|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 20, 2018 1:17:48 GMT
It sounds like this guy has committed fraud by selling art that he’d already pawned. This is a criminal matter but that doesn’t help us get our money back. The report I just read says the guy is now in Spain in an addiction centre, so it seems he might have spent the money he got from any sale. I don’t hold out too much hope of a recovery (for the money, not for his addictions). The question really should be how was this allowed to happe? Was he able to access the paintings even though they were pawned. Too much trust given to the borrower to “do the right thing”, never a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 19, 2018 22:35:38 GMT
I’m not convinced “claims underway” will yield anything. Some of these claims have been going on longer than brexit. I will believe it when I see it. Furthermore, when offered a quick exit, even at a loss, most lenders vote “yes”. I don’t think anyone wants to endure years of waiting for money back. There’s assets LY could send to action but choose not to. Whether or not they yield anything, going down a route which as you say takes "longer than brexit" is hardly a way to achieve closure - it gave some short-term cash and prevented further losses from the property itself, but still left very open ended how much of a recovery can or will eventually be made, and with very indefinite timescales for how loan any claims may take to reach some kind of resolution.
If some investors choose to believe that the "claims underway" are a waste of time and effort over money that has been definitively lost, that is up to them. Personally, I'm grateful that Lendy do not seem to give up as easily as certain investors would seem to prefer that they did.
I recognise that I'm often stuck in the same loans as others who are desperate to liquidate and acheive closure for a variety of reasons (not least any investors who have sadly passed away, and the executor wants to close all their accounts with a definitive final value), but if there were ever a clear choice between a bigger recovery or a quicker one, in my present circumstances I'd personally go for the bigger recovery.
Unfortunately few of the choices that are put to the vote are that clear-cut - if they were, the platform would undoubtedly not need to put it to the vote... Once the asset is sold I don’t mind LY pursuing other claims to try to recover further funds. My point was I see sale of the asset as the end. If there were further recoveries later then that’s just a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 19, 2018 22:10:38 GMT
Apologies if it's already been discussed but what I could understand is Lendy has first charge on the sheds (so far) and an external Lender has offered 10m additional funding for which they need first charge on the development. Now Lendy has two options: 1. Appoint the administrators as they are not able to fund more tranches and development has stopped or 2. Accept the new Lender's proposal which means the development gets completed sometime in future (hopefully) and it sells for a good price (which means capital + interest + any bonus for both the Lenders). The downside with 1st option is well known and some might even prefer it over second option. I am more inclined towards second option but without losing my first charge which means something equivalent to "equal" charge might just work for everyone and hopefully the development gets completed which means win-win for everyone. In case of recovery, Lendy and new Lender gets proportionate money. I am sure I might have missed a few points and would appreciate other view point/idea on this. Disclaimer: I have a "good amount" invested in DFL019. My understanding is the same as yours. If the new lender has requested an exclusive first charge then it might be unlikely they would settle for an “equal” first charge. If this was put to the vote I’d vote for exploring a quick sale. If we could recover say 50% of our capital quickly then that appeals to me more than 75% of capital recovered very slowly. Just my personal preference as I badly want to forget LY sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 19, 2018 21:54:34 GMT
Realistically LY has no future and no one knows that better than they do. There’s already been motions that the end is in sight with staff leaving the company and Director’s loans being secured against assets. With the ever increasing defaults, the bad publicity, no recovery action, no new loans and the impending court case, it’s a perfect storm of problems that LY will not have the skill, the resources or the desire to try to resolve. It it is interesting that the article apportioned some blame to FCA for standing by and watching this happen and also to lenders for lending without appreciating what they were buying and the huge risks. I have a significant sum invested in LY and I believe I’m only going to get a fraction of it back and following years of receivership action. One has to wonder what criteria the FCA used in granting Lendy authorisation just a few months ago. FCA looking out for the small guy – hard to believe after this!!! Could be argued that Lendy was in a stronger position pre-FCA authorisation! The FCA approval seems to be nothing more than a check list. Do you have A, B and C in place. Anyone who has worked in a regulated environment will agree that once you know what the regulators are looking for it’s easy to satisfy their checklist. The FCA approval in no way says that LY loans are a good investment, nor is the FCA directly looking after investors interests. We saw the way FCA shut down COL putting millions of pounds of investors funds at risk, so I certainly don’t assume FCA is here to help me.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 19, 2018 21:40:45 GMT
80% of my loan book is in default. The remaining 20% doesn’t inspire me with confidence but for the moment at least is considered to be “performing”.
My ratio is a staggering 372%.
My biggest failures are Herc, Wolves Exeter and Sheds.
This ratio is why you will notice that none of my posts are very positive.
In absolute terms I am going to lose a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 19, 2018 21:08:12 GMT
And if Lendy pass the costs onto the Lenders in the future, how many lenders does Lendy think they will have in the future? No wonder they changed their name from Saving Stream! Realistically, I dont think Lendy have a future. Realistically LY has no future and no one knows that better than they do. There’s already been motions that the end is in sight with staff leaving the company and Director’s loans being secured against assets. With the ever increasing defaults, the bad publicity, no recovery action, no new loans and the impending court case, it’s a perfect storm of problems that LY will not have the skill, the resources or the desire to try to resolve. It it is interesting that the article apportioned some blame to FCA for standing by and watching this happen and also to lenders for lending without appreciating what they were buying and the huge risks. I have a significant sum invested in LY and I believe I’m only going to get a fraction of it back and following years of receivership action.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 19, 2018 3:20:57 GMT
Presumably because the ‘sales’ side of Lendy didn’t want to upset the borrower and holds more sway than the ‘credit control’ side The DFL003 borrower is now borrowing money to pay the interest on the loan. He doesn't seem able to complete, even though he reckoned practical completion would be last August. What hope is there for his other pie in the sky schemes. The updates on DFL013 over the last 20 months have been a joke. Talk about Lendy being taken for a ride. Swallowing one bit of nonsense after another, or at best just passing the nonsense on to us. Can anyone find evidence of the so called enhanced planning application that featured over several months leading to the end of 2017 ever having been submitted? Has Lendy seen any evidence of an offer from the mystical purchaser or any evidence of serious attempts to seek refinance? Lendy seems to be quite happy if the borrower just agrees that the situation is unacceptable and says he is thinking about maybe doing something at some time in the future. It is now time for Lendy to call in this loan and to sell the land to the mystical purchaser, if he does indeed exist. I’m concerned about this loan and about this borrower’s other loans; I am in most/all of his loans. There’s clear misrepresentation as most of these loans were given on the basis that the sites would be developed but instead no development has taken place. It’s unacceptable that LY has taken no action at all. With LY’s track record the borrower can start rolling out excuses about having a buyer or a JV partner or all the usual guff. I think in all DEFAULT loans where there’s no hard evidence of a viable exit then receivers should be appointed and instructed to execute a fast resolution. I’m quite sure most lenders would vote for that.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 18, 2018 17:43:30 GMT
Was wondering why LY execute recoveries on some loans, like these loans, very swiftly, yet on other loans they refuse to take any tangible recovery action for years, probably never. These loans were quickly auctioned off, albeit at a significant capital loss, at least providing investors with some money back and a definite closure. The Castle was also a quick disposal, again at a significant capital loss, but there was closure. Why, then, are loans like Gloucester and exeter not auctioned? Why are they left to rot indefinitely and not giving investors closure. On the Lendy platform, we've not got closure on any loan where a loss has been suffered.
Closure would occur when the claims underway are either abandoned or successfully enforced.
I’m not convinced “claims underway” will yield anything. Some of these claims have been going on longer than brexit. I will believe it when I see it. Furthermore, when offered a quick exit, even at a loss, most lenders vote “yes”. I don’t think anyone wants to endure years of waiting for money back. There’s assets LY could send to action but choose not to.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 18, 2018 12:05:49 GMT
/mod hat off
Afaics Ly's revised website is just part of the strategy to wriggle the business away from self select loans to a pooled version, ala Finally Crackedit. This makes it much easier to decide what gets funded, and to keep income rolling in.
Whether it'll work, or is too little too late, gas yet to be determined.
I thinks is only going to work with an entirely new bunch of lenders and some who haven’t researched LY’s past performance. Suspended loans like DFL19 are hidden from the view of the casual website browser, but defaults and capital lost are in plain sight and would be hard to ignore should you be pondering whether to invest. I do want LY to survive but I’m not sure they can recover from the bad publicity and dismal results. All lenders really look for is a good ROI and decent customer experience, LY has delivered neither.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 18, 2018 1:46:07 GMT
Was wondering why LY execute recoveries on some loans, like these loans, very swiftly, yet on other loans they refuse to take any tangible recovery action for years, probably never. These loans were quickly auctioned off, albeit at a significant capital loss, at least providing investors with some money back and a definite closure. The Castle was also a quick disposal, again at a significant capital loss, but there was closure. Why, then, are loans like Gloucester and exeter not auctioned? Why are they left to rot indefinitely and not giving investors closure.
I dont believe LY can survive having delivered such dreadful results and being in a situation where 99% of their customers (lenders that is, obviously not borrowers) want to exit.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 16, 2018 14:28:42 GMT
The saying “once you've ruined your reputation, you can live quite freely” springs to mind.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 15, 2018 14:25:04 GMT
Given the sums involved, there's a very real chance of that being all or nothing. So basically the 3 loans total £1.05M + £1.15M + £0.5M =£2.6775M - Proceeds of sales £1.3M which will be less some fees somewhere so say £1.15M - therefore a basic haircut of almost 60% - nice I’m not in these loans as I really didn’t like the idea of lending to bring the borrower out of receivership. I am however looking at all LY loans to follow the recovery process. LY posting a 4 lines of text update after losing investors over 1 million quid just about sums it up. Over on the FS forum there’s 2 very useful threads, one of which tracks capital losses and the other tracks predicted capital loses and loans that are expected to fail spectacularly. Can we start a similar 2 threads for LY.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 15, 2018 11:44:05 GMT
Something needs to be done, this charade has gone on long enough. Issue a final demand for repayment and appoint Administrators. Auction off the site and return some capital to disgruntled lenders. If LY still want to claim that there’s no losses then simply park the losses under claims underway and kick that can down the road forevermore. Wake up Lendy, your investors have had enough of the perpetual procrastination.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 12, 2018 11:42:44 GMT
IF and it is a big if the claim was found to have merit it would open the floodgates for anyone who ever had a loan and then was refused another suing that by not giving the money you affected their business. It will never happen. We are not Lloyd’s “NAMES” Not quite. It hinges on the merits of the case. Several factors in particular. Is there a contract to fund further tranches? Did the borrower breach ANY conditions of the loan? is there a liability of lenders greater than their investment? Then consequently did Lendy make this clear to "non-sophisticated" borrowers? There will doubtless be many other issues to be considered, and this case, whatever the outcome will surely lead to a clarification of the relationship between lenders-agents-borrowers. The government has deciced P2P is a good way to fund dodgy businesses without risk to the mainstream banking in the case of a meltdown. They won't want it killed off and regulators will be watching carefully. Sorry, again, for having a glass half full outlook. The government, the ombudsman, the FCA, Lendy are not going to protect us in any way. If the case goes against us (I don’t believe any legal dispute has a certain outcome, the same case heard twice might have 2 different outcomes) we would set a precedent that would cause all p2p to look at their contracts and tighten them up, that wouldn’t help our situation as we’d already be stuffed. Regarding the point about us being non-sophisticated (assume you meant lenders not borrowers??) then I always thought, as they say, ignorance is no defence.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Nov 11, 2018 14:21:47 GMT
All of us live in a house, some of us may own it or have decent equity. Is this lady able to pick a few of us at random and ruin us? We are (most of us) ordinary people, we are not institutional investors. I hope the optimism that she has no case is correct but to the lawyers this is just a big lucrative game of chess, they have no concern over what is right and what is wrong, the winning and losing lawyers probably go for a drink together once the case is over. There’s been plenty of innocent people sent to jail and plenty of guilty people allowed to walk free. What can we do to protect ourselves? Relying on LY to be our saviour doesn’t fill me with confidence. I agree, and worry that having a macho stance and throwing your weight behind L's solicitors/barristers could be foolhardy. I think we all believe the court should rule in our favour on the basis of the information we have received. But the "Law is an Ass" comes to mind. I think it is risky not to have our own independent legal advice. HCR is offering that service. They should be already up to speed on this case bearing in mind L's early finance. They are offering a pro-rata monthly cost service. Are there any other legal firms in the running? I guess only ONE investor needs to defend - a successful outcome would apply to all investors (I think!). That was my thoughts too. This lady is wealthy and has a lot more money to throw at this than we do. Money talks. When wealthy people pick a fight with not very wealthy people then the wealthy people usually win. I’d like to see a collective of investors fund a “nominee’s” defence by splitting the cost. LY is not going to do that for us.
|
|