hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Aug 21, 2019 16:05:12 GMT
13% amortising, first ranking priority, ablrate all over the project like a rash and highly motivated to see it through successfully to recover the prior loans. What’s not to like? The loan term? 9 years I like that loan term.
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Aug 21, 2019 16:06:01 GMT
13% amortising, first ranking priority, ablrate all over the project like a rash and highly motivated to see it through successfully to recover the prior loans. What’s not to like? The loan term? 9 years The loan is planned to be fully repaid in 4 years. It is just the rate of repayment/amortisation is 9 years. LW
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Aug 21, 2019 16:11:36 GMT
13% amortising, first ranking priority, ablrate all over the project like a rash and highly motivated to see it through successfully to recover the prior loans. What’s not to like? Agreed. As a standalone with strong ABL management and some skin in the game it is very attractive. I would go for it. However s a holder of 67/68 I don't really want to go more than another 50% on the exposure I already have. I think I'll sit on my hands and see how it fills and possibly jump in towards the end. Well that is my current theory! LW
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Aug 21, 2019 19:11:08 GMT
I'd like to thank ablrate for their sterling efforts on these loans. I was anticipating a loss on #67 & #68, and, although there's a long way to go, I feel that ABL have given them a real chance of full recovery. I can't think of many other platforms, if any, that would have gone to these lengths to try to recover lender's funds. I've had some minor disagreements with ABL, but they really do go the extra mile when it really matters. I particularly appreciate the loan structure whereby ABL don't get paid unless lenders receive a full recovery. I'll be supporting #129 with any repayments from #80, #98 and #109, which are all due to repay before #129 closes. ABL have been clever in not declaring a minimum needed for this funding round, just in case it struggles, and not stating how many future rounds are anticipated. However, I'd be keen to know if/when we've reached the absolute minimum needed to get things started (not really expecting an answer). The good thing is, as others have already stated, this looks like a reasonable proposition as a standalone loan. So, hopefully, it will get support from new lenders too. Best of luck all.
|
|
steve11523
Member of DD Central
Posts: 60
Likes: 27
|
Post by steve11523 on Aug 22, 2019 16:32:56 GMT
I appreciate the efforts put in by Ablrate to find a path to recovery. As a standalone proposal the new loan is not unattractive. Since I am in 67, I also have an additional incentive to support the new loan
|
|
jryan
Posts: 11
Likes: 12
|
Post by jryan on Aug 26, 2019 23:06:33 GMT
I've had a good look at this one and I think I will avoid. There are a few pitfalls and I place little stock in the historical valuation of the premises especially given the damage to the property and the lack of a going concern.
However, cheers to Ablrate for the proposal.
|
|
|
Post by df on Aug 27, 2019 0:57:21 GMT
I'd like to thank ablrate for their sterling efforts on these loans. I was anticipating a loss on #67 & #68, and, although there's a long way to go, I feel that ABL have given them a real chance of full recovery. I can't think of many other platforms, if any, that would have gone to these lengths to try to recover lender's funds. I've had some minor disagreements with ABL, but they really do go the extra mile when it really matters. I particularly appreciate the loan structure whereby ABL don't get paid unless lenders receive a full recovery. I'll be supporting #129 with any repayments from #80, #98 and #109, which are all due to repay before #129 closes. ABL have been clever in not declaring a minimum needed for this funding round, just in case it struggles, and not stating how many future rounds are anticipated. However, I'd be keen to know if/when we've reached the absolute minimum needed to get things started (not really expecting an answer). The good thing is, as others have already stated, this looks like a reasonable proposition as a standalone loan. So, hopefully, it will get support from new lenders too. Best of luck all. I had some funds in 67, but sold at 88.10% on 15th April (get out at any cost whilst it is still possible I didn't think it would be consistent to get involved again, but I did put a a small amount in 129 just to express my loyalty to platform. I like how ABL handles non performing/failed loans. I doubt 129 will fill, unless underwritten, but wish the best success.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 27, 2019 7:29:30 GMT
It's rather too soon to make judgments about whether 129 will fill, imo. I think it is going remarkably well so far, though my spare cash went into another new loan, not having a significant stake in 67&68. Without that stake, it seems that the failure of this company occurred at the worst possible time for the value of the business and premises, and that with the passage of time since, it is safest to judge it as a start-up. All credit to Ablrate for doing everything possible to preserve lenders' capital in this project. Whatever happens here, Ablrate's performance in mitigating the damage of the BN collapse has been so much better than that which Crowdstacker lenders are experiencing, imo. I do not forget the full repayment of loan 41, as well as the restructuring of the other four in this group of six.
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Sept 15, 2019 10:18:54 GMT
So 129 is 34% filled after about 3 weeks with 8 days to go.
I'd be dipping my toe in if I were not already involved with 67/68. If it were to nearly fill then I might be more tempted to help it over the line
I wonder if there are any underwriters poised ready to dive into this one?
LW
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 16, 2019 8:38:41 GMT
So 129 is 34% filled after about 3 weeks with 8 days to go. I'd be dipping my toe in if I were not already involved with 67/68. If it were to nearly fill then I might be more tempted to help it over the line I wonder if there are any underwriters poised ready to dive into this one? LW I rather doubt that. One of the curious features of this loan request is that the intended borrower does not exist yet, cannot be making the borrowing proposal and cannot be the subject of due diligence. The borrowing proposal at present must come from Ablrate, and before the loan/tranche could be drawn down the borrower would need to be formed and would need to adopt this proposal as its own, and to form the necessary relationship with the borrower of 67&68. Whether this could all be done and a loan contract created with the lenders on 129 without further information being supplied and consent being obtained, is an interesting question. At present the question must be whether the funds offered in this tranche, after any extension, will be sufficient to justify continuation.
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Sept 30, 2019 12:43:51 GMT
The Admin note on 24/9 said a weeks extension "as we prepare the documentation" At that stage I think the take up was in the region of 35%. Today, the last day of the extension, it is sitting at 42% So why would ABL be preparing paperwork I wonder with these relativiely low take up figures? Perhaps there is a white knight underwriter sitting in the wings on his charger after all? LW
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 30, 2019 14:38:51 GMT
The Admin note on 24/9 said a weeks extension "as we prepare the documentation" At that stage I think the take up was in the region of 35%. Today, the last day of the extension, it is sitting at 42% So why would ABL be preparing paperwork I wonder with these relativiely low take up figures? Perhaps there is a white knight underwriter sitting in the wings on his charger after all? LW Maybe not an underwriter, maybe some equity funding? One of the unattractive features seems to be (unless I am mistaken) that there is just one source of cash for this project - loan 129- and it would be taking all the risk of the project. The main equity holder is capitalising an unsecured loss, not contributing any cash. I could see the project attracting equity funding on the basis of the loan amount committed, but odd for a volunteer underwriter.
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Oct 4, 2019 16:33:35 GMT
Today's admin note gives infor on a press release suggesting work has started on the project with an aggressive timescale of being open in time for Christmas. This all sounds positive if not a little ambitious especially as #129 is filling very slowly and only just over half full. Any comments anyone or even ablrate LW
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Oct 5, 2019 10:02:16 GMT
Today's admin note gives infor on a press release suggesting work has started on the project with an aggressive timescale of being open in time for Christmas. This all sounds positive if not a little ambitious especially as #129 is filling very slowly and only just over half full. Any comments anyone or even ablrate LW The guys have really committed to the project, including using their own resources at this stage. Also, much of the time consuming parts of the project such as; manufacturing structural steels, doors, windows, and other structural components were already done and in storage from the aborted refurbishment.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 6, 2019 10:29:56 GMT
Sounds very creditable, and necessary to get the xmas income. I would like to support it but there are so many unanswered questions like; Who are 'the guys', and under whose authority are they working on the asset? The borrower Co for 67& 68 is still in administration and still owns the freehold premises charged to 67&68, as far as I know. Who is the builder Co (not identified) who will be contractor to the intended borrower SPV, and on whose abilities and resources the project depends? Can't do DD on them. The builder is an 'unsecured creditor' with a debt of £219K, but no such creditor is listed in the administrator's proposals of 15 Feb for the borrower of 67 & 68, and owner of the asset, nor the parent Co in administration as far as I can see. So who is the creditor, who is the debtor, and is the £219k (to be capitalised into equity) wholly related to work on this asset? We are not told. Who is the borrower for 129? It is neither formed nor defined financially, apart from debts and this loan. How will the borrower SPV relate to the borrower Co for 67&68 (in administration), so as to control both the debts (without defaulting) and the asset? How does a loan get drawn down without a borrower? Obviously it cannot and the borrower SPV has to be created, but then how does a loan contract get created? presumably the bidders have to consent to the borrower, because the T&C's do not allow ablrate to choose a borrower on self-select loans, a problem compounded when ablrate proposes to have equity in the borrower and where the borrower (legal person) is not compliant with 4.1. first sentence. 'Only borrowers with a track record in their industry are permitted to post borrowing requests on Ablrate.' I suppose that if you hold anything significant in 67 or 68 you don't care much about such a pedantic critique, but I think I must await any further tranche for this worthy project.
|
|