Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 24, 2017 16:09:39 GMT
Ok, MT posted the update. What's the consensus? There has to be a decent shout for full capital repayment here surely and perhaps a sniff of accrued interest?
Edit...on the face of it and not knowing what we don't know!
(Avatar updated to default posture)
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 24, 2017 15:50:47 GMT
I'm relieved to say the least but why the bloody drama if it was being repaid!!! Carter Are u sure you haven't paid a visit to Prestbury since the update from MT yesterday ? EDIT: Oh, apparently not. Oh dear...perhaps the MT announcement should have come before all the changes eh!
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 24, 2017 15:37:44 GMT
I've also got funds back (not frozen) from tranches 1 and 2....but still waiting for tranche 3 I've got 3. Yep, 1-3 repaid, 4 outstanding but must be in the process of repaying as if there was a partial repayment of any kind it would have to be a partial repayment across the tranches. ... Edit....And thats 4 repaid as well! I'm relieved to say the least but why the bloody drama if it was being repaid!!! EditEdit....
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 23, 2017 17:16:38 GMT
A logical explanation from MT on the withdrawal of this loan. They had it filled, and at 11%, but paused to consider potential issues down the line for all parties and made a difficult call.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 23, 2017 14:26:07 GMT
I assume the business is worth a lot more as a going concern and I take this as reasonably good news that the administrators feel it is prudent to continue to trade now they are running the business with what might be a reasonable amount of forward bookings. They may already have people interested in purchasing the site. It is a shame it looks like planning permission was never applied for. This would have been useful.I think we have to be prepared for the potential of other loans struggling especially in the current climate. My bold above... That's putting it lightly. Reading through the history PP was due to be submitted in Feb and then subsequently in June. Regardless of the borrowers indecision this loans purpose was clear and the stated exit strategy relied on it. Why did MT not force the issue and ensure PP was in place if only to protect our exit, regardless of whether the borrower was considering alternative exits that have not materialised. Lets see what the statement reveals tomorrow.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 21, 2017 19:45:31 GMT
There was a large previous loan to pay off. It wasn’t until the last of the 4 tranches that the MT loan took over the 1st charge security. SteveT , thanks for confirming my initial suspicion, I was being a bit slow! I do recall now seeing the previous charges against the property prior to MT taking them out. Well I'm even more keen now to see MT's update on the borrowers exit strategy. As I can't see a submitted planning application I can only assume MT are pushing the borrower hard to get this refinanced and off their books.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 21, 2017 18:13:37 GMT
Apologies if I'm being a bit slow here but studying the original proposal again, in light of the lack of updates and the pending end of loan term, I'm a little baffled. The total loan is £2,015,000 and the purpose given is "to help finance a new planning application to develop the site". The borrower appears to have spent the loan term spinning whilst continuing to service interest so where's the cash, is the borrower just sitting on it? If the loan is really for the purpose stated then I don't understand why the borrower wouldn't have repaid it after the initial 6 month interest payment ran out. Why not just reduce the loan amount to the actual amount required to submit planning if that really is the aim. If MT recognised the borrower spinning with no material forward progress against the original loan purpose should they have just called the loan in early in everyone's best interests. Either way MoneyThing can we have an update please?
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 20, 2017 15:50:52 GMT
Well if Lendy really are listening and everyone hits them with a complaint regarding the change to updates then they'll quickly reverse it right? Unless they've actually had the majority of registered users already request the change to reduced updates, doubt it somehow. Lendy, if you're hearing grumblings about an aspect of your service and you think it's important to respond positively, engage your userbase and get some wider feedback, analyse it and then publish the finding with your proposed action. Don't just cut off a large section of your userbase from updates they are interested in and certainly don't take a decision to reduce update information to minimise bad news and blame the change on us!
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 18, 2017 14:34:27 GMT
Out of interest, regarding the £1.2M spent on the property, how does this work from an accounting perspective? As the borrowing company has put £1.2M worth of revenue onto it's sister companies books does this just sit as debt on the borrowing companies books? I would have guessed that the asbestos removal was done by an outside specialist contractor. Beyond that you could study the planning application to see if there's any evidence whether the architects and planning consultants involved are in-house or external contractors. On the other hand work done to make the building safe sounds like something that could be done by the captive construction company, as could removing buddleias and birches and any other plants which have colonised the building. The building is newer that I'd assumed; it's reported on the web that construction was completed in 1902. Thanks am I was just wondering from a financial perspective after looking over the borrowing companies previous account records. I'm presuming that any charge against a property, in this case MT's charge, gets settled before the companies own debt in the event that there were issues and the expected value of the asset was not realised.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 18, 2017 13:37:45 GMT
Out of interest, regarding the £1.2M spent on the property, how does this work from an accounting perspective? As the borrowing company has put £1.2M worth of revenue onto it's sister companies books does this just sit as debt on the borrowing companies books?
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 16, 2017 19:07:37 GMT
Loan details aside, I'm staggered that those associated with the historical events are still warm. I can only assume the firm that got ripped off hired some amateurs (think the scousers from lockstock) or they came to an agreement and put the family to work on developing the legit side of their business!
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 10, 2017 18:05:44 GMT
- IMO, all regular members should have access to all information
The problem is in deciding what is regular? All 3600 forum members were created equal, but they don't stay equal for long. 50% of members haven't logged on in the last 6 months, and 75% have less than 15 posts. Wherever you draw the line there will be a lot of moaning. Personally I wouldn't start carving the members up by number of posts. Absolutely some members add real value here and others including myself extract far more value than they add. But it's a forum and all should have the opportunity to contribute. The purpose of a private area should be to open the interaction up further, not restrict it. For me I'd just be asking whether platform reps and the like should have access. Ultimately I'd say let the members decide.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 10, 2017 17:07:23 GMT
Like many this forum has been invaluable to me over the last year, the discussion and DD aspect especially has been a real education. Here's my two cents worth... - Posting by the rules as they stand seems to be a common gripe. The main driver of the rules is protection of the forum and it's members from potential legal action. The site's public and its contents get googled. Admin overhead applying the rules to protect the forum is a resource drain.
- The proposed private area within the forum that would allow uncensored posts without compromising the forum would be a good step IMO, especially regarding DD where details can now be explicit. As suggested this could also have the benefit of reducing admin overhead.
- IMO, all regular members should have access to all information, public and private, whether this ultimately influences their investment decisions is up to them.
- People joining other forums? No big deal, but lets be clear, they are separate forums. Let the members of this forum focus on it's own health. Is it still fit for purpose, does it need to evolve etc etc. Let the members drive the direction. The discussion in this thread alone demonstrates that there are more than enough members who would like to drive this forum forward positively.
Looking forward to this forum continuing to flourish and its members overcoming some of the issues that have been raised recently.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 3, 2017 20:12:41 GMT
"All indications are that this loan should be repaid relatively soon. A sale has been agreed and is now going into legals" From this weeks update in case you missed it. A long term and sizeable loan being repaid early. Boom.......At least we know what relatively soon means now! "probably the largest P2P loan in the world" has repaid within term and without too much fuss. Good news for platform and punters alike.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Jul 20, 2017 15:16:36 GMT
collateral is there a reason for the disparity between the purchase price and the valuation? - eg is this a distressed/reduced sale for any particular reason, so there might be more value in the site than suggested from the purchase price? How long has it been previously marketed? £550,000 difference is almost half the purchase price, so really needs an explanation. I suspect this is the reason for the extremely slow uptake on this loan. You may want to reconsider the valuation, as it stands it looks like the loan is 100% LTV Errrrrr, Yep! I hope to be corrected when The Professional Valuer comes back with their excuses reasons. (I refrain this time from using quotation marks around the words Professional and Valuer ) Section 37 of the VR details background leading to the site being purchased under distressed conditions.
|
|