Browse All Tribes or choose a Tribe below:
By signing up I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Sign Up With Facebook, Twitter, or Google
By signing up, I agree to Property Tribes Terms and Conditions
Already a PT member? Log In
Don't have an account? Sign Up
To reset your password just enter the email address you registered with and we'll send you a link to access a new password.
Investors who threw their cash into a peer-to-peer scheme offering returns of up to 15pc are facing major losses after their loans turned sour.
Users of the FundingSecure platform poured thousands of pounds into loans made against “park homes” – bungalow-style static caravans.
However, these investments failed, leaving customers facing losses of 86pc, 92pc or in some cases 100pc of their cash, depending on when they invested.Full/source articleSEE ALSO - Lendy enters administrationUP NEXT - Property crowdfunding - how to reduce risk?DON'T MISS - Crowd funding - too easy to raise money?NOW WATCH:
Vanessa Warwick Landlord and Co-Founder of PropertyTribes.com **If you have got value from Property Tribes, find out how you can support it in remaining a free to use community resource**
Well, there's a surprise! A 15% ROI investment is NEVER a safe bet. Why do people believe that they can get high returns with little or no risk? I despair
15% If it sounds to be good to be true It will be
Its like Southen investors buying in parts of the NE
I can show them some fantastic yeilds but I know the property will bring huge management problems so it wont be 15% it will be a nightmare
Learn Change and Adapt ?????
All comments are for casual information purposes only. If you wish to rely on any advice I have given please ensure you obtain independent specialist advice from a third party. No liability is accepted for comments made.
A follow on thread from this discussion has been started here:Property development finance an unsuitable asset class for P2P
Brighton Holiday Homes have recently ceased trading owing Funding Circle £461,000 of which according to the administrators are expected to recover just £35000.The directors of BHH re reported to have loaned themselves £1,000,000 prior to the collapse
The administrators are surely legally bound to chase the directors for any deficit in the director's loan account.
I recently followed the winding up of a firm local to me (all documentation was filed on companies house) as I had a peripheral business connection, not financial thankfully, with the sole director. The firm was under by around £85000, small change in relation to some of these companies, but the administrators pushed hard for repayment of a director's loan account of "only" £35000. They went to the point of seeing how much equity was in the director's sole property, which was not worth following up according to the filings. The director had to borrow money from relations in order to stop any action against him. It still took two years for the company affairs to be wound up despite its small size.
Surely for larger amounts this should be standard practice?
Omega Property (Formerly SBS Ltd.)
I am not professionally trained to give advice, generally posting for the benefit of the community or my own personal development.