|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Mar 28, 2019 11:51:34 GMT
NO TAKERS 800K start
|
|
|
|
Post by sanfran on Mar 28, 2019 11:53:35 GMT
Thanks for the link. I’m interested to know, as the auctioneer said, why people registered but then nobody bids.
|
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Mar 28, 2019 12:03:06 GMT
chance`s are first to bid get`s it
clearly not rock bottom price?
may put in lower bid after auction?
surpise didn`t ask for bid to start?
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 28, 2019 20:57:10 GMT
Hopefully if I am understanding correctly it sold at auction for 810K. So provided the auction deal is completed and after payment of Administration fees and any Lendy cut, investors should receive a few crumbs of comfort in say around 6 weeks time. speculative 45%? Those in the know please feel free to put right my mis-placed optimism.
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345 
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Mar 28, 2019 22:05:03 GMT
What's been sold? Security for PBL177 or 178 or both?
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 29, 2019 23:04:17 GMT
What's been sold? Security for PBL177 or 178 or both?
According to the web link provided by spareapennyor2 the auctioneer result is that 57 The W*** L****, 58 B***** R***,, 1-7 G***** C**** and 52 B***** R***, Lowestoft sold for £810K. Whether this is PBL177 or 178 or both or neither is I am afraid unclear to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Mar 30, 2019 7:19:34 GMT
What's been sold? Security for PBL177 or 178 or both?
According to the web link provided by spareapennyor2 the auctioneer result is that 57 The W*** L****, 58 B***** R***,, 1-7 G***** C**** and 52 B***** R***, Lowestoft sold for £810K. Whether this is PBL177 or 178 or both or neither is I am afraid unclear to me. both as one lot winebar / 19 flats good to see it sold must be just over reserve then thought it might be around the -700k when it first went to auction
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 31, 2019 14:00:42 GMT
According to the web link provided by spareapennyor2 the auctioneer result is that 57 The W*** L****, 58 B***** R***,, 1-7 G***** C**** and 52 B***** R***, Lowestoft sold for £810K. Whether this is PBL177 or 178 or both or neither is I am afraid unclear to me. both as one lot winebar / 19 flats good to see it sold must be just over reserve then thought it might be around the -700k when it first went to auction The loan amount on PBL177 and 178 is 1,627,500. A ~700k recovery is 43% recovery. Theres probably a bunch of fees and LY payments to be deducted so might end up around 30% recovery which seems to be where we are seeing recoveries hit. Any value in re-running the “what % of your money do you expect to get back” poll?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2019 14:24:00 GMT
both as one lot winebar / 19 flats good to see it sold must be just over reserve then thought it might be around the -700k when it first went to auction The loan amount on PBL177 and 178 is 1,627,500. A ~700k recovery is 43% recovery. Theres probably a bunch of fees and LY payments to be deducted so might end up around 30% recovery which seems to be where we are seeing recoveries hit. Any value in re-running the “what % of your money do you expect to get back” poll? The repayment made on the linked loan also paid accrued interest ahead of capital, so I would expect the capital return on this to be c25% max if policy is followed.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 31, 2019 15:54:00 GMT
The loan amount on PBL177 and 178 is 1,627,500. A ~700k recovery is 43% recovery. Theres probably a bunch of fees and LY payments to be deducted so might end up around 30% recovery which seems to be where we are seeing recoveries hit. Any value in re-running the “what % of your money do you expect to get back” poll? The repayment made on the linked loan also paid accrued interest ahead of capital, so I would expect the capital return on this to be c25% max if policy is followed. It’s obvious why Lendy is still trading whilst not writing any loans. There’s a lot of money to be made from these failed loans. Quite honestly, if the FCA are OK with the way LY has profited from this mess then it’s very worrying.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Mar 31, 2019 19:53:14 GMT
"Worrying"? The platform as performing attracts or did attract mainly somewhat desperate risk taker borrowers who maybe were directed to valuers who took a very positive view of assets being valued. The lenders are then in a position to borrow heavily against their assets. When projects succeed against the financial odds Lendy earns nice commissions and gains kudos. If the projects fail Administrators become involved and Lendy creams off on the carcases. For Lendy it is win win win. For borrowers the savvy ones enter contracts having already prepared fall back positions enabling them to walk away virtually financially unscathed. The losers are inexperienced lenders who are taken to the cleaners basically by all the assurances about due diligence followed by the mantra that capital is at risk. Its immoral, unethical and maybe perfectly legal. The FCA as usual sits on the sidelines wringing its hands until the damage is well and truly done. This loan is a typical example with lenders likely to lose a large % of capital and interest. Currently £154M by asset value of loans are listed by Lendy as underperforming with the associated £80 Million pounds of investor capital at serious risk of substantial loss. Worrying?
|
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Mar 31, 2019 20:36:30 GMT
From here on, the more lenders lose the more LY gains. That’s what worries me, that the FCA gave a license to this legalised con. I’d like to use stronger language than worrying but I won’t. 10s of millions of pounds are going to disappear here and with every million that disappears Brookes gets richer and it’s all endorsed by the FCA. I’d read a while ago that p2p was born out of a distrust of banks and Bankers. Well, the replacement is much worse, not a shred of ethics or integrity.
|
|
sydb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 345
Likes: 316
|
Post by sydb on Mar 31, 2019 20:44:36 GMT
The repayment made on the linked loan also paid accrued interest ahead of capital, so I would expect the capital return on this to be c25% max if policy is followed. Lendy charge interest on loans during the 'normal' loan period (as well as an arrangement fee, an exit fee and a loan monitoring fee). Lendy charge extra interest on overdue loan repayments. Lendy input no capital. The lenders input all the capital. Interest owed is distributed ahead of capital after security has been sold off. Lendy have no reputation left to lose. What is the incentive for Lendy to enforce the security on loans so long as the real value of the security is less than the growing <interest owed + their fees + administration fees>? It's actually in their interest for the defaulted loans to go on as long as possible accruing interest for them so long as the real value of the security does not fall below the <interest owed + their fees + administration fees>. Have I understood correctly? Do other P2P platforms generally have this order of distribution of proceeds after security is enforced? Taking a step back, how can anyone claim that it is fair to distribute accrued interest ahead of capital?
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Mar 31, 2019 20:52:50 GMT
The repayment made on the linked loan also paid accrued interest ahead of capital, so I would expect the capital return on this to be c25% max if policy is followed Have I understood correctly? Do other P2P platforms generally have this order of distribution of proceeds after security is enforced? Yes you have understood correctly and no many other platforms don't follow this order. See MoneyThing or BridgeCrowd for example: www.moneything.com/lender-terms-and-conditions/www.thebridgecrowd.com/terms-and-conditions
|
|
Monetus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 2,961
|
Post by Monetus on Mar 31, 2019 21:07:16 GMT
The repayment made on the linked loan also paid accrued interest ahead of capital, so I would expect the capital return on this to be c25% max if policy is followed. Taking a step back, how can anyone claim that it is fair to distribute accrued interest ahead of capital? It certainly makes it very difficult to see how the interests of the platform and its investors can possibly be aligned.
|
|
