stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Dec 15, 2017 8:32:32 GMT
Morning All, FAQ's added to the platform. Kind regards Sophie 10/10 for effort - we dont get this from most platforms 2/10 for substance - This reads like a politicians answer and you have to read between the lines Still not investing and not interested in further unsecured loans on MT My opinion of MT has dropped dramatically in the last 6 months unfortunately
|
|
|
Post by SophieThing on Dec 15, 2017 8:43:50 GMT
Hi stevio, Thanks for your post. The answers are not meant to read like a politician's answers. They are meant to be factual. We're not allowed to give advice and I've tried to present the information in a way that is clear and easy for everyone to understand and also to make their own lending decision. If this one is not for you, then fine- that's your call and I'm not going to try and persuade you any differently. It is individual lender's choice based on their own risk appetite. We've highlighted this is a departure from our usual loans, we've given the facts of the opportunity, we've answered lender's questions and done the DD. That's I think what you can expect from us. I'm sorry that your opinion of us has dropped. I hope we can turn that around and I hope you will watch us and come back when you've been convinced that we are acting with integrity, which we are. Kind regards Sophie
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 15, 2017 9:00:44 GMT
I'm not sure what more could be said, beyond re-stating the facts of the situation. Personally speaking, I'd rather lend to a growing, profitable trading business with the imminent, realistic expectation of quantifiable compensation from central Government (for a scheme they're fully committed to building) than another unpredictable property development. If it repays as expected in January, it's 36%pa interest for a 1 month loan
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Dec 15, 2017 9:17:47 GMT
I will be in for a fairly smallish amount. If there had been a cross guarantee from the company holding the freehold, then I would have jumped in deeper.
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 626
Likes: 749
|
Post by m2btj on Dec 15, 2017 9:40:15 GMT
The company looks solid & I'm sure they'll honour the loan. I'll be in for a punt too. I'd rather put my trust in MT than the outfit running HS2. The BBC News story today doesn't show them in the best of light....pigs to the trough springs to mind! I wonder if they'll be as generous to the businesses they disrupt! www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42358892
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 15, 2017 10:06:12 GMT
I find the update helpful, thanks MoneyThing . However, and I should have really piped up about this earlier to be fair, the rub for me is really in the second para of point 3 in the FAQ i.e. that our loan is effectively against the disturbance payment. What we don't have any detail on, I believe, is the actual reason as to why we can be so confident that this amount of compensation is due. As it stands, all we have are words like " claim" and "should". Are there comparables that have already received such compensation? Any form of indication of likely compensation from the SoS for affected businesses? There must be some basis as to why everyone is so confident of this payment being eventually due, I'd just like to know what that is. Edit: But, I'm feeling festive and loan-poor, I'll have a little bite. Edit2: Having found a little list in the Govt's formal paper on compensation claims of items eligible to be compensated for, what would be useful to know (at a high level) is how the anticipated compensation payment is broken down. Leaflet is here: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/571450/booklet2.pdf2.55 Typical items of compensation for relocation include: • removal expenses; • legal fees arising from the acquisition of a replacement property; • stamp duty arising from the acquisition of a replacement property; • surveyors and architects fees arising from the acquisition of a replacement property; • special adaptations to your replacement premises; • temporary loss of profits during the period of the move; • diminution of goodwill following the move (reflected in reduced profits); • depreciation in the value of stock; • notification of new address to customers; • new stocks of stationery due to change of address.I'm not expecting blow-by-blow, but there must be some items which make up the bulk of the claim.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 15, 2017 10:32:19 GMT
I'm not sure what more could be said, beyond re-stating the facts of the situation. Personally speaking, I'd rather lend to a growing, profitable trading business with the imminent, realistic expectation of quantifiable compensation from central Government (for a scheme they're fully committed to building) than another unpredictable property development. If it repays as expected in January, it's 36%pa interest for a 1 month loan Thanks for update SophieThing , the point around the timing is very helpful. I agree with roolish that some correspondence from HS2 would have made this much tighter. But I side with Steve and MT have provided security - a debenture over a long term manufacturing company with a decent balance sheet and a government receivable ranking ahead of the original lender plus importantly a profit record more than covering our finance costs. Better than an overvalued, undeveloped hole in Blackburn. I do have two questions I have been unable to answer - the property co does not show up on the current owners' appointments and I would like to have seen how much and where the state of the art plant is/will be capitalised - but based on the existing business I'm in .
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 15, 2017 10:34:31 GMT
As a related point from the paper (as I don't feel I can justifiably stretch to edit3 ), the compensation is understandably weighed against the costs of extinguishing the business instead. On a fag packet basis, excluding the current draft accounts, the two most recent years have showed profits of £59k and £44k, whilst the disturbance compensation they're claiming for is at least £700k. That's circa 14 years of current trading profits, which seems rather alot of compensation to be offered versus just going out of business. Was there really no cheaper reasonable option? (another stipulation, unsurprisingly, from the paper). Edit: do agree with elliotn though, it is some comfort that the business appears a genuine going concern. I just have an inkling that the compo is perhaps a little optimistic.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Dec 15, 2017 10:39:44 GMT
I'm not sure what more could be said, beyond re-stating the facts of the situation. Personally speaking, I'd rather lend to a growing, profitable trading business with the imminent, realistic expectation of quantifiable compensation from central Government (for a scheme they're fully committed to building) than another unpredictable property development. If it repays as expected in January, it's 36%pa interest for a 1 month loan As the three month's interest is the minimum committent, is already deducted from the loan, and presumably will not be returned if the loan redeems before term; then even if they get the compensation funds in January I would imagine they'll be astute enough to (at a minimum) park the funds on their bank's treasury deposit until the loan end date is up. So I wouldn't hold out too much for an early repayment.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 15, 2017 10:44:05 GMT
I'm not sure what more could be said, beyond re-stating the facts of the situation. Personally speaking, I'd rather lend to a growing, profitable trading business with the imminent, realistic expectation of quantifiable compensation from central Government (for a scheme they're fully committed to building) than another unpredictable property development. If it repays as expected in January, it's 36%pa interest for a 1 month loan As the three month's interest is the minimum committent, is already deducted from the loan, and presumably will not be returned if the loan redeems before term; then even if they get the compensation funds in January I would imagine they'll be astute enough to (at a minimum) park the funds on their bank's treasury deposit until the loan end date is up. So I wouldn't hold out too much for an early repayment. On this - I will gladly eat humble pie if I'm wrong, but I would be amazed if this was all ticked off in January. This is the Public Sector. And, even if it wasn't, surely there's going to be an inevitable back-and-forth as they debate how much compo is really due. Wouldn't you aim a little higher than you perhaps really feel is due initially?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 15, 2017 10:48:21 GMT
I'm not sure what more could be said, beyond re-stating the facts of the situation. Personally speaking, I'd rather lend to a growing, profitable trading business with the imminent, realistic expectation of quantifiable compensation from central Government (for a scheme they're fully committed to building) than another unpredictable property development. If it repays as expected in January, it's 36%pa interest for a 1 month loan As the three month's interest is the minimum committent, is already deducted from the loan, and presumably will not be returned if the loan redeems before term; then even if they get the compensation funds in January I would imagine they'll be astute enough to (at a minimum) park the funds on their bank's treasury deposit until the loan end date is up. So I wouldn't hold out too much for an early repayment. I'd imagine MT keep the interest reserve on a client account and any unused amount would simply be returned to lenders so the borrower would still be incentivised to pay back whilst using as little of the retained interest pot as possible?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 15, 2017 10:54:18 GMT
As a related point from the paper (as I don't feel I can justifiably stretch to edit3 ), the compensation is understandably weighed against the costs of extinguishing the business instead. On a fag packet basis, excluding the current draft accounts, the two most recent years have showed profits of £59k and £44k, whilst the disturbance compensation they're claiming for is at least £700k. That's circa 14 years of current trading profits, which seems rather alot of compensation to be offered versus just going out of business. Was there really no cheaper reasonable option? (another stipulation, unsurprisingly, from the paper). Edit: do agree with elliotn though, it is some comfort that the business appears a genuine going concern. I just have an inkling that the compo is perhaps a little optimistic. There's 650k+ of equipment at cost on the '16 accounts and I'd guess moving a factory is ruinously expensive in London. However, re-tooling state of the art and expanding significantly at the expense of the tax payer might be deemed as trying it on a bit so will be interesting where the secondary, negotiated settlement lands; 1.5M may be legitimate relocation costs but the businesses may no longer be like for like.
|
|
sirius
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 141
|
Post by sirius on Dec 15, 2017 13:00:10 GMT
Having again, even at this late stage read and re-read 'all' the information available to us I just cannot find a reason to invest.
We have not been shown any proof from HS2 confirming any definite payment that has been stated:
' we expect',
'final disturbance claim could be',
'submitted claim for a further £775k',
'at a minimum we expect',
'we expect final payment could be in excess of £1.5m',
'entitled to £75k basic loss payment',
'HS2 now has to pay 90% of what it believes <the borrower> is due' etc etc.
There is nothing there to convince me that <the borrower> may be able to re-pay the loan.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,155
Likes: 4,823
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 15, 2017 13:25:44 GMT
|
|
snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Dec 15, 2017 13:43:50 GMT
Since the update this morning the timing of this loan is starting to make more sense.
Having checked I see that it was first mentioned in the pipeline email on 4th November. Then just about every week after that it was 'launching next week'. It is understandable that work was started in the expectation of these funds and contractors are now getting impatient for their money.
I'm curious to know if the financing costs associated with the relocation can be claimed as part of the compensation payment. If the company believe that it is the case it would explain why they are now 'very keen to get this funding in place'.
|
|