dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 12, 2017 15:41:13 GMT
Interest doesn't begin to accrue until the 1st June 2017. They pay 70% of it every six months and hold back 30% to be repaid with the capital.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 10, 2017 20:37:50 GMT
It is not acceptable to do this with no notification and no double entry book keeping. I'm surprised it's even legal from a record keeping perspective. They are working on this, hopefully in 3 or 4 months these issues will be a thing of the past. Do you think they'll go back and fix all the ones they've been doing wrong?
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
MAY NEWSLETTER
May 8, 2017 18:42:46 GMT
Post by dzo on May 8, 2017 18:42:46 GMT
I've just sold part of an unremarkable 12% property loan for a 1% premium. If things continue like this FS will surely have to backtrack on limiting premiums to 1% unless they are aiming to have the sort of SM Lendy/SS used to have.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 8, 2017 18:02:52 GMT
You don't have a right to sell! If you need to sell loans you might have to use a site where you can sell at a discount. Such as which one exactly? If it exists, who gets passed the discount: the buyers like ourselves, or the site company itself? Funding Secure let you sell at a discount. The buyer benefits.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 8, 2017 17:59:25 GMT
Someone is buying everything with a discount of 0.30% and over. This change shouldn't affect things. I too would like to see trading in defaulted loans, but it won't happen. It seems something is afoot. I've sold loads of loan parts today. None of them at a discount, and several with premiums of 2-3 percent. It goes to show that FS are wrong when they say loan parts rarely sell at premiums higher than 1 percent. There will be a lot more loans that simply aren't available of the SM in future. Today's Jaguar E-Type will be the first. Normally I would have already listed it for 3 percent, but now I can't put it on the SM at all because it's worth more than the maximum premium.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
Launch of IFISA
May 6, 2017 17:14:38 GMT
Post by dzo on May 6, 2017 17:14:38 GMT
There are no restrictions around transfers of previous years subscriptions. Current year subscriptions, if transferred, must be transferred in full. There is not limit to the number of times ISAs can be transferred. I accept that there are no regulations stopping the multiple transfers of ISA amounts as long as you follow the rules described above, but can a platform be more restrictive? (Such as limiting the number of transfers out of prior year funds an investor could make in a given period.) My understanding is that they can't refuse a transfer out request, but they can say it's all or nothing.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 6, 2017 17:12:51 GMT
It is a gain shown in another box. Doesn't that depend on how the part was acquired? AFAIK, if the part was bought on the SM then the difference between the purchase price and the sale price is a capital gain or loss. And if the part was bought on the PM -- i.e. when the loan was made -- it is a 'simple debt' and there is no tax consequence at all. If the latter is correct, does it apply to renewal loans as well? (i.e. Is a renewal, a continuation of an earlier simple debt, or the ending of one simple debt and the start of another?) I don't think it's that clear cut. FS just say that HMRC might consider it trading if you buy and sell on the SM. As far as I know, they don't report any capital gains to HMRC so it's up to investors decide how to report it.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 6, 2017 8:28:06 GMT
The only innocent explanation I can think of is that the figure they used to display was just calculated as 2% of the total money lent, and that won't work any more since PBL020.
More likely they are embarrassed to admit to how depleted it is. This seems to a consistent trend with Lendy - they have previously paid back loans from their own funds and used to secretly fund interest on overdue loans.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
MAY NEWSLETTER
May 5, 2017 18:52:22 GMT
dan1 likes this
Post by dzo on May 5, 2017 18:52:22 GMT
Very disappointing news about the new 1% limit for premiums and discounts. If this was to stop "inappropriate" trades, why not just stop people selling to themselves? Any trade involving an ISA at an off-market price would need to be blocked to be in keeping with the ISA rules, so this is probably easier than having one set of rules for the ISA and another for the standard accounts. It also gets around the thorny issue of undisclosed accounts of spouses trading with each other. It seems like a fudge to me. If the market price is (or would be) a 3% premium and you're selling to your ISA account at a 1% discount that's still problematic.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
MAY NEWSLETTER
May 5, 2017 18:06:18 GMT
Post by dzo on May 5, 2017 18:06:18 GMT
Very disappointing news about the new 1% limit for premiums and discounts.
If this was to stop "inappropriate" trades, why not just stop people selling to themselves?
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 4, 2017 17:44:25 GMT
I've found their source code:
`Tranche ${tranches.length}`;
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 3, 2017 7:23:44 GMT
The server was uncontactable for about 20mins, but my virtual connection stayed up (didn't need to log back in). So the server didn't get reset. Session data could be stored in a database on a separate server.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on May 2, 2017 19:49:20 GMT
...lenders will soon realise that "DEF" simply means 180+ rather than actually defaulted in any real way. ISTM that any borrower who has allowed their loan to become at least six months in arrears has defaulted in a real way. But that's JMHO and I'd be pleased to learn of circumstances where that might not be the case. Apart from the label, what's the difference between IA and DEF? I think DEF should be reserved for when the receivers are sent in. At the moment it is completely meaningless.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on Apr 30, 2017 20:03:40 GMT
/mod hat off AIUI L are not allowed to fund the loan with their own platform cash (FCA rules, to avoid risk of platform sinking itself), but no reason why a 'very closely associated' underwriter could not do so, and then release onto the SM as and when. Not sure if L still have official underwriters (out of my league), but I'm sure they know folks with the odd spare £1m or two. Yes, 50k here and c75k on another lower rate loan recently. Spin aside - that even the lower rate loans are many multiples over-subscribed - I wonder if, say, a director could take this on their personal account and the platform remain FCA compliant? (The mysterious m**l certainly helped SM liquidity in some of its recent log-jams.) If something like that is happening then it's surely not sustainable. Maybe Lendy need to accept that recent rates have been slightly too low.
|
|
dzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 150
|
Post by dzo on Apr 28, 2017 16:16:02 GMT
Hopefully this will be a flexible IFISA. The deal flow on ABL is quite sedate and I wouldn't want cash sitting idle until the next loan arrives.
|
|