madpierre
Member of DD Central
Posts: 303
Likes: 374
|
Post by madpierre on Nov 16, 2017 18:26:56 GMT
Obviously PGs and Debentures mean diddly, but if MT have the rights and access to all vehicles securing the loan, which total no more than 70% of their documented auction cost, then that seems like a modicum of security and far better than many a pie in the sky VR. So I await the FAQ's in the morning. Sometimes a bit of wheelin' and dealin' beats hod carrying anyday
|
|
rgog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 95
Likes: 70
|
Post by rgog on Nov 16, 2017 18:27:07 GMT
Would have thought this would have easily filled at 12%, given its modest size. Not sure that 14% is really needed, but I am sure lenders will not be complaining I don't think 12% is enough for the amount of risk carried by this loan. 14% is about right. 14% enough? not sure as yet, with the serious uncertainties hanging over the second hand car market, the economy generally and the recognised bubble in car financing (shades of sub-prime lending pre 2007) the medium term viability of this business model is to say the least uncertain, hasn't been stress tested in difficult economic conditions. Therefor the critical questions are firstly the security of the supporting assets ( I will see what the FAQ's have to say about tracking the assets) and secondly the adequacy of the securing asset, and the questions raised earlier in the thread on cross trading, boosting values and evidencing the validity and independence of purchases relate strongly. £14.00 interest is no compensation if you lose £100.00 capital.
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Nov 16, 2017 18:31:18 GMT
MoneyThing Please clarify what the 70% loan-to-purchase-price condition will mean. Are these the prices the borrower pays for stock, or the price the borrower lists stock for sale to the public? What evidence will MoneyThing receive for prices paid? Will purchases of cars from a connected company (either owned by the borrower or an associate) be permitted as valid prices? How will the loan security value be maintained when stock is sold? Will there be controls on the use of funds generated from sales, pending re-stocking? On the basis of current listings on the borrower's separate website where they list their retail stock, the stock of 30 cars currently held (including 3 recent sales) is listed at a price that in total just meets the 70% condition against their retail price. Is this the "purchase price" criteria being applied, or is there a significant amount of further stock in ownership currently being prepared for listing?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 16, 2017 18:39:04 GMT
MoneyThing SophieThing a few questions for consideration in your forthcoming FAQ's The most recent filed accounts at CH are for y/e 31st May 2016. a) What does the c. £16k of intangible assets shown in the balance sheet represent ? b) Can the expected performance of the company during 2016-17 be shared ? Have shareholder funds increased or decreased at 31st May 2017 compared to the previous year ? c) How are the directors being renumerated ? Are dividends being paid ? Without knowing anything about the financial performance of the business since May 2016 its hard for me to evaluate risk on this loan. In an ideal world the loan proposal should have included the company's management accounts (balance sheet and P/L) for 31st May (last year end) and 31st August (Q1 of current year).
|
|
dermot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 862
Likes: 517
|
Post by dermot on Nov 16, 2017 18:39:22 GMT
I don't think 12% is enough for the amount of risk carried by this loan. 14% is about right. 14% enough? not sure as yet, with the serious uncertainties hanging over the second hand car market, the economy generally and the recognised bubble in car financing (shades of sub-prime lending pre 2007) the medium term viability of this business model is to say the least uncertain, hasn't been stress tested in difficult economic conditions. Therefor the critical questions are firstly the security of the supporting assets ( I will see what the FAQ's have to say about tracking the assets) and secondly the adequacy of the securing asset, and the questions raised earlier in the thread on cross trading, boosting values and evidencing the validity and independence of purchases relate strongly. £14.00 interest is no compensation if you lose £100.00 capital. CO sorted the buggers out in quick order when the borrower had sold "our" cars. I see no reason why MT can't do the same.
|
|
rgog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 95
Likes: 70
|
Post by rgog on Nov 16, 2017 18:43:41 GMT
14% enough? not sure as yet, with the serious uncertainties hanging over the second hand car market, the economy generally and the recognised bubble in car financing (shades of sub-prime lending pre 2007) the medium term viability of this business model is to say the least uncertain, hasn't been stress tested in difficult economic conditions. Therefor the critical questions are firstly the security of the supporting assets ( I will see what the FAQ's have to say about tracking the assets) and secondly the adequacy of the securing asset, and the questions raised earlier in the thread on cross trading, boosting values and evidencing the validity and independence of purchases relate strongly. £14.00 interest is no compensation if you lose £100.00 capital. CO sorted the buggers out in quick order when the borrower had sold "our" cars. I see no reason why MT can't do the same. Would be nice to know they have the mechanisms and procedures in place to ensure they can "sort the buggers out"!
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Nov 16, 2017 18:53:08 GMT
Hmm....nah pass
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 16, 2017 18:54:33 GMT
Quick look at a summary of their last posted accounts show a minus £14k net worth/Shareholder funds ? The shareholder funds are indeed minus £14k, however net worth is usually defined as shareholder funds LESS intangible assets, so the net worth is actually minus £30.5k (as at 31st May 2016) (If a company goes into liquidation, most intangible assets will realise nothing. Main exceptions are if the liquidator can sell the trading brand name, a patent or similiar intellectual rights, or the client list. Hence my question to MT as to what the intangibles actually are, to know if there is any real value there)
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Nov 16, 2017 18:57:10 GMT
I trust the vehicles at any time comprising the 'rolling stock' will be insured at market value by a reputable insurer with the policy cover approved by MT.
|
|
|
Post by df on Nov 16, 2017 19:12:11 GMT
I don't think 12% is enough for the amount of risk carried by this loan. 14% is about right. 14% enough? not sure as yet, with the serious uncertainties hanging over the second hand car market, the economy generally and the recognised bubble in car financing (shades of sub-prime lending pre 2007) the medium term viability of this business model is to say the least uncertain, hasn't been stress tested in difficult economic conditions. Therefor the critical questions are firstly the security of the supporting assets ( I will see what the FAQ's have to say about tracking the assets) and secondly the adequacy of the securing asset, and the questions raised earlier in the thread on cross trading, boosting values and evidencing the validity and independence of purchases relate strongly. £14.00 interest is no compensation if you lose £100.00 capital. Even £20.00 compensation wouldn't be good enough in case of loss. Everyone has their own concept of risk-to-return ratio. It is a more risky loan than the most on MT platform. For me, 14% is good enough for the risk I'm taking and the small amount I'm going to invest.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Nov 16, 2017 19:15:49 GMT
As Manchester is repaying tomorrow, I have no doubt this small loan will now fill very rapidly!
|
|
metoo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 540
Likes: 410
|
Post by metoo on Nov 16, 2017 21:31:46 GMT
MoneyThing As the borrower company has 2 main websites, using a website with a name different from the company name to sell its own stock of cars, might it be worth adding the web address for that site to the loan details? As the borrower company has 2 shareholder-directors who are married to each other, would it be appropriate for both of them to provide Personal Guarantees to protect lender’s interests?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Nov 17, 2017 5:39:33 GMT
14% enough? not sure as yet, with the serious uncertainties hanging over the second hand car market, the economy generally and the recognised bubble in car financing (shades of sub-prime lending pre 2007) the medium term viability of this business model is to say the least uncertain, hasn't been stress tested in difficult economic conditions. Therefor the critical questions are firstly the security of the supporting assets ( I will see what the FAQ's have to say about tracking the assets) and secondly the adequacy of the securing asset, and the questions raised earlier in the thread on cross trading, boosting values and evidencing the validity and independence of purchases relate strongly. £14.00 interest is no compensation if you lose £100.00 capital. CO sorted the buggers out in quick order when the borrower had sold "our" cars. I see no reason why MT can't do the same. Coll have different security - they owned the cars through a chattels' mortgage and then 'loaned' them back via a sales' agency agreement to allow the borrower to sell our cars on their forecourt. The initial statement of affairs was disconcerting but it was only the threat of criminal action for fraud or theft of our cars that led to the loan repayments. In the same situation MT's debenture would be worthless in a bankrupt company with no assets to recover.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Nov 17, 2017 8:33:14 GMT
With defaults mounting I would have thought people would be more interested in lower interest rate but really solid propositions not 14% but whoops here goes another default. Give us more quality not more risk pls MT ok to reduce rate accordingly 10% is still a great return I'd certainly go with that. OTOH, while we say we don't want these high risk loans that we keep seeing, they always seem to be snaffled up by someone if there's a 14% rate going or a bit of cashback. We're a difficult bunch for MT to please.
|
|
sarahcount
Member of DD Central
Posts: 359
Likes: 815
|
Post by sarahcount on Nov 17, 2017 9:06:04 GMT
CO sorted the buggers out in quick order when the borrower had sold "our" cars. I see no reason why MT can't do the same. Coll have different security - they owned the cars through a chattels' mortgage and then 'loaned' them back via a sales' agency agreement to allow the borrower to sell our cars on their forecourt. The initial statement of affairs was disconcerting but it was only the threat of criminal action for fraud or theft of our cars that led to the loan repayments. In the same situation MT's debenture would be worthless in a bankrupt company with no assets to recover. I'd be a lot happier if MT were to adopt the Coll approach of chattels mortgage and sales agency. Imitation the highest form of flattery and all that.
Having said that I'd probably take a slice for a short period what with the Manchester loan repaying today.
This does smack of MT putting up whatever loan they can find in an attempt to keep money on the platform though.
|
|