mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 2, 2016 21:58:17 GMT
andrewholgate Do you think some update to this effect should be provided on the website, possibly even by email, to notify all the lenders who dont frequent this restricted forum? And then we get silence. (And those who don't frequent the forum are totally unaware of all of this.) Those of us who haven't voted are left in the dark. Do I have to vote before 1000 Thursday, or not? Those who have voted might wish they had voted differently. It wouldn't be nearly so bad if the Survey Monkey website allowed people to change their vote. If there was just one improvement AC could make to the voting system, IMHO it would be to allow votes to be changed until the poll closes. As it is, with further information coming out via the forum and the loan Q&A, we have to wait until the last minute to vote -- or risk finding we've cast a vote that we regret. andrewholgate: Please enable vote changing/correction before the voting deadline!
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875 
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 3, 2016 8:07:47 GMT
I suspect the mooted development project to bring lender voting "in house" and onto the website must be moving up the priority list
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 4, 2016 17:18:01 GMT
Email received...
We get to vote again!
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,046
Likes: 4,438
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 4, 2016 17:35:39 GMT
Email received... We get to vote again! This really is make it up as you go along time. The update on the web site says that voting for options A and C was very close, but we aren't told which came first. We don't have detailed results, just the fact that A + B together was well ahead of C. On that basis AC towers has decided on a second vote without option C (but with option B in, even though it was significantly less popular than C). I think the whole thing stinks and is being driven by AC'S reluctance to default the loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Mar 4, 2016 18:57:03 GMT
Email received... We get to vote again! This really is make it up as you go along time. The update on the web site says that voting for options A and C was very close, but we aren't told which came first. We don't have detailed results, just the fact that A + B together was well ahead of C. On that basis AC towers has decided on a second vote without option C (but with option B in, even though it was significantly less popular than C). I think the whole thing stinks and is being driven by AC'S reluctance to default the loan. I am sorry you feel like that. This is not a cover up or an unwillingness to default the loan. More people wanted to restructure the loan than kill it. The bit they disagreed on was the way the restructure works but I say again far more people wanted the loan restructured than killed. The question about this was raised earlier. We didn't take this lightly and undertook a board discussion on it. If you feel aggrieved there is a formal complaints procedure you can follow.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Mar 4, 2016 19:08:04 GMT
At least they listened and did not carry on regardless, they made an error it was pointed out and it has been changed
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 7, 2016 18:24:22 GMT
I would recommend that anyone who voted C in this vote and is considering following this up with a formal complaint to ABSTAIN from the forthcoming vote between the two restructuring proposals to avoid prejudicing your position.
That said, I suspect the chances of a successful complaint are minimal, as the grounds seem to be restricted to the relatively narrow premise of the unfairly structured first poll.
We have not been given any evidence the business can afford either of the restructuring options, nor that they have the cash in hand to make up the repayments as far as last December. This is simply a kicking the can down the road exercise as for unexplained reasons as there has been no commentary as to the desirability or otherwise of calling in the loan.
There is probably much stronger grounds for complaint when the loan is eventually called in with the accrued interest based on the lower rate. Hence the need not to prejudice your position by voting for one of the two restructure options.
EDIT: No longer applicable as the vote is being restarted as a restructure vs default poll.
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Mar 9, 2016 3:35:43 GMT
I would recommend that anyone who voted C in this vote and is considering following this up with a formal complaint to ABSTAIN from the forthcoming vote between the two restructuring proposals to avoid prejudicing your position.
That said, I suspect the chances of a successful complaint are minimal, as the grounds seem to be restricted to the relatively narrow premise of the unfairly structured first poll.
We have not been given any evidence the business can afford either of the restructuring options, nor that they have the cash in hand to make up the repayments as far as last December. This is simply a kicking the can down the road exercise as for unexplained reasons as there has been no commentary as to the desirability or otherwise of calling in the loan.
There is probably much stronger grounds for complaint when the loan is eventually called in with the accrued interest based on the lower rate. Hence the need not to prejudice your position by voting for one of the two restructure options.
I voted C but I'm not going to issue a formal complaint. There's no good voting system that works for everyone, AC realise that they could have done better and I trust them to do better next time. That said I think it's a dangerous precedent to retrospectively change interest rates. I really would like to see this addressed in the next poll.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 9, 2016 8:34:54 GMT
That said I think it's a dangerous precedent to retrospectively change interest rates. I really would like to see this addressed in the next poll. In instances where a loan is defaulted, the effect is often to retrospectively change the interest rate (to zero if the recovery is not even enough to repay the outstanding capital, or to a lower effective rate if the recovery is enough to pay the outstanding capital but not all the outstanding interest). Another point is that, although it suits my voting preferences, it feels like "cheating" to eliminate one of the most popular options from the second-round vote. In multi-round voting systems where an option is elimanated from the second-round vote, one would normally expect the least-popular option to be eliminated (presumably option B in this case) and for the second-round vote to give a choice between the two most popular options from the first-round vote. In this case between the original options A and C. To me the dangerous precedents are: - releasing information about the vote whilst the vote is underway (which perhaps influenced voting that occured after the information was released) - making up the rules under which the vote is conducted after the result is known, rather than having them clearly set out before the vote occurs. A "single transferable vote" seems the fairest way to conduct future votes with multiple options (and possibly to re-run this one from scratch, as there seem valid arguments for having either an A vs B vote [as they were the options voting to work with the borrower], or an A vs C vote [as they were the two most popular options]). That way, AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE, it is clearly understood how the first and second preferences will interact with one another, and how it will be decided which option will be eliminated before taking second preferences into account. If, as was hypothesised, all A+B voters prefer any form of restructuring over a default, this would be clearly visible from the second preferences. As it is, AC seem to be eliminating option C due to pre-supposing what A+B voter's second preferences were. For all we know, it's possible that the B voters would have preferred to default the loan rather than go for option A.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 9, 2016 11:02:47 GMT
This really is make it up as you go along time. The update on the web site says that voting for options A and C was very close, but we aren't told which came first. We don't have detailed results, just the fact that A + B together was well ahead of C. On that basis AC towers has decided on a second vote without option C (but with option B in, even though it was significantly less popular than C). I think the whole thing stinks and is being driven by AC'S reluctance to default the loan. I am sorry you feel like that. This is not a cover up or an unwillingness to default the loan. More people wanted to restructure the loan than kill it. The bit they disagreed on was the way the restructure works but I say again far more people wanted the loan restructured than killed. The question about this was raised earlier. We didn't take this lightly and undertook a board discussion on it. If you feel aggrieved there is a formal complaints procedure you can follow. I would like clarity in any vote, so a binary choice of kill/extend would be my chosen option going forward, I dislike the "Lib Dem" style complicated voting structures & would be happy to allow AC to negotiate & determine what terms were suitable for ongoing sustainability.
Has this vote been AC's finest hour? - obviously not but a clear majority of investor want to extend/restructure the loan, in what is essentially a binary vote, it is just the exact terms that are in dispute. AC are only trying to implement investors wishes (admittedly in a rather cack handed manner). Ultimately whilst the exact final terms are negotiable, the over riding aim must be TO MAKE THE LOAN AFFORDABLE otherwise calling it in would have been inevitable (& may eventually prove to be the option of last resort).
The easy & obvious solution to those investors who are opposed to this course of action, or any of the terms in the final settlement, is TO ALLOW TRADING & let the invisible hand of the market work its magic - if AC don't want to expose new or inexperienced investors to that risk why not allow trading ONLY between existing holders of the loan? Whatever the final solution I just wish AC would GET ON & IMPLEMENT IT as this constant delay just adds uncertainty & destroys any liquidity.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 15, 2016 12:34:55 GMT
Ding Ding round 2 or rather round 1 again as AC have decided in the interests of fairness to do the whole vote again with the binary choice, restructure or default.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 15, 2016 12:36:45 GMT
Ding Ding round 2 or rather round 1 again as AC have decided in the interests of fairness to do the whole vote again with the binary choice, restructure or default. Good call, I think.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 15, 2016 12:41:28 GMT
Ding Ding round 2 or rather round 1 again as AC have decided in the interests of fairness to do the whole vote again with the binary choice, restructure or default. Good call, I think. Yes, somewhat tortuous route to get there but arrived in the end. The restructure proposal is also slightly different and much vaguer in its details so whether that will have any impact on the vote we shall see. I remain of the opinion that the borrower is cooperative, trying to find a solution and deserves a chance.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Mar 15, 2016 13:04:45 GMT
Agreed the right path by AC.
Interesting to see how much the opinions have changed since the first vote
*that is, the opinions of the voters rather than commentators
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Mar 15, 2016 14:59:08 GMT
B*****y hell. We've been praised!
|
|
