bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on Oct 7, 2019 16:45:36 GMT
Of all the 'loans' I now hate this one the most on principle ! I could just about stomach the endless obfuscation on repayment against LTV's across various sites that proved useless for debt coverage. Plus discovery that many actual development projects are seriously flawed. I can see now that some P2P business models have favoured loan growth over investor capital security . But some geezers apparently borrowing multiple times against the same tangible asset ( unrecorded ?) and then many of those assets simply vanishing is the final straw for me. What track-record do MT have in debt recovery that gives us the slightest confidence of getting our money back on this one? Furthermore if ( I say IF) criminal investigations are underway then there will be no meaningful information for a very long time IMO.It could drag on for years in a worst case scenario.
If even real assets not pretend ones don't hold good then we are in a bad place.
|
|
|
Post by spareapennyor2 on Oct 12, 2019 10:59:44 GMT
CH Satisfaction of charge on ferrari 458 28 sept
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 12, 2019 12:30:01 GMT
CH Satisfaction of charge on ferrari 458 28 sept Although charge 0009 against the Ferrari was marked satisfied at the end of September, an earlier charge 0001 (both chattel mortgages) against the same vehicle remains outstanding. (I've absolutely no idea of the implications of this )
I've put a full list of the charges noted at CH on the DDC thread for those with access.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 13, 2019 20:04:19 GMT
Its just been pointed out to me that charge code 0001 is not amongst those detailed in the August 2019 Administrators Proposals document as outstanding, so may actually have been satisfied some time ago, but not recorded as such at CH.
|
|
|
Post by df on Oct 13, 2019 21:05:25 GMT
Of all the 'loans' I now hate this one the most on principle ! I could just about stomach the endless obfuscation on repayment against LTV's across various sites that proved useless for debt coverage. Plus discovery that many actual development projects are seriously flawed. I can see now that some P2P business models have favoured loan growth over investor capital security . But some geezers apparently borrowing multiple times against the same tangible asset ( unrecorded ?) and then many of those assets simply vanishing is the final straw for me. What track-record do MT have in debt recovery that gives us the slightest confidence of getting our money back on this one? Furthermore if ( I say IF) criminal investigations are underway then there will be no meaningful information for a very long time IMO.It could drag on for years in a worst case scenario.
If even real assets not pretend ones don't hold good then we are in a bad place. I think overall MT has dealt with recoveries much better than Ly and FS. I'm confident that MT are doing their best with recovery of this loan(s), but judging by the info available in updates my expectations are very low (for both, the value and the time it's going to take for crystallisation of this loss).
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on Oct 15, 2019 20:44:48 GMT
Update on site.
Can someone with greater insight than I explain the part of the comment about shared security? If I've lent against a supercar or a truck or a boat, - where that asset has been sold, why can't (shouldn't) those funds be disporsed to holders of that particular loan?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 15, 2019 21:05:54 GMT
Update on site. Can someone with greater insight than I explain the part of the comment about shared security? If I've lent against a supercar or a truck or a boat, - where that asset has been sold, why can't (shouldn't) those funds be disporsed to holders of that particular loan? The "shared security element" is a debenture.
However, my guess is this is about the unknown quantum of the administrators costs vs the massive uncertainty in expected realisations across the multiple loans. If your supercar has been sold, how much should MT withhold as that loans contribution to the overall costs of the administration ? If I was MT, I would withhold 100% at this point, I don't think they have any alternative (the costs of recovery rank above everything else).
We may not want to think about it, but we we need to face the very real possibility that total costs may exceed total realisations unless the missing assets are found. (The hint is in the 'until the recovery actions are complete' )
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Oct 16, 2019 1:02:53 GMT
Update on site. Can someone with greater insight than I explain the part of the comment about shared security? If I've lent against a supercar or a truck or a boat, - where that asset has been sold, why can't (shouldn't) those funds be disporsed to holders of that particular loan? The "shared security element" is a debenture.
However, my guess is this is about the unknown quantum of the administrators costs vs the massive uncertainty in expected realisations across the multiple loans. If your supercar has been sold, how much should MT withhold as that loans contribution to the overall costs of the administration ? If I was MT, I would withhold 100% at this point, I don't think they have any alternative (the costs of recovery rank above everything else).
We may not want to think about it, but we we need to face the very real possibility that total costs may exceed total realisations unless the missing assets are found. (The hint is in the 'until the recovery actions are complete' )
I mooted the possibility that the recovery for the super car might end up being used to pay for the whole administration if no other assets are recovered when these loans first defaulted but nobody commented at the time. Is that what you’re suggesting here?
Surely the administration costs should be apportioned on some sort of weighted time/cost basis, similar to what BDO are doing with Collateral (although preferably faster than the overweight snail’s pace they’re currently working at). So as awful as it might be for those in the other RCC loans, if the administrators/MT conclude that it isn’t cost effective to pursue those recoveries then they should crystallise the losses (just like any other administration), rather than the super car loan effectively subsidising other recovery efforts.
To do otherwise would surely render the individual security for each loan effectively meaningless, it’ll all effectively have been just one big loan to RCC with only a debenture as security.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 623
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Oct 16, 2019 7:19:28 GMT
I am not aware of any rule or regulation that sets out how to allocate the costs of administration in these cases. One can argue that if an asset is sold early on, it should not be burdened with future costs, e.g. if asset A took 10 hours of administration to realise, and asset B took 1000 hours of administration to sell, why would asset A be burdened with part of the costs to realise asset B? This is even more clear cut when assets A and B belong to two different loans.
I assume that not having to follow regulations, the administrators will exploit this to the maximum for their own benefit.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,195
Likes: 6,006
|
Post by registerme on Oct 19, 2019 22:28:20 GMT
One trusts that MoneyThing will produce a suitable creditor waterfall document at some point.
|
|
nyneil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 348
Likes: 435
|
Post by nyneil on Nov 5, 2019 23:43:38 GMT
I see that both RCC partners have made a Debtor's Bankruptcy Petition and been declared bankrupt. Bankruptcy order date: 28 August 2019.
I wonder if that means they have located the absconded director? If so, hopefully, MT will be able to track down some, if not all, of the securities.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Jan 3, 2020 23:41:42 GMT
The Administrator's progress report had been filed at Companies House on the 20th December. The report is dated 17th December and was delivered to creditors on the 19th December apparently. Links and a summary can be found in DDC for those with access. It doesn't make for pretty reading. So far the sale of the Ferrari, at less than the 50% LTV loan value, appears to have only benefited another creditor and contributed (on paper at least) to the Administrators costs to date.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 1,346
|
Post by ptr120 on Jan 4, 2020 21:11:29 GMT
The Administrator's progress report had been filed at Companies House on the 20 th December. The report is dated 17 th December and was delivered to creditors on the 19th December apparently. Links and a summary can be found in DDC for those with access. It doesn't make for pretty reading. So far the sale of the Ferrari, at less than the 50% LTV loan value, appears to have only benefited another creditor and contributed (on paper at least) to the Administrators costs to date. ...and yet MoneyThing haven't bothered to mention a thing by way of a loan comment. I hate being treated like a mushroom.
|
|
sj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 229
Likes: 330
|
Post by sj on Jan 6, 2020 11:53:58 GMT
Unsurprising, given that it is a complete embarrassment to them (lack of basic HPI checks done etc)
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Jan 9, 2020 17:07:54 GMT
There is an update from MT on their website for all the RCC loans. It doesn't mention the Administrators report but not surprisingly makes very grim reading for everyone in any/all these loans. MT make a claim that the borrower's actions (which they term rather bluntly and I won't repeat here for legal reasons) could not have been foreseen, maybe not foreseen but I'm not so sure that it was all completely unpreventable.
|
|