blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 13, 2019 12:13:32 GMT
The one nice thing about the internet is there are so many genuine idiots on it, you can post stuff like this for giggles and genuine kind-hearted folk have good reason to feel it might be plausible. Sorry for yanking your chains. Really just killing time while I hit refresh to see if the sale has gone through yet! That is deeply deeply sad. On two levels. I thought you would be pleased by the endorsement.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 12, 2019 15:53:24 GMT
I agree.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 12, 2019 12:34:58 GMT
I will have to concede I have convinced myself, only. Not sure about that i still have issues as to why they seem to run an bonds/IFISA platform but are borrowing from another platform(but like a lot of Abl loans is above my knowledge base so thinking of running down) But without speaking for others and its probably to Abl credit but i don't think any other platform would have people putting the project,how they perceive the borrowers or the location of property etc over security - i think its known as the Abl effect I think that's right. It's a different model. For 8% you might get good security. For 13% you just can't, and you rely on the platform doing a good evaluation and curation job for their extra 5%. Ablrate do not walk away, even when I think they should. They have made some mistakes, but not many. When a platform offers you say 12% and does very little DD and supervision on high volumes of loans, then you are on your own and in trouble.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 12, 2019 8:16:15 GMT
Without any further information on the initial draw down total for both loans & assuming the GDV is correct, I am sceptical this is an unsecured loan, until the development reaches it's later stages. That's quite a good way of approaching the proposition - do I like it or not, assuming that if it goes wrong the security may prove to be inadequate? I tend to agree with df - we want returns from successful projects, not recoveries from security. This is a normal development of desirable residential property, imo, and the developer is, presumably, just lowering overall finance costs by getting the primary finance rates for a lower LTV. We are a top up at greater risk and a higher rate. Personally I am not at all worried about the LTV at the start, as long as the cash is sufficient and used for the intended purpose. However, I would not put money in this, or any Ablrate loan, which I may need quickly for other purposes.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 11, 2019 18:41:21 GMT
Criston, all the ablrate money is drawn down at the start, but you only need worry about £500k of it. The borrower will not wish to draw down more than needed of the primary funding, because they will have to pay interest on it. As it's a second charge, I want to know how much of that & of the first charge will been drawn down, to see if the total exceeds £1.57m, & if so will be a negative LTV. To be a bit pedantic Ablrate does not have a second charge, but is certainly behind the first charge. I can see your concern when you consider loans 67&68, but there much of the cash was used to acquire the property/business and part-demolish the building/business, which is the very worse point to have it as security. Those loans are being supported. At least here the cash gets used to increase the value of the property, but it does have to be drawn down first. At the point of initial draw down there are cash assets to consider as well as the site value, and if you are thinking of something like FS Whitehaven where the cash disappeared, I rather think we are in a more professional and genuine set up here and ablrate seem to have a determination to control our risk. We also have a larger lender in the driving seat, who will effectively be working for us (I think).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 11, 2019 17:08:08 GMT
Criston, all the ablrate money is drawn down at the start, but you only need worry about £500k of it. The borrower will not wish to draw down more than needed of the primary funding, because they will have to pay interest on it.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 10, 2019 22:18:08 GMT
73% now, but it's 'up to' and so there is no line to cross. Just a question of asking the borrower if the sum is sufficient, which is not as easy as it sounds.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 10, 2019 22:07:54 GMT
I don't think this one's for me. These days I try to invest cautiously on the basis that there'll be a reasonable recovery in the event that the lender defaults (i.e. asset-backed lending). However good the intentions, track record and professionalism of those involved, the risk of total wipe-out in the event of things going sideways sits outside my risk profile. I'm also not particularly comforted by the pledge of unseen further security, as this could well be in the form of high risk 2nd/3rd charge. Despite all that, I can well understand those who weight the variables differently and come out on the side of invest. Perhaps I should be less pessimistic in my outlook, it's certainly a bit different from the refurbishment of derelict properties so often on offer in P2P land! I'm not disagreeing with you, but had taken the other view and put in a few £k. I do regard ablrate now as my risky lending - though have never had a loss - and have moved some funds into safer, less remunerative, lending. This one looks ok to me, given the rate, and I think that is because the basic development proposition looks sound and we should not need to call upon the convoluted security. Also this is a new venture which ablrate wish to develop, and they are going to be all over the first one, looking after my interests. I think if one mutters about the loans you don't like (which I may have done elsewhere) then one should also appreciate those loans that you find worth supporting. If you don't like anything, then its time to give up and look elsewhere. It all depends on how you see this platform as part of your overall investments.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 10, 2019 12:51:35 GMT
So the site & works done to date is valued at £1.57m & they are borrowing £4m outright. Wheres the bricks & mortar security in that. Come on, tell me I have missed something !!! The bricks are in the future, as are our repayments. I doubt the £4m will be drawn down on day1. At least Ablrate are being relatively modest in their fees, at 1.9% up front and 4% pa. I've seen at lot worse propositions than this. No-one has commented on the bid limit of £5k. That means that Ablrate think it will be popular and it may go quickly. So it must be good and I have a spare £5k from SM sales waiting for 2pm. I may not hold to term, though.
Edit: Witnessed by a hairdresser? That changes everything!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 10, 2019 11:07:43 GMT
I do not think that Ablrate lenders have any charge on the property, just an assignment of the borrower's interest in a JV with the developer. P9 explains. The GDV is £4.785M, the primary lender has a first charge (not change as in typo) of £3.11M. That leaves £675k. The Ablrate sum of £500k is about 75% of that residual GDV, which would be available for a second charge, though Ablrate lenders do not actually have a second charge and I am not sure if the borrower does.
Edit : I see I agree with westcountry. You don't get 13% for a first charge on a 12% LTV residential property development in a desirable suburb of Winchester.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 10, 2019 8:14:54 GMT
Often new borrowers are the same people in false moustaches and glasses. 80&98 were property being developed, though only bridging. What concerns me is whether there will be any charge on the actual development property - even a second charge? 'Assignment by Way of Security over Project Specific Interests and Security' does not sound very first chargy. We shall see.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 9, 2019 21:50:34 GMT
Common sense may well be absent, but maybe not in the place suggested. This business is or was funded by £2.6m of debt from the director/owner. That debt is not subordinated to the new Ablrate debt. There is no personal guarantee. So all the risk will be with Ablrate lenders, imo. And the security? It is still not defined but it is probably the kind of security which has value if the business is successful, but falls away if the business is not successful - which is when you need the security. What's not to like - if you own this business?
Pretty much my entire post proved to be wrong (not the first or last time I suspect), so why not that bit as well. You will take comfort (but not as much as me) that my holding in this has moved to a new owner, and indeed at a token premium. Odd World. I think you are only guilty of thinking that what should happen will happen. There is a good deal more 80&98 money out there waiting for another tranche at 15%, and the token premium probably reflects a view that otherwise the money will wait till next week. Early purchasers may be making a calculation that they can hold for six months and sell at 99% and still make a 13% return. The problem is that I think that lending decisions may have little to do with risk and everything to do with interest rate and liquidity expectations. I do that myself, but there are limits. The promised update on security has still not appeared, and why bother until progress gets sticky? How much of this £2.5m is taken and how high the gearing can be ramped up is yet to be seen.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 9, 2019 15:36:04 GMT
So we have an extension on this offer, to allow (no idea who, presumably after the impending repayment) to make a few final pledges. Then what? A new listing that logically nobody would invest in. There comes a time with some offers when they are declared as non runners, this would seem to be that time with this one. I respect and to an extent admire the platform commitment to this borrower, but there is a clear risk of damaging future offerings if common sense seems absent.Common sense may well be absent, but maybe not in the place suggested. This business is or was funded by £2.6m of debt from the director/owner. That debt is not subordinated to the new Ablrate debt. There is no personal guarantee. So all the risk will be with Ablrate lenders, imo. And the security? It is still not defined but it is probably the kind of security which has value if the business is successful, but falls away if the business is not successful - which is when you need the security. What's not to like - if you own this business?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 9, 2019 13:44:48 GMT
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 8, 2019 14:59:12 GMT
Yes a very good result. I made some cash earlier on. Not much of the repayment from 80&98 has gone on new loans, so far.
|
|