elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Aug 24, 2017 17:11:19 GMT
Sorry if its already come up, but given this loan still has several months to run, why has this loan been defaulted ? The borrower hasn't been paying the interest, it has been subsidized by MT for a bit but they are now stopping. Loan can default any time it's apparent the borrower can no longer meet the terms of contractual repayments, particularly as this was being serviced by the borrower ie no retained interest. One gripe would be this is the first MoneyThing update on the loan whereas other platforms manage full repayment histories and updates for such loans.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Aug 24, 2017 17:29:38 GMT
While not necessarily disagreeing with the principle of SM trading of defaulted loans, I do disagree with changing terms and conditions during the course of a loan and particularly on the basis of a poll of users of a forum which is unlikely to comprise all holders of the loan. The terms and conditions are supposed to have a basis in law and not just changed like this. Perhaps you should speak to your solicitors first ......
This is my issue, even worse than changing the T&Cs (with no cooldown timescale) is to just ignore them when it suits. I don't have a problem with ignoring them if the end result doesn't actually disadvantage the customer(s), which in this case it would appear not to. I frequently gets T&Cs ignored on a discretionary basis (someone just swapped a dead pair of scales 2+ years old, even though the rules said they shouldn't).
|
|
sirius
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 141
|
Post by sirius on Aug 24, 2017 17:30:58 GMT
applets
You stated: ".......................The terms and conditions are supposed to have a basis in law and not just changed like this. Perhaps you should speak to your solicitors first ......"
Wise advice, the T&C's form the very foundation of any contract.
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Aug 24, 2017 18:03:39 GMT
I do not have any investment in this loan, however, just like others, i wonder why the sudden surge of availability on SM today, just before the default news came about to everyone.
I do not think it is fair if lenders knew the news earlier (from platform administrator) than those who were not in it. Was this the case?
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Aug 24, 2017 18:12:13 GMT
As MoneyThing has decided to ignore clause 12.8 of its new terms and conditions and permit SM trading in a defaulted loan on Saturday, perhaps we could be told what other terms and conditions will be ignored during the recovery process.
It will certainly be more difficult to lend on MT in future in the knowledge that the terms and conditions that apply when a loan is made may be varied during the life of a loan and then ignored completely when it suits. Credibility, credibility, credibility. Unless MT managed to get ALL its investors to agree to the change of t+cs to suit its current climate. otherwise it is not fair.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 24, 2017 18:16:52 GMT
According to the VR the property is let at £60,000 p.a. until February 2018. There will be overheads, but this ought to be sufficient to more or less cover the annual interest of £55,000. Why hasn't it been?
|
|
|
Post by p2ples on Aug 24, 2017 18:29:45 GMT
Is is just me/my browser or do we also have an MTAT787 with the same description? (I have some parts therein it seems) Oh and the loan name for MTAT788 reads as: "DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE">(MTAT788) DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE" where it should read: "(MTAT788) DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE" I've just checked my funds and on 24/8 received MTAT709 capital and interest repayment, then on 24/8 the same amount of capital shows as a purchase in MTAT788 (default of MTAT709).
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 24, 2017 18:33:43 GMT
Is is just me/my browser or do we also have an MTAT787 with the same description? (I have some parts therein it seems) Oh and the loan name for MTAT788 reads as: "DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE">(MTAT788) DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE" where it should read: "(MTAT788) DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE" I've just checked my funds and on 24/8 received MTAT709 capital and interest repayment, then on 24/8 the same amount of capital shows as a purchase in MTAT788 (default of MTAT709). Perhaps this is the only way to change the interest rate on the loan, i.e. the database isn't designed to hold different interest rates for different periods for one loan.
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Aug 24, 2017 18:39:13 GMT
I do not have any investment in this loan, however, just like others, i wonder why the sudden surge of availability on SM today, just before the default news came about to everyone. I do not think it is fair if lenders knew the news earlier (from platform administrator) than those who were not in it. Was this the case? Had it been a couple of the other loans, those that crop up with monotonous regularity, I think we could have said 'coincidence'. Not with this one, though
|
|
robski
Member of DD Central
Posts: 772
Likes: 462
|
Post by robski on Aug 24, 2017 18:54:16 GMT
I do not have any investment in this loan, however, just like others, i wonder why the sudden surge of availability on SM today, just before the default news came about to everyone. I do not think it is fair if lenders knew the news earlier (from platform administrator) than those who were not in it. Was this the case? Had it been a couple of the other loans, those that crop up with monotonous regularity, I think we could have said 'coincidence'. Not with this one, though I didn't see any and I was very active on MT and forums today, and 709 shows NO purchases today, as I was waiting on the repayment so I could withdraw the funds (Edinburgh)
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Aug 24, 2017 19:00:29 GMT
Had it been a couple of the other loans, those that crop up with monotonous regularity, I think we could have said 'coincidence'. Not with this one, though I didn't see any and I was very active on MT and forums today, and 709 shows NO purchases today, as I was waiting on the repayment so I could withdraw the funds (Edinburgh) Hopefully the 'purchases' were just when our money was transfered from one loan to the other.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Aug 24, 2017 19:13:59 GMT
I do not have any investment in this loan, however, just like others, i wonder why the sudden surge of availability on SM today, just before the default news came about to everyone. I do not think it is fair if lenders knew the news earlier (from platform administrator) than those who were not in it. Was this the case? What sudden surge of availability? The last recorded trade on the old loan number is ten o'clock last night (£50 odd). Nothing today. I think you're looking at all the rolled-over transfers into the new (defaulted) loan.
|
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Aug 24, 2017 23:08:27 GMT
The borrower hasn't been paying the interest, it has been subsidized by MT for a bit but they are now stopping. Loan can default any time it's apparent the borrower can no longer meet the terms of contractual repayments, particularly as this was being serviced by the borrower ie no retained interest. One gripe would be this is the first MoneyThing update on the loan whereas other platforms manage full repayment histories and updates for such loans. To go from no updates at all straight to default is quite a leap. Information on repayments needs to be transparent. Contrast this with the storage facility loan (MTAH474) where an update in July informed lenders that there were minor arrears on the account. What was the difference with this loan that meant a similar update could not be provided to lenders?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Aug 24, 2017 23:13:11 GMT
The update on the web site still shows it as being made SM'able Saturday 1pm... Now that has gone and I'm slightly confused. In the latest update MT say - "............ due to demand from MoneyThing lenders, we are intending to allow secondary market trading in defaulted loans, subject to clear risk warnings being provided to any would be purchaser of such loans that the loan is in default and warning of the additional risks involved with purchasing a defaulted loan on the secondary market. We will update the Lender Terms and Conditions in due course to reflect this change."But then it says - "In the meantime, as per our current Lender Terms and Conditions, we will no longer be enabling secondary market trading in (MTAT788) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan as previously indicated earlier today."
SM trading was to be allowed from Saturday - when the t&cs said it wouldn't be. Now the t&cs are to be amended to permit this, it won't be tradable on the SM. This seems a bit of a contradiction. Does this mean this loan will become tradable in due course but not as early as Saturday? If so, when?For the record, my view is that loan parts should be tradable in defaulted loans - but only if there is a very clear warning against the loan (in red) that the loan is in default and the arrangements as regards default interest etc. are clearly set out against that loan. I'm led to believe there a few investors happy to buy into such loans given the higher default interest rate and their tax arrangements in the event of a loss. Also, to protect people who were drunk or who clicked the wrong button, perhaps it would be good to offer a manual investment reversal process within 24 hours of the purchase. A sort of cooling off period to help people who have made a mistake and started panicking? (Don't know, just a late night thought that maybe an extra level of protection would be desirable in such cases).
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Aug 24, 2017 23:24:33 GMT
Loan can default any time it's apparent the borrower can no longer meet the terms of contractual repayments, particularly as this was being serviced by the borrower ie no retained interest. One gripe would be this is the first MoneyThing update on the loan whereas other platforms manage full repayment histories and updates for such loans. To go from no updates at all straight to default is quite a leap. Information on repayments needs to be transparent. Contrast this with the storage facility loan (MTAH474) where an update in July informed lenders that there were minor arrears on the account. What was the difference with this loan that meant a similar update could not be provided to lenders? agree with you. also thanks for highlighting 474. i did not know about the arrears (although thankfully sorted out)
|
|