|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 21:45:23 GMT
Series B: 1596, 1597, 1628, 1842, 1844, 1845 (NB: 1277, 1381 and 1595 also relate to the same borrower, but these were all fully repaid) Looks like I'm in 1596, 1597, 1628, each allocated at 2% of my balance at the time. Lucky me...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jul 19, 2017 7:35:09 GMT
Update on post above (re duplicate reimbursement): I've signed off on all the repayments / re-imbursements. They should hit your accounts today / tomorrow. Thanks |
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,396
Likes: 2,790
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Jul 24, 2017 11:59:21 GMT
Did this happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by corriefan on Jul 24, 2017 17:28:19 GMT
Mine arrived, so now I'm only down by £20. Sadly it's still turned out to be my worst P2P platform and I'm not inclined to put in more money for the recommended year. That hasn't been necessary on other platforms where I have done quite well.
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284 
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Jul 25, 2017 4:50:45 GMT
Just noticed that loan ref 1597 was purchased by BM for my account on the 19 July and is already on the watchlist. My share is only £6.70 but seems very odd that the loan is in trouble so soon after its purchase!!
Edit...Also the low amount of the loan is unusual! Any possibility that BM are repackaging duff loans and distributing them to all lenders instead of leaving them in the hands of the original smaller number of holders? I notice that according to Steve, loan 1597 was supposed to have been repaid (post above).
Paranoid perhaps but this loan seems very unusual to me!
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Jul 26, 2017 14:07:58 GMT
Update...loan 1597 no longer on watch list but still one of my loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Jul 26, 2017 17:39:40 GMT
Just noticed that loan ref 1597 was purchased by BM for my account on the 19 July and is already on the watchlist. My share is only £6.70 but seems very odd that the loan is in trouble so soon after its purchase!! Edit...Also the low amount of the loan is unusual! Any possibility that BM are repackaging duff loans and distributing them to all lenders instead of leaving them in the hands of the original smaller number of holders? I notice that according to Steve, loan 1597 was supposed to have been repaid (post above). Paranoid perhaps but this loan seems very unusual to me! - is this still in your loan list? We are aware of a glitch in this view, which was corrected shortly afterwards, but these over-allocated positions were bought back by us. Not re-assigned in any way to any clients. But remember, it is only the over-allocated portion (or parts) that we bought back. If you were allocated a portion within your concentration setting (1% or 2%) then this stays with you.
|
|
dave
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 38
|
Post by dave on Jul 26, 2017 19:34:43 GMT
stevefindlay Every night when I log in I still have 1% of 900 and 1% of 1048 staring back at me in crystilized loan section. I have been on the 1% setting since day 1. When will this be corrected? Dave
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Jul 27, 2017 4:22:33 GMT
Just noticed that loan ref 1597 was purchased by BM for my account on the 19 July and is already on the watchlist. My share is only £6.70 but seems very odd that the loan is in trouble so soon after its purchase!! Edit...Also the low amount of the loan is unusual! Any possibility that BM are repackaging duff loans and distributing them to all lenders instead of leaving them in the hands of the original smaller number of holders? I notice that according to Steve, loan 1597 was supposed to have been repaid (post above). Paranoid perhaps but this loan seems very unusual to me! - is this still in your loan list? We are aware of a glitch in this view, which was corrected shortly afterwards, but these over-allocated positions were bought back by us. Not re-assigned in any way to any clients. But remember, it is only the over-allocated portion (or parts) that we bought back. If you were allocated a portion within your concentration setting (1% or 2%) then this stays with you. Hi Steve....It's showing as a recently bought loan on my summary page. But looking at the list of my live loans it's not there. So I guess all is well? Thanks for your answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Aug 2, 2017 20:18:44 GMT
stevefindlay Every night when I log in I still have 1% of 900 and 1% of 1048 staring back at me in crystilized loan section. I have been on the 1% setting since day 1. When will this be corrected? Dave You should have seen this fixed on your account today - we processed the correction on these two earlier. Sorry for the delay.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevefindlay on Aug 4, 2017 7:30:06 GMT
Update - defaulted loans: duplicate of two underlying borrowers.In earlier posts on this forum, and other client communications, it was identified that two series of Receivables have the same two underlying borrowers. We stated previously that we would ensure that no client allocated more than their concentration setting as at the time of the initial allocation (i.e. 1% or 2%, in Nov/Dec 2016), but that we wanted for the recovery processes to complete first. Given that these processes are taking longer than envisaged, we intend to do the following now to improve the clients situations who are impacted by this: - for any clients with more than 1 Receivable in each of the two series listed below, we will arrange a repurchase of their largest outstanding Receivable(s) in each series - leaving impacted clients with only the smallest exposure remaining (this may be equal to, or less than their concentration setting)
- if the positions are the same size, we will arrange repurchase of the newest position(s)
- we will continue to work with the underlying platforms to seek recovery on the outstanding positions
We will complete this next week, and clients will be notified in each case and/or a note will be placed on the clients dashboards. This impacts c.2% of clients, and 0.04% of total investment. The two series are (the numbers quoted are the underlying loan reference, not each receivable reference):- Series A: 1904, 1905, 1909, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1968, 1969, 1977, 2084, 2085. (NB 1488, 1588, 1635 all relate to the same underlying borrower, but these were fully repaid)
- Series B: 1596, 1597, 1628, 1842, 1844, 1845 (NB: 1277, 1381 and 1595 also relate to the same borrower, but these were all fully repaid)
EDIT: I should also point out that there are two positions already in a state of Crystallised Losses: 900 and 1048. And the same approach applies - any client with a duplicate holding will be reimbursed the larger / newer position.
Why did this happen:
The situation arose as these are all invoice finance positions where the underlying borrower was discounting a number of separate invoices. Normally these are "linked" so that no single client has more than their concentration setting (1% or 2%) exposure to a single underlying borrower.
In these two cases the "linking" wasn't recorded correctly in the BondMason system. This arose due to a change in the information was provided to us by the underlying platform and the way these loans were recorded at the end of 2016 (an API failure). This then meant that in these two cases a client was able to purchase more than 1% or 2% against a single underlying borrower.
We are sorry that this has occurred.
These are the only two instances of this happening across 4,000+ underlying loans and 150,000+ receivables agreements transacted to date. The processes have been updated since December 2016 to ensure that it shouldn't happen again.
Please ask if you have any questions or concerns: invest@bondmason.com
: all effected clients (c.5% of clients) should now have seen their positions reverse. Please contact me at invest@bondmason.com if you are unsure or have any concerns. We had to amend the repurchase process as follows: - To unwind the over-allocation the most recent receivable(s) were repurchased until each client was left with their first purchase(s) up until their concentration limit. As it was the subsequent purchases that were the offending ones.
We were advised that taking the largest ones may be seen to be artificially improve client performance, and so we shouldn't do this. In most cases there wasn't a difference in outcome, and in other the difference was typically small- less than £10-20.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Oct 16, 2017 21:11:03 GMT
Just a quick FYI that there’s been a recovery/repayment on my last remaining loan part and it’s now back in my bank account. Anyone else waiting for a recovery might want to check their account. Yep, my last one is done too - just waiting on the withdrawal.
|
|
|
|
Post by funtimedave on Nov 9, 2017 18:52:33 GMT
I have just had two loans go into default - hold me as this is my first experience of this. Trying to stay calm.........  On a different note does this thread not get updated any more? |
|
nairda
Member of DD Central
Posts: 112
Likes: 43
|
Post by nairda on Nov 9, 2017 20:54:23 GMT
I have just had two loans go into default - hold me as this is my first experience of this. Trying to stay calm......... I have six on my watch list, three in default and one crystallised loss. Staying calm - for now.
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 432
Likes: 268
|
Post by ton27 on Nov 10, 2017 13:54:45 GMT
I have now been on the platform for 12 months.
I have 9 on my Watchlist, (the majority of which would seem to be OK), 5 in default and 1 loss. The defaults total just under 50% of interest earned to date and the loss was about 10%.
Too early to decide where it is going so I will hang in to see what happens - but will not be adding to my funds of more than £20k.
|
|
