blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 1, 2019 8:50:56 GMT
Looks like the cake shop 123 has missed repayment date for the third month in a row. Let's hope their baking is better than their financial management.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 31, 2019 15:11:33 GMT
Rather puzzled. To pause it for 24 hours quoting the reduction of the score from 25 to 21 as a reason seems very odd, when you consider that the score was changed on 4 October. There is more to be known. However, I do hold some of 109, and my ablrate loans never go wrong. So there is no need to worry.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 31, 2019 12:28:00 GMT
Shows that they are in trouble which will not just go away given time.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 31, 2019 10:24:11 GMT
Buyers do not get a choice of which loan part to buy, and this 1.25 is intended to avoid the up-front loss on new accounts caused by purchasing the accrued interest on the SM - which looks bad and causes queries. Otherwise this is aimed at the sellers and trying to stop a run due to poor liquidity. The incentive for buyers is the voucher.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 30, 2019 22:52:18 GMT
So, if I sell a loan part after 2 Dec I am forced to offer the purchaser a 1.25% discount. It is not a fee, it is fixing the market in favour of the buyer to suit the needs of FC - which does not sound a legitimate practice. Particularly if you buy into am IFISA - the market value has been distorted. Perhaps requiring the attention of FCA and HMRC. And also there is a new offer of John Lewis vouchers for increasing your lending. Really desperate measures which will prove counter-productive. Just proves to me that I was right to get out - just two small loan parts left on sale. I hope you guys sell up before the discount gets to 5%.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 25, 2019 7:35:13 GMT
No point in waiting for a new offer from Assetz then. Last year my answer would have been Ablrate, this year it is Assetz. Getting very nervous!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 24, 2019 15:36:41 GMT
Just my opinion but people on this thread are now being very optimistic about the recovery prospects on these loans. One poster said that the issue is not the loans security but recoveries being kicked down the road - I just don't agree with this. What we have actually seen on most loans is that recovery is kicked down the road and then we discover that the underlying security is not what we thought. I hope we all see a great recovery, but administration or not, almost all of at least my loanbook looked entirely rotten. I have not felt like I would receive a decent recovery for a long time. on some of these loans
Recoveries across the loan book will range from 0% to 100%. (cf Lendy's administrator's suggesting 7% - 100% for that loanbook)
I've argued consistently on this forum that I don't believe self select p2p loans are appropriate for retail investors. In years past I've been condemned for such views with practically zero support on here. I happen to believe it is close to impossible for investors to correctly assess risk of default and loss on default ... I get it right most of the time and avoid most of the disasters, but that is after many hours of research and ongoing monitoring of each and every loan I invest in. (I still though end up in a fair few disasters - such as Lendy Huddersfield, and MT/FS race cars & associated assets)
It is inevitable that just relying on the (limited) info that is provided by the platform to make decisions is going to lead to a loan portfolio that includes potential disasters. Its also inevitable that seeing disasters in a loan portfolio is going to cloud the view of the platform's loanbook as a whole.
When the evidence accumulates, we have to reconsider our opinions. I am beginning to think that the new FSA rules are right. Just on platform risk, I don't think that we could have predicted the Coll failure, but it happened. However, I just cannot see why anyone reading this forum over the last couple of years could have put money through FS without knowing that it might be mostly lost through loan or platform failure, and without accepting that high risk. Anyone in a financial mess because of FS failure really needs protecting from themselves. I was not in Coll, by luck, or Lendy or FS, by definite choice, and have not lost cash elsewhere on self select loans, but it increasingly looks like dodging bullets. Even some loans where the risk is stupid, imo, get filled despite dire warnings on this forum (other platforms). So I have moved most cash to lower-rate spread-risk sites and am just keeping as much as I am willing to lose in the self-select high-rate loans, despite having lost nothing, yet. I do agree about the 'retail' lender, now.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 23, 2019 15:09:16 GMT
What about poor Adrian? This could mean the end of the Funding Suckers league table. Spare a thought, please.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 23, 2019 12:54:14 GMT
I was trying to be balanced. It is for the lenders on the TS loans to judge. My point was that for those not in those loans this business is carrying liabilities in a subsidiary. I am sure that the owner/director is an excellent financial manager, but the corollary is that he is also very good at maximising the credit obtainable against assets and in minimising personal exposure to downside risk. That is all as it should be.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 23, 2019 9:16:09 GMT
We have to accept that B********r have got their own priority ranking but they need to realise that presenting their business case to lenders maybe needs to be higher up the list if they are going to get loan parts filled to support the other priorities. LW Quite right. The £3.15m figure is still untested. To my simple mind it seems that this business has been funded by a debt to the owner/director of £2.6m and a loan is required from Ablrate lenders of up to £2.5m. The use of funds is a more complex matter but not controlled by Ablrate. One would hope that by the time the Ablrate lenders are carrying a substantial part of the risk, some tangible security will be provided, other than goodwill in recognition of the spending of cash by a previous failed owner of the venues. On the plus side it seeks to rescue four three Ablrate loans, which will incentivise holders of those loans.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 22, 2019 16:03:05 GMT
Clearly not able, criston. These assets seem to be of the type which have value when the company is successful (which we hope will be the case) but which may crumble in value if needed as security. Look at 67,68 and 85. A cautious lender might consider this as an unsecured loan with no personal guarantee. Anyone who lent on the first tranche as a holder of 85, hoping for rescue, is not going to be happy.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 13, 2019 13:34:35 GMT
Old aircraft Old work house (15%) Old folks' home
Not so keen on old pubs and old cars.
|
|