elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 26, 2018 1:36:39 GMT
Yep, they've been willing to top up with CB where dfl's have required it.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 26, 2018 1:35:01 GMT
I had no remaining exposure to this loan so have done my bit for all you senior risk-adjusters
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 26, 2018 1:26:56 GMT
The good thing about such pragmatism means they don't dump the extra 80k ahead of current sellers so better matching of demand benefits existing lenders.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 25, 2018 12:23:36 GMT
An excellent rep under often demanding conditions may need a spell check for Collateral
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 25, 2018 3:25:38 GMT
Maybe,but something needs to be done to remove the log jam these guys, together with Moneything and Lendy have. Or investors could do their research and just invest in what they are comfortable holding. There are various platforms that offer variable pricing if MT and Coll do not match your capital access requirements.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 24, 2018 10:19:12 GMT
28 March gives us loads of time.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 24, 2018 2:22:15 GMT
Typical smoke and mirrors. Forget loans from years ago, here we are today in the here and now. Whilst you're here can we have a clear and concise update on DFL 5 ? Out of interest, in the 10% calculation, are you counting the garden centre and other 2 defaulted loans that resulted in a loss as repaid or defaulted ? I think it would be hard to count the garden centre as defaulted when as I remember all investors got their money back (and interest too?) One of their biggest defaults, expected 7 figs. PF made it whole although lenders losing money is not definition of a default.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 23, 2018 15:40:52 GMT
The way AC present loans or at least used to is IMO an excellent example of presentation - covering in detail both the rationale for investing together with many of the risks. Most platforms seem to have scaled back their disclosure when listing a loan I agree with pretty much everything in bugs4me's post, but feel the bit I've re-quoted is worth expanding on. To fill large loans a p2p platform needs to engage as many lenders as possible from small retail lenders right through to the "big hitters". Too many platforms, and I include MT here, seem to "dumb down" the level of detail they present to lenders and one platform has said to me directly that any greater level of detail would be off putting to most potential lenders. Unfortunately many of the "big hitters" are professional investors who will not invest without being able to complete a detailed analysis themselves. Looking at this loan, there are lots of things that MT could present to allow larger professional investors to gain confidence in the offering. - A promise of full unabridged monthly QS reports - Expenditure breakdown for this tranche and the next one that's waiting in the wings - Timescale breakdown for the component works in this tranche - Evaluation of how the expenditure in this tranche will affect the value of the site, and why there is a belief it will improve the firesale value of the land above what could be achieved today. (The groundworks are possibly predicated on a particular development scheme proceeding at some future date) - A copy of the head of terms (OK to redact the signatures, as long as its still obvious the document has been signed) with the holiday park operator (we have seen a similar document on another platform contain conditions that could not be met by the current planning consent) - A statement from MT that their legal advisers have seen offers of development finance at lower rates - An explanation from MT as to why the loan details says borrowers plural, when the borrowing company has a single director / shareholder shown at CH - An explanation as to how the existing holiday lets business fits into the overall picture (the reviews are somewhat mixed), given it is still connected to the director who has resigned from the borrowing company. - A business case from a reputable leisure sector analyst detailing the demand for such holiday accommodation in that part of the UK. 444 units is a huge number, there are multiple similar schemes being developed via p2p funding. - An honest risk analysis detailing risks and mitigation. The p2p sector is predominately aimed at the mass retail market (dumb money) but the take up has not been as strong as many platforms anticipated. Some platforms predicted a wall of IFISA money would flood into the sector ... OK, many of the IFISA offering have not arrived this financial year or have arrived too late for many, but I don't get a sense that there is pent up demand from outside the existing pool of p2p lenders. If I understood it correctly, yesterday Sophie's team update hinted that part of her role is going to be seeking institutional funding. Whilst an obvious strategy, I wonder if this will usher in a two tier disclosure regime where institutional investors ask for and get the level of detail I've outlined, but large and small p2p lenders have to make do with the "dumbed down" analysis. For the avoidance of doubt, a one page FAQ is not what I need to make investment decisions (and I'm not a big hitter), something more like a 12 page pdf would be the minimum to adequately cover the issues on most loans. My goodness, I need a lay down - retail summary as now, publishing of platform dd separately (with necessary redaction for commercial sensitivity) for those that like it a la AC/TC. Oh, and loan servicing history, just to keep us on top of what our borrowers are up to .
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 23, 2018 10:05:24 GMT
Thanks Filip, look forward to that; will there be any kind of reasonable short term limits to spread the joy, I've often missed out on LLI and had to send all funds straight back.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 23, 2018 6:16:15 GMT
23/02/2018 BB00588 - Awaiting confirmation 24/02/2018 BB00595 - Awaiting confirmation Have you had confirmation on the above 2 loans Collateral Rep as they are due to redeem or renew in the next 2 days? BB00595- Borrower ID ACC00007 - Motorhome not held - A legal charge has been placed on the vehicle by Collateral.- Borrower has 10 other 'bling' loans totalling £118,050 (asset value £178,000, weighted LTV 66.3%) all held by Collateral BB00588
- Borrower ID ACC00044 - Grouped jewellery loan held by Collateral - Borrower has no other loans ... if my sums are correct, as always please DYOR. Whilst trimming to a modest 3 fig sum (partly to prove I could still sell something on the SM - within the page refreshing in the middle of the night, thanks W...P!), hopefully sub 60% ltv, in Coll's possession and with trade buyer lined up isn't too stern a test of their pawn model :/ .
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 22, 2018 14:13:41 GMT
Yeah, it was today's Archover loan that prompted this line of thinking on my part. I don't know the answer. On the one hand you could view it as an asset, on the other I can see HMRC laughing themselves silly over the notion. And as elliotm points out it's unsecured anyway.... I think I'm coming round to the idea that these (at least with what are effectively startups) R&D claims are more like equity plays. I assume that the RDA loan would be secured by a fixed asset (RDA) debenture so if borrower becomes insolvent the RDA funds are due to the secured lenders under the fixed charge debenture - HMRC cant just avoid the debt because the company is insolvent Of course unlike a genuine fixed asset such as property, the possibility of 'misappropriation' of the funds (when repaid) is a whole separate matter Misappropriation not a problem as HMRC notified to pay to AO account. But that's not a fixed asset debenture - this credit is to pay back a 1/3 of Rd for Co's carrying out qualifying Rd, it's discretionary and there's a finite pot. Going concern would seem to be a prerequisite to me. Edit - crossed with peerlessperil
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 22, 2018 13:10:12 GMT
I just want an email at the end saying something triumphant(hopefully). I’m outsourcing the stress and frustration of dealing with weasels to Ablrate Exactly how I treat my FS defaults.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 22, 2018 13:06:07 GMT
Even if the RD claim was still recoverable (would hmrc pay tax payers' £ to a then defunct company?), we would be in line only as an unsecured creditor. Most confirmation statements suggest that's still a zero sum game. This company may be worth something though as the 2018 BS suggests at least £1M fund raising which unfortunately is not referenced in the docs.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 22, 2018 9:02:25 GMT
Best wishes to Dena, great job as MT met their regulatory requirements in good order, and for the restructure too as every Thing helps!
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 21, 2018 0:36:57 GMT
please dont make it another CB loan to attract investors. too many of these recently..... MT have a business to run. Most lenders appreciate any tax free income. If a loan is filling slowly, lenders that do not like tax free income can wait to to see if CB is added and make their investment accordingly. Disclaimer: I'm a non tax payer and only invest in MT loans for the amount I expect to hold to term.
|
|