toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 530
Likes: 378
|
Post by toffeeboy on Jan 10, 2017 19:43:42 GMT
SS need to keep writing loans of greater value than those entering negative territory for obvious reasons. how else can the payment of interest on negative loans be afforded. its a very simple business model. like cash flow projections and stuff Sorry are you suggesting that SS is a Ponzi scheme?
They wouldn't need to write loans of greater value as they only need the money to keep paying the interest for a Ponzi scheme, they would only need to write loans of bigger value if they were to pay out on the older loans. If someone on SS wants to take out their money then they sell it on the SM to another lender. Think you need to rework your business model, I won't say my next thought as it will only be redacted by a mod
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 10, 2017 19:51:43 GMT
Wild guess, but the flood of e-mails asking about the C****t use (Resturant, Residential, Both, Neither... Spaceship) may have something to do with it
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jan 10, 2017 19:57:36 GMT
Wild guess, but the flood of e-mails asking about the C****t use (Resturant, Residential, Both, Neither... Spaceship) may have something to do with it Spaceship! Explains how they are "out of this world" with their profits.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 10, 2017 19:58:03 GMT
Wild guess, but the flood of e-mails asking about the C****t use (Resturant, Residential, Both, Neither... Spaceship) may have something to do with it Nothing to do with the decision to allocate funds "bottom up" then? Very acquittable equitable.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 10, 2017 20:11:23 GMT
SS need to keep writing loans of greater value than those entering negative territory for obvious reasons. how else can the payment of interest on negative loans be afforded. its a very simple business model. like cash flow projections and stuff Sorry are you suggesting that SS is a Ponzi scheme?
They wouldn't need to write loans of greater value as they only need the money to keep paying the interest for a Ponzi scheme, they would only need to write loans of bigger value if they were to pay out on the older loans. If someone on SS wants to take out their money then they sell it on the SM to another lender. Think you need to rework your business model, I won't say my next thought as it will only be redacted by a mod
No I am not suggesting that at all What I am saying is that they have to pay £1.5m per month in interest. If they are not receiving/holding that £1.5m in interest from existing borrowers because too many are overdue and not paying then they would need to make up the balance by writing new loans where they have a large chunk of upfront interest and can pay from that to balance things. at some point the negative loans must repay or the pf will need to be used
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 10, 2017 21:46:15 GMT
... at some point the negative loans must repay or the pf will need to be used This raises an interesting point, though admittedly off topic. If a negative term loan fails to repay fully, what happens to any money SS effectively have advanced to the loan/borrower in order to continue paying interest to investors? Does that come out of the proceeds before investor capital is repaid? Or do SS get that reimbursed only after investors receive all their capital back? Perhaps it doesn't make any difference if SS/Lendy follow through on their intention to top the PF back up if it's ever used.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 10, 2017 22:04:47 GMT
I'd thought I'd give savingstream a glimmer of hope The previous owner of the C****t seemed to be convinced that the property is a residential dwelling. The following if from a comment made via the previous owner on 17-04-2012. Will be happy to provide citation savingstream ; just PM me
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 10, 2017 22:15:09 GMT
I wouldn't attach too much importance to what the previous owner was saying because he was trying to sell it and get the best price so you could argue he would come up with an argument like that. as far as I can tell there is a long recent planning history on this property and a planning inspector himself ruled there was no residential planning consent in place and furthermore the council I said quite recently they were determined that the side should remain non residential.
the fact that saving stream have put this one on hold after the Barrage of emails they received today from us all asking the same question suggests to me that solicitors one not able to confirm the property had lawful use as residential or else there would not be this delay.
it has been a truly exhausting day with saving stream and I am totally wiped out by it all and as a result I can't face another day of it and I have set my pre-funding To zero on the R****** boat moorings as well. I have found out enough to suggest to me that the character of this borrower is not worthy of my funds.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Jan 10, 2017 22:16:20 GMT
I wouldn't attach too much importance to what the previous owner was saying because he was trying to sell it and get the best price so you could argue he would come up with an argument like that. as far as I can tell there is a long recent planning history on this property and a planning inspector himself ruled there was no residential planning consent in place and furthermore the council I said quite recently they were determined that the side should remain non residential.
the fact that saving stream have put this one on hold after the Barrage of emails they received today from us all asking the same question suggests to me that solicitors one not able to confirm the property had lawful use as residential or else there would not be this delay.
it has been a truly exhausting day with saving stream and I am totally wiped out by it all and as a result I can't face another day of it and I have set my pre-funding To zero on the R****** boat moorings as well. I have found out enough to suggest to me that the character of this borrower is not worthy of my funds.
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Jan 10, 2017 22:27:36 GMT
I wouldn't attach too much importance to what the previous owner was saying because he was trying to sell it and get the best price so you could argue he would come up with an argument like that. as far as I can tell there is a long recent planning history on this property and a planning inspector himself ruled there was no residential planning consent in place and furthermore the council I said quite recently they were determined that the side should remain non residential. the fact that saving stream have put this one on hold after the Barrage of emails they received today from us all asking the same question suggests to me that solicitors one not able to confirm the property had lawful use as residential or else there would not be this delay. it has been a truly exhausting day with saving stream and I am totally wiped out by it all and as a result I can't face another day of it and I have set my pre-funding To zero on the R****** boat moorings as well. I have found out enough to suggest to me that the character of this borrower is not worthy of my funds. I've just got back from the pub and appear to be seeing double. I've just got back from the pub and appear to be seeing double.
... or is that quadruple?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,846
|
Post by ozboy on Jan 10, 2017 23:12:58 GMT
Well, you do have Two Heads (Obv a comment directed at twoheads, new2P2P, bin enough aggro on this site today ..... )
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Jan 10, 2017 23:33:19 GMT
Well, you do have Two Heads (Obv a comment directed at twoheads, new2P2P, bin enough aggro on this site today ..... ) Hmmm...
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 11, 2017 7:44:21 GMT
So the consensus now is that the valuation report SS provided is correct after all?
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 11, 2017 9:03:36 GMT
So the consensus now is that the valuation report SS provided is correct after all? Press comment also says that the property was originally built as a garden feature for a large house, and that it was used as a boathouse until 1996. The conclusion that the report was wrong never struck me as safe - perhaps, for example, the withdrawal of the application for change of use to residential was because the applicant had been told that the property already had permission for residential use, or perhaps change of use to residential falls under the current permitted development rights. On the other hand, I am not yet convinced that the conclusion that the report is correct on this point is safe either. The problem I see is that either SS resolved the issue, and didn't tell us, or they didn't resolve the issue before issuing the go-live notice. Both alternatives are explicable - on the one hand someone experienced in a field may not realise that a point needs to be clarified for laymen, on the other hand it's easy to make an obvious assumption. We can't expect perfection from a platform. And at least SS give us the valuation report, which is more than FC do. But SS operate in riskier markets - FC's property loans are mostly residential development loans, and a lot of their bridge loans are extension finance for late running developments, and they seem to have pulled out of the commercial mortgage field.
|
|
guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Jan 11, 2017 10:04:52 GMT
So the consensus now is that the valuation report SS provided is correct after all? Expanding on my previous comments: 1. SS instructed valuer to address some very specific requirements including "4.1 A full description of … use, trading style, … planning history … development potential and other relevant information."2. The valuer did not address those requirements and didn't even state, for example, that he assumed that it had C3 as cop out (as he does in some of his other VRs) but at least we now know how many bottles the wine rack will accommodate.3. SS released the valuation report even though it does not address many of the pertinent issues.To my mind, the VR should fully address the client's requirements and be based on all the available evidence and stated assumptions. This one does not and in the absence of facts, I can't see how anyone can say whether it is 'correct' or not. This is especially worrying as the owner appears to have withdrawn part of his planning application which would probably have resolved the issue a few years ago.
|
|