carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 26, 2018 22:46:28 GMT
The poll did not say that 55% of Moneything lenders wanted discounting. What it said was that 55% of people who answered the poll wanted it. Those who did answer represent a small (and selfselecting) proportion of the overall population of customers, or indeed may not even all be customers at all. <snip> Fair point but I remember that when SM discounting was first loosely discussed I failed to understand what damage it would do - my conclusion was none.
If I hold £xx of whatever loan which is clean and I'm prepared for whatever reason to offer that loan at a discount - then surely if a willing buyer is prepared to purchase what harm is there in that to the purchaser.
I'm probably dense as I simply cannot understand folks that are against it. I fully respect their opinion which of course they are entitled to, but I simply cannot understand their negativity towards discounting. So I stand to be enlightened on that one.
Sure, as I said later in the post, I think I'm in favour of it as well. My point was simply that using the poll as evidence that 55% of all MT customers think that, as the poster I quoted did, is not correct.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 26, 2018 16:57:37 GMT
Bugs4me...thanks .And...exactly,MT should consider it .After all,at the time of the poll ( and I would hazard a guess and suggest the % could now be much higher ) 55% of their CUSTOMERS wanted discounting they should implement it ...I hope they are looking The poll did not say that 55% of Moneything lenders wanted discounting. What it said was that 55% of people who answered the poll wanted it. Those who did answer represent a small (and selfselecting) proportion of the overall population of customers, or indeed may not even all be customers at all. Personally I'm slightly in favour of discounts/premiums, but I think it's important to keep in mind what the poll actually showed, and not treat it as some sort of solid indicator of widespread support.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 19, 2018 12:34:15 GMT
I am getting slightly tired of this "low info, big hype" style of information release from platforms. Would be much happier if they (not just Kuflink) would be upfront about exactly what is changing, what the new structure will be, and the reasons for the change.
As for the specific changes here, I'm not enthused with joy. Pretty clearly this reduces the amount of money K need to put at risk, presumably by a rathee significant amount, since it now only needs to cover 20% of total expected defaults rather than 20% of the loanbook. This brings with it an additional risk - we need to trust Kuflink's projections of future defaults.
I'd be much happier if we'd been provided with more information about how the new system would work, clarity about calculations etc. As it is, from the info provided, I'm not sure why I should choose Kuflink over other platforms.
Something in Kuflink's favour might be if the new structure meant that loans in Autoinvest and ISA were 20% covered instead of the current 5%, but it's not clear to me whether that is the case.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Kuflink (KUF)
Kuflink
Apr 10, 2018 12:42:39 GMT
jnm21 likes this
Post by carolus on Apr 10, 2018 12:42:39 GMT
Hello All, I can confirm both the refer a friend and 3% cashback offer are still running. The 3% cashback will end at midnight on Thursday 12th April, you can find the terms and conditions on the Auto-Invest page when you are logged into your account. Our refer a friend offer will be changing as of Friday 13th, all referrals after midnight on 12th April will have to invest a minimum of £500 to be eligible for cashback! As for having a select-invest option with our IF-ISA, this is not something we are looking to add to our platform at this moment, however as said before it is something we will look into for the future! Olivia. Hi Olivia, Just wondering, what is it that will have to happen before midnight on 12th April? Would they need to have invested £200 before this, or simply have registered using the referral link before that?
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 10, 2018 11:03:01 GMT
Estate agent has received offer(s) and recommended that the Administrator accepts the highest offer. Hopefully MT will now reveal the price of this highest offer and the implications for lenders and when completion is anticipated. Apologies if this is a stupid question, but from where are you getting this information? I can't see any recent update on MT.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Kuflink (KUF)
Kuflink
Apr 10, 2018 10:21:26 GMT
drphil likes this
Post by carolus on Apr 10, 2018 10:21:26 GMT
Just received an email notifying that the refer a friend offer will be changing at midnight on 12/4 to £100 each for £500 invested, instead of £200.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Property Moose
SPV 14
Apr 3, 2018 23:10:49 GMT
Post by carolus on Apr 3, 2018 23:10:49 GMT
Option 1 - 74.72% voted 75% vote required so option 1 did not pass. Surely a bit of common sense here should mean it is rounded up to 75%? I don't see why - if 75% is the requirement, and 75% was not met then surely it would be inappropriate to round the result in such a way?
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 2, 2018 17:36:21 GMT
I vaguely recall being assured that this wasn't going to be the case by propertymoose? The goal posts get moved... And moved.. And moved As far as I recall, I'm pretty sure they've consistently said that all properties are moving to quarterly payments.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 1, 2018 1:46:30 GMT
On the court hearing, I understand the adjourned hearing will be in Manchester whilst the original was in London Were you able to find additional information about the hearing beyond that which is in the leaked report? I've been trying to find some record of the original hearing, but hsven't been able to spot anything in the report that gives the location of the various hearings.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 27, 2018 7:54:31 GMT
dualinvestor Apologies if I've misunderstood, but is your entire post aimed at me? If so, I think you have misinterpreted what I've said. In fact, I've specifically (and repeatedly!) said that I don't think this is a bad result, that it could have been far worse, and that I could live with all of my defaulted loans returning 90%+ of capital. I've also said several times that the loans on MT can't possibly be regarded as risk free as they carry a significant level of risk. If I've said anything to the contrary then please let me know where. If not, did you mean to tag a different poster? One final point: I would, in some sense, be "disappointed" if you told me that the outcome of a specific loan would be that it would that it defaults and returns 90% of capital - there are many more preferable outcomes. However, I would not be "surprised" that it would happen to some loans, and indeed would be satisfied if I knew that all of my defaulted loans would return 90% of capital.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 26, 2018 22:01:57 GMT
Okay, I partially take your point. I think we are talking about slightly different things here. My (and I think others) point is not that this is an overall great outcome - of course it would be much better had the loan not defaulted, and I would go into a loan hoping that this was not the outcome. However, given that the loan has defaulted, this is a relatively good outcome. If all of my loans returned 90% of capital I would not be very happy, but if all of my defaulted loans returned 90-95% of capital I would be fairly satisfied. Where I do disagree with you is about expectation. I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to go into these sorts of loans with the expectation of having all capital and interest returned - there is (a lot) of risk involved, and that means that you should expect that some loans may suffer a capital loss. The point is that you would expect your overall loan portfolio to have positive return, not every single individual loan. Similarly, I'd agree that you'd hope that in general a default on a 65% LTV loan would return more on a 70% LTV loan, but that doesn't mean your expectation should be for the entire amount to be repaid. Fundamentally I don't think you can judge risk by considering only the stated LTV - and in this case the fact it was a higher and average rate loan (and not much much lower) should suggest that it was not risk-free. Sorry, but why are you (and many others) considering this loan 'done' with the 90% recovery on the asset? The borrower took over 2 millions of our hard-earned money without doing anything obvious (no planning, no works on this property). He is well off with many other assets (including a plane). It looks obvious to me that MT should and will pursue the borrower in court to get the rest refunded, as should be done with any default. The borrowers have a legal duty to give back the money that was lent to them and if the security is not enough, they are certainly the ones that should pay for the missing part. I do expect 100% effort to recover the full capital and will not accept anything less. I don't think I actually said recovery of this loan was done, nor did I say that I would expect MT to do anything other than try their hardest to recover all capital and interest. What I did say was that a) I would not expect to recover all capital on all loans like this that default; and b) that given this loan has defaulted this is a relatively good outcome. I admit that I could have explicitly described the outcome as "90-95% recovery from sale of the property along with any further possible future recovert" but at the time I felt that could be taken for granted. EDIT: I do, however, think that if the final return on all defaulted loans was greater than 90% of capital then from a financial point of view that would be satisfactory. It would, of course, be preferable both financially and morally for the returns to be above that.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 26, 2018 19:21:30 GMT
Okay, I partially take your point. I think we are talking about slightly different things here.
My (and I think others) point is not that this is an overall great outcome - of course it would be much better had the loan not defaulted, and I would go into a loan hoping that this was not the outcome. However, given that the loan has defaulted, this is a relatively good outcome. If all of my loans returned 90% of capital I would not be very happy, but if all of my defaulted loans returned 90-95% of capital I would be fairly satisfied.
Where I do disagree with you is about expectation. I don't think it's reasonable or realistic to go into these sorts of loans with the expectation of having all capital and interest returned - there is (a lot) of risk involved, and that means that you should expect that some loans may suffer a capital loss. The point is that you would expect your overall loan portfolio to have positive return, not every single individual loan. Similarly, I'd agree that you'd hope that in general a default on a 65% LTV loan would return more on a 70% LTV loan, but that doesn't mean your expectation should be for the entire amount to be repaid. Fundamentally I don't think you can judge risk by considering only the stated LTV - and in this case the fact it was a higher and average rate loan (and not much much lower) should suggest that it was not risk-free.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 26, 2018 17:20:20 GMT
Or with somebody with unrealistically high expectations? Just think how tough life would be if all defaulting P2P2 loan only repaid 90 -95% of capital High expectations raise quality and performance standards - low expectations do the reciprocal - simples!
Ask your local Primary school teacher for a view - it's that basic.
If I go into loans like this with the expectation of 100% recovery of capital in the event of default, that simply isn't realistic, and all the expectation in the world isn't going to change that. Do you think it is reasonable to expect that loans paying 13% interest would repay all capital every time they default? I'm not saying that there couldn't have been better outcomes, but it was always a possibility that there might be a loss on a loan like this, and this seems far from the worst possible outcome.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 26, 2018 9:45:33 GMT
Obviously a shame that the sale won't cover the full capital amount, but it could be far worse and at the very least means that we have a resolution in a fairly short period of time. I believe the loan paid interest for ten months, which would be just enough to offset a 10% capital loss in the worst case if you were in the loan from the beginning. I'd also point out that this was a loan paying 13% - I hope no-one was too surprised by the fact that there was a chance of losing capital on this. If it were really the case that 65% LTV would be enough to cover all capital all of the time then you would be getting a 13% return for effectively zero risk which isn't really plausible.If you extrapolate that logic you can justify making losses on any defaults irrespective of LTV. Indeed why bother with security if the stated value of that security should effectively be disregarded by lenders because of the interest rate on offer?
I'm not quite sure how you assess loans - but it's clearly somewhat different to mine!! I haven't said that you should ignore the value of security, at all. What I've said is that you should not be surprised that there is a significant amount of risk involved in a loan paying 13%, even if the stated value of the security is enough to cover the entire loan principal. If someone offers me something that I think is a 13% risk free return then either a) They're missing something or b) I'm missing something.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Mar 26, 2018 9:34:40 GMT
The valuation may have been pretty accurate but it seems the buyer was able to exert a late squeeze on the price. Presumably they guessed they were in a stronger position than that reflected in their initial offer. This seems entirely plausible, and is probably an additional risk to bear in mind when thinking about other default situations vs the given valuations. I would imagine many purchasers would expect to be able to squeeze the prices for buying something like this out of administration.
|
|