seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470 
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 15, 2017 10:37:18 GMT
Everyone can make money in a Ponzi scheme, irrespective of purported 'strategy' until all the cards fall down at once.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Oct 15, 2017 18:45:17 GMT
I disagree .. only those who get out soon enough can make actual real money. The rest may be sitting on a paper profit at the point of collapse, but I doubt they'd agree they actually 'made any money'.
|
|
|
|
Post by robberbaron on Oct 15, 2017 20:53:32 GMT
I disagree .. only those who get out soon enough can make actual real money. The rest may be sitting on a paper profit at the point of collapse, but I doubt they'd agree they actually 'made any money'. That's typically what happens. Actually when a Ponzi scheme is unwound the money used to pay back the victims typically comes not just from the author of the scheme but also from the many early investors who unknowingly profited from the fraud. Hundreds of Madoff investors made hard cash profits not just paper ones. In fact several made a lot more than Madoff himself.
|
|
cwah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 949
Likes: 468
|
Post by cwah on Oct 16, 2017 16:40:08 GMT
Do you think they ve suspended that because too much cash was leaving the platform?
They can t just stop suddently a loan that has 100+ days because the borrower is prevaricatious?
What that does is it opens more fundings opportunity for investor to put new money in the platform instead of buying back loans...
|
|
rrrupert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 99
|
Post by rrrupert on Oct 17, 2017 11:54:26 GMT
The suspensions of loans have been selective. I interpret this as suspending loans that are expected to have a capital shortfall even after a contribution from the provision fund. Allowing the sale of loans at par where a capital shortfall is all but certain would perhaps be too much for the FCA to contemplate.
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490 
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Oct 17, 2017 12:04:08 GMT
To me, the suspended loans each have issues.
It doesn't mean the capital won't be recovered... eventually!
|
|
rrrupert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 99
|
Post by rrrupert on Oct 17, 2017 12:34:10 GMT
DFL137 is overdue by over 130 days and with plenty of issues, talk of legal action. But it is not suspended. The question is why some loans with issues are suspended and others well overdue are not. What criteria are the FCA / Lendy using to determine suspension? Capital shortfall near certainty seems the most likely one.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Oct 17, 2017 13:28:48 GMT
The way this loan has played out it looks like an intentional fraud. The borrower didn’t even start the development, just pocketed the money and disappeared into the sunset. The amount borrowed looks like significantly more than the security is worth so further suspicion of fraud and/ or gaming an incredibly weak system. For those with intent this stuff is like taking candy off a baby. Could that be why it’s been suspended? Suspected fraud?
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Oct 17, 2017 13:31:40 GMT
DFL137 is overdue by over 130 days and with plenty of issues, talk of legal action. But it is not suspended. The question is why some loans with issues are suspended and others well overdue are not. What criteria are the FCA / Lendy using to determine suspension? Capital shortfall near certainty seems the most likely one. I am aware of this borrower (or one of his/her associates and under a related business) having applied for a loan with another lender. I am watching to see if PBL137 is repaid when/if the new loan is accepted.
|
|
debaura
Member of DD Central
Posts: 277
Likes: 318
|
Post by debaura on Oct 17, 2017 21:11:05 GMT
The way this loan has played out it looks like an intentional fraud. The borrower didn’t even start the development, just pocketed the money and disappeared into the sunset. The amount borrowed looks like significantly more than the security is worth so further suspicion of fraud and/ or gaming an incredibly weak system. For those with intent this stuff is like taking candy off a baby. Could that be why it’s been suspended? Suspected fraud? This is my gut. But how can this be allowed to happen! Lendy should be responsible for this negligence. TBH I have recently found Lendy to be deceptive in it's practice. There is the dumping of Lendy's own investments on the SM trumping all previous sellers, which in a 0% rated SM is really quite offensive. I emailed them earlier today over another loan, and the reply I got was evasive and quite frankly I felt like I was dealing with gangsters.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 18, 2017 9:13:45 GMT
The way this loan has played out it looks like an intentional fraud. The borrower didn’t even start the development, just pocketed the money and disappeared into the sunset. The amount borrowed looks like significantly more than the security is worth so further suspicion of fraud and/ or gaming an incredibly weak system. For those with intent this stuff is like taking candy off a baby. Could that be why it’s been suspended? Suspected fraud? Do you or anyone else for that matter have any idea of how this might play out. Suspension can only be an interim step leading either to probably further prevarication whilst they shift around their assets to avoid recovery, climb down and compliance by the borrower with the demands of Lendy or Administration and seizure followed by sale of the asset at probably a knockdown price.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 18, 2017 9:39:07 GMT
I'm unsure it reeks of intentional fraud - and be careful what you say in public. Some effort was given to progressing the planning which suggested a desire at the time to get the development moving. It may be a case of a borrower having bitten off more than they can chew and now looking to get out. Also London prices are cooling which may effect the perceived viability. It has a feeling of incompetence rather than intentional fraud (sale by loan or similar).
Feels a bit like Isle of Wight despite being a very different type of property. Incompetence somewhere along the way, and potentially horrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 18, 2017 13:06:03 GMT
You offer an explanation but analysis of where we are does not support a conclusion of an inability to proceed. All that Lendy was requiring was documentation to support the proposals - not an expensive demand. The recent advice by Lendy that the borrower was adopting an early defensive strategy implies rather that there is an intention to drag things out interminably etc for whatever motive.
I have asked Lendy to give me some clarity but the gist of their reply was pretty much that interest continues to be paid - hardly reassuring bearing in mind that this interest was paid up front by the borrower from monies received from the lenders! No indication was provided re what further action might be being considered against the recalcitrant borrower nor of how long the suspension of the secondary market might last. Not an incentive to remain committed to the platform!
|
|
|
|
Post by spectra on Oct 19, 2017 9:17:25 GMT
You do realise you are deluded and talk utter nonsense, don't you? And you do know that you promote a high risk and flawed strategy, right? You must be highly sought after by the 60! I don't know what the 60 is but I can assure you my deluded nonsense and flawed strategy has worked. I would also add that I do not promote anything, I merely express my personal opinions. I have been with SS/LY for nearly 4 years and all my loans were 12% except for 1 x 11%. I have earned £22k in interest and cashback over that period on this platform and my last £9k invested in LY is being withdrawn on Monday. It's too scary for me now. By disagreeing with me it sort of suggests you think the quoted LTV ratios on LY loans are accurate and have never exceeded 70%; that higher rate loans aren't more popular than lower rate loans and that platform failure wouldn't be messy. Because those are the only points I made and you said I was talking utter nonsense  If I'm deluded and my strategy is utter nonsense, why have I done so well on this platform. My successful outcome has proved my strategy worked and was the right strategy. I fail to see how anyone could have done better. I must either have been very lucky or my strategy was a smart one. And I wouldn't say I am very lucky! I will be left with £1,800 in 3 loans I can't sell (a minor strategic error). But in each case I have earned more in interest from those loans than the amount I have stuck in them. Therefore even if I suffered a 100% capital loss in those I would still have made a profit from those loans. On the Welsh property I had £16k in it between Jan and May this year and had sold down to a few hundred when it became unsellable. In Exeter I had less but still quite large 5 figure sums earning me 12% for 9 months+. This is another reason why I recommend only going for top rate loans. If a loan does go bad, you have a bigger interest cushion. On DFLs, I await the day when a big LY DFL loan repays in full. I'm sure that will happen but I don't think it's happened yet. Not that it will affect me. I will be no more than a LY voyeur from next week. It was too good to last forever and I think timing is key in most things. For me, at least, now is the time. I don’t have an issue with your strategy in fact I use it, or similar, on more than one platform, some of the criticism may just be sour grapes. PS. I preferred the recent short lived avatar.
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Oct 19, 2017 11:17:52 GMT
The way this loan has played out it looks like an intentional fraud. The borrower didn’t even start the development, just pocketed the money and disappeared into the sunset. The amount borrowed looks like significantly more than the security is worth so further suspicion of fraud and/ or gaming an incredibly weak system. For those with intent this stuff is like taking candy off a baby. Could that be why it’s been suspended? Suspected fraud? The VR, very reliably (??) informs us that the current value of the site with the PP is £10.6M (top of page 41). If that's the case, why would someone borrow £7.5M (less after Lendy's cut) and abscond leaving a £10M property to be disposed of by Lendy's recovery process? Why not simply sell the property and pocket the £10M. Maybe it isn't really worth what the VR says it is. Well, that would be a surprise wouldn't it!
|
|
