ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 27, 2017 16:56:28 GMT
All three renew boxes are there for me. Things to check: - Are you on the pending page?
- Have you scrolled far enough to the right?
- Do you own any of these loans?
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 25, 2017 11:18:42 GMT
These pictures paint a million words. Hi Ali Any chance ali can take a picture and put it on this website? I'll take pictures next time I'm in Whitehaven, of course. A bit too far for me to go just for this, however. Sorry.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 25, 2017 7:11:08 GMT
Seems they have all been repaid today. Not that simple. They have moved to the completed page, but I still hold mine and haven't been repaid so far (I have the renew box ticked). I agree it's most likely that they are going to be repaid today, but it would be nice to know!
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 22, 2017 18:39:23 GMT
You might be right, but I'm not convinced. My hunch is that improved liquidity would help to sell the PM loan parts as much as the preference for SM loan parts would hinder their sale. I suspect that quite a few of the loan parts currently on the SM are there because people are hoping to use the proceeds to buy other loan parts. Even if they buy loan parts on the SM the buying chain must eventually end up with either a withdrawal or a PM loan purchase. I think the biggest downside for MT is the added complexity, but I thought it was at least worthy of consideration. You cannot distinguish though, prime example is Wigan. Currently around 63k on pm and 52k on sm. Sorry, Archie. I'm obviously having a senior moment. Can't distinguish what from what? I'd guess your point is that the majority of the sellers of Wigan aren't intending to buy Wigan on the SM (although some people do like to balance their tranches, so some will be). Not sure I understand how that relates, however. My thesis is that a number of the Wigan sellers are intending to buy Bollington (or maybe Lancs or Edinburgh whose sellers then might buy Bollington or Wigan) and so every sale of an SM loan part has the potential to end up facilitating a PM sale. Not all, of course; some will end up as a withdrawal, but enough to make a positive effect on the PM.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 22, 2017 18:22:11 GMT
Anything that makes loans on the second market more attractive than loans on the primary market is a bad idea. This is particularly true where MT are trying to fill the latest tranche of a multi-tranche loan. If earlier tranches are more attractive it will make it more difficult for them. You might be right, but I'm not convinced. My hunch is that improved liquidity would help to sell the PM loan parts as much as the preference for SM loan parts would hinder their sale. I suspect that quite a few of the loan parts currently on the SM are there because people are hoping to use the proceeds to buy other loan parts. Even if they buy loan parts on the SM the buying chain must eventually end up with either a withdrawal or a PM loan purchase. I think the biggest downside for MT is the added complexity, but I thought it was at least worthy of consideration.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 22, 2017 18:06:16 GMT
An interesting idea on the Lendy board which might be worth considering: A thought - rather than an explicit lender-selected discount (with all the issues that this creates in such a low-volume market), what if the accrued interest that a seller forfeits were instead credited to the buyer(s). Assuming this is visible (or at least fairly well-known), this would presumably create additional demand for loans that have had parts on sale for a long time, thereby reducing the difference between "short" and "long" queues (making "rare" loans easier to buy, as some buyers would avoid them because there's no accrued interest associated with the loan parts for sale, and "common" loans easier to sell within a reasonable amount of time, because some buyers will actively seek them in order to get additional interest "for free").
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 13, 2017 8:54:16 GMT
ali : daft question probably, but are we absolutely 100% certain this is the correct site ? That is not an invitation from a board moderator to publicly identify the borrower I should add :-) Yes. Well, as certain as I can be of anything. I have pictures dating back to September which show the previous name of the building on the outside (which I can't share for obvious reasons). I could go into more detail about where the location is, but that's hard to do without at least partially identifying the borrower.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 12, 2017 18:29:29 GMT
On the other hand, I'm quite happy getting double interest¹ while Collateral sort it out. Long may it continue ¹ More precisely, interest on £2x capital while only £x capital is at risk of borrower default (£2x capital is still at risk of platform failure). is thats how you feel, then you should purchase more of the loans off SM on both MT and collateral. teach me why if you have 2x quids capital invested, only x quids is in risk of borrower default? what do you mean? I don't know why you think I should purchase more than I already have and am happy with. I have £x invested in this loan with MT and £x invested with COL (£2x total). What might happen? 1) The loan defaults at MT before COL pays them what MT are owed. COL obviously decides not to proceed and repays all its lenders. Net result: £x of my capital is potentially lost (the £x invested at MT). 2) COL decides not to proceed for it's own reasons and repays all its lenders. Net result: £x of my capital is at risk at MT. 3) COL pays MT what they are owed (the loan draws down) and MT repay all its lenders. Some time later the loan defaults. Net result: £x of my capital is potentially lost (the £x invested at COL). There may be a flaw in my logic, but I can't find it.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 11, 2017 20:04:42 GMT
Pictures from today (2017-06-11):
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 10, 2017 15:02:09 GMT
On the other hand, I'm quite happy getting double interest¹ while Collateral sort it out. Long may it continue ¹ More precisely, interest on £2x capital while only £x capital is at risk of borrower default (£2x capital is still at risk of platform failure). The COLL money should be held in a ring-fenced client account until legals are completed, so should not be at risk of platform default until the loan is drawn down. Payment of interest would be at risk. The risk of platform failure is very small, but real. As you say, the money should be in a client account. However, there is always the possibility that it isn't, that COL are hacked and the money stolen, that a spear attack tricks an authorised signature to transfer the money to a thief's bank account, etc. And. yes, you're right in that the risk of losing the accrued "interest" from COL is higher since if COL were to fold we would (I believe) be unsecured creditors. These risks are small enough that I neglected them when deciding to fund the COL side of the loan from my cash pot rather than my p2p pot and I only mentioned them for completeness.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Jun 10, 2017 7:34:39 GMT
On the other hand, I'm quite happy getting double interest¹ while Collateral sort it out. Long may it continue ¹ More precisely, interest on £2x capital while only £x capital is at risk of borrower default (£2x capital is still at risk of platform failure).
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on May 26, 2017 16:04:54 GMT
Ed,
I assume #108 is a duplicate of #106 ?
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on May 19, 2017 10:55:32 GMT
The principles of common sense would lead me to conclude: 1. I would not expect cashback from a purchase on the SM 2. I would not expect cashback from a sale on the SM 3. I would not expect loan parts to be available on the SM until after the loan drawdown I'm not sure I agree with your last point. Is there any platform where that applies? I know it doesn't on MT for example where you can currently trade BPF711 even though it hasn't drawn down yet.
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
MTAU712
May 17, 2017 23:20:22 GMT
Post by ali on May 17, 2017 23:20:22 GMT
Hi all, with more than 50% of the loan still to be taken l was wondering how much the 2nd bidding limit might be..... another £3250 perhaps? Hope everyone is doing well. SannyTwist Yup. Already announced in their email notification (and no doubt elsewhere).
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313
Likes: 311
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
MTAU712
May 17, 2017 21:50:32 GMT
Post by ali on May 17, 2017 21:50:32 GMT
Thanks ilmoro . You've clearly got a better understanding of this than I have yet. But as I understand it, the planning application includes work done outside the ownership boundary. Specifically, resurfacing of part of the highway with porous paving. My concern is that the council originally refused the application and it was only passed by appeal to some higher authority. Would it be possible for one part of the council to refuse permission to do the work on the highway and another to say that the conditions of the planning application weren't met. I've met this kind of double speak from councils before! Just trawled the docs to see if the logical explanation was referenced in any way. The actual initial rejection was on the grounds of the council misinterpreting own policy and because it was seen as impacting on local residents too much, especially noise/air quality ... the appeal officer pretty comprehensively dismissed all the reasons as not really based on fact or too cautious interpretation, the road related bits werent mentioned. Most of the cosnitions refer to this work on the road. I suppose technically the Road Construction Consent could be refused but seems unlikely. Many thanks ilmoro. It's just clicked that the council can't just capriciously refuse permission for the work on the highway. Or at least, they can, but it can be appealed and would presumably be overridden. I think I've just been persuaded to invest
|
|