oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 12, 2018 11:21:31 GMT
Has anyone checked yet whether Col are actually applying the principle that where a loan extension has been granted, our loan parts on the SM are not subject to loss of interest? But note that there are now a number of loans that are up to 2 months beyond term that Collateral don't regard as being either "extended" or in default. As such Collateral will still confiscate all ongoing interest due on those loans if a lender attempts to sell.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 7, 2018 10:52:44 GMT
i cannot see any freebie tickets on the website? Enter discount code CITYAM.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 4, 2018 15:28:54 GMT
b) Trade shows? Good chance. At UK Investor Show QEII Hall, Westminster (freebie tickets).
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 3, 2018 16:21:46 GMT
I don't just support being able to sell at whatever the hell I want to, I demand it. Or perhaps you might demand that platforms without any kind of SM should have one first? I really can't bring myself to get too obsessed about this either way. Some platforms have SMs; some don't. Some have SMs that allow discounting; some don't. Some allow premiums and some don't. Perhaps the simplest approach might be to choose the platforms that meets your preferences and to use those. Vive la différence and all that.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 2, 2018 15:00:32 GMT
I wonder if Peter and Gordon could find the time to append small images of their good selves to the website in order that those who cannot meet them personally can envisage such a circumstance with more reality. Collateral are listed as exhibitors at the "UK Investor Show" at Queen Elizabeth II Centre, in Westminster, 21 April. I expect they'd be pleased to say hello. The greatest show on earth according to the organiser's hype: www.ukinvestorshow.com/exhibitors/. PM me anyone who wants a code for free tickets.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 1, 2018 19:49:29 GMT
It's a change of policy that would only impact loans that are unpopular or go sour. Good loans will always find a buyer. Seems that MT are anticipating more loans going sour.
It will introduce a further judgement for lenders to make and is probable that it will change lender behaviour. The cautious will want to be more sure that new loans will be popular; they may want to exit well before maturity; and there may be greater reluctance to buy into older loans. More new loans that might once have been given the benefit of the doubt may not get away and the move could introduce as many problems as it resolves.
I understand MT's difficulty and don't know what the answer is - other than better DD and transparency by the platform so that lenders can be confident there won't be nasty surprises that weren't known when the loan was launched. There will always be defaults but if lenders see that the risk to them has been increased, then they surely won't be encouraged to lend.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jan 27, 2018 16:25:32 GMT
Being in rolling is the safest place in RS. I’m selling out of RS when PF gets to 105% - if I can! RS ought to be hung out to dry for theoretically maintaining an objective for the PF of 125%+. That figure has become as illusory as the legendary AssetzCapital Provision Fund which is an enigma hiding behind a curtain! I'm getting a little concerned about p2p at the moment. Zopa+ is enduring terminal underperformance, AC and FS maintain an undignified silence about some key bad debts, and RS appear to be unable to maintain a 125% PF cover. Does that all sound sweet? Or does it smell of manure? You may be braver than me. I now have just a fraction of what I once had with RS and will continue to reduce until the PF cover improves. It's just fallen 4.4 points in 5 days so falling to below 105% within a week isn't hard to imagine. With the likelyhood of more unpaid debt, the de facto target needs to be substantially higher than previously, not lower. In the meantime, would rather invest in asset-backed loans where I can know something of the borrower (though sometimes like reading tea-leaves), than a black-box with a "provision fund" that could disappear over-night and leave me indefinitely locked into loans I know little about.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jan 27, 2018 12:28:00 GMT
That's a big drop now showing. Cover down to 112% from 116.4% in just 5 days. Suggests without a decent margin, we could see sub 100% in the blink of an eye - and being in Rolling might not help much.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jan 15, 2018 14:54:05 GMT
Have you considered the albeit unlikely scenario that maybe the loan quality is the problem and not your investors? Afraid that's the factor that limits what I invest on Collateral, not the lack of funds looking for a home. Including, in common with other platforms, those questionable valuations. There are also too many loans going to the same few people (who, in some cases, seem to have no history of previously having completed a development). The risk from picking up a poor quality loan is increased by the way their SM operates, whereby all payment of interest stops as soon as an attempt is made to sell a holding. Which could mean weeks or months of lost interest. So I need to be very certain of holding any Coll loan to term before I buy-in as a change of mind could be costly. Where a loan is as slow-selling as the Stockport loan then it's likely to be equally slow, and therefore expensive, to exit early. Result being that if in any doubt I'll walk away and put my funds somewhere else. Sorry.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jan 12, 2018 16:09:03 GMT
The same old (borrower) faces keep cropping up with depressing regularity on various platforms. As long as lenders are content handing their money to borrowers with histories of insolvency, mysterious events, and defaults on other platforms, they'll keep cropping up. Most of what is known now was already known when the borrower's defaulted Pl*****h loan was offered on MT; see the MT thread. (I wonder whether we'll see the borrower from MT's Ly***m default here any time soon?)
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jan 10, 2018 23:07:00 GMT
Land Registry: Sold 2 Feb 2007 for £600,000 Permission for the current development granted 6 Jan 2015 Sold again 13 Nov 2015 £1,050,000 Major fire destroying development in Oct 2016 (treated as arson) and deserted for more than a year without too much seeming to happen, apart from penetrating damp appearing in the house that will need to be dealt with, but current value now £2,880,000 apparently. Hmm.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jan 7, 2018 12:40:59 GMT
Yeah "great news" but still no cigar. Have I missed something, because it currently looks like lenders will get repayment of the loan in full, with all interest plus a default interest rate of 15% until completion at the end of this month. Looks like a perfect outcome that I'd happily settle for with or without a cigar. (PS. I'm not in it and sold when it started to look wobbly.)
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jan 4, 2018 11:35:42 GMT
I'm confused by these sentences in Moneything's description of the proposed loan: "The works are being carried out by a third-party contractor, Rou****e B**** C****** Limited, on a fixed price JCT and work has begun at site. Rou****e is a new SPV set up by the developer to build out the sites specific to our client. The contractor has been working in construction since 1980 and has completed numerous projects for third party developers as well as building their own projects."
Are "Rou****e" (the new SPV) and "Rou****e B**** C****** Limited" (the third-party contractor) the same entity? Surely they can't be if one has only been set-up recently and the other has been in existence since 1980? And the former has been set up by the developer whilst the latter is stated to be a "third party"? I'd like to see much more precise details of the proposal before I invest. Including what "The contractor has been working in construction since 1980..." means. In what capacity? Was he the CEO of a successful construction company, or has he been a bricky, roofer, hod-carrier or something else? Doesn't look a straightforward build so would be helpful to know what experience a new SPV has of running a project of this kind. When there are so many complications, twists and ambiguities there could be a reason. MT say there will be further drawdowns to come so I'll be waiting to learn a bit more and see what happens to all the borrower's existing loans as listed earlier by CD.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Dec 21, 2017 14:28:01 GMT
MoneyThing . In MT's FAQ the question is asked: "6. Could you clarify the connection of one or more directors of the borrowing company with the developers of the Liverpool flats [(MTAV714) Residential Development in Liverpool?" (ie P*********s) The reply was: "Two of the directors on this loan originally bought the site in Liverpool, obtained planning before selling it on to the current borrower on MTAV714. The loans are unconnected." But the Sales Brochure says: " C**** B*******. Currently developing: • Liverpool P*******s (250 units with retail and NCP car parking)"So could Moneything clarify whether Mr B******** is still connected with the Liverpool development, as stated in the brochure. or not, as stated in the Moneything FAQ. Are there any other connections with the notorious stalled Liverpool developments? It would obviously be helpful to know who sold what to whom, and equally, who bought P*** H**** from whom? What of the others who were directors concurrently with Mr B******** at P*******s until they all resigned (including L** S******, he of the Liverpool Echo reports)?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Dec 20, 2017 14:00:13 GMT
/mod hat off You mean it might not work out as well as the wind farms and gold mining? For shame!! Update posted: "To date, the client has had no luck with room sales. He engaged an agent who appears to have let him down."
|
|