elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 16:36:28 GMT
A couple of good updates posted this morning for the 6 Scottish Pubs and Sw***land (Non-Asset Backed) loans. I assume the offer is for the highest priced unit and, if so, is spookily close to the valuation. Not used to valuations being that accurate. Well done that man, and reassuring for all lenders that valuations don't need to be 30% adrift. We were told at go live that one was into sale's process so that may have fed into the valuation, they rarely stray far from known purchase prices.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 16:27:55 GMT
No mention of interim permission a noticeable omission, even if they can't give specific comment on progress with their case officer, some words of reassurance welcome as the last large platform still using this permission.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 14:44:56 GMT
Got a car that’s been hit & falling apart this time (same style of graphic ie blue cartoony but couldn't manage an ipad screenshot and stardust would have my guts for garters as I don’t know the acceptable attachment rules).
Whilst a car might be slightly better metaphorically, if a picture is necessary could it be something a bit more uplifting given the current circumstances.
It is an 'Unexpected Error' message asking to contact the administrator if the problem continues.
Edit - have taken a photo instead this time.
Edit 2 - just went to try on Android which was still showing the sinking ship from my last use, that I did take a screenshot of.
For the avoidance of any doubt - this is related to temporary errors accessing the abl account and these are abl labelled pictures being used. This is just what I am seeing and have now recorded. If there are any accusations or sarcastic congratualtion of new lows then I'm afraid these are all abl's own actions that they must take ownership of and responsibility for.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 12:08:34 GMT
TC, 6/4/18, enough liquidity already vs current pipeline.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 11:58:28 GMT
not for me i'm afraid i am in to deep already with this borrower who's SPV'S have already had millions from us.it is the same borrower for 6 other DFL'S that are already running dfl 003 dfl006 dfl013 dfl020 dfl022 dfl033. a pbl that will soon turn into a big long running dfl Not sure how long they're planning to hold it on pipeline but they do state they expect redemption of some of the above loans before they progress so it may be a v early temperature guage. Block A is nearest to completion so that may be the benchmark.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 10:37:09 GMT
Although tbf it was running losses with negative liabilities in its last accounts. Without inquiring what is a "negative liability", and with zero intentions to have a interchange of thoughts about this, I want to remark that a company can make a loss without being insolvent. Most startups and young companies have operating loses during early years without falling into insolvency. Losses are fine but you unfortunately do need to understand negative liabilities before replying about insolvency. An 'interchange' is unavoidable to help other investors more willing to understand - the funding of their losses is not on their balance sheet so perhaps you could tell us where you think the funding lines for these losses are coming from? There are no notes for going concern or creditors, just that the directors lent 86,000 to another company of theirs. / auditor hat on.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 7:57:28 GMT
So COL was operating at a loss. Thus for the fees of the administrator to be met, we as investors can not expect returns of 100p in the £ . or am i missing something ? moist posted this earlier in the thread which is pertinent to that concern. Had a long chat with Jessica this morning. Col were not out of cash, the administration was forced by the FCA. Intention is that fees are paid from COLs arrangement fees on loans. dualinvestor discusses the two types of insolvency earlier ie can't pay your bills or owe more than company is worth. Coll is in 2nd category. That said you may continue as a going concern if directors believe they can meet obligations for the next year, for example, if a main creditor allows forbearance. Whilst having negative assets of 0.3M there was 282k cash in bank and you'd expect the dash for development property growth after the Nov16 accounts to have increased turnover (and costs, ie the new 'QS' they just onboarded). Not sure how long that would keep the lights on without trading though, depends on any continuity solutions the administrator looks at, possibly there is more fee income to be derived ie exit fees upon redemptions. This type of stuff should be covered off in the admin report due within c8 weeks (possibly extended in court).
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 7:45:56 GMT
They also charge up to 12% to desperate lenders. Sadly, lender exit fee ie on sale after midnight not separated in fee income although it may be possible for a rough guestimate from the SM scrapes. abl also charge highest rates on loans I'm invested in. Is ABL making money ? No. Losses -365k 8/15, -149k 8/16. 8/17 accounts due end May.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 6:29:06 GMT
Maybe there's a technical solution? Is it not possible for code somehow to allow users to self-select the sites [up to 10] that they wish to have easy access to on the main page? Kind of "pinning" their preferred sites? I self-select fora and only review Unread posts of interest with tapatalk app. Please note that there is security discussion around using logins on forum aggregators.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 6:23:39 GMT
FS too. 442k in 2017 & 549k 2016. Lendy made £3.3m! That must be charging some seriously high rates to desperate borrowers. They also charge up to 12% to desperate lenders. Sadly, lender exit fee ie on sale after midnight not separated in fee income although it may be possible for a rough guestimate from the SM scrapes. abl also charge highest rates on loans I'm invested in.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 6:13:51 GMT
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 4:28:54 GMT
MT too. Although none to the extent of Ly.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 2:02:46 GMT
What's to stop the FCA doing the same to Lendy as they did to Col? If I had a lot of funds in Lendy, I would be speaking to the FCA. Ly are applying under the correct interim permission. Ther are some options used by other companies above should they need time to challenge any verdict or update their business model.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 2, 2018 0:55:54 GMT
...Therefore, while we are all now more nervous, I think you will only ever get the same "it's in progress" answer - until it isn't and the platform disappears. The only satisfactory solution is actual full FCA authorisation. EDIT - as just proved by Lendy Support, above! Not quite. LendInvest went down the route of sophisticated investors perhaps because they are the loan counterpart and assign parts to investors rather than being 'true' p2p. Wellesley suspended their p2p activities and continued selling their investments via bonds (which could be to the same investors). In both cases p2p investors continued to have their existing contracts honoured with the investment co in situ. So it is not necessarily a binary choice of fca authorisation or "the platform diappears". Edit - as proved by Mary's link above! LendInvest preferred their model of funding loans directly backed by a substantial parent so decided strategically not to be authorised as a 'p2p' company. Wellesley were reported to be under some financial stress from development property losses (note, something they do not agree with in their risk analyses) and were after an equity raise but are now preparing to relaunch their p2p. In neither case did they fail and disappear so that suggests Ly would still have options if they were required to use their permissable fca challenge. As well as reporting industry leading figures, Ly have made significant institutional hires and have overhauled practices from website functionailty to loan risk profile management that show tangible evidence of changes being made to meet fca requirements. In strong contrast, we had no outward sign of any such fca progress from Coll despite Gordon's recent affirmation to the contrary.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 1, 2018 14:57:03 GMT
Seriously... in the current circumstances... The site is perfectly fine. A new low in my opinion. Congrats Your site was down with an inappropriate graphic. How about you sort it out rather than criticise lenders trying to continue using your pllatform but are encountering problems.
|
|