DFL019 - Phase 1, Land at R***** Leisure Village - SUSPENDED

And working all weekend, right through to so late on a Sunday.

Yeah, I'm sure some moaners will say its their own fault etc... but for me, being prepared to put in those kind of hours shows a dedication to getting things right.

It was a successful Sunday after a missed "Go-Live" date; however, what I was pleased to see was the e-mail to advise there was a delay, and the new "Go-Live" date successfully met.

Kudos to SS for a successful day.

Not sure I agree with the rest of your post GeorgeT ; genuine concerns and observations doesn't strike me as a reason not to engage, and one successful day does not (IMO) return SS to top spot; there are still concerns about customer service, openness and integrity at SS, all still present

MT need loans; there does seem to be some in the pipeline, but I agree it has become a frustrated marketplace

I can't complain about SS loan flow and ability to process loans quickly and efficiently; best in the business.

I was only referring to the churn of new loans; there are many negatives, and you list some of them.  Quality of the loans is subjective; it goes hand in hand with the inadequate information SS provide, as this is P2P and it is entirely up to the investor whether they want to invest or not, but that should be based on information only SS can provide.

Hi Guff, thanks for your message. You are right, we are not perfect, but are making some progress in the areas you mention. We are still unable to provide some of the more detailed information you would like owing to certain legal restrictions in place. They are not however being ignored, and remain on my 'to work on' list with the lawyers, borrowers, and our own credit committee.

You will be able to see better laid out Loan Particulars, and we do monitor both the forum, and our own support desk for the most frequently asked Qs about our loans, so we can do our best to provide as much detail on each loan as we can, and to improve the transparency as we move forward. I am sure you might see this as a PR answer, but I am confident that transparency will improve over time. I just cannot promise it fully today. Of course P2P is about bringing lender and borrowers together and there will always be a 'caveat emptor' dimension to this type of investment. Paul

For me, the litmus of success is the number of loans in defaults. If problems can't be resolved in 180 days after the initial 183 (365) days, it is very likely that some capital will be lost. At least on 70% LTVs with optimistic valuations.

What a difference 1% makes, two loans similar sizes one DFL19 12% Over subscribed and none on the SM and DFL17 11% looks about 50% subscribed given more than £2mln was on the SM after launch and at least 3 more £300k slices have hit the SM yes I think 19 is a better loan but does it really all come down to the 1% ?

Yes I know some will say PBL035 was rolled into DFL19 and PBL073 repaid, but it also followed DFL017 when a lot of the excess funds had already been eaten up and when they SM was fully laden. Whereas DFL017 came first to a fairly barren SM. Just mindless thoughts but still think its interesting how sensitive the rate is. And I have to own up personally also guilty, went for max allocation for 19 and zero for 17.