ben
Posts: 2,020 
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Mar 1, 2017 17:47:19 GMT
You're right - it's gone... And the following has been added: "If the Provision Fund is used to cover a shortfall in asset disposal, then it may take time to top the Provision Fund back up from company cashflow." I never saw this before. Doubt we will see the value again for awhile, they will not want to show the full costs to the provision fund.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 1, 2017 17:49:37 GMT
I was expecting to see a few more in the default area. I wonder how much the FCA like the new default policy. Give it 13 days and you will see 8 more A default is now simply dependent on term, not receivers or administrators (it would seem) Several loans where receivers or administrators are involved are not showing as defaulted, but you could argue should be. As discussed the other day, a lot does depend on platform policy, but this new policy seems to only affect the investors; I don't think there is any change to how SS treat borrowers at negative 180 days So a loan can default, and the borrower can send funds which will take the loan out of default but can still be in arrears. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there is clarity, but IMO the new policy should affect both borrowers and lenders, so we know exactly what is going on. savingstream / Paul64 - can you provide any indication what now actually happens at negative 180 days to the borrower? Is that the point a receiver/ administrator now gets appointed? "SAVING STREAM WILL DEFAULT A LOAN WHEN: 1. the redemption figure is not paid in full within a Tolerance Period of 180 days from the loan repayment date" It does not mention a return from hell. Once defaulted, I understand that it will stay defaulted.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2017 18:01:31 GMT
You're right - it's gone... And the following has been added: "If the Provision Fund is used to cover a shortfall in asset disposal, then it may take time to top the Provision Fund back up from company cashflow." I never saw this before. The text has been changed - see following post  p2pindependentforum.com/post/172191/thread
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2017 18:09:35 GMT
Give it 13 days and you will see 8 more A default is now simply dependent on term, not receivers or administrators (it would seem) Several loans where receivers or administrators are involved are not showing as defaulted, but you could argue should be. As discussed the other day, a lot does depend on platform policy, but this new policy seems to only affect the investors; I don't think there is any change to how SS treat borrowers at negative 180 days So a loan can default, and the borrower can send funds which will take the loan out of default but can still be in arrears. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there is clarity, but IMO the new policy should affect both borrowers and lenders, so we know exactly what is going on. savingstream / Paul64 - can you provide any indication what now actually happens at negative 180 days to the borrower? Is that the point a receiver/ administrator now gets appointed? "SAVING STREAM WILL DEFAULT A LOAN WHEN: 1. the redemption figure is not paid in full within a Tolerance Period of 180 days from the loan repayment date" It does not mention a return from hell. Once defaulted, I understand that it will stay defaulted. That is not my interpretation; one example shows a defaulted loan returning to a 4-month term. I can't see how this could be treated as a defaulted loan (after extension); to me, it's a loan where SS shows leniency with an extension, but the new policy shows investors that the loan has defaulted.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Mar 1, 2017 18:15:49 GMT
"SAVING STREAM WILL DEFAULT A LOAN WHEN: 1. the redemption figure is not paid in full within a Tolerance Period of 180 days from the loan repayment date" It does not mention a return from hell. Once defaulted, I understand that it will stay defaulted. That is not my interpretation; one example shows a defaulted loan returning to a 4-month term. I can't see how this could be treated as a defaulted loan (after extension); to me, it's a loan where SS shows leniency with an extension, but the new policy shows investors that the loan has defaulted. I cannot see the example that you mention. Example 1 is not relevant to this discussion. Example 2 which shows the latest (at -180days) that a payment can be made to reset the time is still within the tolerance period, thus not defaulted. Example 3 which returns to 4-month term had a payment at -150 days, i.e. within the IA period. Are there other examples that I am missing?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2017 18:33:23 GMT
That is not my interpretation; one example shows a defaulted loan returning to a 4-month term. I can't see how this could be treated as a defaulted loan (after extension); to me, it's a loan where SS shows leniency with an extension, but the new policy shows investors that the loan has defaulted. I cannot see the example that you mention. Example 1 is not relevant to this discussion. Example 2 which shows the latest (at -180days) that a payment can be made to reset the time is still within the tolerance period, thus not defaulted. Example 3 which returns to 4-month term had a payment at -150 days, i.e. within the IA period. Are there other examples that I am missing? Apologies - some misreading of those diagrams my end. I still think SS need to clarify the situation with regards to the borrower. However - we will see. Some of the borrowers should, at 180 days (if the new policy applies to borrowers) see receivers or administrators appointed.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 3, 2017 18:11:23 GMT
And the following has been added: "If the Provision Fund is used to cover a shortfall in asset disposal, then it may take time to top the Provision Fund back up from company cashflow." I never saw this before. Doubt we will see the value again for awhile, they will not want to show the full costs to the provision fund. I agree. We know the offer accepted for the garden centre was £400k less than the amount of the loan, but we haven't a clue how much other costs -- for receivers, estate agents, lawyers, etc., etc. -- there were, and what the net proceeds from the sale were. If we were told what the current level of the PF was, we'd have an idea, and ISTM that SS don't want us to know that. My own guess is that the other costs were substantial and the PF will have taken a hit a lot bigger than just £400k.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 3, 2017 18:28:45 GMT
> a different charge can take action against the borrower - Stick to loans where SS has first charge over the security. It's overriding isn't it? - They usually insist on a first charge.Stick to loans where SS has first charge over the security. It's overriding isn't it? - They usually insist on a first charge. : I realise I'm about a week late in responding, but nobody else has made a point that needs to be made. CD is correct that a different chargeholder can initiate a default and force recovery action. Having a first charge does not prevent a second -- or lower ranking -- chargeholder from forcing the sale of the security if the borrower does not keep to the terms of the lower-ranking loan. AIUI, when the other chargeholder gives notice that they're about to appoint receivers, the holder of the first charge has the right to override that proposed appointment by appointing receivers themselves and taking over the management of the recovery process. It doesn't matter if the borrower is in good stead with the first charge loan Ts&Cs, with all payments up to date, etc. -- receivers have to be appointed, and their responsibility is to all of the chargeholders (and the borrower as well). I should note that I'm no expert on this subject, and this is just my understanding. If I'm misinformed, hopefully someone who knows more will post and set the record straight.
|
|
|
|
Post by lendinglawyer on Mar 3, 2017 18:52:40 GMT
Close enough! It all comes down to intercreditor terms which normally say second ranking creditor is subject to standstill prior to enforcement. Second ranking default is almost guaranteed to trigger a cross-default in the first ranking and vice versa. Hence with cross-default and standstill first ranking will nearly always be "in charge" of the process.
|
|
