IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 9, 2019 20:42:31 GMT
fairly concerned about this loan now long time no revenue, no plan for viability of business forthcoming LTV of aircraft was 75% at best (and I suspect a sale might not be the easiest or quickest) an update soon would be good
|
|
KoR_Wraith
Member of DD Central
Posts: 293
Likes: 297
|
Post by KoR_Wraith on Oct 9, 2019 22:09:37 GMT
fairly concerned about this loan now long time no revenue, no plan for viability of business forthcoming LTV of aircraft was 75% at best (and I suspect a sale might not be the easiest or quickest) an update soon would be good Don't worry, the devaluation of GBP since the loan commenced will aid in supporting the LTV. Finally something positive to come of the Brexit...
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 10, 2019 9:24:32 GMT
fairly concerned about this loan now long time no revenue, no plan for viability of business forthcoming LTV of aircraft was 75% at best (and I suspect a sale might not be the easiest or quickest) an update soon would be good Don't worry, the devaluation in GBP since the loan commenced will aid in supporting the LTV. Finally something positive to come of the Brexit shambles... You know how to push my buttons!
|
|
|
Post by df on Oct 24, 2019 18:41:04 GMT
Looks like the aircraft is likely to fly again. In current p2p environment any positive news is great.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,592
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 24, 2019 19:24:35 GMT
Looks like the aircraft is likely to fly again. In current p2p environment any positive news is great. A dry lease offer. Sound promising
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Oct 24, 2019 20:50:49 GMT
So does this mean the borrower continues to own the plane and leases it to an operator with we lenders having first call on the leasing proceeds to make our repayments or do we, through ABL own the plane to settle the loan and ABL lease it out to provide income to lenders?
LW
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,192
Likes: 6,000
|
Post by registerme on Oct 25, 2019 0:36:18 GMT
So does this mean the borrower continues to own the plane and leases it to an operator with we lenders having first call on the leasing proceeds to make our repayments or do we, through ABL own the plane to settle the loan and ABL lease it out to provide income to lenders? LW 1. I don't know. But I'd like to. 2. Of all the loans on ablrate that I've been a part of, this is the closest to "borrower said x then did y". I am... unimpressed... by this.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 25, 2019 7:45:26 GMT
So does this mean the borrower continues to own the plane and leases it to an operator with we lenders having first call on the leasing proceeds to make our repayments or do we, through ABL own the plane to settle the loan and ABL lease it out to provide income to lenders?LW I hope not. Ablrate is a lending platform and not a plane leasing business or a borrower. The pub project 129 already crosses the line I would draw between borrower and platform and such a proposal as this would confirm my worries. A great shame that this project has changed and failed (I am not blaming Ablrate for that). Edit: I meant 129 and the proposed equity, not 131! I have no problem with the structure of 131.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Oct 25, 2019 7:58:26 GMT
So does this mean the borrower continues to own the plane and leases it to an operator with we lenders having first call on the leasing proceeds to make our repayments or do we, through ABL own the plane to settle the loan and ABL lease it out to provide income to lenders? LW The legals are being worked through presently as the borrower has obligations on documents and, of course, their guarantees. The structure will be whatever is best for lenders and, at this stage, that is anticipated to be a new ownership structure for the aircraft which may include shareholders who also funded the aircraft and were let down by the directors, however in that case the waterfall of funds would go to lenders first with those shareholders benefiting from the aircraft sale or re-lease after lenders are returned funds, penalty interest etc. Basically we are working hard to get this done quickly and in the best structure for lenders.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Oct 25, 2019 8:27:31 GMT
So does this mean the borrower continues to own the plane and leases it to an operator with we lenders having first call on the leasing proceeds to make our repayments or do we, through ABL own the plane to settle the loan and ABL lease it out to provide income to lenders?LW I hope not. Ablrate is a lending platform and not a plane leasing business or a borrower. The pub project 131 already crosses the line I would draw between borrower and platform and such a proposal as this would confirm my worries. A great shame that this project has changed and failed (I am not blaming Ablrate for that).
Hi Blender. I appreciate your thoughts as they are generally balanced, i.e you give us a kicking as often as you give us a cuddle, which is why I don't comment often on your thoughts. However when it is said that we are 'crossing line' in the current environment, it is not something I can let pass without a simple clarification. Many platforms would just have written off the project which would have been a substantial loss. Believe me, after the BN situation that is what we felt like doing, but we simply do not do that, it is our view that you have to look at every possible scenario for recovery. If a platform doesn't have the resources to do this then they are not doing the job entrusted to them. Also, the vast majority of our fees are aligned with lender's interests, i.e if the loan goes bad the only way we are going to get fees is if we can recover it, so we not only have a reputation element and a duty to lenders but also an economic incentive. 131 was worked through and a plan created which is being executed, I don't think this is crossing the line, I think it is doing our job.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 25, 2019 11:42:49 GMT
Hi ablrate. I apologise for my error in mentioning 131. I meant 129 and corrected the post pretty soon after. There is nothing wrong in the structure and relationships in 131. I may not like the lending opportunity and the rationale for it is partly to support the TS loans, but it does not cross my lines, and I was in error with the number. I meant 129, where the proposal to take a 10% equity stake in lieu of fees, even with deferred and conditional benefit, crosses a line I personally would draw - even though it should be beneficial to lenders. There is no doubt that Ablrate goes the extra mile to recover lenders' funds, further than I would go in the case of the BN loans, but that may be because I was fortunate to get out in time. I had logged in to remove the post, as contributing nothing after your first reply. But now I must again apologise for the error.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Oct 25, 2019 14:04:34 GMT
Hi ablrate . I apologise for my error in mentioning 131. I meant 129 and corrected the post pretty soon after. There is nothing wrong in the structure and relationships in 131. I may not like the lending opportunity and the rationale for it is partly to support the TS loans, but it does not cross my lines, and I was in error with the number. I meant 129, where the proposal to take a 10% equity stake in lieu of fees, even with deferred and conditional benefit, crosses a line I personally would draw - even though it should be beneficial to lenders. There is no doubt that Ablrate goes the extra mile to recover lenders' funds, further than I would go in the case of the BN loans, but that may be because I was fortunate to get out in time. I had logged in to remove the post, as contributing nothing after your first reply. But now I must again apologise for the error.
LOL.. no problem Blender..... we both need a lie-down. I was also referring to 129
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 26, 2019 9:15:05 GMT
Any normal platform would have defaulted 67 & 68 at almost a total loss. The 129 scheme is innovative and bold, but also diversionary and way beyond the call of duty to lenders, imo. But maybe that is why FS is in administration with a failed model, while Ablrate is still here and my account is loss free. Mind you, if 129 goes wrong the goodwill will quickly evaporate. It's the numbers that matter. Best not to distract you further, and wish for good Welsh Xmas wet sales.
|
|
jryan
Posts: 11
Likes: 12
|
Post by jryan on Dec 2, 2019 21:38:58 GMT
Hi Ablrate,
Has there been any additional movement with this loan and the "negotiation" with the interested lease party?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Dec 3, 2019 9:26:33 GMT
Hi Ablrate, Has there been any additional movement with this loan and the "negotiation" with the interested lease party? Cheers We have a deal on the table which is being evaluated.
|
|