|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Sept 3, 2019 14:36:47 GMT
something happening then should be completed between September and October really wouldn`t want these solicitors selling my property?
|
|
james21
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 669
|
Post by james21 on Sept 3, 2019 14:55:30 GMT
If you look at room 72 for example March update said it had been sold and deposit taken, thats 6 months ago before todays update, anyones guess whats going on, FS at its most clueless
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 3, 2019 15:19:42 GMT
Have just checked Sheffield university term starts 30th September - would have thought anybody interested in buying for the student market would have completed by now! Even if bought by a parent for their child I think this is cutting it a tad fine...
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 3, 2019 15:29:05 GMT
Have just checked Sheffield university term starts 30th September - would have thought anybody interested in buying for the student market would have completed by now! Even if bought by a parent for their child I think this is cutting it a tad fine... Others have sold at random times throughout the year.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Sept 3, 2019 15:46:26 GMT
Have just checked Sheffield university term starts 30th September - would have thought anybody interested in buying for the student market would have completed by now! Even if bought by a parent for their child I think this is cutting it a tad fine... Had there been a lengthy void period, I would have applauded the purchaser for skirting around it, but as revenue is generated 48 weeks of the year there's less of an impact. Still, the vendor seemed happy enough taking those revenues and holding the deposit and as the deposit would be retained by way of a penalty if the purchaser failed to complete then what, from the vendors perspective, is the harm in waiting a few months? From a lenders perspective, interest is still being earned and given the history of completed sales and the downpaying of the long leasehold loan, this appears to be one of the least problematic loans on the platform. I'd go as far as to say ' fundingsecure at their least clueless', but that would be damning with faint praise...
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 13, 2019 15:39:37 GMT
All remaining loans now defaulted on the website. Final ids are: Id | Title | Amount | Maturity | Status
| 3621027559 | Student Flats Sheffield - Consolidation - Renewal | 167336 | 27/09/2018 |
| 1908810405 | Student Flats Sheffield - Rm 4 - Renewal | 35000 | 02/01/2019 | Recovered
| 2515208330 | Student Flats Sheffield - Rm 6 - Renewal | 35000 | 02/01/2019 | Recovered
| 3196490195 | Student Flats Sheffield - Rm 72 - Renewal | 35000 | 02/01/2019 | Recovered
| 2939849469 | Student Flats Sheffield - Rm 79 - Renewal | 35000 | 20/02/2019 | Recovered
|
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Jan 20, 2020 20:34:41 GMT
Room no 72 recovered 20/1/20 Capital n interest 9.4% pa
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Jan 20, 2020 22:54:41 GMT
Room 4 and Room 6 recovered. Capital & Interest paid in full (566days).
Administration costs have reduced the return to 9.4% from 12%.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 21, 2020 11:48:40 GMT
thanks for this - interesting - I am not in this one but a tad concerned that so much has been taken for what I think was a very simple recovery. I think I am correct in saying the borrower would have paid back the fee at the same time as the interest so I guess that has gone straight to the administrators- could anybody comment
Is this is for simple recovery then however much will other fees be when the situation is anything but so simple?
I thank you.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Jan 21, 2020 12:17:11 GMT
thanks for this - interesting - I am not in this one but a tad concerned that so much has been taken for what I think was a very simple recovery. I think I am correct in saying the borrower would have paid back the fee at the same time as the interest so I guess that has gone straight to the administrators- could anybody comment Is this is for simple recovery then however much will other fees be when the situation is anything but so simple? I thank you. You'd be correct in saying that the borrower should have paid the platform fees at the same time, but not necessarily would have. In any case it is kind of irrelevant. The payment structure has been agreed, and broadly welcomed, I think. The fees to the platform - had any been paid - would go to 'keeping the lights on' costs of operating the platform. These costs should be managed and maintained separately from costs associated with the management of individual loans. Should there be any funds left over in the platform's coffers at the end of the wind down process (very unlikely, IMO) they would get distributed to the platform's creditors. The 2.6% reduction is in line with the agreed Administrator's fee for managing a defaulted loan's redemption of 2.5%. Maybe it's a rounding thing, or maybe there were some minor costs which contributed an additional 0.1% to the deductions. Administrator's fee's for more complex defaulted loan redemption will still be 2.5% but obviously complex disposal may involve other agents - insurance, maintenance, legal, estate, auction, valuation, etc, etc - with their attendant costs which will ultimately reduce returns to lenders. What is missing, as far as I know, is a detailed breakdown of deducted costs being provided to lenders in each loan. It shouldn't be an onerous task for the Administrators to generate those schedules of costs as they are obviously recording the inputs so as to calculate what to actually deduct at the point of repaying lenders. I'd be surprised if any of the above came as news to you, though. (And I have to say I sense a degree of 'playing to the gallery' in most of your "I'm a tad concerned" posts.)
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jan 21, 2020 14:27:50 GMT
Room 79 also recovered.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 21, 2020 16:36:53 GMT
agreed - hopefully this has been asked for and will be forthcoming...rather than an onerous task I would have thought a legal requirement?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 21, 2020 16:39:39 GMT
The 2.6% reduction is in line with the agreed Administrator's fee for managing a defaulted loan's redemption of 2.5%. Maybe it's a rounding thing, or maybe there were some minor costs which contributed an additional 0.1% to the deductions. iRobot : Unfortunately, I think the 2.5% and 2.6% amounts are not as close as the numbers might seem to indicate. AIUI, the 2.5% fee is supposed to be 2.5% of the amount of the loan. The 2.6% reduction in return for investors, however, was 2.6% per year.
Because I wasn't in these loans, I can't see the details, but it was reported above that the Room 4 and Room 6 loans had run for 566 days. If the return on those loans was reduced by 2.6% p.a. then the reduction actually was about 4% (being 2.6% x 566/365) of the amount of the loan.
Further thoughts...
1) The Room 79 loan appears to have been made about seven weeks after the other three loans that have just been settled. If the collection fees also reduced the return on that loan to 9.4%, then those fees would have been about 3.7% of the value of the loan. This suggests to me that the administrator is calculating the fee as a percentage of the accrued interest (charging 22%, being 2.6%/12%) rather than applying a fee that's a simple percentage the loan balance.
2) It's probably just be a coincidence, but I note that the partial recovery of loan 1274707089 -- in the system as 1274707089A -- a month ago, also reports the Actual Return as 9.4%. Another aspect of that recovery which I can't explain is that my return, based on the interest I actually received, was only 8.9%. Why didn't I earn 9.4%? I know that bonus interest can affect the Actual Returns reported, but that loan offered no bonuses, though it's always possible that FS made a deal with a large investor that wasn't disclosed.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Jan 21, 2020 17:08:25 GMT
what a perceptive and cogent observation - just love this forum!
As a said hopefully we will get detailed breakdowns of the costs.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 2,449
|
Post by iRobot on Jan 21, 2020 17:18:58 GMT
Can confirm from my notes that 72 went live / made active 03/07/18 - so same date as 4 and 6. (79 and 22 were 21/08/18 and 29/06/18 respectively) In terms of the calculations, without a detailed breakdown from the horses mouth, it's all going to be partial guesswork. We can take as a starting point how the Administrators laid out the method of remuneration (as taken from section 8.5 of the Proposal) No mention of "per annum", but the bold bit is too brief to be hanging your hat on. Roll on the Administrators' detailed breakdowns!
|
|