hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Sept 20, 2017 12:02:12 GMT
I've asked ablrate to return my money until all the questions on this forum are answered Not much chance of that (if you have actually committed to invest). I "cocked-up" recently on a loan, told them within five minutes, and ABL said they could not reverse the investment. If the documents are wrong as suggested then they will have to.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Sept 20, 2017 12:05:32 GMT
hmmm. I doubt that is exactly what we said is it? We don't routinely allow the cancelling of bids, as that would be a very shaky model (although we are working on something which makes it more flexible), but we do what we can to accommodate the purchase of loans after closing.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Sept 20, 2017 12:16:54 GMT
Not much chance of that (if you have actually committed to invest). I "cocked-up" recently on a loan, told them within five minutes, and ABL said they could not reverse the investment. If the documents are wrong as suggested then they will have to. To be fair, most other platforms would present the loan, take the bids and you wouldn't hear from them again till renewal or prepayment, full stop AB, to their credit, engage here and answer queries after the loan has been presented. To simply expect them to act any differently because they do happen to engage here, is likely to do nothing more than deter them from engaging.....much to the detriment of this forum Rather than demanding things publicly on a forum, just because the other person is likely to respond, a better response would be to speak to them personally and see what agreement can be reached. They are more then reasonable most of the time
|
|
|
Post by investorman on Sept 20, 2017 14:34:05 GMT
I think if the security is as outlined in the proposal then bids should remain, regardless of sentiment on here. Could always trade it in the SM if no longer wanted.
If on the otherhand, the proposal says 40% LTV with a PG and cross guaranteed, when in reality with other charges the LTV is 80%, the PG is worthless as the house is fully mortgaged, and the same cross guarantees have been offered to other loans, then absolutely people have to be given a way out.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 20, 2017 15:11:12 GMT
I think if the security is as outlined in the proposal then bids should remain, regardless of sentiment on here. Could always trade it in the SM if no longer wanted. If on the otherhand, the proposal says 40% LTV with a PG and cross guaranteed, when in reality with other charges the LTV is 80%, the PG is worthless as the house is fully mortgaged, and the same cross guarantees have been offered to other loans, then absolutely people have to be given a way out. If it turned out that bad, then it would be a false prospectus, I suggest, and the whole thing would need a review. I contributed on the basis of the 40% LTV without feeling the need to check all the claims for validity, and will assume it is all good and as described, until Ablrate say different. No need to panic. The new sector is attractive, especially with Brexit suggesting a reclaim of fishing rights. I hope this all turns out OK.
|
|
|
Post by peerlessperil on Sept 20, 2017 16:04:36 GMT
I thought it might be helpful to highlight a few clauses from the Borrower Proposal.
Starting with page 1:
This Document does not constitute a prospectus to which the Prospectus Rules of the Financial Conduct Authority apply. Therefore, this Document and the Loans have not been approved by the Financial Conduct Authority or any other regulatory body, and do not give rise to any rights to claim compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
And later (p13) we find a disclaimer where ablrate informs you that it does not always conduct its own due diligence:
In some transactions Ablrate may be relying on information provided by agents/Sponsors who have introduced a transaction or who are managing a transaction. The success or failure of the transaction will be dependent on the skill and care with which the agent performs its services under their agreements. Ablrate depends for some transactions on the diligence, care and skill of the agents.
The only due diligence ablrate offers is (p19):
For our part we perform due diligence in tandem with Sponsors who have introduced the transaction. Pre-approval a. Verification - confirming the identity of the potential company and its directors, including checking for County Court Judgements, directors that have been disqualified and other red flags, as well as Anti Money Laundering checks performed in line with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines. b. Automated credit analysis - using a credit scoring model to provide an initial assessment of credit worthiness. The model is one used by the majority of credit insurers and claims to predict around 70% of the defaults in the next 12 months.1 We are working presently on an algorithm that takes this data and subjects it to further data mining that is currently performed by our team.
The only entity verifying that the borrowing proposal is accurate is the borrower (p2):
The directors of the Company believe the following information to be correct and accept responsibility for the information. The risks listed, however, do not necessarily comprise all those associated with the Company.
It therefore goes without saying that we are relying on the honesty of the Directors in portraying the facts accurately - not ablrate.
Companies House and the Insolvency Service are very useful tools for each of us to to individually form our own view on this matter.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Sept 20, 2017 16:23:47 GMT
I thought it might be helpful to highlight a few clauses from the Borrower Proposal. Starting with page 1: This Document does not constitute a prospectus to which the Prospectus Rules of the Financial Conduct Authority apply. Therefore, this Document and the Loans have not been approved by the Financial Conduct Authority or any other regulatory body, and do not give rise to any rights to claim compensation under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
And later (p13) we find a disclaimer where ablrate informs you that it does not always conduct its own due diligence: In some transactions Ablrate may be relying on information provided by agents/Sponsors who have introduced a transaction or who are managing a transaction. The success or failure of the transaction will be dependent on the skill and care with which the agent performs its services under their agreements. Ablrate depends for some transactions on the diligence, care and skill of the agents.
The only due diligence ablrate offers is (p19):
For our part we perform due diligence in tandem with Sponsors who have introduced the transaction. Pre-approval a. Verification - confirming the identity of the potential company and its directors, including checking for County Court Judgements, directors that have been disqualified and other red flags, as well as Anti Money Laundering checks performed in line with Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines. b. Automated credit analysis - using a credit scoring model to provide an initial assessment of credit worthiness. The model is one used by the majority of credit insurers and claims to predict around 70% of the defaults in the next 12 months.1 We are working presently on an algorithm that takes this data and subjects it to further data mining that is currently performed by our team.
The only entity verifying that the borrowing proposal is accurate is the borrower (p2): The directors of the Company believe the following information to be correct and accept responsibility for the information. The risks listed, however, do not necessarily comprise all those associated with the Company.
It therefore goes without saying that we are relying on the honesty of the Directors in portraying the facts accurately - not ablrate. Companies House and the Insolvency Service are very useful tools for each of us to to individually form our own view on this matter. I think it's important to clarify that our due diligence is not just based on Credit reports. It is an ongoing process. We do rely on information provided by directors, by sponsors and by a number of other sources. We perform due diligence and form an opinion as to whether a loan can be listed with the information that can be placed into a document. The due diligence doesn't stop there, as there is much to do before we will allow draw down. Ultimately, however, the Borrowing Proposal is the Borrowers' and it is their responsibility to make sure it's correct which we have confirmed by the borrpower before it goes live. I am particularly uncomfortable with some comments here that Ablrate will be 'held responsible' for loans. I should make it very clear that you should not bid on an loan on that basis... your loan is with the borrower on a bilateral basis... we are neither lender (by regulation) nor borrower. If subsequent to a listing we are made aware of (by lenders own due diligence, which we value, or by the continued due diligence we are performing) the borrowing proposal is not an accurate picture, then we will make a decision about that borrowing request. We are in the same process we do on every loan right now, and will let you know our opinion and actions shortly.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 20, 2017 16:29:45 GMT
And just as well we have this independent forum.
Your advice noted and appreciated, peerlessperil. However, if Ablrate present loans where the prospectus is false and uncorrected, or where the promised security is not delivered, then they will not a have a business to run. We are all in this together and it will not work if the operator hides behind a caveat emptor sign. The approach to the container loans, for example, demonstrates that Ablrate take their responsibilities seriously. (Did not see Ablrate's post. Whatever the formal responsibility might be for possible losses on each loan, there is the question of the creation and maintenance of trust and confidence in the loans that platforms promote. Essential for a small niche platform.)
|
|
|
Post by peerlessperil on Sept 20, 2017 16:30:55 GMT
Just as well we've got each other then and our multi ability to dig, dig and delve... Yes & no. There are limits to what can be posted on a public forum, and you need certainty before posting information even within those limits. Libel is a very expensive business.
|
|
jj
Member of DD Central
Jolly Jammy
Posts: 320
Likes: 358
|
Post by jj on Sept 20, 2017 16:36:32 GMT
"If subsequent to a listing we are made aware of (by lenders own due diligence, which we value, or by the continued due diligence we are performing) the borrowing proposal is not an accurate picture, then we will make a decision about that borrowing request. We are in the same process we do on every loan right now, and will let you know our opinion and actions shortly."
Perhaps you can ask the borrower why they have included fishing vessel Su****** R** in the documents when it has been sold a few months ago subsequently purchasing fish vessel B*** S** with the proceeds ?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Sept 21, 2017 9:42:39 GMT
Fishing trawlers tear a trough through rich, lively, colourful pristine sea beds. All for fancy food we do not need.
No thanks.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 21, 2017 10:35:16 GMT
Fishing trawlers tear a trough through rich, lively, colourful pristine sea beds. All for fancy food we do not need. No thanks. At last we get the choice on this platform. As from Monday 18th all FC retail 'investors' have to accept whatever loans FC chooses to assign to them. There are no ethical or vegetarian options there.
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 986
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by james100 on Sept 22, 2017 8:10:04 GMT
"If subsequent to a listing we are made aware of (by lenders own due diligence, which we value, or by the continued due diligence we are performing) the borrowing proposal is not an accurate picture, then we will make a decision about that borrowing request. We are in the same process we do on every loan right now, and will let you know our opinion and actions shortly."
Perhaps you can ask the borrower why they have included fishing vessel Su****** R** in the documents when it has been sold a few months ago subsequently purchasing fish vessel B*** S** with the proceeds ? Good morning ablrate, please could you kindly update on how this ^^ and the other concerns raised (regarding validity/veracity of security presented in the borrowing proposal) are checking out? If not possible today, could you please give an indication of timing when you might be able to do so? Many thanks.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Sept 22, 2017 9:14:06 GMT
Well, if anything in the original borrowing proposal document (specifically regarding the "available" asset valuations and accounts) is not 100% accurate, particularly given the red flags raised on this thread well in advance of the loan being drawn down, then I assume ABL will simply cancel this loan. That's not to say they couldn't reissue an amended loan proposition with an different statement of security etc. at a later date. But now they have been notified of specific issues which potentially invalidate the borrowing proposal, unless those issues are completely disproven then it would not be acceptable for them to proceed on the current basis. Nor would it make good business sense to proceed IMHO - the reputational and legal liability fallout in event of default would be catastrophic. ablrate is probably my favourite platform and I'm confident they will sort this out, one way or the other, in their usual highly professional manner Just a little reminder that I think there needs to be a delay between listing a loan (for DD) and opening it up for investment. By way of example, the electricity supplier's figures were plain wrong, but it was very popular and so filled before the error was corrected. In this instance the error, whilst worrying in that their accountant is innumerate, the correct figures are still satisfactory, so lenders are probably not exposed to risk, but the fishy loan really does expose ABL in a way that a pause for DD would have protected them from. (from which a pause for DD would have protected them)
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Sept 22, 2017 9:22:03 GMT
hmmm. I doubt that is exactly what we said is it? We don't routinely allow the cancelling of bids, as that would be a very shaky model (although we are working on something which makes it more flexible), but we do what we can to accommodate the purchase of loans after closing. Will you say why you don't institute a delay (72hrs?) between posting a loan and opening it up for bids?
|
|