arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Dec 12, 2018 13:01:20 GMT
And what, may I ask, is your NARRATIVE arby ? My NARRATIVE is that when I see a view that is so clearly one-sided or blinkered that I felt I should speak. Have FS royally messed up with this? Yes, of course they have. Is their response adequate? In my view, yes. In fact, I would say that by committing to repay both capital AND interest their response it beyond adequate and is actually optimum given the situation (true optimum would be not making the mistake in the first place, but time can't be turned back so you have to look for the optimum course based on where you are, which is in a right mess at the moment).
|
|
mullet
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126 
Likes: 137
|
Post by mullet on Dec 12, 2018 13:05:20 GMT
FS have committed to repay any shortfall, as they should. Mistakes happen- one should judge a company on the action taken to both correct the mistake, compensate for the consequences, and ensure it shouldn't hapen again. In this case it appears FS are acting appropriately on all fronts, but that doesn't fit in with your narrative, does it? I disagree. FS have linked the repayment to that of an entirely separate loan that has no chance of covering this loan, and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Appropriate action would be to repay it at the 6 month term or as soon as possible after ...i.e. now
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Dec 12, 2018 13:07:10 GMT
I do appreciate that FS have taken the matter seriously.
However the fact remains that investors signed up for secured loans on modest residential properties (in one case at 20% LTV) and are now being offered the promise of an unsecured loan to a business in the turbulent world of P2P.
I agree that in this case FS should find a way to buy out investors and save themselves the accruing interest.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Dec 12, 2018 13:10:18 GMT
FS have committed to repay any shortfall, as they should. Mistakes happen- one should judge a company on the action taken to both correct the mistake, compensate for the consequences, and ensure it shouldn't hapen again. In this case it appears FS are acting appropriately on all fronts, but that doesn't fit in with your narrative, does it? I disagree. FS have linked the repayment to that of an entirely separate loan that has no chance of covering this loan, and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Appropriate action would be to repay it at the 6 month term or as soon as possible after ...i.e. now I believe (though may be mistaken) that is only half of what they've done. If that action doesn't provide sufficient funds for redemption (which may well be the case), then they're committing to cover it themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Dec 12, 2018 13:13:32 GMT
And what, may I ask, is your NARRATIVE arby ? My NARRATIVE is that when I see a view that is so clearly one-sided or blinkered that I felt I should speak. Have FS royally messed up with this? Yes, of course they have. Is their response adequate? In my view, yes. In fact, I would say that by committing to repay both capital AND interest their response it beyond adequate and is actually optimum given the situation (true optimum would be not making the mistake in the first place, but time can't be turned back so you have to look for the optimum course based on where you are, which is in a right mess at the moment). Precisely. Your posting is quite clearly one-sided and blinkered that your status has been brought into doubt on more than one occasion. For the record, I don't believe you are a shill but it's obvious to see why so many on here do believe so. You are quick to jump on anything posted negatively about FS and I'm afraid the final straw for me was your posting on the recent advertising campaign that investing in FS was child's play. The FS response is to be expected in the circumstances but only when capital and interest are repaid in full should investors draw conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 12, 2018 13:14:34 GMT
I think there are two things that are worth me commenting on here. a) This is NOT an issue that is unique to FundingSecure. Thincats have similiarly failed to register a significant number of charges at the land registry, and had to repay a number of loans directly from their own balance sheet. There was at least one COL loan (repaid before the collapse) for which there was no charge registered at the LR.
b) From the FS updates on the Barnoldswick Terraced House and Burnley
What worries me greatly is how FS could not have realised this shortly after defaulting these two loans, and as such taken action sooner to review the rest of loanbook.
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 306
Likes: 667
|
Post by copacetic on Dec 12, 2018 13:18:09 GMT
Pretty incredible state of affairs. Thanks to mrclondon for bringing this up in the DD thread. I had thought that the 17th Oct update the "receivers are working to working to obtain vacant possession prior to sale of property" meant that the receivers would have verified the legal status security themselves. Indeed that would have been the first thing they would have done prior to accepting the appointment which was in July. I wonder how long FS knew about this and more importantly what their reverification process on sercurity for other loans is going to turn up? I agree with mullet that since they have promised to repay capital and interest they would be better off repaying investors ASAP rather than waiting for the outcome of another loan. This will save them interest on the loan at 10-12% and possibly allow investors to forget quicker before this thread turns into a 20 page 6 month monster battering their reputation!
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Dec 12, 2018 13:18:19 GMT
I wonder how many other loans have this problem? The previous FS shareholders will loose some of their money hopefully.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Dec 12, 2018 13:20:35 GMT
My NARRATIVE is that when I see a view that is so clearly one-sided or blinkered that I felt I should speak. Have FS royally messed up with this? Yes, of course they have. Is their response adequate? In my view, yes. In fact, I would say that by committing to repay both capital AND interest their response it beyond adequate and is actually optimum given the situation (true optimum would be not making the mistake in the first place, but time can't be turned back so you have to look for the optimum course based on where you are, which is in a right mess at the moment). Precisely. Your posting is quite clearly one-sided and blinkered that your status has been brought into doubt on more than one occasion. For the record, I don't believe you are a shill but it's obvious to see why so many on here do believe so. You are quick to jump on anything posted negatively about FS and I'm afraid the final straw for me was your posting on the recent advertising campaign that investing in FS was child's play. The FS response is to be expected in the circumstances but only when capital and interest are repaid in full should investors draw conclusions. This is the message you're referring to: "The actual method of investing is child's play and much simpler than many other investment methods. I actually interpreted that way. You're suggesting that the ad implies returns are guaranteed. On that point it comes down to interpretation and I agree that if something can be misinterpreted then it's not good" I sincerely believe that most people reading that post would say I was trying to present a balanced opinion. I stated that I interpreted the advertising message differently to the person I was replying to, but that I could see why there could be a different interpretation and I agreed that any possible misinterpretation was bad and should be avoided. So the exact opposite of one sided and blinkered, as you are now accusing me of.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 12, 2018 14:00:51 GMT
Precisely. Your posting is quite clearly one-sided and blinkered that your status has been brought into doubt on more than one occasion. For the record, I don't believe you are a shill but it's obvious to see why so many on here do believe so. You are quick to jump on anything posted negatively about FS and I'm afraid the final straw for me was your posting on the recent advertising campaign that investing in FS was child's play. The FS response is to be expected in the circumstances but only when capital and interest are repaid in full should investors draw conclusions. This is the message you're referring to: "The actual method of investing is child's play and much simpler than many other investment methods. I actually interpreted that way. You're suggesting that the ad implies returns are guaranteed. On that point it comes down to interpretation and I agree that if something can be misinterpreted then it's not good" I sincerely believe that most people reading that post would say I was trying to present a balanced opinion. I stated that I interpreted the advertising message differently to the person I was replying to, but that I could see why there could be a different interpretation and I agreed that any possible misinterpretation was bad and should be avoided. So the exact opposite of one sided and blinkered, as you are now accusing me of. You interpret everything differently arby, and always, hence dan1 's comment. Your comments are consistent and can be regularly relied upon, as can mine. 
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Dec 12, 2018 14:13:36 GMT
This is the message you're referring to: "The actual method of investing is child's play and much simpler than many other investment methods. I actually interpreted that way. You're suggesting that the ad implies returns are guaranteed. On that point it comes down to interpretation and I agree that if something can be misinterpreted then it's not good" I sincerely believe that most people reading that post would say I was trying to present a balanced opinion. I stated that I interpreted the advertising message differently to the person I was replying to, but that I could see why there could be a different interpretation and I agreed that any possible misinterpretation was bad and should be avoided. So the exact opposite of one sided and blinkered, as you are now accusing me of. You interpret everything differently arby , and always, hence dan1 's comment. Your comments are consistent and can be regularly relied upon, as can mine. Fair enough. It's also possible that when your view is consistently negative, that a balanced opinion may appear to be a one-sided rosy view  As in this thread where I'm being told I'm always in support of FS, yet I said that they've royally messed up, but I would at least give them credit that their response seems appropriate. To me, that is balanced. To others, maybe not. We're all different, not much harm in that
|
|
Doc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 196
Likes: 211
|
Post by Doc on Dec 12, 2018 14:37:26 GMT
Unfortunately it appears that some of the posters repeatedly posting the same negative comments want the forum to themselves. I've noticed anyone not sharing this view being flagged up or accused of working for FS.
I would have thought any posters prepared to make a comment should be able to handle a contrarian view.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 12, 2018 15:15:01 GMT
I am not reply to this childish nonsense except to say I am some of the loans I mention. I repeat I am validating whether FS are handling our money professionally and when they do well,I say so as prior posts will confirm. Obviously I have sympathy and absolutely NOTHING against fellow members but I am very concerned and annoyed with the way some of my (and other) loans have ,in my book, been spectuarly mishandled by FS As to whether you are a sleeper I neither know nor care but it is not very polite to shoot the messenger...
As to this loan I just don't understand why the internal audit of their books with OUR money did not pick this up. If FS repay all monies lent with interest before Xmas then I will respect them for that and say so.
I repeat I know the Barnoldswick area very well and this one really, really worries me *I was in it but risked it being re-offered which is was) if the farmhouse sells for about £1m I will admit I was wrong as I did with the cinema (still think that one was very dicey) but development is a funny old game.
If I get any more negative attacks on my character I am reporting you to the moderator.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Dec 12, 2018 15:28:29 GMT
If I get any more negative attacks on my character I am reporting you to the moderator. Mind boggling. I've been accused by you and others many times of being a shill for FS simply because I don't lean to a negative view of FS but it's never once crossed my mind to report that to a moderator. Meanwhile, I say once that your posts come across as you taking enjoyment in seeing capital losses come through and you describe that as an attack on your character and say that if I continue then you'll report me. I'm surprised that an opposing view impacts you that strongly, but of course will respect your request.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 12, 2018 15:42:22 GMT
Whilst various forum members slug it out amongst themselves, for the benefit of those forum membes who do want to understand what may have happened with these loans, I'm repeating here most of a post I made in a DDC thread a couple of weeks ago regarding the timings of the loans to this borrower. FS does have charges against three adjacent titles that comprise the farmhouse, the barn and land respectively.
. [...] Note that the 2nd charge Barnoldswick loan of £188k (which came first) AND the Burnley loan (£65k) AND the 2nd ranking Barnoldswick terrace loan (£44k) were ALL made active 30th May 2017, a few days before the purchase of the nn acres of land on 2nd June (for £167k). The first charge Barnoldswick loan was made active on 23rd June, the day of the purchase of the other two titles. The April 2017 VR (attached to the 1st charge Barnoldswick loan) states the applicant, partner & five children are living in the property and are currently renting it. The explanation given to us by FS on these loans seems very poor. The first Barnoldswick terrace loan originally started in Jan 17, and was renewed in Oct 17, 2.5 months late.
The point I would like fundingsecure to reflect on is the balance between forcing loans through with a lack of transparency regarding connected loans and the purpose for which the loan is being drawn, and the reputational damage to FundingSecure when a light is finally shone on what has happened. Looking at the time line it is hard to correlate the purchase of nn acres of land with anything stated in the three loans made active on 30th May 2017.
|
|
