invester
P2P Blogger
Posts: 612 
Likes: 618
|
Post by invester on Nov 9, 2017 13:40:36 GMT
Something tells me Assetz doesn’t have the heart to enforce the security.
If it does end up B again I wonder if Assetz should just pony up some cash and get it concluded rather than mess around.
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 431
Likes: 267
|
Post by ton27 on Nov 9, 2017 13:55:31 GMT
I voted A in the hope that it is all finished this year.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 9, 2017 14:10:44 GMT
Still B for me.
We've already given them partial capital repayment holidays, reduced the loan interest rate for them, restructured the loan repayments to effectively reduce the interest rate even further, allowed them to make the restructured payments late without penalty...and not attempted to enforce the security as a result of any of that.
The LTV is now tiny, and AC have already offered to refinance it for them so that they can pay off the old loan in full. It seems to me that they could easily pay off the loan in full if they choose to, yet despite us repeatedly trying to help them out over the past 3 years, they now seem to be suggesting that we (i.e. secured creditors) should accept a shortfall in order to help them pay off their (unsecured) trade creditors - even though their combined debts for both are still far, far lower than value of the security.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Nov 9, 2017 14:42:09 GMT
I've voted A. I will still have a decent return on my money. I don't want to force the widow to sell up in order to get the last little bit of interest.
|
|
markb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 43
|
Post by markb on Nov 9, 2017 14:49:16 GMT
The widow wouldn't need to sell up. AC have already offered to refinance the loan. And the unsecured creditors can't force her to sell. Why is she trying to prioritize paying them over paying us?
|
|
nick1000
Assetz Capital shareholder
Posts: 18
Likes: 3
|
Post by nick1000 on Nov 9, 2017 15:11:42 GMT
The widow wouldn't need to sell up. AC have already offered to refinance the loan. And the unsecured creditors can't force her to sell. Why is she trying to prioritize paying them over paying us?. Having a little knowledge of the restaurant trade I would guess they don't want to upset their longstanding suppliers, without whom their business will struggle to generate further income
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Nov 9, 2017 15:23:25 GMT
I have already stated that I would be prepared to accept 75% in full & final settlement & previously advocated a lowering of the interest rate, as I did not want to drive a viable going concern out of business, so this offer just about scrapes over the line for me personally, however I have yet to decide how to vote, as I am aware that giving away my own money is my own choice but voting A has an added responsibility of imposing that generosity onto other people, which is very different. Those advocating to vote B have a very strong case with this loan IMO so I will have to weigh up my own instinct against that of the collective lender base over the next days before committing my vote. I think it's a finely balanced choice.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 9, 2017 17:18:43 GMT
I'm voting B. AC could set up another loan (that's what they are good at), the borrower could afford the repayments (if not they should sell up now). I'm voting B because AC investors in this loan have, through their earlier concessions, already offered the borrower a significant discount on the interest that would have accrued under the original agreement signed by the borrower. (Has anyone ever tried to calculate the impact of those concessions on AC's investors?) I clearly don't understand the borrower's financial/trading position. The insurance proceeds have released them from the AC debt principal, and they used to be making payments of about £5k/month to AC towards that. So ISTM that the borrower should be able to make the repayments on a much smaller AC replacement loan and still be able to clear the debts owed to their trade creditors. For that matter, if they were to resume paying £5k/month to AC they probably could avoid the costs of setting up a new AC loan. (Or could have, as it may be too late now for such a solution to be acceptable.) If the business can't service such minimal debts then I'd have to agree with tonyr that selling up while they can would seem to be the way to go. I suspect, though, that AC investors will accept the borrower's offer if only so that they can take their losses and move on.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 9, 2017 17:36:59 GMT
And the unsecured creditors can't force her to sell. Why is she trying to prioritize paying them over paying us? Because if she doesn't pay them they'll refuse to provide further goods/services to the business and the hotel will suffer? And that impact probably would be felt sooner than if AC were to call in receivers, which ISTM they clearly appear to be unwilling to do at this time. Even if she can find alternative suppliers -- and that probably wouldn't be easy because her credit rating can't be very good at the moment -- ISTM that the existing suppliers could apply for CCJ's over the outstanding debts. In short, I don't think she could continue in business without the support of her suppliers. Thinking about it a bit more, ISTM that she'd be best off taking the loan offered by the family member and using it to pay off the suppliers. And then, presuming the business is cashflow positive, sending any surplus cash to AC towards the outstanding interest and thus forestalling any recovery action by AC. If the business isn't cashflow positive without making any payments toward any debt on the building, ISTM she'd be best off selling out now.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Nov 9, 2017 18:00:26 GMT
I voted A. 77.5% of 12% is around 9.3%, which is a decent return. I prefer to get it sooner rather than later and re-invest into something else.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Nov 9, 2017 18:14:25 GMT
I voted B and completely agree with mikes1531 and others RE: concessions already given.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 9, 2017 18:42:01 GMT
The widow wouldn't need to sell up. AC have already offered to refinance the loan. And the unsecured creditors can't force her to sell. Why is she trying to prioritize paying them over paying us? because the ongoing business will rely on suppliers
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 9, 2017 18:44:55 GMT
Does anyone have a feel for how much this actually is? 50K 100K?
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Nov 9, 2017 18:58:27 GMT
Does anyone have a feel for how much this actually is? 50K 100K? Total outstanding interest £81,452.70 and not rising.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 9, 2017 19:00:12 GMT
Just in on the Q&A
we (AC) are satisfied both from historic financial information and previous discussions with the external accountant that cashflow of the business may mean it is difficult for the business to meet repayments on any obligations moving forwards
That swings it for me. A
|
|
