cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Apr 12, 2020 12:34:32 GMT
There is a general update on the site that specifically addresses the question of fees. There is also an update giving the result of the vote I think the explanation given on fees charged is not an unreasonable one. You kind of think 'well, you got us into this mess....' but then it is our loan and we will have to pay for recovery costs; that's one reason why the interest rate is as it is. I have never read such a self-serving justification of charges. "We never used to charge them, but since we screwed our business by bringing a series of dubious loans to our previously loyal lenders, we have to find some way of paying ourselves now we are not making any money from borrowers, we have to make it from lenders." "We feel that when finally recovering our lender's capital, or at least part of it because the terms we asked lenders to lend on proved so unreliable, we can increase the their capital by charging fees increasing their losses" "What do we care, there is no more money to be screwed out of our existing lenders - what can they do"
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 12, 2020 12:50:00 GMT
There is a general update on the site that specifically addresses the question of fees. There is also an update giving the result of the vote I think the explanation given on fees charged is not an unreasonable one. You kind of think 'well, you got us into this mess....' but then it is our loan and we will have to pay for recovery costs; that's one reason why the interest rate is as it is. I’m with you.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 12, 2020 16:23:08 GMT
I think the explanation given on fees charged is not an unreasonable one. You kind of think 'well, you got us into this mess....' but then it is our loan and we will have to pay for recovery costs; that's one reason why the interest rate is as it is. I have never read such a self-serving justification of charges. "We never used to charge them, but since we screwed our business by bringing a series of dubious loans to our previously loyal lenders, we have to find some way of paying ourselves now we are not making any money from borrowers, we have to make it from lenders." "We feel that when finally recovering our lender's capital, or at least part of it because the terms we asked lenders to lend on proved so unreliable, we can increase the their capital by charging fees increasing their losses" "What do we care, there is no more money to be screwed out of our existing lenders - what can they do" You'd rather MT shut up shop instead and appoint Administrators to manage / recover the remaining loans? Seriously? Have you seen how well that's working out elsewhere (eg. Collateral / Lendy / Funding Secure)?
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Apr 12, 2020 20:13:24 GMT
Personally, and I need no-one to agree with me to validate my personal feelings, but I am tired of MT apologists, writing we cannot be critical of those 'nice' MT people because we might upset them and cause them to abandon us to the dreadful administrators. Why do we need adminstrators, because MT brought us loans which will not repay.
As far as I can see MT cannot make money from borrowers so they are now starting to make it from their lenders. It is little wonder they 'kick the can' because it makes money for them, the longer they are involved the more opportunity they gave to now charge lenders fees. Yes their T&Cs say that when security proceeds covers the borrowings, lenders do not pay fees, but who remembers the last time that happens.
For me we now see what a family business like MT, with very little skill outside the secured pawn market, expands into markets they were ill eqiped to deal in. I constantly deride myself for being taken in by them when times were good. I AM TO BLAME FOR MY MISTAKES, but let's no longer believe MT are doing anything for their lenders benefit if it does not first benefit them. For me MT have lost all chance of the benefit of the doubt for me, their fees on the apauling realisation total against the LTV they quoted shows this.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 12, 2020 22:30:12 GMT
Personally, and I need no-one to agree with me to validate my personal feelings, but I am tired of MT apologists, writing we cannot be critical of those 'nice' MT people because we might upset them and cause them to abandon us to the dreadful administrators It’s got nothing to do with your personal feelings, nor theirs for that matter (neither of which bother me in the slightest). It’s simply a question of maximising recoveries for lenders. No business can carry on incurring costs indefinitely without an expectation of sufficient income to cover them. Would you rather MT withhold enough to fund continued loan management and recovery in-house or else see Administrators handed the work instead at £300+ per hour? Take a look at the COL / Lendy / FS boards if you don’t know how that’s working out!
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Apr 12, 2020 23:03:42 GMT
I did not comment the last time you told someone to lay off MT for fear of the alternative, but I did this time. I personally do not believe MT are up to the job, and are only looking to milk us for more fees.
On the basis that they are now a husband and wife business again, £100,000 charged to one loan that is bringing a huge capital loss to lenders, seems like a very nice annual family income. Working from home, what are there expenses? 300 hours of their ineffectual time. £100,000 / 300 = £333.33 an hour. / What are MT's qualifications for their role as administrators? I believe they quoted 300 hours works on this case, and the result they finally got - a huge capital loss. Shame it's not payment by results, MT would owe us money.
Open your eyes, personal opinion, MT are now milking us.
Last thing, the majority voted to throw more money at the problem, and I respect democracy, they expressed their views,I am entitled to express mine, whatever you think SteveT.
Last edit - I do see your logic, we just disagree on MT ability to manage their defaults. You pay peanuts you get monkeys, and unfortunately if your logic is to be believed and we are getting a cheap deal, it is not a very effective one. I find it hard to believe in this case any administrator could be much worse, whatever you believe.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Apr 13, 2020 8:12:20 GMT
I did not comment the last time you told someone to lay off MT for fear of the alternative, but I did this time. I personally do not believe MT are up to the job, and are only looking to milk us for more fees. On the basis that they are now a husband and wife business again, £100,000 charged to one loan that is bringing a huge capital loss to lenders, seems like a very nice annual family income. Working from home, what are there expenses? 300 hours of their ineffectual time. £100,000 / 300 = £333.33 an hour. / What are MT's qualifications for their role as administrators? I believe they quoted 300 hours works on this case, and the result they finally got - a huge capital loss. Shame it's not payment by results, MT would owe us money. Open your eyes, personal opinion, MT are now milking us. Last thing, the majority voted to throw more money at the problem, and I respect democracy, they expressed their views,I am entitled to express mine, whatever you think SteveT. Last edit - I do see your logic, we just disagree on MT ability to manage their defaults. You pay peanuts you get monkeys, and unfortunately if your logic is to be believed and we are getting a cheap deal, it is not a very effective one. I find it hard to believe in this case any administrator could be much worse, whatever you believe. You might be right. I have some experience of other platforms, Lendy in particular, but no great knowledge of what the recovery process should look like. My initial instinct is that the loan is better recovered by MT and those they outsource to but I am not speaking from a position of real knowledge so I appreciate your comments and view. You are correct that the results to date on this loan, and other loans in extremis for that matter, has been poor. I have long criticised MT over their communications with lenders on this their largest loan. Without good communication we could not know how things were progressing but now we know. I have voted for the legal action. Whether this would be best managed outside of MT I don't know but it doesnt look as if we get a say on that.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 13, 2020 8:16:30 GMT
Last edit - I do see your logic, we just disagree on MT ability to manage their defaults. You pay peanuts you get monkeys, and unfortunately if your logic is to be believed and we are getting a cheap deal, it is not a very effective one. I find it hard to believe in this case any administrator could be much worse, whatever you believe.You clearly aren't exposed to the gob-smacking costs that the Administrators of COL / Lendy / FS are racking up then. In the case of COL, they've had their snouts in the trough for over 2 years now and have yet to return a single penny to lenders (if they ever will). Lendy and FS aren't much better, with even good assets gradually being sold at fire-sale prices with enormous deductions for costs. You'll struggle to find any MT lender who is exposed to those platforms and reckons appointment of Administrators at MT would be a positive development. (Incidentally, this particular loan was anything but a 'good asset'. It screamed "crazy risk" from the outset and the warning signals were flashing red long before it finally hit the buffers)
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Apr 13, 2020 9:54:52 GMT
I have no wish to win any popularity vote or do I feel the need to tell others what or what not to do, as you did.
You are correct I am not directly exposed to those other platforms, but if you are advising that MT was run in the same way as those platforms, should be considered in the same vein as those, that is not an opinion I will challenge. What I do know is that in those cases the fat fees are not being earned by the people partly or total responsible, depending on your point of view, for the problem in the first place. What MT are totally responsible for is what has happened after their loans defaulted. They have not asked what lenders want, they made all the decisions which, for me in hindsight look very suspicious given the additional fees they are now able to charge.
I express my own personal opinions and I believe I have that right as long as I stay within the agreed bounds. I responded to you directly when you questioned, for the second time, the validity of questioning MT's ability to administer their own defaults. As I see it they have the supreme ability to 'kick the can down the road. While I would not suggest anyone one could have seen the coronavirus situation coming, if they had not kicked so frequently in the better times, had acted sooner to foreclose on many of their defaults, these would have been resolved earlier. I cannot prove that this would have brought better results for lenders because we will never know, what I am suggesting is their policy of 'kicking the can' has now been exposed as a fee earning tactic for them. I contend they always understood this, and why they offered to administer. You believe the nice people at MT are doing their absolute best for their lenders first and it is just an unfortunate side effect that they are financially better off because of it.
P2P platform's 'living wills' seem to me to be a license to extract the last drop of fees from the situation, they can no longer charge the borrowers, so it' on to their poor lenders. I am happy to agree that all administrators are allowed to charge excess fees (unfortunately), but I would personally feel better if MT, the people who brought and provided the paperwork and documentation to me, were not still further benefiting from me.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 718
Likes: 831
|
Post by 11025 on Apr 13, 2020 10:10:34 GMT
I think you both have very valid points . I am caught in the administration of Collateral and would not wish that stress on anyone.
However , I do believe that Moneything have been less than diligent , arguably negligent in some of their actions which is costing me and others money and for them to receive these massive fees does not sit well.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 13, 2020 10:22:34 GMT
Ive experience in Coll and Lendy Admins....boy would i no way want the same with MT ...some may think communication is poor with MT well its on a much higher plane that say Coll......its quite simple for me MT to carry on ..and is there any indication it won’t? Nope.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 13, 2020 10:37:30 GMT
I am happy to agree that all administrators are allowed to charge excess fees (unfortunately), but I would personally feel better if MT, the people who brought and provided the paperwork and documentation to me, were not still further benefiting from me. OK, you've now answered my question clearly: you'd genuinely prefer that MT pull the plug and call in Administrators, despite accepting you'd likely recover less of your money as a consequence. We're never going to see eye-to-eye on that, so I'll give up trying. I invest with my head, not my heart. Have a good day!
|
|
amwinv
Member of DD Central
Posts: 198
Likes: 282
|
Post by amwinv on Apr 13, 2020 11:22:05 GMT
On the basis that they are now a husband and wife business again, £100,000 charged to one loan that is bringing a huge capital loss to lenders, seems like a very nice annual family income. Working from home, what are there expenses? 300 hours of their ineffectual time. £100,000 / 300 = £333.33 an hour. I think they said that their legal fees to date for this case were involved in this figure too? But they annoyingly didn't specify how much. I'm wavering somewhere inbetween both yours and Steve's arguments. At the end of the day, we probably will lose the same massive proportion of our money regardless of who takes over. I'll never understand the point of LTV's if they are complete fiction. Its just incredibly frustrating watching a "£4 million" valued property, (in the Administrators report said to be worth £1.1million) ...... to then be sold for under 800k.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Apr 13, 2020 12:01:26 GMT
On the basis that they are now a husband and wife business again, £100,000 charged to one loan that is bringing a huge capital loss to lenders, seems like a very nice annual family income. Working from home, what are there expenses? 300 hours of their ineffectual time. £100,000 / 300 = £333.33 an hour. I think they said that their legal fees to date for this case were involved in this figure too? But they annoyingly didn't specify how much. I'm wavering somewhere inbetween both yours and Steve's arguments. At the end of the day, we probably will lose the same massive proportion of our money regardless of who takes over. I'll never understand the point of LTV's if they are complete fiction. Its just incredibly frustrating watching a "£4 million" valued property, (in the Administrators report said to be worth £1.1million) ...... to then be sold for under 800k. I am slightly reluctant to enter the fray here, I am not in this particular loan. However the conversation has expanded to include the platform in general, so. I have absolutely no doubt that the current position is the right one overall. The best collective returns will be gained by MT winding down the loan book, and the continued channels of communication and updates are priceless (I am in the Collateral black hole and Lendy so talk from clear knowledge). I suspect there will be many areas that cause conflict along the way, but the time for recriminations is when the final tally is in and only then.
|
|
7d7
Member of DD Central
Posts: 134
Likes: 205
|
Post by 7d7 on Apr 13, 2020 12:30:03 GMT
MoneyThingYou stated the fees applied, which cover litigation and exit management costs, correspond to 2% per year of the principal since the loan defaulted on its terms in 2018. I wonder why considering the following. You classified the loan as non-performing in May 2018. You gave generous forbearance to settle overdue interest and capital via completing the project. You equally mentioned this route, which lasted sixteen months, was not only in the best interest of lenders but also the fastest means of repayment. Despite the borrower repeatedly failing to deliver on their commitments, you merely reported progress on all fronts and asserted your chosen course of action remained the best. Your continued support for the borrower waned in September 2019 when they failed to meet certain conditions. As a consequence, you placed the loan into default. This was when interest accrued at the default rate. In view of the above, how do you justify charging the same amount beyond the date we were advised the loan was moved into default status? It seems lenders have to pay the price for your failed lenient plan as we were not notified of any formal litigation underway from May 2018.
|
|