Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662 
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on May 5, 2017 13:36:02 GMT
1. I define high class select loans as those paying 12% with very long unexpired terms. Investor appetite as evidenced by activity on the SM seems to support my definition. Therefore there is no inconsistency in my comments. 2. my way is right and your way is wrong. 1. I would consider your definition to be 'popular' loans and not a definition of 'high class' loans, as such I cannot agree that 'activity on the SM seems to support (your) definition'. I think there is a very critical difference between those two but as always am happy to agree to disagree on that point. I would point out that I believe using your definition you have just informed the community that 2 of the 3 loans that this thread refers to are in fact 'high class' loans. 2. You are missing the key point in that you do not appear to have any consistency in 'your way'. In no way was I implying that your way was wrong as I am not sure which of your multiple 'ways' you are referring to. Merely pointing out, along with others and also with a  that you are either hypocritical or just so inconsistent that it becomes difficult to follow your train of thought.
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on May 5, 2017 13:44:32 GMT
You're alive!!! Had us all worried there for a month or nine.  Alive and well thanks. Retired last year at the grand old age of 48 so have had other things to occupy me, but getting back up to speed now. (Early retirement thread was fascinating, everyone should have a read).
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on May 5, 2017 14:31:21 GMT
Loan term is temporary, class is permanent, arf arf.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on May 5, 2017 14:48:35 GMT
1. I define high class select loans as those paying 12% with very long unexpired terms. Investor appetite as evidenced by activity on the SM seems to support my definition. Therefore there is no inconsistency in my comments. 2. my way is right and your way is wrong. 1. I would consider your definition to be 'popular' loans and not a definition of 'high class' loans, as such I cannot agree that 'activity on the SM seems to support (your) definition'. I think there is a very critical difference between those two but as always am happy to agree to disagree on that point. I would point out that I believe using your definition you have just informed the community that 2 of the 3 loans that this thread refers to are in fact 'high class' loans. 2. You are missing the key point in that you do not appear to have any consistency in 'your way'. In no way was I implying that your way was wrong as I am not sure which of your multiple 'ways' you are referring to. Merely pointing out, along with others and also with a that you are either hypocritical or just so inconsistent that it becomes difficult to follow your train of thought. I get you. In a way I am saying that the terms 'bad loan' and 'high class loan' are not mutually exclusive. I can see it sounds muddled but I am using bad loan to define the borrower/security etc. and I am using high class loan to define the liquidity, remaining term and interest rate. An example I would give would be the Alpine themed house by the famous waterway. A 'bad loan' but also a 'high class loan' - (by my definitions).
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on May 5, 2017 15:41:41 GMT
ilmoro may need to update the Ly glossary.
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on May 5, 2017 16:14:52 GMT
1. I would consider your definition to be 'popular' loans and not a definition of 'high class' loans, as such I cannot agree that 'activity on the SM seems to support (your) definition'. I think there is a very critical difference between those two but as always am happy to agree to disagree on that point. I would point out that I believe using your definition you have just informed the community that 2 of the 3 loans that this thread refers to are in fact 'high class' loans. 2. You are missing the key point in that you do not appear to have any consistency in 'your way'. In no way was I implying that your way was wrong as I am not sure which of your multiple 'ways' you are referring to. Merely pointing out, along with others and also with a that you are either hypocritical or just so inconsistent that it becomes difficult to follow your train of thought. I get you. In a way I am saying that the terms 'bad loan' and 'high class loan' are not mutually exclusive. I can see it sounds muddled but I am using bad loan to define the borrower/security etc. and I am using high class loan to define the liquidity, remaining term and interest rate. An example I would give would be the Alpine themed house by the famous waterway. A 'bad loan' but also a 'high class loan' - (by my definitions). I get you too. These definitions certainly make sense of some previous posts, and certainly clear up my understanding of bad vs high class in this context. Back to the original point... With reference to these 3 loans you posted 'Without scrutiny, it would be like a government without any opposition. If we can force U-turns on bad loans etc. then we have done our job.
Opinions, concerns and issues raised by investors helps to keep the management in check and, ultimately, helps everybody - the platform included.'By this I read that as a community, we could 'force U-turns on bad loans' and thus have 'done our job' and 'help(ed) everybody' by ensuring these types of 'bad' loans were not accepted onto the platform. Then I haven't done any DD ...... I agree these loans sound bad......However I will be investing modest sums in both the 12% loans.......liquidity will be great for the first month or so. It is 12% in the bag.......sell like hot cakes on the SM. I am happy to invest in new, rare beast 12% loans and I am glad a few others will not, as that increases my allocation.
I think the original query showed some confusion over whether these two statements seem incongruous. I took this as meaning that forcing a U-Turn, which helps everyone including the platform would be best achieved by the community not engaging with these loans if that were the weight of opinion. If in this community based scenario you are then 'happy to invest' then are you also not 'doing your job'. Just for clarity I fully agree with your original statement, in fact some time ago the platform pulled the so-called 'toxic wasteland' loan from the pipeline which I believe was in part due to the views of members of this community. I am finding it difficult to then understand your second post which seems to suggest that as it is a 'bad' loan the best way to handle it is to buy it and pass on that responsibility at an early opportunity. Not trying to be difficult but I just find the two strategies/concepts to be diametrically opposed. Apologies in advance for the selective quoting which I hope you can see has been done purely to coalesce the post not to attempt to misquote you. My forum skills are insufficient to have fully linked to both the original posts. I am of course happy to amend to re-quote in full.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on May 5, 2017 16:21:13 GMT
I get you. In a way I am saying that the terms 'bad loan' and 'high class loan' are not mutually exclusive. I can see it sounds muddled but I am using bad loan to define the borrower/security etc. and I am using high class loan to define the liquidity, remaining term and interest rate. An example I would give would be the Alpine themed house by the famous waterway. A 'bad loan' but also a 'high class loan' - (by my definitions). I get you too. These definitions certainly make sense of some previous posts, and certainly clear up my understanding of bad vs high class in this context. Back to the original point... With reference to these 3 loans you posted 'Without scrutiny, it would be like a government without any opposition. If we can force U-turns on bad loans etc. then we have done our job.
Opinions, concerns and issues raised by investors helps to keep the management in check and, ultimately, helps everybody - the platform included.'By this I read that as a community, we could 'force U-turns on bad loans' and thus have 'done our job' and 'help(ed) everybody' by ensuring these types of 'bad' loans were not accepted onto the platform. Then I haven't done any DD ...... I agree these loans sound bad......However I will be investing modest sums in both the 12% loans.......liquidity will be great for the first month or so. It is 12% in the bag.......sell like hot cakes on the SM. I am happy to invest in new, rare beast 12% loans and I am glad a few others will not, as that increases my allocation.
I think the original query showed some confusion over whether these two statements seem incongruous. I took this as meaning that forcing a U-Turn, which helps everyone including the platform would be best achieved by the community not engaging with these loans if that were the weight of opinion. If in this community based scenario you are then 'happy to invest' then are you also not 'doing your job'. Just for clarity I fully agree with your original statement, in fact some time ago the platform pulled the so-called 'toxic wasteland' loan from the pipeline which I believe was in part due to the views of members of this community. I am finding it difficult to then understand your second post which seems to suggest that as it is a 'bad' loan the best way to handle it is to buy it and pass on that responsibility at an early opportunity. Not trying to be difficult but I just find the two strategies/concepts to be diametrically opposed. Apologies in advance for the selective quoting which I hope you can see has been done purely to coalesce the post not to attempt to misquote you. My forum skills are insufficient to have fully linked to both the original posts. I am of course happy to amend to re-quote in full. Let's be frank. Whilst quite legitimate and legal, it is morally corrupt IMHO to knowingly buy Bad Loans with the express intention of dumping them on someone else before maturity. Yes, yes, I know, "Caveat Emptor" etc, but I feel "this is not a good reflection on one", as the Queen might say.
|
|
c88dnf
Member of DD Central
Posts: 364
Likes: 266
|
Post by c88dnf on May 5, 2017 19:28:22 GMT
I wouldn't invest in these at 19%, let alone 12% - and 10% is a joke For me, the issue surrounds the security, which seems to have bloated valuations, and even then, the 90day MV is too close to the bone. VRs are increasingly looking like they provide valuations to suit the loan as opposed to find the actual MV No thank you ... All this borrower's "hotels", according to Tripadvisor recommendations, appear to be maintained to a consistent standard, so due consideration should be given to the actual likelihood of attaining these enthusiastic valuations, should default occur and selling be required. I've done my DD, so I'll pass also.  The 12% caught my attention, presumably as intended, but when I read the descriptions I decided to pass. That's as in "hospital pass". Another useful lesson that you really MUST read up on every loan, not just grab at the headline interest rate.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on May 5, 2017 22:12:38 GMT
I get you too. These definitions certainly make sense of some previous posts, and certainly clear up my understanding of bad vs high class in this context. Back to the original point... With reference to these 3 loans you posted 'Without scrutiny, it would be like a government without any opposition. If we can force U-turns on bad loans etc. then we have done our job.
Opinions, concerns and issues raised by investors helps to keep the management in check and, ultimately, helps everybody - the platform included.'By this I read that as a community, we could 'force U-turns on bad loans' and thus have 'done our job' and 'help(ed) everybody' by ensuring these types of 'bad' loans were not accepted onto the platform. Then I haven't done any DD ...... I agree these loans sound bad......However I will be investing modest sums in both the 12% loans.......liquidity will be great for the first month or so. It is 12% in the bag.......sell like hot cakes on the SM. I am happy to invest in new, rare beast 12% loans and I am glad a few others will not, as that increases my allocation.
I think the original query showed some confusion over whether these two statements seem incongruous. I took this as meaning that forcing a U-Turn, which helps everyone including the platform would be best achieved by the community not engaging with these loans if that were the weight of opinion. If in this community based scenario you are then 'happy to invest' then are you also not 'doing your job'. Just for clarity I fully agree with your original statement, in fact some time ago the platform pulled the so-called 'toxic wasteland' loan from the pipeline which I believe was in part due to the views of members of this community. I am finding it difficult to then understand your second post which seems to suggest that as it is a 'bad' loan the best way to handle it is to buy it and pass on that responsibility at an early opportunity. Not trying to be difficult but I just find the two strategies/concepts to be diametrically opposed. Apologies in advance for the selective quoting which I hope you can see has been done purely to coalesce the post not to attempt to misquote you. My forum skills are insufficient to have fully linked to both the original posts. I am of course happy to amend to re-quote in full. Let's be frank. Whilst quite legitimate and legal, it is morally corrupt IMHO to knowingly buy Bad Loans with the express intention of dumping them on someone else before maturity. Yes, yes, I know, "Caveat Emptor" etc, but I feel "this is not a good reflection on one", as the Queen might say. It's reassuring to know that altruism exists in the investment world. However this could apply to almost everybody who sells out of a loan before its end date. After all, if people were confident the loan would be repaid successfully then why would they be selling it and denying themselves a period of interest. I cannot believe there is anybody on here who on finding out a loan could turn bad has not put it up for sale in a rush. Eg. Somerset.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on May 5, 2017 22:28:53 GMT
"finding out a loan could turn bad" is not the same as " knowingly buy Bad Loans".
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on May 5, 2017 22:36:05 GMT
" finding out a loan could turn bad" is not the same as " knowingly buy Bad Loans". It's a free market determined by supply and demand. Nobody can force anybody to buy a loan part they do not want. If I buy a bad loan and somebody else wants to take it off my hands that is their decision. I am not able to put things up for sale with any sort of warning attached about my concerns. My approach is one of caution and therefore I tend to sell out earlier than most. Clearly there are others who are willing to hold things a bit closer to the wire and who am I to say they shouldn't be able to take on a bit of risk if they consider the risk and reward balance to be acceptable to them.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on May 5, 2017 22:38:45 GMT
You have clearly stated your investment strategy on here and it is well known, I have no further comment/s to make.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on May 5, 2017 23:50:55 GMT
You're alive!!! Had us all worried there for a month or nine. Alive and well thanks. Retired last year at the grand old age of 48 so have had other things to occupy me, but getting back up to speed now. (Early retirement thread was fascinating, everyone should have a read). How much did you start off with? You can tell us, we're all anonymous here. My Belgian buddy never really worked, the 3 million or so he inherited kind of makes work optional, unless astonishingly greedy. He can claim retirement and a claim of investment superiority any time he likes, except he never really worked for that option. Secondly, don't you feel that retirement is getting put on the scrap heap? Or has your savage ambition just died, now replaced by a desire to improve your handicap?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on May 6, 2017 3:56:59 GMT
Alive and well thanks. Retired last year at the grand old age of 48 so have had other things to occupy me, but getting back up to speed now. (Early retirement thread was fascinating, everyone should have a read). How much did you start off with? You can tell us, we're all anonymous here. My Belgian buddy never really worked, the 3 million or so he inherited kind of makes work optional, unless astonishingly greedy. He can claim retirement and a claim of investment superiority any time he likes, except he never really worked for that option. Secondly, don't you feel that retirement is getting put on the scrap heap? Or has your savage ambition just died, now replaced by a desire to improve your handicap? Mods may prefer this in early retirement thread but I can say relinquishing the day to day stress of the City for retirement in the tropics in my 30s has wholly reinvigorated my zest for life rather than the burn-out of being a corporate slave.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,024
Likes: 5,150
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on May 6, 2017 7:36:46 GMT
Secondly, don't you feel that retirement is getting put on the scrap heap? Only if you feel your life is somehow defined by your job alone.
|
|
that you are either hypocritical or just so inconsistent that it becomes difficult to follow your train of thought.
