snowmobile
Member of DD Central
Posts: 230 
Likes: 448
|
Post by snowmobile on Mar 31, 2018 11:21:56 GMT
The lenders? Whilst an offer to buy 100% of the loan book would be wonderful news, are we really expected to believe and trust in this? Offers can and do vanish at any time. I would have thought it more likely that another authorised firm could take over the running of the loan book. This would only return 100% to lenders if the loans were successfully repaid or refinanced. I suspect it means to "buy" the book from COL - the borrower/lender relationship and outstanding charges. So our ongoing investments would be part of what's "bought". COL get a (nominal) payment, the purchaser gets the ongoing loans to manage, we get a change in the management layer between us and the lender. And, yes, we get back what comes back from the lender in exactly the same way. Yes that's what I thought would happen. However the report appears to be deliberately vague and perhaps even misleading when they talk about having enough to pay investors at 100p in the pound. More clarity is needed, is it an offer to buy the loans outright from lenders or a nominal payment to buy the right to manage the loans going forward. After all loans are bought and sold all the time in financial markets, including P2P via secondary markets. The buyer takes over the risk of default at the point of sale. It seems implausible that any buyer willing to take on that risk wouldn't require a substantial discount.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467 
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Mar 31, 2018 11:25:08 GMT
certainly seems that was intention of them and their shills.
Still some folk think it's excellent so guess it's partially worked.
Wonder if anyone has been kind enough to forward a copy to DWF LLP for their comment ?
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Mar 31, 2018 11:32:08 GMT
while it is not a simple comparison - when the company i worked for a few years back (with approx 2000 workers) appointed an administrator we were told no decision had been made on the workforce & we would trade as normal.Within 48hrs 90% of the workforce was laid off with no pay and told to claim wages from the govt comp. scheme up to the limit set at the time.It then took 18 months to get holiday pay owed,expenses etc and wages the govt. had not covered as one of the creditors in the line waiting. But what was noticed was the directors still seemed to be involved in the running of the company in some way there every day, able to buy stock at clearance prices,keeping contacts and starting up again etc.This in turn led to ill feeling and suspicion.
While it seems reassuring in general that P2P platforms have a process in place for problems and someone to step in and take over it could in the long run be a better and cleaner process if it was an independent administrator/receiver.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2018 11:38:06 GMT
Is this interest or capital repayment? Wasn't interest retained up front? Page 23 "The ongoing monthly net interest receivable by the Group is in excess of £150,000" Regarding interest retained up front, I dont know perhaps someone does know. On a loan book of £23m interest of excess of £150k is about 8% per annum, which seems to be a low % if it relates to lenders income so perhaps this is the income to COL the report does not say, if it is then this suggests COL interest was not paid up front. If the £150k is not investors income then a call on investors income might be less that I speculated earlier Normally Col interest will be retained up front and then paid as due (same as lenders). In the meantime it will be sat in the borrowers client account as it belongs to the borrower until due. The borrower effectively pays rate x (retained up front) a % of that goes to lenders and and the other % goes to Col as fees.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 31, 2018 11:47:22 GMT
I suspect it means to "buy" the book from COL - the borrower/lender relationship and outstanding charges. So our ongoing investments would be part of what's "bought". COL get a (nominal) payment, the purchaser gets the ongoing loans to manage, we get a change in the management layer between us and the lender. And, yes, we get back what comes back from the lender in exactly the same way. Yes that's what I thought would happen. However the report appears to be deliberately vague and perhaps even misleading when they talk about having enough to pay investors at 100p in the pound. More clarity is needed, is it an offer to buy the loans outright from lenders or a nominal payment to buy the right to manage the loans going forward. After all loans are bought and sold all the time in financial markets, including P2P via secondary markets. The buyer takes over the risk of default at the point of sale. It seems implausible that any buyer willing to take on that risk wouldn't require a substantial discount. I doubt it could be an offer to buy the loans outright from lenders. Although the legal agreements behind the loans have never been made available to us, it seems the contract is directly between borrower and lender with the Collateral Agent managing the loan. A buyer could take over management of the loans by way of assignment by the Collateral Agent, or it could replace the lenders by way of refinance with the borrower, but I'd think it could not unilaterally buy the loans from lenders, especially at a substantial discount.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 31, 2018 12:14:16 GMT
Page 23 "The ongoing monthly net interest receivable by the Group is in excess of £150,000" Regarding interest retained up front, I dont know perhaps someone does know. On a loan book of £23m interest of excess of £150k is about 8% per annum, which seems to be a low % if it relates to lenders income so perhaps this is the income to COL the report does not say, if it is then this suggests COL interest was not paid up front. If the £150k is not investors income then a call on investors income might be less that I speculated earlier Normally Col interest will be retained up front and then paid as due (same as lenders). In the meantime it will be sat in the borrowers client account as it belongs to the borrower until due. The borrower effectively pays rate x (retained up front) a % of that goes to lenders and and the other % goes to Col as fees. Whilst I have no reason to disagree with you, indeed it is my understanding of how many P2P platforms operate, it is not mentioned in the report or Statement of Affairs. The only information is a bland statement in the notes to the Statement of Affairs as has been highlighted in several recent posts.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 31, 2018 12:47:28 GMT
I rather suspect that the leak may have the opposite effect that was hoped for. I'd imagine the FCA are absolutely fuming about it. I don't see how this could possibly add to their case as being the right outfit for the job. It seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the FCA will not get its way. An administrator that does not have the support of the FCA has its hands tied and that will not serve any party. What I find very strange is the invitation to email the current administrator to register your objection, the implication being this could be presented in court? No lender is in possession of enough information to take a view as to which is the better outcome for them - all we have is speculation and the contents of a leaked document. Is it really the case that the existing administrator intends to use lender sentiment as part of its defence?It seems so, and the offers of help and support from other operators.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 31, 2018 14:20:17 GMT
I presume any serious actual offers of "help" from other platforms in respect of the loan book will also be passed (by them) to new administrators.
I see no reason why RR (or we) should expect otherwise.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 31, 2018 15:27:51 GMT
I presume any serious actual offers of "help" from other platforms in respect of the loan book will also be passed (by them) to new administrators. I see no reason why RR (or we) should expect otherwise. Yes, no disagreement with that. But the existing support gathered by the current administrator will be presented as a reason to allow them to continue. Good work already done. However, I reckon the level of support will be irrelevant.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Mar 31, 2018 16:24:43 GMT
BL00079-BL00084 the Chesterfield land, filled just days prior to the administration and as far as I saw never drew down and I never saw any cashback paid (which is an indication it was drawn down). I have the very same question, where is this 1.2m gone? Was it drawn down? If not, then this is big hole in the finance figures of the report.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 31, 2018 16:47:24 GMT
I suspect this leak of the 23 March report is nothing to do with RR. If they wanted support for their position, everyone would have received it directly from them, with a covering letter. Someone else is driving this. stub8535 probably knows. |
|
archie
Posts: 1,866
Likes: 1,861
|
Post by archie on Mar 31, 2018 17:24:09 GMT
Although the report states 23rd March at the top, in section 2 it says 'the report will be treated as delivered to creditors on 29 March 2018'. It may well be it was circulated on 29th. I believe that was when it appeared on DDC. Pure speculation though.  |
|
mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 435
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Mar 31, 2018 17:27:33 GMT
I have been thinking much the same, possibly stubb was given a preview and in his wisdom decided DDC users would find it interesting, personally I am pleased he/she did, I would like to think I am keeping up with things but a lot goes over my head, grateful for the few that post and seem to have an understanding.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 666
Likes: 641
|
Post by mason on Mar 31, 2018 17:53:40 GMT
I have been thinking much the same, possibly stubb was given a preview and in his wisdom decided DDC users would find it interesting, personally I am pleased he/she did, I would like to think I am keeping up with things but a lot goes over my head, grateful for the few that post and seem to have an understanding. Yes, I'm also grateful for the report, but I'm deeply sceptical of the 'call to action' and its origin. Another interesting question is what happens if RR is replaced as Administrator? The £88k (£40k for staff wages and £48k for RR) has been locked down in "individual client accounts". Presumably it will be under the control of the prevailing Administration when the case is decided. Perhaps RR would not receive any of it and become an unsecured creditor in respect of its unpaid costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Mar 31, 2018 18:33:52 GMT
I suspect this leak of the 23 March report is nothing to do with RR. If they wanted support for their position, everyone would have received it directly from them, with a covering letter. Someone else is driving this. stub8535 probably knows. I don't think we will ever know who is driving this, if anyone, neither, probably does stub8535 but it probably someone close to RR, the Directors or a jilted buyer or a permutation thereof. Apart from the obvious that few of the alleged 1162 "investors" are likely to know about or visit this forum, its posts are fairly equally divided between conspicuous optimists and cynics, the latter usually prevailing when money is at risk. Therefore only the niave "all publicity is good publicity" view would have thought leaking the document here would further their case. Mind you given the contents and style of the Adminstrator's report the possibilty that they instigated the leak to misguidedly garner support for themselves at the forthcoming adjourned court hearing cannot be discounted. On the court hearing, I understand the adjourned hearing will be in Manchester whilst the original was in London, therefore given the restrictions placed upon the administrator by the judge or registrar the adjournment should not be considered a victory, or defeat, for the incumbent. Just that the case requires more consideration than the time that was originally allocated (in most Companies Court cases the mere appearance (i.e. appointment of a barrister) will lead to an adjournment as they are only initially allocated a short time before junior judge known as a registrar) before a more senior judge. The relocation of the hearing to Manchester is strongly suggestive of this is what happenned in this instance. Furthermore I don't expect a Companies Court judge to take any notice of emails gathered in this way, he wiil only listen to representations from investors presented to him by a properly instructed barrister. if at all.
|
|
