theshape
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 109
|
Post by theshape on Jan 25, 2018 15:02:56 GMT
If this loan is not asset backed why is there anything listed in the asset value column. I understand that £750,000 is the expected/hoped for payment from HS2 but I'm not sure there should be an asset value listed.
|
|
|
Post by thewizard on Jan 25, 2018 15:03:37 GMT
What is the loan for? Originally it was a "bridge" while they waited for a payment, but the updates say that they have been paid now.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 25, 2018 15:12:37 GMT
The previous loan is the first result in the completed loans tab: Loan value £550,000.00 Asset value £1,000,000.00 LTV71.00% Rate (pa)12.00% Start date15/12/2017 End date19/12/2017 New Loan: Loan value £525,000.00 Asset value £750,000.00 LTV 70.00% Rate (pa)12.00% Start date29/01/2018 End date29/07/2018 Thank you and I realize it might be a copy and paste, but £550k of £100k is not 71%LTV?
|
|
theshape
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 109
|
Post by theshape on Jan 25, 2018 15:24:45 GMT
The previous loan is the first result in the completed loans tab: Loan value £550,000.00 Asset value £1,000,000.00 LTV71.00% Rate (pa)12.00% Start date15/12/2017 End date19/12/2017 New Loan: Loan value £525,000.00 Asset value £750,000.00 LTV 70.00% Rate (pa)12.00% Start date29/01/2018 End date29/07/2018 Thank you and I realize it might be a copy and paste, but £550k of £100k is not 71%LTV? Yes, a copy and paste. I did notice that. I'm wondering why the size of the new loan is as big as it is. The previous loan was for £550k, the new loan for £525k. Just a convenient number as it equals 70% LTV? Have they not just received a significant payment from HS2?
|
|
|
Post by carbonr1 on Jan 25, 2018 15:40:40 GMT
Will the collapse of a main contractor to HS2 will further payments be delayed until new contracts are awarded?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 6,015
|
Post by registerme on Jan 25, 2018 15:55:01 GMT
Will the collapse of a main contractor to HS2 will further payments be delayed until new contracts are awarded? Now that's an interesting question.
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Jan 25, 2018 16:02:58 GMT
AIUI the main contract has not collapsed as it is to a consortium and Carillon were just one member of that body who may or may not be replaced depending upon the attitude of the other consortium members.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jan 25, 2018 16:12:53 GMT
Thank you and I realize it might be a copy and paste, but £550k of £100k is not 71%LTV? Yes, a copy and paste. I did notice that. I'm wondering why the size of the new loan is as big as it is. The previous loan was for £550k, the new loan for £525k. Just a convenient number as it equals 70% LTV? Have they not just received a significant payment from HS2? Loan is 70% max that MT lend at, 750k a conservative minimum of the remaining payout. The relocation involves major leasehold improvements and, having incurred delays on the fit out and needing to rent alternative premises, need cover until they get their final relocation costs reimbursed.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jan 25, 2018 16:26:51 GMT
viewable in pending now still unsecured Just to avoid confusion. The loan is secured with what will be a first ranking debenture over a profitable, debt free company with comfortable interest cover forecasted. That includes historically a fairly substantial BS including fixed assets (plant and machinery) and will also cover the conservative estimate of a government payable receivable. The loan description says the departure is there will not be a charge on a specific "tangible" asset like we normally see on MTs property loans but it is secured (possibly more so than an over valued, sodden hole in the north west). MoneyThing faq's - what downward revisions have been provisioned in the 2018 forecasts given the unexpected delays to their relocation and further disruption to business; - are the state of the art leasehold improvements that are driving most of the remaining compensation being capitalised in the company that we will have the secured debenture over (unlike the old freehold).
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 25, 2018 17:20:13 GMT
viewable in pending now still unsecured Just to avoid confusion. The loan is secured with what will be a first ranking debenture over a profitable, debt free company with comfortable interest cover forecasted. That includes historically a fairly substantial BS including fixed assets (plant and machinery) and will also cover the conservative estimate of a government payable receivable. The loan description says the departure is there will not be a charge on a specific "tangible" asset like we normally see on MTs property loans but it is secured (possibly more so than an over valued, sodden hole in the north west). MoneyThing faq's - what downward revisions have been provisioned in the 2018 forecasts given the unexpected delays to their relocation and further disruption to business; - are the state of the art leasehold improvements that are driving most of the remaining compensation being capitalised in the company that we will have the secured debenture over (unlike the old freehold). BS - building site? or the traditional BS we normally get from Lendy? I love the challenge of trying to "decode" your posts..... MT themselves title this as "non-asset backed" Are the new premises freehold and held within a separate company not covered under this debenture, as before, if not why is there no fixed charge? It seems strange that the borrower ring fences their main asset in another company and there is no corporate guarantee from that company If there are tangible assets in the borrowing company, why have these assets not been detailed and fixed charges added? or at the very least detailed in the loan docs so we can confirm the borrowers assets, rather than hidden in past accounts, which may or may not still be present The surveyor/consultant is working for the borrower, it is in their interest to suggest to the borrower they could achieve ample payout here as this encourages the borrower to use the consultant and compensates for paying the consultants fee to attempt to achieve this. I would have liked to see a legal agreement that any funds received from this claim are payed directly to MTs solicitor
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jan 25, 2018 17:24:10 GMT
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Jan 25, 2018 18:51:33 GMT
The previous loan is the first result in the completed loans tab: Loan value £550,000.00 Asset value £1,000,000.00 LTV71.00% Rate (pa)12.00% Start date15/12/2017 End date19/12/2017 New Loan: Loan value £525,000.00 Asset value £750,000.00 LTV 70.00% Rate (pa)12.00% Start date29/01/2018 End date29/07/2018 The loan amount has gone down by 25K, the "asset" by 250K and the LTV is unchanged. Ahem Do we know what this payment amount was they have now received, and is the term the same?
|
|
theshape
Member of DD Central
Posts: 153
Likes: 109
|
Post by theshape on Jan 25, 2018 19:40:19 GMT
Yes, a copy and paste. I did notice that. I'm wondering why the size of the new loan is as big as it is. The previous loan was for £550k, the new loan for £525k. Just a convenient number as it equals 70% LTV? Have they not just received a significant payment from HS2? Loan is 70% max that MT lend at, 750k a conservative minimum of the remaining payout. The relocation involves major leasehold improvements and, having incurred delays on the fit out and needing to rent alternative premises, need cover until they get their final relocation costs reimbursed. I understand how the loan amount relates to the expected remaining payout. I was unsure why their was still the requirement to borrow almost as much as the original loan amount when the company appears to have received the majority of the expected payment from HS2.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 26, 2018 4:29:58 GMT
There are reasons to like this loan, but also reasons to seek a much better understanding of where what seem like very large sums forthcoming (including aiui c.£2m already cashed in from HS2) are being spent. My guess (should we be guessing?) is that the new premises are freehold (to be purchased by the shareholders before being leased to the trading company) in a Propco Opco structure, which could leave ample wriggle room depending on what the Propco actually owns (& who owns the Propco). With so much cash coming in the transfer of premises might presumably release some equity/cash for the shareholders, but without knowing how much needs to be spent (including the site purchase & fitting out of the new premises) a wary lender might be wondering how many people years of good living in the Bahamas he could be helping to finance (large enticing sums from the govt when you’re forced to up sticks after many years of hard work could tempt even hardy souls). On a more mundane note it’s also needed to form a view of what resources the borrower might have to play with should production at the new premises (entry already delayed by 2M we’re told, production who knows by how much) or payments from HS2 be delayed for whatever reason. Some of the questions posed by snowmobile 6W ago still valid imv: p2pindependentforum.com/post/234552/threadMy dumb question number 1 would probably be is there any evidence that the new premises exist & have the shareholders’ money (how much?) already injected/committed? Dumb q #2 - has anyone from MT seen (even just pics) or visited the new site, before they hand over half a mil of our hard-earned cash? It may not be far from their N20 London base..
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Jan 26, 2018 4:50:40 GMT
Loan is 70% max that MT lend at, 750k a conservative minimum of the remaining payout. The relocation involves major leasehold improvements and, having incurred delays on the fit out and needing to rent alternative premises, need cover until they get their final relocation costs reimbursed. I understand how the loan amount relates to the expected remaining payout. I was unsure why their was still the requirement to borrow almost as much as the original loan amount when the company appears to have received the majority of the expected payment from HS2. The largest element was freehold compensation for a separate company that has presumably at least in part repaid any existing encumbrance (I couldn't find accounts for the f/hold co). MT tell us this loan is for the final costs of moving their factory. The interim payment was for invoices already incurred by the beginning of December. Since then we know there have been delays at their new premises and they have had to rent temporary factory premises as well. All of this will be v costly in London. The borrower - who pulled the first loan as they managed to tied themselves over until the interim payment - now has another set of contractors' costs to pay which will be passed on for their final settlement.
|
|