hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Feb 29, 2020 9:00:55 GMT
It’s not a hard call for me. I just want to cut my losses and get back to the comforting safety of the global stock markets Very safe indeed stock markets down 13% in a week with a lot more to come in the following few months. Over priced stocks hit by something out of anyones control doesn't bode well. I’m looking at a multi decade investment horizon, but to be honest, the stock market is still safer even short term. Globally markets are only down about 10 - 15% from their recent highest price in history. They could potentially drop 50% again but at least you can then continue to buy and hold out for the long term.
|
|
7d7
Member of DD Central
Posts: 134
Likes: 205
|
Post by 7d7 on Feb 29, 2020 13:13:48 GMT
Anyone else smell gross mismanagement, if not worse? A multi million pound loan, with a quoted LTV of 61.5% produces a significant capital loss. Anyone want to argue we will not be asked whether we want to fund, out of our capital return, an action against the valuer's professional indemnity insurance? I am afraid I do and it's on display with several loans particularly property investments. Considering this is their largest loan, it's appalling really be it loan management, valuation, communication, return to lenders etc. On 12/9/2019, we were notified of two possible exit routes. To sell as it is or do some works and sell. We were informed further detail will be provided on the two options once they are in receipt of Moorfield's plan. Has further information on both options been presented to us? Nope! Why has this not happened? It was equally mentioned they are working with a finance litigator to pursue claims against the valuer. We were told they will continue to pursue the claim in order to mitigate any potential losses. How come the next stage all of a sudden includes options for litigation under the valuer professional indemnity which lenders have to vote on? Hasn't this process already commenced?
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Feb 29, 2020 20:24:33 GMT
Anyone want to argue we will not be asked whether we want to fund, out of our capital return, an action against the valuer's professional indemnity insurance? How come the next stage all of a sudden includes options for litigation under the valuer professional indemnity which lenders have to vote on? Hasn't this process already commenced? I contend any litigation will not have commenced because I cannot see MT agreeing to fund this. They might, in some naive people's eyes, believe MT have a moral obligation to fund, on our behalf, any legal action. However this is the real world, there is honesty nothing in it for them. I believe that when we are told how much of our funds could be returned to us, MT will ask us, collectively, if we wish to use part of our returned funds to fund a potential claim against the valuer's indemnity insurance. Of course if the valuer's insurers accept negligence on behalf of their insured and pay out right away without any legal action required, I will start believing in miracles. There may be other options and of course I am sure MT will or have looked into anything does not have to be funded, but the bottom line, for me, is any funding will have to come from us lenders, and I am torn because I remember the adage about throwing good money after bad. I am not saying would not vote to fund legal action, I am saying, for me, it is not a straight forward decision.
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Feb 29, 2020 20:48:41 GMT
I invested based on the "what i considered to be" both sound and reliable due diligence performed by MT .. such as "About the Borrower The borrower is an experienced commercial property developer and investor, having completed numerous projects around the UK over the last 29 years. The borrower has significant experience of acquiring buildings on a strategic basis and producing reliable income streams." Load of B******* as far as i'm concerned
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on Mar 1, 2020 13:51:16 GMT
How come the next stage all of a sudden includes options for litigation under the valuer professional indemnity which lenders have to vote on? Hasn't this process already commenced? I contend any litigation will not have commenced because I cannot see MT agreeing to fund this. They might, in some naive people's eyes, believe MT have a moral obligation to fund, on our behalf, any legal action. However this is the real world, there is honesty nothing in it for them. I believe that when we are told how much of our funds could be returned to us, MT will ask us, collectively, if we wish to use part of our returned funds to fund a potential claim against the valuer's indemnity insurance. Of course if the valuer's insurers accept negligence on behalf of their insured and pay out right away without any legal action required, I will start believing in miracles. There may be other options and of course I am sure MT will or have looked into anything does not have to be funded, but the bottom line, for me, is any funding will have to come from us lenders, and I am torn because I remember the adage about throwing good money after bad. I am not saying would not vote to fund legal action, I am saying, for me, it is not a straight forward decision.
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on Mar 1, 2020 13:57:11 GMT
If we take the 'streetwise view'-- then if the insurance company funding the indemnity knows that there is a finite return to investors then it could just test the resolve of lenders by playing it long.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Mar 1, 2020 15:03:43 GMT
If we take the 'streetwise view'-- then if the insurance company funding the indemnity knows that there is a finite return to investors then it could just test the resolve of lenders by playing it long. I would contend that that would not be the 'streetwise view' but in reality is how all insurance works. Insurance companies are not philanthropic, they only pay out when they have to. I also would suggest it is their usual working practice to say no first and then have to be forced to to re-consider, before saying no again and then costly litigation starts. Given insurance companies have deep pockets, and I am sure their policies has what we would call loopholes to get out of paying, part of their strategy to avoid paying out is delay and testing a claimants resolve.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Mar 1, 2020 17:16:52 GMT
Think you are all forgetting that this backed up by a PG - so any shortfall should be no problem at all no really
reckon it's a sub 40% but then it looked iffy from the off (sale by loan)
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Mar 1, 2020 18:19:19 GMT
Think you are all forgetting that this backed up by a PG - so any shortfall should be no problem at all no really reckon it's a sub 40% but then it looked iffy from the off (sale by loan) Not sure about others, but I was not forgetting the PG, I am just giving it the value PGs unfortunately usually deserve. I hope I am wrong and that MT manage to get some value out of the PG, but usually PGs are not worth the paper they are printed on, not unlike professional valuations. I am not claiming any great foresight, my opinions are based on hindsight.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Mar 28, 2020 22:33:35 GMT
The update on 28th Feb said exchange of contracts on sale of the building was expecting in 2 weeks. 4 weeks on, now mid Coronavirus crisis and no further update I think we safely assume that exchange did not happen and is unlikely to happen any time soon. Be good if MT were to tell us, even if it is not the news we want to hear.
|
|
|
Post by angel19 on Apr 2, 2020 9:01:27 GMT
Given the substantial capital shortfall after sale of the asset, I see little downside in taking legal action against the borrower and the valuer.
|
|
jaswells
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 184
|
Post by jaswells on Apr 2, 2020 9:02:25 GMT
Significant update available online. About 20% returned. PG may be pursued.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 2, 2020 9:05:14 GMT
Option 2 for me
|
|
hendragon
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 619
|
Post by hendragon on Apr 2, 2020 9:05:34 GMT
I will be voting. From my point of view MoneyThing go get the b#####ds!
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727
Likes: 492
|
Post by jo on Apr 2, 2020 9:08:58 GMT
In the meantime, will they return to lenders the amount not earmarked for legal fees should opt 2 proceed? I was unclear on that, or perhaps missed it.
|
|