adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 4, 2019 8:47:32 GMT
exactly - they weren't forced to buy into this company!
I note some of the directors were previously involved in arranging property loan finance so I presume they did DD and realised what they were buying for whatever reason - when you buy a company you buy the assets AND the responsibilities to the clients
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 4, 2019 9:36:30 GMT
exactly - they weren't forced to buy into this company! I note some of the directors were previously involved in arranging property loan finance so I presume they did DD and realised what they were buying for whatever reason - when you buy a company you buy the assets AND the responsibilities to the clients Your suggestion is that FS need to guarantee a 13% return to all current and past lenders? This is devolving into madness.
|
|
susan
Member of DD Central
Posts: 54
Likes: 64
|
Post by susan on Sept 4, 2019 9:51:49 GMT
I am sure that I have just a little in this compared to some, but this loan was the end of the FS road for me.
Failing to ensure the security of the asset is as bad as it gets IMHO.
To keep their integrity, FS should have repaid the now unsecured loans as soon as this was noticed.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on Sept 4, 2019 9:54:36 GMT
exactly - they weren't forced to buy into this company! I note some of the directors were previously involved in arranging property loan finance so I presume they did DD and realised what they were buying for whatever reason - when you buy a company you buy the assets AND the responsibilities to the clients Your suggestion is that FS need to guarantee a 13% return to all current and past lenders? This is devolving into madness. Where proper DD was done by FS (as can be reasonably expected to be done by a P2P platform), correct information provided when the loan was launched (rather than the loan being "missold" due to incorrect or misleading facts being presented) and appropriate processes followed (charges registered, appropriate legal paperwork completed etc.), I of course expect any subsequent losses to be borne by the lenders. Its in cases like these where the above hasn't occured that I think it is reasonable to expect that the P2P platform management take responsibility for losses suffered by its lenders.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 4, 2019 10:12:50 GMT
I am sure that I have just a little in this compared to some, but this loan was the end of the FS road for me.
Failing to ensure the security of the asset is as bad as it gets IMHO.
To keep their integrity, FS should have repaid the now unsecured loans as soon as this was noticed. I couldn't agree more. If FS were in good faith, they would have likely already repaid the unsecured loans, as it makes no sense for them to have interest keep accruing. And the main reason why they might not be in good faith is that FS themselves believe they are likely to go bankrupt in the not-too-far future. If they don't go bankrupt and don't repay, they will surely be sued by investors, and lose.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 4, 2019 11:11:10 GMT
I am sure that I have just a little in this compared to some, but this loan was the end of the FS road for me.
Failing to ensure the security of the asset is as bad as it gets IMHO.
To keep their integrity, FS should have repaid the now unsecured loans as soon as this was noticed. I couldn't agree more. If FS were in good faith, they would have likely already repaid the unsecured loans, as it makes no sense for them to have interest keep accruing. And the main reason why they might not be in good faith is that FS themselves believe they are likely to go bankrupt in the not-too-far future. If they don't go bankrupt and don't repay, they will surely be sued by investors, and lose. The same things were said about the land rover loan which FS promised to repay any shortfall on. Shouts from the hilltops of why haven't they repaid it? They're just letting interest accrue, there must be an illicit reason they're not repaying. This is all despite it being pointed out that FS wouldn't repay anything before the loan is closed and final position known. Once the loan did close, FS did pay up as promised and the people who were throwing around conspiracy theories moved on to their next one. That's not to say this time can't be the time FS really are up to something suspicious, if you call enough conspiracy theories occasionally you'll be right!
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Sept 4, 2019 15:31:40 GMT
I couldn't agree more. If FS were in good faith, they would have likely already repaid the unsecured loans, as it makes no sense for them to have interest keep accruing. And the main reason why they might not be in good faith is that FS themselves believe they are likely to go bankrupt in the not-too-far future. If they don't go bankrupt and don't repay, they will surely be sued by investors, and lose. The same things were said about the land rover loan which FS promised to repay any shortfall on. Shouts from the hilltops of why haven't they repaid it? They're just letting interest accrue, there must be an illicit reason they're not repaying. This is all despite it being pointed out that FS wouldn't repay anything before the loan is closed and final position known. Once the loan did close, FS did pay up as promised and the people who were throwing around conspiracy theories moved on to their next one. That's not to say this time can't be the time FS really are up to something suspicious, if you call enough conspiracy theories occasionally you'll be right! arby - apples and oranges, my friend. Between what the car sold for at auction and the amount reimbursed to lenders, the "goodwill" portion from FS was just £8817. £8817 is such a small amount, it wouldn't even cover one month of interest payments on all the Barnoldswick loans. It is such an insignificantly symbolic amount, it is less than half the fee FS collected on just one of the now-defunct art loans.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 4, 2019 15:37:03 GMT
We knew where the LandRover was and that sooner or later it would sell - being a tad anxious about the late sale (a few days under a year) was quite reasonable - as opposed to the art loans of £3.2m, where FS don't even know where they are, is hardly a conspiracy in my book! I am not going into details here but thanks to some excellent DD (not by me) we are very worried about some of the other multi-million pound loans on this platform or is that another conspiracy theory and we need not worry?
Just seen the Formby update - 2 years late and the damn units aren't even finished -wonder if there is an audit trail for the money? I don't see why FS have allowed themselves to get into this position. FS are in a developer's nightmare (tell me about it) do they shift the development and take a large haircut or pump more money into it and hope they recover it (bit like HS2) but risk losing even more money? As I have said before (granted I do do this) but taking over an unfinished development is not like buying an unfinished car restoration as there are all sorts of issues and if there are problems with the original build then Goodnight Vienna! Personally I would rather get 50% of my money back now rather than wait a year or whatever and gamble on the result...
I am in this one and it is over 2 years late with absolutely no sign of it being resolved - also no idea where we are with Barnoldswick; excuse me if I sound conspiratorial but I am p***d off big time!
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 4, 2019 16:06:31 GMT
The same things were said about the land rover loan which FS promised to repay any shortfall on. Shouts from the hilltops of why haven't they repaid it? They're just letting interest accrue, there must be an illicit reason they're not repaying. This is all despite it being pointed out that FS wouldn't repay anything before the loan is closed and final position known. Once the loan did close, FS did pay up as promised and the people who were throwing around conspiracy theories moved on to their next one. That's not to say this time can't be the time FS really are up to something suspicious, if you call enough conspiracy theories occasionally you'll be right! arby - apples and oranges, my friend. Between what the car sold for at auction and the amount reimbursed to lenders, the "goodwill" portion from FS was just £8817. £8817 is such a small amount, it wouldn't even cover one month of interest payments on all the Barnoldswick loans. It is such an insignificantly symbolic amount, it is less than half the fee FS collected on just one of the now-defunct art loans. And yet a lot of the same people at the time were convinced FS were delaying repayment of the land rover because they couldn't pay. So more like granny Smith vs Cox's
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 4, 2019 18:24:10 GMT
arby - apples and oranges, my friend. Between what the car sold for at auction and the amount reimbursed to lenders, the "goodwill" portion from FS was just £8817. £8817 is such a small amount, it wouldn't even cover one month of interest payments on all the Barnoldswick loans. It is such an insignificantly symbolic amount, it is less than half the fee FS collected on just one of the now-defunct art loans. And yet a lot of the same people at the time were convinced FS were delaying repayment of the land rover because they couldn't pay. So more like granny Smith vs Cox's I sincerely hope you are right arby , and that FS will repay the unsecured Barnoldswick loans, the art loans, and all the other loans where investors will lose their capital due to the platform's gross negligence or misselling. As for the Land Rover loan, it made sense to wait for the disposal of the cars, and - as has been explained already - the loan amount was small, and accrued interest negligible. Barnoldswick's unsecured loans have little chance to be repaid - even partially - by the sale of the properties that FS has a charge on, they are large, and accrued interest is not immaterial. So there is no obvious reason to wait to repay, apart from the following: if I were a shareholder in the platform and did not know if FS will still be around in 6-12 months' time, it would make sense to wait and not repay investors in the meantime. I'd wait and see how the art loans etc will work out, if the new loans have a good take-up, etc. No conspiracy theory, just some rational considerations that might or might not prove correct in the end.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 4, 2019 18:28:31 GMT
Unfortunately I don't think there's much chance at all of them repaying all the loans you said. I'm only saying that I would expect them to keep to their word on the few individual loans where they said they would cover any shortfall.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 4, 2019 19:03:00 GMT
I couldn't agree more. If FS were in good faith, they would have likely already repaid the unsecured loans, as it makes no sense for them to have interest keep accruing. And the main reason why they might not be in good faith is that FS themselves believe they are likely to go bankrupt in the not-too-far future. If they don't go bankrupt and don't repay, they will surely be sued by investors, and lose. The same things were said about the land rover loan which FS promised to repay any shortfall on. Shouts from the hilltops of why haven't they repaid it? They're just letting interest accrue, there must be an illicit reason they're not repaying. This is all despite it being pointed out that FS wouldn't repay anything before the loan is closed and final position known. Once the loan did close, FS did pay up as promised and the people who were throwing around conspiracy theories moved on to their next one. That's not to say this time can't be the time FS really are up to something suspicious, if you call enough conspiracy theories occasionally you'll be right! One more point: the fact that "FS wouldn't repay anything before the loan is closed and final position known" is totally arbitrary. Anyone here that followed the N**k G***d saga on ThinCats knows how a complex situation can be managed professionally. In that case, there were a few of the many defaulted loans of a certain borrower where the platform had "forgotten" to register a charge on the relevant properties. For those "unsecured" loans, TC's new management decided to promptly buy back the loans from investors, offering all capital and a 2% p.a. interest. It should be noted that the 2% interest was lower than what the loans were supposed to pay. Obviously, in the impossible scenario where sufficient money is recovered from the sale of properties that secure other loans of the same borrower, investors will receive the additional income due under the loan agreements. I am sure that we would have been happy if FS had suggested a similar arrangement for the unsecured Barnoldswick loans, and had paid back immediately. Unfortunately, notwithstanding their promises, FS' new management do not seem to be walking their talk. If they are reading this thread and are really in good faith, they should follow up with some concrete and well-overdue action. Until then, I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 4, 2019 19:19:38 GMT
One more point: the fact that "FS wouldn't repay anything before the loan is closed and final position known" is totally arbitrary. Anyone here that followed the N**k G***d saga on ThinCats knows how a complex situation can be managed professionally. In that case, there were a few of the many defaulted loans of a certain borrower where the platform had "forgotten" to register a charge on the relevant properties. <...> Not with TC, how long ago were those N**k G***d loans? Reason for asking - and it was a point I was going to raise anyway - is that I didn't it was permissible for the platform itself to intervene via loan buybacks following FCA 'guidance' that it introduced an undesirable level of balance sheet risk, so wondered if those loans mentioned (and TC's subsequent action) was some time ago?
|
|
|
Post by ron on Sept 4, 2019 20:15:57 GMT
One more point: the fact that "FS wouldn't repay anything before the loan is closed and final position known" is totally arbitrary. Anyone here that followed the N**k G***d saga on ThinCats knows how a complex situation can be managed professionally. In that case, there were a few of the many defaulted loans of a certain borrower where the platform had "forgotten" to register a charge on the relevant properties. <...> Not with TC, how long ago were those N**k G***d loans? Reason for asking - and it was a point I was going to raise anyway - is that I didn't it was permissible for the platform itself to intervene via loan buybacks following FCA 'guidance' that it introduced an undesirable level of balance sheet risk, so wondered if those loans mentioned (and TC's subsequent action) was some time ago? Yes, maybe a couple of years ago. I don't see how it would create problems in the balance sheet though, if such loans are properly written down to zero...
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Sept 6, 2019 0:17:46 GMT
I am in this one and it is over 2 years late with absolutely no sign of it being resolved - also no idea where we are with Barnoldswick; excuse me if I sound conspiratorial but I am p***d off big time! adrian77 - That particular update was posted twice, for some loan parts on the 4th and for others on the 5th of September. The fact they cannot even be bothered to update loan parts with the same name on the same date really makes me question their ability to supervise ANY multi-loan development. They are losing track of whole tranches and of course, the second and third charge orphan loans are treated with the same apathy and monstrously fraudulent neglect they were born created with. How the FCA hasn't mandated a complete moratorium on second and third-charge bridging loans is beyond me.
|
|