boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 367
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Apr 14, 2020 14:16:50 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... I express my own personal opinions and I believe I have that right as long as I stay within the agreed bounds... You've made your views very clear, and having looked back through the thread I'm not sure anyone is trying to stop you from expressing them (at some length). I understand why you're peeved at MT's costs for pursuing this case, but we lenders voted for it after what I at least thought was a reasonable justification set out in their email. If you had been with COL/LY (etc) I think you would agree that we're getting a much better deal with MT than we would if they put themselves into administration.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Apr 14, 2020 15:51:43 GMT
boundah... have you not read SteveT's posts in which he initially suggests people should not be critical of MT, but indeed should be grateful for their efforts because the alternatives were worse. He even suggested that MT, after reading negative comments, might just 'close shop' leaving everyone worse off (in his opinion). If that is not a 'suggestion' that negative comments should not be posted, I do not know what is. It was that suggestion I was referring to.
I am completely mystified where you got from my comments that they were in any way referring to MT's actions after the lender vote. You should not be characterising my comments as negative to this. Yes I do not believe MT will handle this well, or cheaply, but I completely respect this was the lenders's collective view.
The only thing you seemed to have correctly understood from my posts is the contempt I feel for MT's self serving justification for the exorbitant fees they now are able to charger lenders, because they can no longer fund themselves from borrowers. To those who think we are getting a great deal from MT in financial terms, MT themselves in their justification update, suggest their fees are in line with other administrators. Anyone not believing this should go back and re-read MT's update!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 14, 2020 16:16:33 GMT
The only thing you seemed to have correctly understood from my posts is the contempt I feel for MT's self serving justification for the exorbitant fees they now are able to charger lenders, because they can no longer fund themselves from lenders. To those who think we are getting a great deal from MT in financial terms, MT themselves in their justification update, suggest their fees are in line with other administrators. Anyone not believing this should go back and re-read MT's update! They were always able to charge the fees, but chose not to AIUI. That appears to no longer to be an option which suggests its charge them or insolvency (I assume at least some of them is paying the working capital loan interest). I do wonder if there is some confusion over terminology here and they are costs not fees. It would be helpful if a more detailed breakdown could be provided as currently it is difficult to determine whether they are reasonable or justified. All that can be said is it isn't 3% +42% that another platform is charging for 'managing recoveries' or 5% +2.5% levied by the other. Im not sure MT aren't talking themselves down when they say there fees are in line with other administrators (same equally 'self serving' line used by actual administrators for the higher 3% & 2.5% charges elsewhere) While criticism may well be justified, the question will always be whether the alternative is better. Would administrators prove any more adept in managing a recovery process, particularly when it came to promoting lenders interests? The problem of course is that once that course has been followed there is no reverse and it seems to be one littered with unknown unknowns. Given the current situation you may well have time to 'repent at leisure' or glory in your perspicacity yet.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Apr 14, 2020 16:23:58 GMT
The only thing you seemed to have correctly understood from my posts is the contempt I feel for MT's self serving justification for the exorbitant fees they now are able to charger lenders, because they can no longer fund themselves from lenders. To those who think we are getting a great deal from MT in financial terms, MT themselves in their justification update, suggest their fees are in line with other administrators. Anyone not believing this should go back and re-read MT's update! They were always able to charge the fees, but chose not to AIUI. That appears to no longer to be an option which suggests its charge them or insolvency (I assume at least some of them is paying the working capital loan interest). I do wonder if there is some confusion over terminology here and they are costs not fees. It would be helpful if a more detailed breakdown could be provided as currently it is difficult to determine whether they are reasonable or justified. All that can be said is it isn't 3% +42% that another platform is charging for 'managing recoveries' or 5% +2.5% levied by the other. Im not sure MT aren't talking themselves down when they say there fees are in line with other administrators (same equally 'self serving' line used by actual administrators for the higher 3% & 2.5% charges elsewhere) While criticism may well be justified, the question will always be whether the alternative is better. Would administrators prove any more adept in managing a recovery process, particularly when it came to promoting lenders interests? The problem of course is that once that course has been followed there is no reverse and it seems to be one littered with unknown unknowns. Given the current situation you may well have time to 'repent at leisure' or glory in your perspicacity yet. Well, that is one way to draw a circle.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Apr 14, 2020 20:22:45 GMT
I used MT's own wording from their update which suggested their charges were in line with other options. If MT, who others praise for their excellent comms. (!), cannot accurately categorise their charges what are we to do? If anyone thinks we should just trust MT, I disagree.
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Apr 15, 2020 8:31:40 GMT
The only thing you seemed to have correctly understood from my posts is the contempt I feel for MT's self serving justification for the exorbitant fees they now are able to charger lenders, because they can no longer fund themselves from lenders. To those who think we are getting a great deal from MT in financial terms, MT themselves in their justification update, suggest their fees are in line with other administrators. Anyone not believing this should go back and re-read MT's update! They were always able to charge the fees, but chose not to AIUI. That appears to no longer to be an option which suggests its charge them or insolvency (I assume at least some of them is paying the working capital loan interest). I do wonder if there is some confusion over terminology here and they are costs not fees. It would be helpful if a more detailed breakdown could be provided as currently it is difficult to determine whether they are reasonable or justified. All that can be said is it isn't 3% +42% that another platform is charging for 'managing recoveries' or 5% +2.5% levied by the other. Im not sure MT aren't talking themselves down when they say there fees are in line with other administrators (same equally 'self serving' line used by actual administrators for the higher 3% & 2.5% charges elsewhere) While criticism may well be justified, the question will always be whether the alternative is better. Would administrators prove any more adept in managing a recovery process, particularly when it came to promoting lenders interests? The problem of course is that once that course has been followed there is no reverse and it seems to be one littered with unknown unknowns. Given the current situation you may well have time to 'repent at leisure' or glory in your perspicacity yet. 'perspicacity' Thats not a word you hear everyday. Had me reaching for me Oxford Concise, I can tell you.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,745
Likes: 3,138
|
Post by jonno on Apr 15, 2020 8:49:49 GMT
They were always able to charge the fees, but chose not to AIUI. That appears to no longer to be an option which suggests its charge them or insolvency (I assume at least some of them is paying the working capital loan interest). I do wonder if there is some confusion over terminology here and they are costs not fees. It would be helpful if a more detailed breakdown could be provided as currently it is difficult to determine whether they are reasonable or justified. All that can be said is it isn't 3% +42% that another platform is charging for 'managing recoveries' or 5% +2.5% levied by the other. Im not sure MT aren't talking themselves down when they say there fees are in line with other administrators (same equally 'self serving' line used by actual administrators for the higher 3% & 2.5% charges elsewhere) While criticism may well be justified, the question will always be whether the alternative is better. Would administrators prove any more adept in managing a recovery process, particularly when it came to promoting lenders interests? The problem of course is that once that course has been followed there is no reverse and it seems to be one littered with unknown unknowns. Given the current situation you may well have time to 'repent at leisure' or glory in your perspicacity yet. 'perspicacity' Thats not a word you hear everyday. Had me reaching for me Oxford Concise, I can tell you. Doesn't it mean "Sweaty Town"?
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Apr 15, 2020 9:55:24 GMT
I used MT's own wording from their update which suggested their charges were in line with other options. If MT, who others praise for their excellent comms. (!), cannot accurately categorise their charges what are we to do? If anyone thinks we should just trust MT, I disagree. I think you are misquoting people to suit your own agenda ....people i don't think have been saying MT’s communication has been excellent..or indeed very bad....also i dont think posters are saying blindly trust MT...but they’ve weighed up the options and made their own judgement..it seems that it doesnt quite tie in with yours ..no ones saying dont question....and I’m glad you are but don’t just assume we are all acting like sheep
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Apr 15, 2020 11:43:46 GMT
Really no point in arguing with other lenders, what is to be gained?
My objective is to try to show the open minded that MT are certainly no longer the 'touchy feely', chocolate supplying small business they were once perceived as. Now they are a small family concern who because they cannot charge borrowers because their business has folded, now exploit their remaining lenders. In their own words, they charge in line with other options which others have recently agreed are exorbitant.
If my capital return from their default efforts was being reduced from perhaps 85% to 80% by their heavy charges maybe I would accept it. However on this Loan, which purported to have a decent LTV, we are having an already derisory capital return further reduced.
|
|
mw
Member of DD Central
Posts: 178
Likes: 81
|
Post by mw on Apr 15, 2020 18:18:31 GMT
Does anyone know what % is coming back to lenders tomorrow? Imagine it's pretty small before proceedings start?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 15, 2020 18:27:09 GMT
Does anyone know what % is coming back to lenders tomorrow? Imagine it's pretty small before proceedings start? 12%
|
|
withnell
Member of DD Central
Posts: 550
Likes: 491
|
Post by withnell on Apr 16, 2020 14:49:47 GMT
Given the money was transferred by the solicitors yesterday, I'd have hoped that the entries would be processed by now, especially given the 5pm withdrawal cutoff that's operating now
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Apr 16, 2020 17:24:00 GMT
Money now received.
|
|
|
Post by angel19 on Apr 16, 2020 18:00:23 GMT
Thank you MT for extending today’s withdrawal cutoff to 10:00pm. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by jonrgrant on Apr 17, 2020 17:31:01 GMT
It’s just sad that MT didn’t communicate by email. Checked yesterday evening and no payment then, checked 5:00am this morning, noted the payment and withdrew. Still not withdrawn, just showing as “frozen funds” and it’s now 6:30pm on Friday, so looks like it’ll now be next week 😡
|
|