cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 14, 2017 14:35:39 GMT
With respect to the text "the borrower is an Architect and Landscape Architect" is the borrower really the individual or is it a limited liability company? Remember that an individual is making all of their assets available for debt collection but a limited liability company tries to shield the owners so there can be a very big risk difference between the two cases. If a company then a look at PBL020 may be instructive given description of that borrower as an experienced developer but loan actually to a limited liability company only 30% owned by that person with Lendy having an undisclosed 10% ownership of the actual borrower. According to the LR, both securities is in the name are in the name of an individual (the name in the VRs), but confusingly the C****t appears on CH against a company (the director is somebody using the borrower's surname... for some reason) The likelihood is the borrower is an individual (the person in the VR, if that is his real name/ the name he has always used...)
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 664
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Jan 14, 2017 14:42:22 GMT
I appreciate the 'N.B.' and that loans may be delayed, but it would be nice to have notice before the loan actually goes live Especially since, "all the issues raised on the forum are known to [SS] already through our thorough and detailed DD". Given the loan went live, SS must have clarified all of those issues that were "being dealt with in the background". Notice of the actual go live date would have given SS the opportunity to confirm that they had completed their DD and stand behind the loan particulars... unless of course their DD is still ongoing and even after investors have entered into a loan agreement with the borrower "the details can change at the last minute".
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 14, 2017 15:07:57 GMT
With respect to the text "the borrower is an Architect and Landscape Architect" is the borrower really the individual or is it a limited liability company? Remember that an individual is making all of their assets available for debt collection but a limited liability company tries to shield the owners so there can be a very big risk difference between the two cases. If a company then a look at PBL020 may be instructive given description of that borrower as an experienced developer but loan actually to a limited liability company only 30% owned by that person with Lendy having an undisclosed 10% ownership of the actual borrower. SS ( Paul64 please take note) have a bad habit of being sloppy about distinguishing between the borrower of record (often an SPV or other LLC) and the owner or director of the borrower. If the borrower as described by SS did only own 30% of PBL020 that's a particularly egregious case. (In the case of the landfill we were supposed to be comforted by the wealth of the man behind the loan, but if I understood correctly the only property legally at risk was the landfill, with a possibly negative value when the hope value was stripped out.) That the operator of the borrower was an experienced developer was a salient fact, as it bore on our estimation of the viability of the business plan, even if it is a rather unquantified statement, so it's an appropriate thing to state, but it should be secondary to giving an accurate description of the borrower of record.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 14, 2017 15:12:57 GMT
With respect to the text "the borrower is an Architect and Landscape Architect" is the borrower really the individual or is it a limited liability company? Remember that an individual is making all of their assets available for debt collection but a limited liability company tries to shield the owners so there can be a very big risk difference between the two cases. If a company then a look at PBL020 may be instructive given description of that borrower as an experienced developer but loan actually to a limited liability company only 30% owned by that person with Lendy having an undisclosed 10% ownership of the actual borrower. SS ( Paul64 please take note) have a bad habit of being sloppy about distinguishing between the borrower of record (often an SPV or other LLC) and the owner or director of the borrower. If the borrower as described by SS did only own 30% of PBL020 that's a particularly egregious case. (In the case of the landfill we were supposed to be comforted by the wealth of the man behind the loan, but if I understood correctly the only property legally at risk was the landfill, with a possibly negative value when the hope value was stripped out.) That the operator of the borrower was an experienced developer was a salient fact, as it bore on our estimation of the viability of the business plan, even if it is a rather unquantified statement, so it's an appropriate thing to state, but it should be secondary to giving an accurate description of the borrower of record. The borrower of PBL020 owned 100% of the security; Lendy had 10% stake in the borrower's company. I think what james is saying, is in the 'loan particulars' for PBL020, SS state that the borrower " is an energetic entrepreneur with a record of successful businesses behind him", when in fact that person only had a 30% stake (although the other two non-Lendy SH where family members)
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 14, 2017 15:13:21 GMT
With respect to the text "the borrower is an Architect and Landscape Architect" is the borrower really the individual or is it a limited liability company? Remember that an individual is making all of their assets available for debt collection but a limited liability company tries to shield the owners so there can be a very big risk difference between the two cases. If a company then a look at PBL020 may be instructive given description of that borrower as an experienced developer but loan actually to a limited liability company only 30% owned by that person with Lendy having an undisclosed 10% ownership of the actual borrower. According to the LR, both securities is in the name are in the name of an individual (the name in the VRs), but confusingly the C****t appears on CH against a company (the director is somebody using the borrower's surname... for some reason) The likelihood is the borrower is an individual (the person in the VR, if that is his real name/ the name he has always used...) My latest working hypothesis is that that director is his wife. There is a record on Companies House of a director with the same name as the borrower, except for the use of the long rather than the short form of the forename, but my guesstimate is that this is a coincidence, and that record refers to a different individual.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 14, 2017 15:16:38 GMT
I appreciate the 'N.B.' and that loans may be delayed, but it would be nice to have notice before the loan actually goes live Especially since, "all the issues raised on the forum are known to [SS] already through our thorough and detailed DD". Given the loan went live, SS must have clarified all of those issues that were "being dealt with in the background". Notice of the actual go live date would have given SS the opportunity to confirm that they had completed their DD and stand behind the loan particulars... unless of course their DD is still ongoing and even after investors have entered into a loan agreement with the borrower "the details can change at the last minute". No, the loans have not yet drawn down so the DD process is not yet done. Several examples in the past of loans being cancelled and funds returned after "Go Live" but ahead of drawdown.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 14, 2017 15:27:54 GMT
According to the LR, both securities is in the name are in the name of an individual (the name in the VRs), but confusingly the C****t appears on CH against a company (the director is somebody using the borrower's surname... for some reason) The likelihood is the borrower is an individual (the person in the VR, if that is his real name/ the name he has always used...) My latest working hypothesis is that that director is his wife. There is a record on Companies House of a director with the same name as the borrower, except for the use of the long rather than the short form of the forename, but my guesstimate is that this is a coincidence, and that record refers to a different individual. The young male (so not his wife!) in charge of that company probably is/ was in some sort of relationship. It is strange that our borrower isn't the director or a director of any companyNo sign of our borrower before 2010, but there is a different individual with all the same attributes (Occupation, DOB, nationality, addresses, connected to this security, both identified as doctors... and many more coincidences) who has suspiciously disappeared about 2008 after some shenanigans surrounding a dodgy company (possible 2 dodgy companies). This latter person (who has disappeared) has been disqualified as a director since 2008 due to the shenanigans (expires June this year).
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 14, 2017 15:29:16 GMT
"the borrower is an Architect and Landscape Architect who has also done some property development. He has been in the industry for decades and has worked on complex projects that include town planning, architecture and interior design on both domestic and commercial projects."
Oh, that's great, then. Fine.
savingstream Paul, can you tell us please, who or what was the actual source of this reassuring information?
edit cooling_dude "This later person (who has disappeared) has been disqualified as a director since 2008 due to the shenanigans (expires June this year)."
Did you mean latter person there?
I wonder what name he will choose in June when his disqualification period expires.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 14, 2017 16:00:12 GMT
I appreciate the 'N.B.' and that loans may be delayed, but it would be nice to have notice before the loan actually goes live Especially as SS was so good as to send out an email saying the go-live was being delayed but gave no indication how long the delay might be. "the borrower is an Architect and Landscape Architect who has also done some property development. He has been in the industry for decades and has worked on complex projects that include town planning, architecture and interior design on both domestic and commercial projects."
Oh, that's great, then. Fine.
savingstream Paul, can you tell us please, who or what was the actual source of this reassuring information?
savingstream, Paul64: I'd also like to be able to take a look at some of the previous architectural achievements of the borrower, but I've had no luck finding any references online. That seems rather odd for someone who has been 'in the industry for decades'. Can you provide any useful URLs?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 664
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Jan 14, 2017 16:03:23 GMT
Especially since, "all the issues raised on the forum are known to [SS] already through our thorough and detailed DD". Given the loan went live, SS must have clarified all of those issues that were "being dealt with in the background". Notice of the actual go live date would have given SS the opportunity to confirm that they had completed their DD and stand behind the loan particulars... unless of course their DD is still ongoing and even after investors have entered into a loan agreement with the borrower "the details can change at the last minute". No, the loans have not yet drawn down so the DD process is not yet done. Several examples in the past of loans being cancelled and funds returned after "Go Live" but ahead of drawdown. There is also at least one example of the details changing after go live but ahead of drawdown where funds were not returned. Cancellation is probably covered within the T&Cs and would fulfil SS's regulatory obligation to put the consumer in the position they would be in if they had not invested. Changing the loan particulars after accepting an investment would not. At the moment, those who wish to exit the contract following the change can do so through the secondary market with relative ease. It is unclear whether SS would voluntarily refund investments if this were not the case, or whether consumers would need to go through a complaints process and possibly ultimately make a claim through the Financial Ombudsman Service if they invested on the basis of false or misleading information.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 14, 2017 16:03:55 GMT
"I'd also like to be able to take a look at some of the previous architectural achievements of the borrower, but I've had no luck finding any references online. That seems rather odd for someone who has been 'in the industry for decades'. Can you provide any useful URLs?"
..... and is well enough endowed shekel-wise as to spend £3M of his own money on the project already ...
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jan 14, 2017 16:47:18 GMT
"a full Public Inquiry ... the Planning Inspector giving very clear instructions that under no circumstances should the activities at H****** R****** be allowed to lapse into residential use"
That from one of the local forums mentioned earlier. That was apparently to be challenged at the High Court but the last hearing I saw mentioned was to have been in February 2016. Anyone know if it was just abandoned or if the court resolved it in some way?
Quite a contrast between that assertion about the PI and those Saving Stream seems to have made about residential use in the investment description, though I have no personal knowledge about the accuracy of the quoted text so it could be wrong.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jan 14, 2017 17:09:32 GMT
SS ( Paul64 please take note) have a bad habit of being sloppy about distinguishing between the borrower of record (often an SPV or other LLC) and the owner or director of the borrower. If the borrower as described by SS did only own 30% of PBL020 that's a particularly egregious case. (In the case of the landfill we were supposed to be comforted by the wealth of the man behind the loan, but if I understood correctly the only property legally at risk was the landfill, with a possibly negative value when the hope value was stripped out.) That the operator of the borrower was an experienced developer was a salient fact, as it bore on our estimation of the viability of the business plan, even if it is a rather unquantified statement, so it's an appropriate thing to state, but it should be secondary to giving an accurate description of the borrower of record. The borrower of PBL020 owned 100% of the security; Lendy had 10% stake in the borrower's company. I think what james is saying, is in the 'loan particulars' for PBL020, SS state that the borrower " is an energetic entrepreneur with a record of successful businesses behind him", when in fact that person only had a 30% stake (although the other two non-Lendy SH where family members) Close. Though to be more correct, rather than "borrower's company", "borrowing company", that borrower - the company - owning 100% of the security and the named borrower owning none of it but that 30% interest in the company, and having no more of their personal wealth at stake unless there was directorial misconduct.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 14, 2017 17:35:25 GMT
The borrower of PBL020 owned 100% of the security; Lendy had 10% stake in the borrower's company. I think what james is saying, is in the 'loan particulars' for PBL020, SS state that the borrower " is an energetic entrepreneur with a record of successful businesses behind him", when in fact that person only had a 30% stake (although the other two non-Lendy SH where family members) Close. Though to be more correct, rather than "borrower's company", "borrowing company", that borrower - the company - owning 100% of the security and the named borrower owning none of it but that 30% interest in the company, and having no more of their personal wealth at stake unless there was directorial misconduct. My post was badly worded, but that is what I was trying to say
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jan 14, 2017 18:28:27 GMT
Yes, I thought so but it seemed best for me to be strictly correct in what I was imputed to be saying given the point I was making about the importance of accurately identifying the borrower. Hopefully Saving Stream won't try to execute any loan contracts on these two new loans between lenders and a company having apparently described the loan as a normally lower risk one (in this context, not always) to an individual. Would be pretty much incredible for they and their solicitors to claim that they didn't know the difference or that it didn't matter what entity the borrower was.
|
|