jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 20, 2015 16:42:07 GMT
Good to see this loan selling down tidily, won't be too long I imagine before it's all gone. I've upped my stake, now feeling more comfortable (& also Q&A news suggesting occupancy target is on track). Experienced care staff & savvy borrower it would seem behind the loan, & an intention to build a portfolio of 10 care homes over 5 yrs before floating the co which is also reassuring.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 18, 2015 13:26:53 GMT
"with absolutely no development issues" is the key phrase there.
AC wind loans (so far) have all been for sites still to be built so lenders are assuming development/construction risk.
The developers also stand to earn a (probably significant - if no site issues) profit from the increased value of the site on sale. Most are looking for financing from AC lenders in order to fund completion of the site & then build the 18 month+ operating track record needed to maximise its value for sale.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 18, 2015 13:14:33 GMT
Thanks Ton & Hendragon. If I wanted to be a bit more sophisticated on a loan & look to have my holding amortise down until it reaches a certain level & then from that point onwards hold onto my stake, is there a way I can do this now in one fell swoop?
Or would I need to amortise it down (disabling MLIA) & then remember to re-enable my MLIA target when it reaches the level desired?
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 18, 2015 11:55:14 GMT
Have lost the plot sightly on these loans. I'd like to be able to set things up so that my stakes in 1 or 2 of my amortising loans reduce in line with the amortisation (ie my holding reduces by the amount of capital repaid every month) & the others maintain my holding (if poss, but not a major issue).
Anyone able to shed any light on how I need to set things up within MLIA (for the former case in particular)? Thks!
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 7, 2015 15:54:33 GMT
there was also a Hublot watch (10k value, 7k loan) taken out on 4th Oct that repaid just 3 weeks later on 28th. Could be the same twitchy borrower I suppose (someone with a peculiar love/hate relationship with time ;-))
but I'd wager/hope these are different peeps (& this one came through a different channel hence lower rate)
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 5, 2015 18:59:00 GMT
not sure how the suggestions could be implemented in practice but nonetheless some pertinent comments perhaps www.altfi.com/news/633(sorry just posted this on another thread but most relevant to this thread's header, excuse the duplication)
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Jan 5, 2015 18:45:36 GMT
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 27, 2014 12:34:10 GMT
Well explained pikestaffCouple of ideas to help minimize similar probs in future a. the epc should inform (asap once fixed) AC the date they have with the DNO for commissioning b. a copy of the G59 (which is signed by the DNO & confirms commissioning is complete) should be sent to AC within say 6-12 hours of commissioning a means AC will have forward visibility of when commissioning is due & hence could (themselves, or their nominated monitoring party) make a call to the epc a week or so before this date just to check all is in order. b means any probs get picked up quickly Would nevertheless strongly recommend AC appoint (or hire) someone to monitor these things for them. And absolutely essential to my mind on the deals where the borrower is also the epc/o&m.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 27, 2014 0:04:27 GMT
Nah nah P45 not necessary yet Ton ⓉⓞⓃ. Nicely put though :-) Stiff word or two maybe with the Numero 1 at AC (via andrewholgate) could be useful though. I think his staff are genuinely trying to do their very best, lots of fronts have opened up for them on the steep bit of the growth curve they’re trying to scramble up & the occasional crack (which is part of building a biz) is starting to show. Someone oughtta call for more hands on deck… The full sp on this one might be something as banal as someone at MC inputting the wrong commissioning date on an excel spread somewhere logging things for the turbines.. For those unfamiliar with renewables I can assure them (poor choice of verb, usually nowt in particular to worry about, just the way things happen due to the parameters the sector works under) it’s as fast-moving & “chaotic” a biz as P2P. FWIW not an expert on UK wind pre-accreditation but I think the bunching-up is not “caused” by the FIT cuts (I think you get 12 months from when you pre-acc) so in that respect it’s just a “coincidence”. In reality then more likely to be caused by the developers pulling out the drawer (a few months ago when they saw they had an opp with AC/CU) a number of sites they considered viable which needed to (& could be in their opinion) be built out quickly before their pre-acc windows closed. Which would be just another reason for the onus being on them to sort things out properly now – they picked the sites so they gotta fix the boobies. They’ll fix things I agree. Too much at stake (also for AC) otherwise. Who knows MC (if it was their fault) might even slip in a (small) sweetener somewhere to compensate lenders for a week of stress & the slightly embarrassing hiccup at the first hurdle. Always good to put yr hand up when you’ve erred, & even better to show you’re willing to make an effort to keep lenders on yr side. Let’s wait & see… Might come down to yr original question… what the reason for missing the date was… & how embarrassing (or not) that might be to explain :-0
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 26, 2014 20:03:38 GMT
Another thing, I’ve noticed the original valuation on this deal was done with the P50 values, whilst the repayments cover & presumably the other (non LTV) calcs on the CR were done (by AC?) with the more prudent P75.
Given the highly variable nature of wind (& the fact that AC’s WT deals are generally for single turbines, & it’s still early days for these on AC, GEIA upcoming etc) I’d recommend AC ask the valuers to use P75 for valuations in future.
Play it safer & then outperform if you can, much better way for building investor confidence.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 26, 2014 19:55:16 GMT
FWIW some brief comments hopefully helpful to fellow lenders. My guess is that Falmouth didn’t commission on time due to human error of some type. Ton ⓉⓞⓃ has mentioned some possibilities, it could even have been MC had an appointment with the DNO on the wrong date (eg. 30th Nov). At this point whilst of interest ofcourse, imho the reason is of secondary importance right now, the lesson to be learnt is more important & that is namely that there was no proper process in place to ensure that human error could not lead to a late commissioning. The reason for that is that the borrower/developer/epc & O&M party are all basically the same company with no-one overseeing them. This situation arises on a number of other AC wind deals, & should definitely be addressed asap imo. For those interested the valuers have actually pointed this out (see pages 4, 8, 20, 21 & 22 of the VR), strongly recommending that AC appoint an independent party to monitor the installation, check warranty obligations are undertaken etc etc. My view is that by not having appointed an independent party AC have failed to set up a process that protects lenders interests, no-one was overseeing things (in fact the commissioning deadline discrepancy was pointed out by a lender IINM), so effectively to my mind have assumed the monitoring responsibility for themselves. That said, pure conjecture from my side but I’d guess the human error in this case was by the borrower/epc (MC), if that emerges then I can only imagine they will be looking to rectify the situation at their own cost. They’ve only put in 15% equity into this deal so far, & have a large number of turbine sites – it will be very much in their (& AC’s) interest that a solution to full satisfaction of lenders is found. I think it will (so am feeling relaxed).
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 12, 2014 10:12:27 GMT
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 10, 2014 21:20:25 GMT
I actually agree with many of your views pikestaff. But I think it’s still too early to call exactly how things will pan out. There are lots of (also big institutional) interests at stake here, & personally I wouldn’t be surprised if things took an unexpected turn or two.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 9, 2014 22:57:52 GMT
Not sure I follow you. P2P loans (as they stand now) would not be as easy, you're right. Which is exactly why the govt is looking at how secondary markets could help make this (& other things) easier.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 9, 2014 19:42:32 GMT
Agree with all yr excellent analysis there OG except the last line (which I’ve probably misunderstood). But just to be clear the uw’s didn’t have a penny as far as we know in the BL’s (the horseshoes were all purple). It’s all ordinary lender funds blocked there which, as you say, has stopped the AC wheel turning round. Not good.
|
|