markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Assetz Capital (AC)
415
Nov 16, 2017 13:45:48 GMT
Post by markb on Nov 16, 2017 13:45:48 GMT
When delays such as this occur, I trust AC will be paying interest up to the date funds are credited to lenders rather than just the date funds have been received by AC.
You trust that they'll do it going forwards? Or that they'll also back-apply it to all of the delayed payments that have occurred already?
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 16, 2017 13:36:26 GMT
Haa anyone any idea why this particular loan, with to all appearances an honest borrower doing their best, came close to having people going against what I take to be AC's steer, when other, much more debatable went through by a country mile? I think maybe people got narked by the derisory first offer? The first offer certainly didn't cast them in a good light. Also, "doing their best" for whom? They have an asset and some creditors - I'd argue that the "honest" thing to do would be to sell the asset and pay all of their creditors in full.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 14, 2017 19:38:51 GMT
I think that granting a lien would be an example of a way to support a PG.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 14, 2017 19:21:39 GMT
The view given by ABL's accountants on their instant returns is interesting - ie they consider it part of the capital cost of making the loan. I don't think that treatment quite works as the instant return is paid irrespective of whether the loan proceeds or not so you can have the situation where you have incurred a capital cost without an underlying loan transaction which doesn't quite hang right. Good point. Although the fact that it's paid irrespective of whether the loan proceeds is further evidence that whatever it it, it's not like receiving an interest payment for the loan.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 14, 2017 19:09:21 GMT
Another problem is that even if the guarantor does have the assets at the time that the loan is granted, then by the time the loan finally defaults they might have already sold those assets in order to inject more funds into their struggling business, as part of trying to avoid the default happening (but instead, only delaying it).
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 14, 2017 13:40:52 GMT
Good question, nick. However, is that the full is-it-interest-like test? I thought that cashback is always treated as an inducement to invest, so not subject to income tax. I thought that the "is it paid by the borrower or the platform?" test was vital for scenarios such as ABL's instant returns payments, which accrue daily (like interest, so meet the "time dependent accrual?" part of the test) but are paid by them rather than the borrower (so fail that part of the test).
I agree that it would be preferable if COL are paying us the cashback, because then we'd have 2 reasons rather than 1 to justify why it's exempt from income tax, but I'm not certain that it's essential.
In case it's not obvious, I have no training/qualifications in this area, and the above is a personal opinion, not a legal opinion/advice!
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 13, 2017 16:12:04 GMT
Credit to AC - I see that finally they've accepted that it's wrong to suspend a manual investment target without informing the lender.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 10, 2017 12:54:10 GMT
Indeed. Whereas e.g. MTBA is often snapped up in seconds. YMMV.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 10, 2017 3:19:51 GMT
Fair points. But sometimes (ii) is only true at the start - initially it seems too big, but once it's filled, people then believe that they'll be able to sell it if they need to, so they're happy to buy it if someone tries to sell.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 10, 2017 1:39:48 GMT
Thanks for flagging this evening's update from AC - now that they've classified this loan as officially "repaid" (which is an unrelated issue), usually I don't notice their updates until someone on this forum mentions them.
This thread is on the white pages, so it's difficult to discuss the contents of that update, but I find the word "any" extremely relevant. That seems to me to be a drastic climb-down by AC versus the position that they described a fortnight ago. If that's an accurate reflection of the current situation, then I concur with some of the previous posts - our vote probably won't help the widow either way, it'll simply change which creditors end up eating the losses - so probably it'll be best for her in the long run if she faces up to that now, and sells the building.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 9, 2017 22:29:09 GMT
The widow wouldn't need to sell up. AC have already offered to refinance the loan. And the unsecured creditors can't force her to sell. Why is she trying to prioritize paying them over paying us? because the ongoing business will rely on suppliers Sorry, I phrased that meant-to-be-rhetorical question poorly. I meant that a key benefit of participating in secured lending is that if there turns out to be not enough cash to go around, then secured creditors (mostly) get paid before unsecured creditors - so why would any borrower ever expect secured creditors agree to be short-changed, just so that the unsecured creditors can be paid in full instead? In this case, there is enough cash to go around - e.g. simply accept the offered refinance, onto a much smaller loan than the one taken out initially. But instead the borrower seems to have a dream of owning a debt-free viable business asap, and the fastest way to achieve that is to chance their arm by asking for their creditors to gift them a windfall of tens of thousands of pounds. However, as subsequent posters have intimated, the unsecured creditors would obviously say "no" (and perhaps have done so already) - but we seem to be perceived as potentially a soft touch, hence having now been asked to gift them 3 different amounts over the past few weeks.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 9, 2017 14:49:16 GMT
The widow wouldn't need to sell up. AC have already offered to refinance the loan. And the unsecured creditors can't force her to sell. Why is she trying to prioritize paying them over paying us?
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 9, 2017 14:10:44 GMT
Still B for me.
We've already given them partial capital repayment holidays, reduced the loan interest rate for them, restructured the loan repayments to effectively reduce the interest rate even further, allowed them to make the restructured payments late without penalty...and not attempted to enforce the security as a result of any of that.
The LTV is now tiny, and AC have already offered to refinance it for them so that they can pay off the old loan in full. It seems to me that they could easily pay off the loan in full if they choose to, yet despite us repeatedly trying to help them out over the past 3 years, they now seem to be suggesting that we (i.e. secured creditors) should accept a shortfall in order to help them pay off their (unsecured) trade creditors - even though their combined debts for both are still far, far lower than value of the security.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 9, 2017 13:42:33 GMT
What loan number is this?
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 72
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 9, 2017 13:29:30 GMT
Presumably the concern is that Platform A doesn't want Platform B to see unredacted information about its pipeline. So rather than orange pages, we'd need pink pages for each individual platform.
|
|