IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Dec 13, 2018 13:04:25 GMT
Why does the refinance have to involve the original debenture holders at all? We have de-risked the project with the original investment & subsequent accreditation. Now the owners say "Give us more money or we'll close it down and you'll lose". Why can't they refinance it on the open market? I'm sure there are banks and pension funds which look for this type of revenue stream lasting 20 years, and that's far more appropriate than shaking down my 84 year old Mum. I suppose the obvious answer is that for a newcomer the reward offered is inadequate for the risk involved and the equation is different for those investors hoping to recover their existing investment. in other words, only desperate people would invest?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Dec 13, 2018 13:15:28 GMT
I am sure that other financial restructuring options are possible without holding the money of initial investors for ransom like this. Fund us or we will, f*** you is not the only option available if this is a viable project with the equipment installed and ready to generate returns. I suggest they think again. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977 
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Dec 13, 2018 14:31:45 GMT
Finding oneself on board a ship that is taking on water, one can a) wait and see if the ship stays afloat, b) man the bilge pumps, c) scream and wail, d) jump overboard, or e) pray that those on shore will come to the rescue.
I'm on a) considering b) and it seems to me that for this voyage c), d), and e) will not have happy endings.
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Dec 14, 2018 15:17:02 GMT
Vote passed by a large majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Dec 14, 2018 20:19:35 GMT
If those majority owners of 78% of debentures have forked out their 20%, the minimum funding target is within sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Dec 14, 2018 20:57:39 GMT
I am sure that other financial restructuring options are possible without holding the money of initial investors for ransom like this. Fund us or we will, f*** you is not the only option available if this is a viable project with the equipment installed and ready to generate returns. I suggest they think again. I don't know how they can sleep at night. According to their reports the directors have sunk a great deal of their own cash into this project in one case a substantial cashed-in pension plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Jan 16, 2019 9:34:56 GMT
I can honestly state that I am now up to a supplementary contribution of 32% of my original holding of the debentures, which is beyond the call of duty, though you can understand why some people are unable to contribute further to an asset which will not be marketable for some considerable time. You have to wonder about a £ 4 mn investment which can be stymied for want of £30 k.
|
|
|
|
Post by justdabbling on Jan 16, 2019 11:06:55 GMT
I do wonder whether those invested in the related Bio**** have been asked to contribute as the two ventures appear to be interdependent. It would be a pity if we lost hope of ever having our money back for the sake of this £34k shortfall.
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Jan 16, 2019 11:31:16 GMT
I do wonder whether those invested in the related Bio**** have been asked to contribute as the two ventures appear to be interdependent. It would be a pity if we lost hope of ever having our money back for the sake of this £34k shortfall. In answer to your question: we haven't.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Jan 16, 2019 13:56:21 GMT
In answer to your question: we haven't. What's particularly puzzling about that is why did A*******e place itself in a position in which it was acting vis-a-vis M***** V***** for two different groups of investors, both of which have been kept in the dark about each others affairs affording A*******e ample opportunity for a conflict of interests. OK, I'm a smart arse who spotted this through hindsight, but when you set yourself up in Financial Services, regulated by the FCA, the general idea is that you should be able to foresee this eventuality from a long way down the track. A*******e should never have put itself in this position. I'm still wondering how much of this, including the proportion of assets under water was revealed to investors during the recent A*******e fund raising exercise.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Jan 16, 2019 16:01:29 GMT
Target reached, thank you to all of those that chipped in.
|
|
scc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 214
Likes: 163
|
Post by scc on Jan 16, 2019 16:40:00 GMT
In answer to your question: we haven't. What's particularly puzzling about that is why did A*******e place itself in a position in which it was acting vis-a-vis M***** V***** for two different groups of investors, both of which have been kept in the dark about each others affairs affording A*******e ample opportunity for a conflict of interests. OK, I'm a smart arse who spotted this through hindsight, but when you set yourself up in Financial Services, regulated by the FCA, the general idea is that you should be able to foresee this eventuality from a long way down the track. A*******e should never have put itself in this position. I'm still wondering how much of this, including the proportion of assets under water was revealed to investors during the recent A*******e fund raising exercise. Agreed. Although in fairness, I understand the longer term debenture from those who must not be named while standalone would have had certain plans curtailed due to the decision affecting this one. I'm not sure there was direct contagion. I appreciate the need for confidentiality in some parts of this whole debacle, but in practice it was never to going to happen and indeed it seems like offgem had full sight of the communications (judging by the letter of varying decision) as well as stuff being leaked to the press. If I were a prospective seed investor in Abundance, I think I might have tried to get at least a five pound stake in every loan just to get a better picture. For example, another loan looked like it might struggle in the future, but since selling it on the secondary market I have no idea what's happening. None of this changes my thoughts about Abundance as a whole. They seem to be a well run and responsible company which try to do their best by investors and borrowers alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Jan 22, 2019 12:08:04 GMT
I noticed yesterday that my account, which solely consists of MV debentures was showing a repayment due in five months! That was news to me. Following my query my account was briskly rectified and the promised payment is no longer showing.
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Feb 15, 2019 18:24:43 GMT
Signs of life at S*****c Business Park, yesterday afternoon. 
|
|
|
|
Post by optymystic on Feb 18, 2019 15:06:40 GMT
"Any amount raised above £650,000 will be returned to investors, with those who contributed a higher proportion of their original investment receiving the option of a partial refund first."
It turns out that that has taken place. Abundance simply forgot to inform those who were receiving nothing back.
|
|
