am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 24, 2017 18:33:43 GMT
Is is just me/my browser or do we also have an MTAT787 with the same description? (I have some parts therein it seems) Oh and the loan name for MTAT788 reads as: "DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE">(MTAT788) DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE" where it should read: "(MTAT788) DEFAULT of (MTAT709) Lytham St Annes Bridging Loan - PLEASE READ UPDATE" I've just checked my funds and on 24/8 received MTAT709 capital and interest repayment, then on 24/8 the same amount of capital shows as a purchase in MTAT788 (default of MTAT709). Perhaps this is the only way to change the interest rate on the loan, i.e. the database isn't designed to hold different interest rates for different periods for one loan.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 24, 2017 18:16:52 GMT
According to the VR the property is let at £60,000 p.a. until February 2018. There will be overheads, but this ought to be sufficient to more or less cover the annual interest of £55,000. Why hasn't it been?
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 22, 2017 11:43:06 GMT
Main ones that I can see is that you don't have to pay stamp duty if you invest directly or buy in at the 3% premium FCIF is trading on. - FCIF is debt leveraged, amplifying returns (up and down).
FCIF is currently yielding a trifle under 6.5%. That doesn't look like debt-leveraged returns.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 19, 2017 16:33:23 GMT
There is also the payment in egoboo.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 16, 2017 19:08:06 GMT
MT's exposure is the money they've spent setting up (and monitoring) the loan (less any arrangement fees, which might be quite small, BPF taking the lion's share), plus the money they've paid out to the lenders as interest. They expected to get it back as their margin on the interest the borrower repaid at the end of the loan. As MT is pretty much at the end of the queue of secured lenders there's a fair chance that they won't get any of it back. I can imagine that MT might not pay monthly interest on future loans with an underlying bullet interest. Are we sure MT have paid the interest out of their own funds and didn't just retain it from the loan proceeds on drawdown? Yes. From the loan details "Lenders will receive interest as a monthly payment. The underlying loan agreement with the borrower is an interest and capital roll-up, where both interest and capital are paid at the term. MoneyThing will provide interest to lenders on a monthly basis and collect the interest from the borrower at the term. If the borrower does not pay the interest at the term, then this loss of interest will be incurred by MoneyThing in this case."
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 16, 2017 18:12:40 GMT
Thank you Ed. I know this inflicts more pain on you, but at least we can now be sure that MT honour the terms set out on the loan details page. But surely MT don't have any exposure to the underlying loan. I thought that was against the rules, hence the ending of INPL on the SM? MT's exposure is the money they've spent setting up (and monitoring) the loan (less any arrangement fees, which might be quite small, BPF taking the lion's share), plus the money they've paid out to the lenders as interest. They expected to get it back as their margin on the interest the borrower repaid at the end of the loan. As MT is pretty much at the end of the queue of secured lenders there's a fair chance that they won't get any of it back. I can imagine that MT might not pay monthly interest on future loans with an underlying bullet interest.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 16, 2017 11:19:08 GMT
Im fairly new to investing and put down £200 on this, whats the chances of us seeing our money back? Which tranche did you put it in? I would estimate that tranche A will receive at least a substantial repayment. (Even if the project was sold for 25% of its nominal value Tranche A would get 50% of capital back, plus BPF's 5% first loss, plus whatever could be extracted from the personal guarantee.) Tranche B could be anything from a complete loss to a complete repayment.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 13, 2017 21:45:45 GMT
Sorry, I dont think I understand how there can be a loan to BPF on terms where BPF take a 5% first loss if the 'underlying' borrower defaults. If the loan is to BPF then presumably they have a 100% first loss? Presumably there is a term in the contract such that Broadoak are not on the hook for the full value of the loan in the event of the underlying borrower defaulting, but rather for a sum calculated according to a procedure laid out in the contract.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 13, 2017 0:18:56 GMT
There are such things as "technical defaults", such as breach of a covenant that a margin to profit to interest coverage be maintained. I was going to say that I couldn't think of an equivalent one relevant to this case, but while typing the possibility of an LTV above a covenanted value floated into mind. To make a fully informed judgement we need to know what the precise nature of the November default was.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 11, 2017 16:56:52 GMT
Also I wonder if MT investors are now reconsidering their view that it's right not to have a Provision Fund, (I know the FCA don't like them but the LY PF has twice saved the blushes of some LY investors). There are problems with mixing provision funds and individual choice of loans. Firstly people with more conservative investment strategies end up subsidising people with riskier strategies. Secondly the safety net of the provision fund encourages people to take on risk, which means that there's less pressure on the platform to avoid high risk loans. Some sort of insurance to spread risk between investors is an appealing idea, but implementing it in a fair way, and without unwanted side effects, is a non-trivial problem.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 11, 2017 14:24:49 GMT
But had you invested in Tranche B at 13% you would probably have been able to sell out of it by now because it has been trading on the SM and people who listed theirs early in this process have sold out and indeed I sold most of my Tranche B only last friday 4 August on AE repayment day. I listed my Tranche A 10% at the same time and I have not been able to shift any so I am stuck with that and facing a potential loss. I suspect not as much of a loss as the people who bought your slice of tranche B, who I imagine might be feeling a little sore right now. fwiw this is my single largest holding on MT. Thankfully 93% of that is tranche A. I remember looking closely at the risk / return on offer at the time and concluding that A was the way to go (for me, obviously other peoples' mileage did and will vary). My holding in B is a suspiciously enough round number that I can't simply have dripped interest payments in, so I scored an own goal there by ignoring my own analysis. Lesson hopefully learnt for next time. Also my largest holding (just ahead of the wine merchant), split 50/50 between tranches. I had intended to redeploy the tranche B into another loan when an opportunity came up, but never got round to it. This could make a significant dent in my returns at MT; exposure is 80% of total interest paid so far, but there ought to be a substantial recovery.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 11, 2017 11:07:04 GMT
Do MT's loans rank in front of Broadoak's other finance for this project, as i see they funded a lot of this project. I'm pretty sure that the answer is no.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 10, 2017 15:41:12 GMT
I struggle to see how the profitability calculations work, given the rental premium compared to more standard student HMOs. For example, Swansea is 688pm vs 325pm and Cardiff is 700pm vs 375pm - That's a HUGE premium to pay for "newness", and the few other perks that can come with it (sometimes concierge, gym, etc). The only way I've been able to make the development calculations work, is when the developer sells off to other investors. And indeed, that's what seems to be happening - Sell leasehold to investors, "guaranteed income" for a few years, slap on sky high service charges. The only way I can see things changing, is if regulatory changes happen restricting standard student HMO accommodation - Still, who's going to pay a 2x premium? I'd worried about refurbishment costs down the line, and escalating service charges. More recently it was brought to my attention that some of these properties have leaseholds with ground rents doubling ever 10 years, which won't be good for income generation, and hence capital values. On the other hand, some projects offer guaranteed buybacks. But how strong are the guarantees? and will the guarantor still be in business when the offer comes due?
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 10, 2017 12:32:14 GMT
This one looks interesting: Financial institution claiming against a commercial overvaluation with the surveyor counterclaiming the lender was (at least equally) at fault for giving a loan to a 'dodgy' borrower. Got P2P written all over it That actually seems quite positive from the point of view of successfully making claims. On the other hand I don't recall ever seeing anyone between so careless as to value a business on turnover ignoring margins. Bit this is less comforting.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Aug 10, 2017 12:23:15 GMT
This one looks interesting: Financial institution claiming against a commercial overvaluation with the surveyor counterclaiming the lender was (at least equally) at fault for giving a loan to a 'dodgy' borrower. Got P2P written all over it That actually seems quite positive from the point of view of successfully making claims. On the other hand I don't recall ever seeing anyone between so careless as to value a business on turnover ignoring margins.
|
|