pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Mar 15, 2016 15:29:25 GMT
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. Reading the email and the vote together, I think that if "restructure" wins we will get another vote between the alternatives previously put forward, or some variation of them. But the vote is disappointingly vague about this and I hope it does not affect the result. I will be voting for restructure. BTW for those who did not see it, Aberystwyth University got a lot of free publicity on Countryfile last Sunday. Got to be worth something.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 15, 2016 17:47:26 GMT
That's the way I interpreted it as well. The first sentence of Option A says... The lack of punctuation suggests it was written by a lawyer. I take that to mean that if Option A wins there will be another vote to choose between two restructuring plans. The paragraph continues and indicates that, as before, one option will characterise the borrower's payments as mostly principal with a bit of interest and the other option will characterise the borrower's payments as mostly interest with a bit of principal. But they also say... ... so we won't really know what the restructuring options might be until after we've voted to restructure. This almost suggests that after the second vote is taken to choose a restructuring plan AC ought to take a third vote to choose between the selected restructuring plan and going for immediate recovery. The way things are headed, there will be room for people to complain that if they had known what the restructuring was going to turn out to be they wouldn't have voted for restructuring at all and would have voted for recovery instead. Or perhaps what should have been done is to have only the latter two votes. First: If we're going to restructure, how would you like it to be done? And then: Would you rather implement the chosen restructuring plan or go for recovery? It's a difficult situation to navigate through. I'm inclined to give the borrower a chance by voting to restructure.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 15, 2016 20:14:36 GMT
It does strike me that a vote which amounts to a choice between:
1. agree to some unspecified restructuring plan with little in the way of details of what is being proposed (vote later on which of several restructuring plans to go for)
2. reject any restructuring plan that might be proposed in the second-round vote, before you've even seen it
Hardly really seems like a meaningful vote...
... but then you're told you're obliged to vote, or you lose all rights to complain!
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 638
Likes: 659
|
Post by warn on Mar 16, 2016 8:37:29 GMT
B*****y hell. We've been praised! Didn't last long! 
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Mar 16, 2016 20:26:01 GMT
It does strike me that a vote which amounts to a choice between: 1. agree to some unspecified restructuring plan with little in the way of details of what is being proposed (vote later on which of several restructuring plans to go for) 2. reject any restructuring plan that might be proposed in the second-round vote, before you've even seen it Hardly really seems like a meaningful vote... ... but then you're told you're obliged to vote, or you lose all rights to complain! Yes, I find that a binary voting is harder than the last choice, mainly through lack of information. Hey, I need a place to go in a few weeks and I like Wales, I wonder if they have any rooms free? The choice would certainly be easier if I could speak to the lenders - but is that disallowed in some way?
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Mar 16, 2016 20:44:37 GMT
This is been handled very badly. I was in favour of a restructure last month but the borrower has stopped making payments, so now I'm voting to call-in the loan. I don't think that is what AC wanted, but unless a payment is made this week, I'm voting B at the weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 16, 2016 20:59:05 GMT
This is been handled very badly. I was in favour of a restructure last month but the borrower has stopped making payments, so now I'm voting to call-in the loan. I don't think that is what AC wanted, but unless a payment is made this week, I'm voting B at the weekend.
Erm ... the profit and loss forecasts (even those for Feb / March this year) show the business probably can't afford to make any loan repayment. What we desperately need are the current cashflow forecasts (which haven't been updated since June last year) - I'm intrigued as to where the business is going to find the funds to make good on the Sep, Oct & Nov payments which are a pre-requisite for this deal going through (or were at the time of the vote a couple of weeks ago). I genuinely don't understand what AC hope to achieve here.
EDIT: They did make a repayment of £210.65 on 18th Feb, which is probably the extent to which they felt comfortable depleting the working capital cash flow. I know I seem to be reading this situation differently to most on the forum (and AC as well) but to me this is on the edge of insolvency.
EDIT 2: My preference for calling in the loan at this point is based on the presumption that the business will raise more sold as a trading business, than one that has closed due to insolvency.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Mar 16, 2016 22:42:02 GMT
This is been handled very badly. I was in favour of a restructure last month but the borrower has stopped making payments, so now I'm voting to call-in the loan. I don't think that is what AC wanted, but unless a payment is made this week, I'm voting B at the weekend.
Erm ... the profit and loss forecasts (even those for Feb / March this year) show the business probably can't afford to make any loan repayment. What we desperately need are the current cashflow forecasts (which haven't been updated since June last year) - I'm intrigued as to where the business is going to find the funds to make good on the Sep, Oct & Nov payments which are a pre-requisite for this deal going through (or were at the time of the vote a couple of weeks ago). I genuinely don't understand what AC hope to achieve here.
EDIT: They did make a repayment of £210.65 on 18th Feb, which is probably the extent to which they felt comfortable depleting the working capital cash flow. I know I seem to be reading this situation differently to most on the forum (and AC as well) but to me this is on the edge of insolvency.
EDIT 2: My preference for calling in the loan at this point is based on the presumption that the business will raise more sold as a trading business, than one that has closed due to insolvency.
We have the projected P&L for 2016 and I assume it's been forecast in the best possible circumstances. It is though so close to the wind for comfort IMO that any small dip will tip the thing over. Cashflow unfortunately doesn't automatically translate into profit and unless there is an agreed holiday repayment period then I really feel it's kicking can down the road time. Even with a paused repayment there still needs to be a viable profitable future. Not in favour of simply calling in a loan and effectively ceasing a business but for now as things stand I cannot see how this will work out. So maybe it's time for lenders to bite the bullet. Have to agree with mrclondon that a trading business, albeit a not very profitable one will raise more than one closed down.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 16, 2016 22:51:16 GMT
It does strike me that a vote which amounts to a choice between: 1. agree to some unspecified restructuring plan with little in the way of details of what is being proposed (vote later on which of several restructuring plans to go for) 2. reject any restructuring plan that might be proposed in the second-round vote, before you've even seen it Hardly really seems like a meaningful vote... ... but then you're told you're obliged to vote, or you lose all rights to complain! Yes, I find that a binary voting is harder than the last choice, mainly through lack of information. Hey, I need a place to go in a few weeks and I like Wales, I wonder if they have any rooms free? The choice would certainly be easier if I could speak to the lenders - but is that disallowed in some way? I'll happily have a chat with you tonyr but maybe you'd get more insight by talking to the borrowers. 
|
|
trouble
Member of DD Central
Posts: 127
Likes: 97
|
Post by trouble on Mar 17, 2016 1:24:08 GMT
Maybe we should do what the banks now do and agree a debt foregiveness deal / debt for equity / property participation etc so that it can work?
Far more to be thought through here in my opinion before anything goes to a vote
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 17, 2016 7:17:12 GMT
Maybe we should do what the banks now do and agree a debt foregiveness deal / debt for equity / property participation etc so that it can work? Far more to be thought through here in my opinion before anything goes to a vote The AC handling of this situation illustrates exactly what frustrates me about what COULD be one of the best platforms out there; indecisive, unprofessional, incompetent, directionless drift - The borrowers have run this place for over 30 years, through thick or thin, it perhaps could be arguably better run, however they have a proven track record of ongoing trading. Lenders have already voted to extend & make this loan affordable (Why the hell are they being asked to vote on the same question again?) the question of the exact restructuring terms are DOWN TO AFFORDABILITY. SOLUTION: Agree with the borrower using their numbers a £figure that they can afford every month, tie this in with the business angel help on offer & work backwards to decide the exact terms. This can all be achieved behind the scenes by AC & presented for a lender vote if required, personally I would favour imposing a final solution, which of course would be reviewed regularly & may prove unachievable, in which case the nuclear option is available & the loan is called in after giving them every chance to trade out of trouble. HOW IS THIS PROVING SO DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE?
There will be those lenders who disagree but 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 (coming up to its 1st anniversary) just adds uncertainty & destroys any liquidity.
andrewholgate : AC get criticised because they demonstrate little understanding of how real business's operate & how these long periods of indecisiveness & lack of direction can damage all concerned, sometimes it is best to have a strategy any strategy rather than months of drift - it won't guarantee success but may avoid failure.
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Mar 17, 2016 7:45:52 GMT
No, not well thought out IMO.
The only certainty is the understanding of what the recovery process, Option B, entails.
We are being asked to vote for/against a survival plan which is, as yet, undefined. Lenders may wish to assist the borrower, Vote A, then find they are not comfortable with what is proposed. On the other hand, they might, due to uncertainty generated by the manner in which this vote has been structured, vote B, and contribute to scuppering a potentially successful plan.
What chance would a political party stand if they sought to govern but wouldn't say what their manifesto contained until such time as they were elected?
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Mar 17, 2016 12:13:33 GMT
Maybe I was being a bit presumptuous, but I took option A to include the same previously detailed options (A+B) last time 'round. That perhaps could have been spelled out more precisely for this vote.
"Please note that we will be undertaking additional work here and that any restructure proposals may not be the same as those presented previously."
Plus the cash flow figures might be different.
Can anyone, hand on heart, say they know, with certainty, what they will be voting for.
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Mar 17, 2016 13:35:53 GMT
So my assumption of being presumptuous was correct.  Do you feel lucky? Your presumptions may yet prove to have been correct. Perhaps we should try reading tealeaves or casting bones!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Mar 17, 2016 18:50:02 GMT
So my assumption of being presumptuous was correct. AC did say they've had a lot of Lender feedback, this may include other ways of restructuring the loan. But in the Q&A on the 15th they said, "Restructuring options... will be broadly similar to those set out in the previous vote. I'm still voting for a restructuring emphasising capital repayments.
|
|
