|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 14, 2018 8:31:02 GMT
If we are now considered creditors of COL I’d say we’re looking at heavy or total loss. Actually, the minute I heard COL were forced into administration I immediately thought game over, total loss. A lot of other members on this forum disagreed with me and I hope to goodness they are right.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 13, 2018 23:45:25 GMT
Thanks for that. I assume then we want them to loose. I have more confidence in an administrator appointed by the FCA. It's hard to say which administrator would achieve the best outcome for lenders. Probably none of them, but it’s hard to imagine any of them could do a worse job than RR are doing.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 13, 2018 23:33:13 GMT
The latest email from RR states that all COL investors are considered to be creditors of COL. I thought that’s exactly what we were not. As I understood it, we were never lending money to COL but were lending money direct to the borrowers and we are still owed by the borrowers.
This whole matter since COL entered administration has been shambolic. I do think RR should be replaced, they’re clearly not up to the job.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 13, 2018 23:22:34 GMT
Steward Our Investor resources with a respectful skill never failing to recognise that without the trust and confidence of your Investors you have nothing, you become Nothing. Well, they wouldn’t quite be left with nothing, they’re all probably multi-millionaires by now. Unfortunately, it”s investors that are more likely to be left with nothing. it shouldn’t have been that hard for LY to substantiate whether this borrower was in a position to repay 14 million quid.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 13, 2018 16:11:02 GMT
Appears they are still taking "Borrowers" words as gospel.
You'd have thought they would have learnt by now and when a borrow suggests something they ask for proof or at least evidence.
We’re owed 14 million quid and LY accepts a verbal “everything’s on track” update from the borrower. Total amateurs
|
|
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
Picasso
Apr 13, 2018 11:47:54 GMT
ozboy likes this
Post by charliebrown on Apr 13, 2018 11:47:54 GMT
It’s total incompetence. The updates are an insult to a 3 year old‘s intelligence.
A painting should be the simplest of assets to shift. Assuming the valuations are anything like correct just take control of the asset and get it up for sale in the next suitable auction.
I really dont understand why the borrower is being allowed to continue to keep lying about “you’ll get the money next week” without any consequences. Time after time after time.
In the long run the best p2p platforms are going to be the ones that take recovery seriously. That’s certainly not FS.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 12, 2018 11:56:12 GMT
02/03/2018 Still on track for payment of interest in the second week of March. 21/02/2018 Borrower is on the process of selling another painting. We have seen written confirmation that the sale is proceeding and will be completed in the second week of March. We therefore expect payment of interest during that week. fundingsecure ..as the last update was over a month ago which clearly has since disappeared into the long grass, can we have another update please with something more definitive ?..thanks Also take a look at the Chagall Painting loan. Not sure whether it’s the same borrower. That loan has been promising since before Christmas that the interest to renew will be “with us next week”. What a total and utter disgrace that FS just let these loans slide and slide and slide without any action whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 10, 2018 13:25:03 GMT
Have to completely agree. I can see no reason whatsoever for RR/The FCA/whoever to disallow transactions but at least allow Lenders to view their own records. Doesn't make sense at all, if it's cost it can't be that much surely? Utter shambles, already being handled badly and doesn't bode well. At all. That would be on the Managerial Principle of "Anything I don't understand must be easy" ?! It is quite likely that reworking the website to be reliably read-only is quite a bit more complex than you might expect. The cost wouldn't be trivial, and who would be authorised right now to make that expenditure? And how would it help the administrator (whoever that turns out to be) to do their job? I’m an IT guy, have been for the past 20 years. I spent 10 years as a software developer. Bringing the website back in a read-only mode wouldn’t be difficult. In the crudest terms any update attempted can just be forced to return an error at the database layer. Not difficult to do, give it to me I’ll do it for free. Looks like a total shambles to me. Weeks have passed and there’s no visible progress.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 9, 2018 13:08:24 GMT
If they refuse to bring back the website then I don’t know my exact position with COL. I do know I had over 10k on the platform (not my biggest p2p) but I don’t know much beyond that. Since I always transfer to COL via my bank I can work out how much I transferred in, but can’t work out things like which loans I was in, which we’re drawn down and which were not and how much I had on my account such as interest paid to me.
Why on earth are they refusing to bring back the website. It’s outrageous. This is not being handled well at all, by anyone’s standards.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 7, 2018 13:23:14 GMT
As we are starting to see loans leaving investors with capital losses (there’s more to come), I think it is unfair to say the blame lies entirely with investors who didn’t understand the risks and didn’t do enough of their own research. Those who have been reading these boards will see many instances of incompetence (from various parties, not only LY) which investors had no control over. It’s also not correct to say assets were sold off quickly (fire sale), some defaults are hitting the 600 days overdue mark and the assets are still unsold. I’ve never seen anyone posting on here who thinks LY is a “bank account” so why do people keep using that as a reference? When did anyone say they thought LY was a “bank account”.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 6, 2018 23:16:29 GMT
Well done Lendy, you did what you said you would do. That’s all we ask. Especially well done on the email that went out, that’s the most transparent email or communication I’ve ever seen from LY. It sets out the facts and there’s no BS. We’re getting there. I was returned over 10k so now the question is do I reinvest it in LY
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 5, 2018 15:24:14 GMT
and keep it? or do what with it exactly? Good question. It barely scratches the surface of the current batch of defaults so distributing it evenly would amount to a hill of beans in the scheme of things, and distributing it unevenly as a 'closing down' event, would no doubt cause howls of protest. Giving it to charity might be a way to go? I doubt anyone would have strong objections; the PF was never a guaranteed safety-net and if lenders are affluent enough to partake in P2P, then ... Speaking as a lender with monies owed (and likely to see some more monies owed) I'd vote giving it to charity. Lendy are boaty people so RNLI might be a good fit ... I wouldn't have a problem with that. ( Kiva could potentially be a popular choice if that route were taken, perhaps as the start of an ongoing initiative in a BondMason stylie.) I don’t like to mix business with charity. We all probably give to charity in our own good ways, I know I do. I came to LY to invest not do charity work. Let’s keep the 2 separate.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2018 13:08:51 GMT
Have just driven to check out this silent site. Really sorry to tell investors that nothing has changed in the last 264 days. Unless someone from Lendy actually does something this will simply go round in circles for ever. The planning department cannot do anything because they have no new plans which would comply with the up to date building regulations so they can not grant any new variation / permission. The borrower cannot do anything because he has failed / refused to submit any new plans and blames the planning department. He is the cause of the problem not the local authority. Meanwhile investors have not received any interest, even at a reduced rate which of course a genuine borrower would offer so as to reduce the eventual final repayment. This borrower has made no effort to repay or to advance the development. He is wasting everyone's time with what amounts to an interest free loan from us. No one will ever get the joke "bonus interest". It will very soon be a glorious new tax year which would be the perfect time to take this piece of land away from this useless borrower, to sell it in the summer and get some cash back for investors. Happy Easter. Great effort, thanks for taking the time to do a drive by and share your findings (or lack of findings as it turns out). If you have local knowledge, any idea whether the valuation looks accurate or whether we’ll soon be voting to sell this off for the price of a cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2018 12:56:48 GMT
Many of the loans pushed out at lower rates of interest and supposedly lower risk profiles have gone bad ( or were always bad). Just goes to show that the interest rate cuts were LY trying to see how far they could push investors and nothing at all to do with risk.
The Cornwall loans are a joke. Over 180 days in arrears and not a shred of evidence that anything has been done to drive recovery. There will probably be a vote soon to seek to sell these off for another big loss for investors.
|
|
|
Post by charliebrown on Apr 3, 2018 11:53:15 GMT
All that really seems to happen here is that some of us investors lose money (by getting wrapped up in defaults) and some gain money (by being lucky enough to avoid defaults). We could just wrap some cash up in newspaper and play a giant game of pass the parcel instead. FS are clearly inept when it comes to recoveries, they’re like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
|
|