mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 23, 2023 19:21:30 GMT
Please remind me the auction price asked is £2.5M if achieved how much short will this leave the Lendy lenders? Also does this sale cover both PBL 137 a& 158? Not us ... this is who bought it from us flipping it Dare I ask how much we got for it?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 8, 2023 18:16:34 GMT
On TC it was one big investor who won a complaint that was going to cost a lot, several large investments to be refunded with interest, and TC (I think) thought they ought to compensate everyone in those loans (and/or other lenders in those loans would complain once they became aware of the judgement) which would have been a very substantial amount. The retail platforms themselves don't retain much funds so TC couldn't honour it's commitments and pay the FOS settlement so went into administration. They had also carefully hived off the institutional investors part of the platform, which is still running and I assume profitable. I don't know what funds the part of Assetz that deals with the retail lending side has, but likely not as much as you might think for 'this well-oiled money chiseling....'. The company structure of these entities is a bit beyond me! Ah yes, but did said big lender actually get paid out by TC?? Where would a judgement resulting from an upheld FOS complaint fall in the settlement priority order of an administration? I can't remember if TC investors were lenders in loans secured by borrowers' assets or whether they simply were lending to TC itself. If the former, then ISTM that the complaining investor would be well down in the claim queue. If the latter, then the FOS judgement probably would rank alongside other investors' claims and produce a much better result for the said investor..
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 8, 2023 17:38:20 GMT
Be interesting to see if the advertised target rate is left so high for ever ISTM that the answer to this all depends on whether the advertised target rate is supposed to be before or after lender fees. If it's before, then AC may be able to keep advertising 4%, and then delivering less than that because of the fees, such as the 4% - 6.25% that was in effect for the past four months.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 25, 2023 23:05:15 GMT
Also would like to hear how AC are going to reduce their costs so less losses to investors, for a start the directors should take a large cut in income, minimum of 20% as AC will be 20% smaller but should be a lot more as they have done a such a bad job and do not deserve their salaries unless you count fleecing investors as part of their role, also staff will need to go as it is a smaller company. I get the feeling AC will take as much as they can and absolve themselves of blame. I know AC have said that retail was providing 20% of their funding, but I don't think it follows that shutting down retail will make AC 20% smaller. Won't they just fund the loans that would have been given to retail investors by using their institutional investors to provide that funding?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 7, 2022 21:48:28 GMT
Would it be wrong to implore investors to invest in this lender with the extraordinary  interest rates so that I can get my money out after giving 90 days notice? scooter: Start by giving the 90-day notice. When that's up, you can see what discounts are like and decide what to do next.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 7, 2022 21:39:57 GMT
I'm not really into post-mortems but I suppose there are many who think AC is not dead and still a good place to put your money.
Provision fund realities, excessive loan charges, extra loan charges for the slightest deviancy, high risk loans being funded by low interest opaque accounts, number of defaulted loans, the eye watering losses on some default loans etc etc. High growth, profits, costs, expenses, risk/reward loan originations. You were warned. The irony of course is that the excessive loan charges arent actually excessive enough compared to the accounts most similar to the AA. Both LP & Easymoney had bigger spreads and therefore have been able to lift lender rates within the existing borrower rate. Either that, or the AC loan charges actually are large enough to lift lender rates somewhat but AC have taken a decision not to use them that way, preferring to use them to enhance their bottom line and let the retail side of their funding wither and die. SL will say "We didn't stop offering retail investments; the retail investors just decided to take their money elsewhere." (When AC finally let them do so, of course!)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 11, 2022 15:08:06 GMT
1. 342 loans now have units available. Who is trying to sell out of these loans , many are over 250k. My answers on a postcard are.... (best guess) 1. assets Perhaps AC are coming to the same conclusion that we are here -- that as FSCS-covered rates approach the rates being paid on the IA their investors are going to start trying to move funds from the IA to the FSCS accounts. So they're trying to prepare for that by shrinking the Access account pool by selling those loan parts to MLA investors. If they can find enough gullible MLA investors they might be able to manage to keep the IA going as hoped. If they can't, they'd have to declare non-normal market conditions and close the withdrawals window again. And that could well cause the demise of the retail side of AC.
I do wonder whether AC's new institutional funders actually are willing to supply funds cheaply enough for AC to continue to offer 5% loans. (We don't have any idea what the rates are on the loans funded by non-retail sources, do we?) Perhaps those funders aren't supplying funds for 5% loans, and AC are depending on their retail investors to fund all the loans they've offered to borrowers at such low rates. With FSCS rates rising and the IA rate stuck at 3.75%, the retail funding source is going to dry up very soon.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 5, 2022 20:50:00 GMT
It may well be one of the better ones as there wont be the costs associated with an IP recovery and wont have required significant work from RSM to manage. Just because the loan shouldn't "have required significant work from RSM to manage" doesn't mean they won't have decided to keep a very close eye on it anyway -- so they could have justification for charging us their fees for doing that.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 21, 2022 22:26:21 GMT
Whatever money comes in from lenders is not going out again to us until that's resolved. adrianc: Is it fair to presume you meant to write "borrowers" instead of "lenders"?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 5, 2022 15:40:49 GMT
great stuff Mousey - hopefully we can attack his pension pot but I still don't understand why this bloke is not behind bars... Maybe he got enough money from FS to pay for enough lawyers to keep him free until he dies of old age?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 5, 2022 15:38:14 GMT
according to my maths £340K has to cover first charge £232K plus any expenses - wonder if this is in default? FS loan £122K plus expenses so zero chance of any interest and quite possibly a 100% write-off - brilliant! I'd have to agree. The first charge loan probably has been in default for some time, building up default charges at an eyewatering rate. The holder would have been in no hurry to enforce the security as long as the property value was enough to cover what they were owed. So they sit and wait for the second charge holder -- FS -- to take, and pay for, the enforcement. With the FS Administrator being so slow to act, I expect the equity remaining to go toward the repayment of the FS loan to be headed for zero rapidly.
Moral: Avoid second charge loans like the plague!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 24, 2022 22:27:00 GMT
Has the investment queue improved at all. Anyone have any idea how long it is? I don't know the answer, but would be interested to learn about the rationale behind staying in this queue. I'd keep waiting funds in FSCS easy access accounts instead (or LP for a better return) - queueing for AAs pays no interest. I think the rationale is that by staying in the queue, once it starts moving again your money would be put to work sooner rather than later. If you keep the money elsewhere, and then transfer it into AC once the queue starts moving, you'd be starting at the back of the queue.
Whether that's a good rationale will depend on how long it takes for the queue to start moving, and how long it takes for the queue to disappear completely. If it will be a long time before there's any queue movement, and the backlog gets cleared very quickly once it does start moving, then the external account is the right answer. If the queue is going to start moving tomorrow, and take ages to clear the backlog, then hanging on to a queue position is more likely to be the right answer.
My crystal ball has no clarity on what's likely to happen.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 24, 2022 22:04:34 GMT
" Does that make XIRR at approx 1.6%?" Answer: Yes, approximately. If you made a deposit in one go, then made just one withdrawal of all cash exactly 5.25 years later, the XIRR would be 1.14946...%. I.e. e x(log n(1.081)/5.25). Ace: Are you sure about that 1.14946% XIRR ??
I don't see how 1.15% p.a. could produce an 8.1% return in 5.25 years. I would have expected the return to be more like 1.5% p.a.
In fact, I think you have a typo, as I find that 1.014946^5.25 = 1.081 So 1.4946% compounded annually for 5.25 years would produce the observed 8.1% return.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 17, 2022 21:17:50 GMT
but the lower end ones need either a WIFI connection or a link to Phone. Where I am Phone connections can be flaky so a landline would be needed with wifi, and Business Lines are more expensive than residential That may well be the case, but how many of those businesses don't already have a phone line? If they already have one, then there's probably no additional telephone cost incurred when accepting those small payments, so the cost of the phone line is irrelevant to the decision.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 17, 2022 16:36:33 GMT
Seems a bit daft, but the cost of processing a card payment of that value would be in excess of 30 pence too... One of my pet hates is seeing people pay for small value items by card, its a shame people don't realise how much it costs the business for them to do this. It all depends on the agreement with the card payment processor. The above would have been the norm a few years ago, but new entrants have changed the game considerably.
Examples of these new companies are Sum Up and Square Up. The latter, for instance, charges a simple 1.75% processing fee. So the cost to process a payment of less than 50p would be less than 1p. Businesses that use these upstart payment processors aren't going to be the least bit bothered about taking small card payments and this is changing the way businesses and consumers think about those small payments.
|
|