oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 7, 2018 17:52:30 GMT
Are we supposed to send off the "proof of debt" form attached to the administrators recent letter? Anyone know? According to the (current) Administrator: "I have lent money via the Collateral platform do I need to do anything?
No. Subject to the borrower continuing to make payments of interest and capital those will be returned to you in accordance with the Collateral terms and conditions."May get a little more complicated where funds have been transferred to Collateral but have not as yet been lent to any borrower.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 4, 2018 13:38:06 GMT
The confidentiality clause is the nail in the coffin for me. What dark secrets do MT want to hide about their borrowers? Being able find info on these forum's about the borrow's background and the asset borrowed against is great DD. What information do MoneyThing want their investors to rely on when deciding whether to invest in a loan? There are things that Moneything's DD miss. Crowd sourced DD is an absolute must. I'd suggest there would be little need for shared DD if MT themselves could be relied upon to do reliable DD and to bring to the attention of lenders everything they needed to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, they've too often fallen short. We've now had a number of MT borrowers who were only discovered to have criminal records or to be the subjects of allegations of fraud following the effort of members here. It was only after MT's now multiple defaulter applied for a further loan on another platform that we learned of an incidence of arson to an earlier stalled development. Often there appears to be unrevealed linkage between borrowers and companies. Either MT failed to discover these histories, or they knew and failed to tell us. With the very limited information MT provides to lenders it would be incredibly time consuming, if not impossible, for most lenders to independently find the information they need. So MT have a choice: to carry out effective DD and make relevent facts known to lenders, as do the best platforms, or they have to accept that lenders will need to do their own DD in whatever way they can. We can't simply dole out our money while being blindfolded by the platform from reasonably assessing the risks.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 3, 2018 22:25:50 GMT
Reading oik 's post made me wonder how many people will be refusniks, so I have added a poll to this thread to gauge the consensus. There would be fewer had there been a clear explanation of why changes were needed and their purpose before throwing this at us without prior discussion. There's currently a risk-off mood in both stock-markets and p2p: suddenly finding this when we login creates an impression of crisis. Various contentious parts have been mentioned. People may also be concerned with paragraphs such as 10.18 which gives MT the unilateral right to amend Loan Agreements, including to both reduce the interest rate and extend the term with the agreement of the borrower but "without consulting with or obtaining consent from you or the other Lender Members". We don't know what prompted the changes or what MT has in mind but, particularly after Collateral, the tone doesn't encourage trust and lenders will be less willing to give platforms the unquestioning benefit of the doubt. "10.18 You agree not to take, purport or threaten to take any action or commence any process against any Borrower in your own name (including without limitation if a Default Event has occurred). Unless we choose in our sole discretion to seek the input from relevant Lender Members, we will take all such decisions. This includes the right to make amendments to the Loan Agreements with the agreement of the Borrower and without consulting with or obtaining consent from you or the other Lender Members. Such amendments could include reducing the amount of principal of the Loans, reducing the interest rate on the Loans, extending the final repayment date, issuing waiver letters and releasing Security or guarantees. We will also instruct the Security Trustee with regards to matters relating to Security."
What's clearly needed is the rebuilding of confidence and unexplained changes of this kind aren't the way to do that. Some poor decisions have been taken.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 3, 2018 18:40:51 GMT
No email, but when I logged on to my account just now I was forced to click on 'accept' for the new terms and conditions before I could go any further. If you don't accept the new terms you get: "RESTRICTED ACCESS
Your account has been restricted and you will no longer be able to purchase loan parts until such time as you accept the updated Lender Terms and Conditions. You will still be permitted to view and manage your existing loans.
In order to lift the restriction, please view and accept the updated Lender Terms and Conditions.
Information regarding the updated Lender Terms and Conditions can be found here.
Please contact support@moneything.com if you have any questions."
I'd have preferred the terms to have not been retrospective and as I've no present desire to increase my lending on the platform until I see the outcome for the defaults, I'll be remaining as I am. If too many lenders think the same I question what the impact will be on new loans and the secondary market, now at well over £4m? The timing seems unfortunate.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Apr 1, 2018 13:27:47 GMT
So what fca application was still ongoing in Jan 2018 - the non-existent one that kept up the appearance of complying with "fca guidelines for credibility within the industry" ie taking our money? Lesson seems to be that if you are able to appoint an understanding insolvency practitioner then both need to agree on the story line.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 21, 2018 20:03:23 GMT
Really good photos. Can't help thinking Collateral would have found raising the needed funds much easier if they'd illustrated progress with something as good.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 16, 2018 14:03:06 GMT
This could be very long thread.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 14, 2018 14:07:34 GMT
I'd guess the IT contractor is probably reluctant to continue performing work for a company that has entered administration. There must be at least some perceived risk that they won't get paid in full for their services and may well have other projects on the go. Edit: These comments seem to suggest something of this type may be going on: p2pindependentforum.com/post/253703That's the way those comments read but would seem a very odd situation if an administrator wasn't in a position to guarantee payment for ongoing professional and other services, including valuations, marketing, and whatever else they might need.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 12, 2018 16:43:42 GMT
Does the loan ltv needs updating on the MT website? Should it be lower than 70% now tranche 2 is not going ahead? Depends if you really think the site is worth 44% more than 6 weeks ago. Some might argue that with finance looking a problem that the LTV has gone up.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 12, 2018 16:39:07 GMT
I suspect MT might be even be very slightly relieved that this one is going.
With a GDV of £7.9m, a stack of money would need to be raised down the line that hardly looks an easy one in the present climate. Perhaps still harder when the developer is a 26 year old. Better to have the hiccups now than after several millions have been invested. I wish him well.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 11, 2018 12:10:44 GMT
That may be the case today, but if this does not get filled then there is a real issue for T1 holders. We have loaned with a clear exit strategy. Now we have a loan on a piece of land which won't be developed until finance becomes available elsewhere. This will be difficult to finance the build as they will not be first charge holders. There is, but no one wants to dig themselves into a bigger hole. If the project is refinanced elsewhere (again?) then the first charge can go with it. What seems to have killed these loans was the casual way "the valuation" increase of 44% over the one six weeks earlier was justified by a single less than convincing sentence in a short note. Holdings in the first tranche were exited as soon as the uplifted valuation appeared. The concern to lenders was presumably that further tranches of cash would be requested in the same way and, if not now, then at some further point, would not be forthcoming. It might have been different if sufficient details had been given to convince lenders that this plot would now fetch so much more than previously if push came to shove. Even now, might be possible to withdraw this tranche offering before resubmiting it when there is increased value to show, but almost certainly too late now. Pity, because it might otherwise have been a popular loan but worth re-reading some of the comments at the start of this thread..
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 7, 2018 18:47:05 GMT
I notice "The security is a debenture over the company where the current assets total value is £2,600,000, where the assets used for calculating the LTV total £2,400,000 giving a maximum LTV of 50%*".
That's the retail value (and I don't know how that relates to trade values) but also I'm not too clear on what requirement there is for the borrower to maintain the stock at the current level. Even if there is a requirement, I assume any routine audit won't include a third party valuation of all £2.4m of stock, and if it did, and the new valuation was clearly less than the loan valuation, then what action would/could be taken? Are we relying on a self valuation by the borrower or something more? What have I missed?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 7, 2018 12:08:03 GMT
£1,125 limit?
p***r £1,767.00 07/03/2018 12:02:30 m***e £4,968.00 07/03/2018 12:03:23 n***1 £2,000.00 07/03/2018 12:05:41 s***n £5,000.00 07/03/2018 12:05:30 n***1 £1,500.00 07/03/2018 12:05:02
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 3, 2018 13:15:16 GMT
Shutting COL down can’t be the right course of action, can it? And does this mean Lendy could also be forced into administration very soon? It’s nigh on impossible to get money out of Lendy, so where does that leave us. I’m really worried about all this. I was able to accept the Lending risk but it seems the greater risk for a total loss comes from the FCA shutting down all the platforms. Ironic since the FCA is supposed to be there to protect us in some way, not financially ruin us. The duty of the FCA is to protect future investors not just existing investors. The obvious example is with a suspected ponzi scheme where it might benefit existing investors to allow it to continue but only at the expense of future investors. Hard decisions have to be made.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 3, 2018 13:01:02 GMT
That is a good point ali . With the intent to "protect" investors, might this be something that the FCA would give leeway on, given that it is not new business? Especially if it was an important step in safeguarding the X million already in that loan? If the administrator asked for a vote from investors, like AC do? Just food for thought rather than a suggestion, so no sarcy comments please given that we should all be on the same side. I'd assume the FCA will follow the rules precisely. If they relaxed any rule and the loan then went bad losing the lenders money.....
|
|