msenanna
Member of DD Central
Posts: 73
Likes: 41
|
Post by msenanna on Dec 15, 2017 19:17:33 GMT
Don't you just love how our esteemed SoS manages to say nothing of any substance in his statement - so helpful NOT. Thank you for the link though!
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Dec 15, 2017 19:47:47 GMT
The new FAQ says Why does MT not have any security over the freehold?
There are two parts to the compensation for the HS2 line. The first part is compensation to the owners of the freehold. In this case the owners of the freehold are the same shareholders as for our loan, but the freehold is held in a separate company with associated debt and security. Our loan is not secured on the freehold and is completely separate from this part of the compensation.
Which I think reads: So the borrowers as actual physical people do possess something of value which could be used as security, but have chosen not to
And so, with considerable sadness, because I too like actual businesses, if they chose not to offer security even though they could, then I won't invest... In fact if the ownership of the freehold hadn't been mentioned I probably would have invested, hey ho
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Dec 15, 2017 19:59:03 GMT
The new FAQ says Why does MT not have any security over the freehold?
There are two parts to the compensation for the HS2 line. The first part is compensation to the owners of the freehold. In this case the owners of the freehold are the same shareholders as for our loan, but the freehold is held in a separate company with associated debt and security. Our loan is not secured on the freehold and is completely separate from this part of the compensation.
Which I think reads: So the borrowers as actual physical people do possess something of value which could be used as security, but have chosen not to And so, with considerable sadness, because I too like actual businesses, if they chose not to offer security even though they could, then I won't invest... In fact if the ownership of the freehold hadn't been mentioned I probably would have invested, hey ho Indirectly, they have given security over the assets (and any others they have like their homes) via the PG, although we know these are circumventable if you put your mind to it and the business is going under anyway (which I have no reason to think in this case).
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Dec 15, 2017 21:41:44 GMT
A number of forumites may remember FS unsecured 2016/17 loan (1089233557) that eventually repaid after renewal. My trust in the platform were then much higher that now and I was then willing to throw a modest 4-digit figure. Few details about the borrower were given but 15% interest offered helped.
MT non-asset backed loan similarly entails an element of trust. One can assume MT's interaction with the borrowers led to a measure of trust sufficient to waive some elements in the security. In this case the borrowers situation makes clear that one is dealing with a healthy, growing business with assets and good prospects. The relocation funds are substantial and due to pay shortly. I rely on MT judgment that 12% interest rather than 14% or 15% represents a fair assessment of the risks involved--in other words no worse and likely less than with any other asset-backed loans. So I am in this loan and may add more by selling some which are overconcentrated.
|
|
|
Post by elephantrosie on Dec 16, 2017 6:30:05 GMT
i had always avoided non asset backed loans.
this is my first. albeit rather small amount.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 16, 2017 7:38:18 GMT
/ mod hat off ..
Fwiw, i'm in too .. i suspect raising, and confirming, a 2nd, 3rd, or nth charge on the property would have delayed things more than is reasonable for a very short term loan, and run the costs up too. Sometimes you just have to follow your instincts. It's only money .. for some folks it'll be their jobs/lives.
P.s., nope, this should not be construed as advice!
|
|
|
Post by polonius on Dec 16, 2017 11:08:52 GMT
A number of forumites may remember FS unsecured 2016/17 loan (1089233557) that eventually repaid after renewal. No it didn't. After the first renewal it has renewed over and over at the same principal of £92,000, FS just kicking the can down the road.
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Dec 16, 2017 11:34:46 GMT
A number of forumites may remember FS unsecured 2016/17 loan (1089233557) that eventually repaid after renewal. No it didn't. After the first renewal it has renewed over and over at the same principal of £92,000, FS just kicking the can down the road. Gosh! I stand corrected. I was in the renewal loan (1962493698) and my share was repaid. I tried to follow up the trail by searching through "all existing and past loans" but this resulted in a blank. Do you have loan IDs of subsequent renewals?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 16, 2017 11:48:35 GMT
One factor that I don't think has been mentioned is that other than MT (and F&P the introducer), there has been another set of eyes on this proposal, namely the existing debenture holder who has agreed to subordinate their position behind our quite substantial loan. They wouldn't have agreed to this unless they were comfortable with the implied risks in so doing. As MT commented in the FAQ it has been the time taken to reach this agreement on the deed of priority which has delayed the launch of the loan, indicative that careful consideration by the existing debenture holder has been given.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Dec 16, 2017 12:04:46 GMT
A number of forumites may remember FS unsecured 2016/17 loan (1089233557) that eventually repaid after renewal. My trust in the platform were then much higher that now and I was then willing to throw a modest 4-digit figure. Few details about the borrower were given but 15% interest offered helped. MT non-asset backed loan similarly entails an element of trust. One can assume MT's interaction with the borrowers led to a measure of trust sufficient to waive some elements in the security. In this case the borrowers situation makes clear that one is dealing with a healthy, growing business with assets and good prospects. The relocation funds are substantial and due to pay shortly. I rely on MT judgment that 12% interest rather than 14% or 15% represents a fair assessment of the risks involved--in other words no worse and likely less than with any other asset-backed loans. So I am in this loan and may add more by selling some which are overconcentrated. I was in the FS loan for a small amount. My thinking was that as the first unsecured loan, FS were to some extent staking their reputation and would not let investors lose out if the borrower did not make good. I was not intending to renew past the initial term, but somehow managed to tick the box and was in for the second term. By this time I was a bit less happy and was glad to exit at the next renewal time. I think that the people still in this loan are very brave (or an alternative) and have a higher appetite for risk. My level of trust in a good outcome is higher with MT, so I have had what for me constitutes a small-medium size nibble. If it repays early or on-time I will be happy. If it is still ongoing when the term ends and it goes to renewal, I will have to re-asses and will probably say goodbye. For now I am happy with my decision and will sit back and watch how events unfold.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 16, 2017 12:09:29 GMT
No it didn't. After the first renewal it has renewed over and over at the same principal of £92,000, FS just kicking the can down the road. Gosh! I stand corrected. I was in the renewal loan (1962493698) and my share was repaid. I tried to follow up the trail by searching through "all existing and past loans" but this resulted in a blank. Do you have loan IDs of subsequent renewals? Just type in unsecured into past loans search 4 loans to date 1089233557, 2962493698, 2367955045, 2396100716
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 16, 2017 12:16:05 GMT
One factor that I don't think has been mentioned is that other than MT (and F&P the introducer), there has been another set of eyes on this proposal, namely the existing debenture holder who has agreed to subordinate their position behind our quite substantial loan. They wouldn't have agreed to this unless they were comfortable with the implied risks in so doing. As MT commented in the FAQ it has been the time taken to reach this agreement on the deed of priority which has delayed the launch of the loan, indicative that careful consideration by the existing debenture holder has been given. Are we allowed to name other lenders? They used this company as an example of the benefits of short term bridging funding. Their acceptance, approaching a year hence, to MTs priority presumably speaks to their confidence in the government receivable. (A note from the Treasury's side would have done wonders). Interested to know where the current owners have squirelled away the freehold, not showing up under the owners' appointments (as MR suggested)?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 16, 2017 13:53:02 GMT
One factor that I don't think has been mentioned is that other than MT (and F&P the introducer), there has been another set of eyes on this proposal, namely the existing debenture holder who has agreed to subordinate their position behind our quite substantial loan. They wouldn't have agreed to this unless they were comfortable with the implied risks in so doing. As MT commented in the FAQ it has been the time taken to reach this agreement on the deed of priority which has delayed the launch of the loan, indicative that careful consideration by the existing debenture holder has been given. Are we allowed to name other lenders? They used this company as an example of the benefits of short term bridging funding. Their acceptance, approaching a year hence, to MTs priority presumably speaks to their confidence in the government receivable. (A note from the Treasury's side would have done wonders). Interested to know where the current owners have squirelled away the freehold, not showing up under the owners' appointments (as MR suggested)? Despite the other lender not being publicity shy, I'd be reluctant to name them as they are pretty critical to this deal going ahead. As to the freehold, the land registry title document shows the ownership as the three brothers "trading as" what appears to be an unincorporated company / partnership / something. So at face value no offshore tax havens are involved.
|
|
drgonzo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 82
Likes: 95
|
Post by drgonzo on Dec 19, 2017 17:07:10 GMT
Loan not going ahead - borrower changed their mind. Update on MT site. Edit: funds now credited back to accounts.
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Dec 19, 2017 17:11:45 GMT
Pleased to see that this is not going ahead. I never felt that a non-asset backed loan was right for MT.
LW
|
|