:50 GMT
Looks like £6700 was max, asked for £10k. Asked for £100 got £100 Dreaming of putting k after any of my requests ... O.1k 
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 8, 2017 7:40:10 GMT
This one has drawn down at some point.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 8, 2017 11:20:19 GMT
This one has drawn down at some point. Drawdown occurred on 03/01/17. However, that's just SS typing in the numbers - the borrower already had the money!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,840
Likes: 11,068
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 8, 2017 11:30:54 GMT
This one has drawn down at some point. Drawdown occurred on 03/01/17. However, that's just SS typing in the numbers - the borrower already had the money! PBL149 has also drawndown, Thurs/Fri. and DFL012 also on 3rd.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 8, 2017 22:30:31 GMT
This one has drawn down at some point. Drawdown occurred on 03/01/17. However, that's just SS typing in the numbers - the borrower already had the money! Perhaps this should be described as pedant/on, but... ISTM that until the loan was declared to be drawn down, SS investors' money should have been in SS's client account, and the money the borrower had should have been SS/Lendy's. So during that period the investors should have been free of the risk of the borrower defaulting. The act of drawdown should have meant taking the money out of the client account and putting it into a SS/Lendy account and effectively transferring the default risk from SS/Lendy to the SS investors. Or am I misunderstanding something?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 8, 2017 23:56:06 GMT
I agree with Mike.
to illustrate my point I would like to mention that I was fortunate to pick up shedloads of the welsh Castle on the secondary market and it still hasn't drawn down so I am getting a big 11% on that and I will continue to do so until it draws down at which point I will make my position safer by disposing of much of my holding on the secondary market but in the meantime I am very happy to sit back and watch my 11% roll in.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 9, 2017 0:24:30 GMT
PBL156 drawdown as soon as it went live, because the borrower already had the money. Just somebody at SS never pressed the right button to indicate it as drawdown.
Why...
PBL054 never sent the money back when PBL131 (large loan + security) went live.
PBL131 fell through because the borrower never acquired the additional land.
PBL156 has been created which is basically PBL054 + additional interest (held @ SS)
Put simply (if that is possible!), PBL054 never repaid... it has simply became PBL156
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 9, 2017 4:09:36 GMT
PBL156 drawdown as soon as it went live, because the borrower already had the money. Just somebody at SS never pressed the right button to indicate it as drawdown. Why... PBL054 never sent the money back when PBL131 (large loan + security) went live. PBL131 fell through because the borrower never acquired the additional land. PBL156 has been created which is basically PBL054 + additional interest (held @ SS) Put simply (if that is possible!), PBL054 never repaid... it has simply became PBL156 I accept that the borrower never returned any of the money. But investors were repaid when PBL131 was cancelled. To stay within the client money handling rules, the money for that should have come from SS/Lendy working capital. And when investors committed money towards PBL156 their money should have gone into the SS client account until the loan was drawn down -- at which point the money could legitimately be taken out of the client account and used to replenish the SS/Lendy working capital account. If SS didn't declare PBL156 to be drawn down at the appropriate time, ISTM that was sloppiness. And if they didn't move the money into and out of the client account, ISTM that was sloppiness. But sloppiness like that has the potential for getting them into hot water with the regulators and they really need to ensure they have the right controls in place to ensure they're handling client money properly. I haven't a clue how long they could run a sloppy ship before the regulators come down on them so hard that the ship capsizes.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jan 9, 2017 4:44:56 GMT
The worry of not running a tight ship is a wave of soft defaults being too titanic for weekend sailors.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 9, 2017 20:38:05 GMT
The worry of not running a tight ship is a wave of soft defaults being too titanic for weekend sailors. A further worry is that it won't be the captains who go down with the ship -- it'll be the crew!
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 362
|
Post by toffeeboy on Jan 10, 2017 12:42:49 GMT
Perhaps this should be described as pedant/on, but... ISTM that until the loan was declared to be drawn down, SS investors' money should have been in SS's client account, and the money the borrower had should have been SS/Lendy's. So during that period the investors should have been free of the risk of the borrower defaulting. The act of drawdown should have meant taking the money out of the client account and putting it into a SS/Lendy account and effectively transferring the default risk from SS/Lendy to the SS investors. Or am I misunderstanding something? That is all very well but by the same token then you shouldn't begin receiving interest on the money leant at whatever percentage you should only get whatever interest rate is received in the client account as that is where you think your money should be.
As we receive interest on the money as soon as it is leant then I treat the money as leant as soon as I transfer it, we are receiving the interest so why do think that you shouldn't have the risk?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 10, 2017 22:25:51 GMT
Perhaps this should be described as pedant/on, but... ISTM that until the loan was declared to be drawn down, SS investors' money should have been in SS's client account, and the money the borrower had should have been SS/Lendy's. So during that period the investors should have been free of the risk of the borrower defaulting. The act of drawdown should have meant taking the money out of the client account and putting it into a SS/Lendy account and effectively transferring the default risk from SS/Lendy to the SS investors. Or am I misunderstanding something? That is all very well but by the same token then you shouldn't begin receiving interest on the money leant at whatever percentage you should only get whatever interest rate is received in the client account as that is where you think your money should be.
As we receive interest on the money as soon as it is leant then I treat the money as leant as soon as I transfer it, we are receiving the interest so why do think that you shouldn't have the risk?
FS tried not paying interest until drawdown and it didn't work for them, as investors wouldn't commit funds until they knew when their interest would start. So FS changed their model. I haven't a clue where FS get the money to pay pre-drawdown interest, but that's their concern, not mine. AC also had difficulty with investors when they weren't paying pre-drawdown interest, so they invented their QAA as a way to keep investors happy. SS also pay pre-drawdown interest on non-renewal loans, and that's their choice. If they're willing to pay it, I'm happy to accept it. In this case, the borrower has had the money all along. When SS repaid PBL131, they must have used their own funds. Once PBL156 was funded, I would have expected it to be drawn down immediately, but the website didn't indicate that. Perhaps SS just was late in showing drawdown had occurred. Or perhaps the new loan agreement hadn't been signed, so drawdown couldn't be declared until it was. The bottom line is that, AIUI, the FCA have strict rules regarding client money handling and SS need to follow those carefully so as not to jeopardise the obtaining and retention of their licence. I don't expect that any platform that doesn't follow the rules because they're too much trouble or because they don't consider them necessary will get much sympathy from the regulators. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that SS aren't following the rules. I have no reason at all to believe, or suggest, that.
|
|
