fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038 
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on Aug 2, 2014 8:32:04 GMT
Indeed, I nearly missed the fact that 7214 was the same borrower as one I had already funded. I see that the error has been pointed out on the Q&A page for the loan. Nevertheless, I presume that the autobiddder may still be blindly hovering up further loan parts for people who have some of the previous tranche? Won't be popular.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Aug 2, 2014 18:18:38 GMT
Agree that 7220 is a better bet, especially because FC have screwed up on 7214, in that it is a second tranche but they have not linked it to the first through the financials (no link and no little symbol). Therefore it is shown as a new Borrower, and presumably will have to be withdrawn and re-run. Anyone feel like telling them? Not only no little symbol, in the financials it is actively misleading bidders by saying that there are NO EXISTING LOANS -- the section is all just "dashes". This is happening too often FC. Along with "secured" auctions that aren't (silently withdrawn and rerun as unsecured) ... Sort it out! It looks like no one is checking any of this stuff and just flinging it through.
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 615
Likes: 182
|
Post by min on Aug 2, 2014 18:39:38 GMT
This is happening too often FC. Along with "secured" auctions that aren't (silently withdrawn and rerun as unsecured) ... Sort it out! It looks like no one is checking any of this stuff and just flinging it through. Nothing new there then!
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Aug 2, 2014 18:41:19 GMT
I told them eighteen months ago that ALL loan presentations should be proof-read BY SOMEONE SENIOR BEFORE GOING LIVE, because far too many were containing important clerical and/or factual errors, which FC all too often corrected as quietly as possible, (or withdrew the loan), rarely revealing that it might be their fault. There was a comment somewhere from the usual "team" about tightening up on the mistakes, but little seems to have changed.
Oh! I've just noticed that I have a bit of 6504 (the predecessor to 7214, which mentions it in the report, though not by number - up front, so people are aware they already have a stake).
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Aug 3, 2014 19:38:38 GMT
... errors, which FC all too often corrected as quietly as possible, Who's been reporting the questions on 7214? (purple flags, this question has already been reported as inappropriate etc. etc.) It's very blooming appropriate to point out that this one is a dud, and that people have been suckered on wrong information.
|
|
jm72
Posts: 109
Likes: 2
|
Post by jm72 on Aug 3, 2014 20:08:28 GMT
FC doesn't take any notice of questions unless they are reported. I guess the person who did it was trying to bring these questions to the attention of FC
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on Aug 3, 2014 22:15:25 GMT
... errors, which FC all too often corrected as quietly as possible, Who's been reporting the questions on 7124? (purple flags, this question has already been reported as inappropriate etc. etc.) It's very blooming appropriate to point out that this one is a dud, and that people have been suckered on wrong information. Loan 7214 ?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 3, 2014 22:44:57 GMT
Yes 7214. It does no harm to flag the questions to bring the error to FC's attention, but for the property loans FC answers the questions anyway.
Someone's week is going to start badly, but it is just sloppy - poor quality management.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Aug 4, 2014 8:22:21 GMT
And now its gone!
Edit: And now the improved shiny and a little more accurate version is back!
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Aug 4, 2014 17:22:43 GMT
Who's been reporting the questions on 7124? (purple flags, this question has already been reported as inappropriate etc. etc.) It's very blooming appropriate to point out that this one is a dud, and that people have been suckered on wrong information. Loan 7214 ? Due to an administrative error, some digits in the loan number may have appeared in the wrong order. Thanks, MB.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Aug 4, 2014 21:56:52 GMT
What you mean is, "I get ALL the digits right...but not necessarily in the right order"..... reminds me of the Morecambe "Preview" affair.
|
|
fasty
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 388
|
Post by fasty on Aug 5, 2014 14:53:40 GMT
So, barely has 7220 (A+ £450k 8%) is filled, it's drawn down, already on the SM and the second tranche is already being requested (A+ £450k 8%)
But wait, there's more!
Property loan 7248, A, £581k, 18months, 9% fixed interest-only + 2% splashback.
Don't say no-one told you.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 6, 2014 8:01:45 GMT
7158 is suffering because of these better offerings (in that the 2% cashback is not so valuable over 36 months). It will have used up much of its Autobid contribution and will be left at approx 70% while Autobid tries to get all the other loans to that level. FC may be trying to fund too many property loans at one time. We will see.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Aug 10, 2014 17:41:25 GMT
Come on people, 7158 only needs £100k to fill. Back of the sofa change for some of you.
And please ignore the Q & A, they might put you off.
(This appeal issued on behalf of Funding Circle by a well wisher who hates to see homeless Russian Oligarchs).
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 637
Likes: 658
|
Post by warn on Aug 11, 2014 7:25:27 GMT
What you mean is, "I get ALL the digits right...but not necessarily in the right order"..... reminds me of the Morecambe "Preview" affair. "Previn", shurely?
|
|
