p2ploser
Member of DD Central
Posts: 163 
Likes: 221
|
Post by p2ploser on Dec 19, 2018 23:35:30 GMT
I don’t understand why lenders being hit with this sort of incompetence are not drowning fs with formal complaints. This is not just about losses due to high risk loans with potential high rewards, this is plain incompetence in valuing items then not managing loans properly. Once fs reply to the complaints then those same complaints can be escalated to the fca. If they start getting hundreds or thousands of complaints about one lender they may start to take some action. Valuation varies on a daily basis only this week 2 companies dropped 45% in share value in a day. Try and sell that expensive Rolf Harris painting you put away for your retirement or box set of the Cosby show. Just watch any tv pawn show and you see things go out of fashion. If there were 2 people wanting the items the outcome could be very different. FCA not interested in Pawn loans. 75 to 80% loss is not daily variation. Fs have also allowed these to drag on for over 2 years which hasnt helped. I’m sure the fca receiving hundreds or thousands of complaints about one company would at least demonstrate the issues the lenders of this company are facing. Obviously this is the only shambolic loan on the platform!
|
|
p2ploser
Member of DD Central
Posts: 163
Likes: 221
|
Post by p2ploser on Dec 19, 2018 23:37:00 GMT
If FS use qualified professionals to value assets then they have done all that is required. What is your solution...? Hindsight not included. Oversight and registration of assets needed to improve. Hopefully Whitehaven shone a big spotlight on their deficiencies and gave them a wake up call. I assume that FS will seek redress from these "qualified professionals" although I don't know how FS will ever be able to justify their acceptance of what are obviously false statements made by borrowers re progress on developments. Lets face it FS did nothing to check the progress claimed. Are there any examples of them taking that approach? Be glad if I could find some as at least that would demonstrate them taking some responsibility.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Dec 19, 2018 23:52:11 GMT
I assume that FS will seek redress from these "qualified professionals" although I don't know how FS will ever be able to justify their acceptance of what are obviously false statements made by borrowers re progress on developments. Lets face it FS did nothing to check the progress claimed. Are there any examples of them taking that approach? Be glad if I could find some as at least that would demonstrate them taking some responsibility. From a few hundred £K in FS less than 1% even at risk of any loss . Several loans paid back in the last week and all on track to be resolved within the 24 month limit that I give every loan. Fraud in hindsight should be more on FS radar but their increased site visits show a willingness to learn from past mistakes. Property valuation that are way out would be grounds to raise action. The trains etc here were simple Pawn transactions and are not covered by anything other than the asset.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 20, 2018 8:27:10 GMT
it's not fantastically good either - granted there were a few partial repayments which |I think reduced losses to a mere 25% capital loss for some of the loans. But overall we are still talking about a 75% overall loss
However I still can't reconcile this one - there seems to be 2 loans missing viz
1477496494 Trains - Renewal
1439986541 Railwayana 4 Renewal
Personally I can't account for about 11K but ,much as I enjoy mental puzzles, I am too busy to trace where this is wrong
As a mere mortal (also with a scientific background) I just can't understand your logic of how wonderful your investments with FS are so I congratulate you on your acumen and regard myself as pretty thick in comparison...
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 20, 2018 8:39:01 GMT
I agree - must be pretty difficult to top a 98% loss on a first charge property loan ! Only thing I would say is that for second/third charges we have already had 100% losses (Knaresborough and Wimbledon from memory) and I am convinced we have more to come in 2019...
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Dec 20, 2018 9:40:16 GMT
I personally think in such situations it's usually best for oneself to not let these things get to you and to move on. The energy in complaining to ombudsman in this case is probably more bother than worth unless you had a significant amount invested in the loan. Think the chances of you getting any more money back from the loan than was paid out yesterday are slim, chances of causing some more damage than funding secure has already self inflicted on itself moderate. However what's the point in that if you have other late loans with funding secure.
For me it's simple, I have no confidence in funding secure now, for one reason, they do not do what they claim to, provide loans which are secured on assets. They provide loans to people who are clearly in pretty desperate need for money with inappropriate due diligence on the title or valuations of the asset which is supposed to be securing the loan, or completing sufficient checks that other existing creditors do not already have a claim to the asset.
End result is I am not getting bogged down in the stories of each of my loans, I am taking out what I can from the site and reducing my exposure to the lowest I can. I will probably make a loss which I need to take on the chin and learn from.
|
|
|
|
Post by herrbert on Dec 20, 2018 11:17:33 GMT
Can someone answer this basic question? See below screenshot: It says I had an 'actual return' of -44% (way to go FS!). But 44% of £8.82 is not £1.65. It's per annum. This was dragged for two years, so total loss is approximately 0.44 x 1.44.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Dec 20, 2018 11:17:56 GMT
Can someone answer this basic question? See below screenshot: View AttachmentIt says I had an 'actual return' of -44% (way to go FS!). But 44% of £8.82 is not £1.65. I believe that your return is annualised (i.e. you've lost 44% per year for nearly two years) whereas the overall loan return is absolute (i.e. 81% loss of original capital). FS don't make it easy!
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Dec 20, 2018 13:28:42 GMT
There is still 1 railway loan which have not been completed yet by FS. I assume these railway items were sold to the same dealer but who knows.
Lets hope FS get around to giving an update on these loans soon as well.
For example:
1439986541 Railwayana 4 Renewal £15,239.48 13.00% 29/09/2016 Unredeemed Loan Defaulted 30/11/2018
30/11/2018 We have sold the remaining items and are currently allocating the sale proceeds to the respective loans prior to closing the loans down.
10/07/2018 Unfortunately the dealer has been unable to visit due to other commitments. A visit has now been scheduled for Friday July 13.
|
|
|
|
Post by beepbeepimajeep on Dec 20, 2018 15:03:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Dec 20, 2018 16:07:51 GMT
Why have the following three loans not been allocated and updated along with the twelve others? 1804081423 Maritime Memorabilia - Renewal
1477496494 Trains - Renewal 1439986541 Railwayana 4 Renewal Anyone know? Maritime Memorabilia was closed today without a loan update and a 76% capital loss
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,720
Likes: 2,987
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 20, 2018 16:14:42 GMT
I do wonder if FS were running their own pawn shop (i.e. with their own money) whether losses on this sort of stuff would be as high.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Dec 20, 2018 17:05:08 GMT
I do wonder if FS were running their own pawn shop (i.e. with their own money) whether losses on this sort of stuff would be as high. Pretty irrelevant- they wouldn't have the money to loan! Could equally ask if investment bankers' return would be better if it was their own money. I'd suggest some would be less risky with their own money, while I know plenty of others who are more risky with their own investments.
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Dec 21, 2018 10:26:01 GMT
I personally think in such situations it's usually best for oneself to not let these things get to you and to move on. The energy in complaining to ombudsman in this case is probably more bother than worth unless you had a significant amount invested in the loan. Think the chances of you getting any more money back from the loan than was paid out yesterday are slim, chances of causing some more damage than funding secure has already self inflicted on itself moderate. However what's the point in that if you have other late loans with funding secure. For me it's simple, I have no confidence in funding secure now, for one reason, they do not do what they claim to, provide loans which are secured on assets. They provide loans to people who are clearly in pretty desperate need for money with inappropriate due diligence on the title or valuations of the asset which is supposed to be securing the loan, or completing sufficient checks that other existing creditors do not already have a claim to the asset. End result is I am not getting bogged down in the stories of each of my loans, I am taking out what I can from the site and reducing my exposure to the lowest I can. I will probably make a loss which I need to take on the chin and learn from. I totally agree with you here, pip. We all accept losses as that is the nature of the beast. We all do our homework on what loan to participate in and a part of that is to also weigh up what checks FS (in this case) have ran - (Of course some companies have better assessment teams than others) Whether a loan is given out to someone who is pretty desperate or not, surely that shouldn't matter too much if they have done their homework, goods/assets assessed correctly and a proper costing for their team stepping in to deal with worst case scenarios. If their DD is inaccurate, then they should either change their methods and/or bring in another team to evaluate as the way they are going, I foresee more people losing trust and stepping away from them and this may be a downhill spiral if they start losing investors. I hope this isn't the case and they up their game and get this sorted. Personally, I would rather future loans interest drop by a percent and the monies used for better DD on their side <-- I know that is a little oversimplified, but...
|
|
