happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397 
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 8, 2018 11:03:13 GMT
I was not in this loan (unless in 30DAA or QAA) so did not vote but i assume the company gave some sort of business projection that gave confidence to lenders. I am therefore assuming it wasn't simply a "give us another six months please, guv, or my kids starve and the wife is on the streets". Agreed, And this is my point exactly ashtondav I cannot see that AC would have allowed this course of action to unfold unless they see real intent from the borrowers to resolve this in way that provides a better outcome for all than simply shutting everything down and selling it all now for whatever we can get for it. Time will tell though.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 8, 2018 11:12:17 GMT
I was not in this loan (unless in 30DAA or QAA) so did not vote but i assume the company gave some sort of business projection that gave confidence to lenders. I am therefore assuming it wasn't simply a "give us another six months please, guv, or my kids starve and the wife is on the streets". There was discussion of the vote on the AC Private board (accessible to all AC lenders on request to AC), and the unanimous verdict was option B, and that there was no obvious justification for the proposed six month interest free period. Gven the size of the loan there is presumably some UHNW lenders (or possibly institutional funding) involved for whom its easier to swallow the concept of lending money for zero return. This could turn into some very poor PR for AC if there isn't a 100% redemption over the next six months (and I don't rate the chances of that very high). There is of course precedence for this sort of thing - the final Aberystwyth vote deferred the interest payments indefinately, but at least in that case they were still accruing, and more importantly I could sell on the SM (at 3% discount) to escape from what I considered to be the "wrong" decision by the majority of lenders. But no such escape here. 
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 8, 2018 11:39:55 GMT
I was not in this loan (unless in 30DAA or QAA) so did not vote but i assume the company gave some sort of business projection that gave confidence to lenders. I am therefore assuming it wasn't simply a "give us another six months please, guv, or my kids starve and the wife is on the streets". Agreed, And this is my point exactly ashtondav I cannot see that AC would have allowed this course of action to unfold unless they see real intent from the borrowers to resolve this in way that provides a better outcome for all than simply shutting everything down and selling it all now for whatever we can get for it. Time will tell though. It's good of you to be so charitable to AC. As an aside, I wonder if you ever lent money via another P2P firm who used to do a lot of property loans via its "highly experienced property team" (their words, nobody else's). They were infamous for letting property loans over-run again and again and again. Lender feeling was that the P2P firm viewed it as "too tricky" to tackle those cases. Anyway, back to AC. Only thing I measure them by is what they do (or don't do). In a Q&A Answer on loan 227 regarding the recent vote, AC said "It is the responsibility of the borrower to submit their proposal as they deem appropriate, and not Assetz Capital". Imo that's simply b.s. AC just sit there and see what the borrower wants to do. AC's own Ts&Cs (section 13. Defaults) suggest that AC - not the borrower - take control of loans in default, which this one is. I accept that rushing to the courts wouldn't necessarily help things, or necessarily get back more lender money, but would be nice to see AC doing something to push this towards repayment. Seems to me it's AC that have put this on the "too tricky" pile, not lenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Apr 8, 2018 12:07:41 GMT
All the "Not with a barge pole" investors who had a GBBA at the time have fallen victim to the last clause in this product description:-
The GBBA will automatically diversify your account funds across many matching loans at any given time, with the aim of doing so in an equal and proportionate way and subject to loan availability. For example, if 50 suitable loans are available, the GBBA will aim to invest approximately 2% of account funds into each loan. Likewise, with only five suitable loans, the GBBA will aim to invest approximately a fifth (20%) of account funds into each loan.
Before Assetz pulled back the curtain and revealed each investor's actual GBBA holding, I drip fed money into that account over more than a year. I even used to look at what each £500 had bought in the account statement to make sure it was not just buying a single loan. How it managed to allocate 20% of my GBBA to this single loan is a mystery to me as I don't think there were "only five suitable loans" for a long enough period to have made this accumulation of 227.
The response to this "we will change the allocation algorithm" seems to me close to an admission that miss-allocation had occurred. Now mystery voters have ridden to the rescue the protection fund which is supposed to underpin the GBBA. And the vote set up the precedent for borrowers to expect interest free loans based on expressions of hopes that "things might get better, maybe, you never know". Very good, Assetz but this is not your money that you are making free with.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Apr 8, 2018 12:41:15 GMT
There was discussion of the vote on the AC Private board (accessible to all AC lenders on request to AC), and the unanimous verdict was option B, and that there was no obvious justification for the proposed six month interest free period. Gven the size of the loan there is presumably some UHNW lenders (or possibly institutional funding) involved for whom its easier to swallow the concept of lending money for zero return. <snip> I'm not in this loan but have been following developments with interest.
Assuming the vote was swayed by HNW investors or even worse IMO those institutions - did they actually vote or was that role delegated to AC to act on their behalf?
Whilst the apparent democratic voting process is worthy, it must also be demonstrated to be totally transparent. So there exists some serious queries regarding this particular vote and maybe others that have taken place in the past and will no doubt occur during the future.
I wouldn't expect a reply from AC on this as they seem to be distancing themselves as far as possible from any responsibility regarding this particular loan.
|
|
teddy
Posts: 214
Likes: 90
|
Post by teddy on Apr 8, 2018 13:37:52 GMT
It seems the borrower's debts were far out stripping its assets going as far back as 2012. Since this loan was to pay back bank loans from RBS . .surprise surprise. . . it doesn't seem to me that it was ever going to be paid back. Borrowing from one credit card to pay off the debt on another. Think it's time to get the Ombudsman in here.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 8, 2018 14:43:06 GMT
Several of the comments made arguing for a measured approach to this underperforming loan seem to be adopting the line that investors assessed the risks but still chose to invest and must take the consequences. I would flag up my disagreement as far as GBBA investors are concerned. To paraphrase, in investing in the GBBA lenders are assured by AC that a balanced portfolio will be maintained by their algorithm so that even if some loans do not perform it will have only a relatively small impact on the totality. This was not my experience. I avoided this loan via the MLIA as I viewed it as having attributes of high risk. Instead I found that somehow I had acquired a relatively (for me) large position via the GBBA followed soon by a credit event. Others seem to have has a similar experience. Under this circumstance it is my view that AC needs to be pro-active in righting a poor lending decision actually made by them on my/our behalf. Simply deleting six months of forthcoming interest payments and listing the assets that the borrower might possibly sell is not adequate. At the least the disposal of assets needs to be monitored with mutual agreement as to what can realistically be expected from sales as opposed to marketing at pie in the sky prices. Realisations then need to be made over rather than chunks being absorbed as working capital. Assetzs needs to do better on this one. It was a dud, it is a dud and it will be a dud. The only unanswered question is how much will it cost. the sooner it is flogged off the better. Spring is the best time to market/sell such a property.
|
|
teddy
Posts: 214
Likes: 90
|
Post by teddy on Apr 8, 2018 15:11:27 GMT
Given both this and the windmill debacles, I can only assume either AC carry out no due diligence on borrowers, or that it's deliberately lending our money to borrowers they know will never pay it back. Given that the borrowers in both loans were heavily indebted to RBS before AC lent them our money, I can only assume we're being used to shore up RBS' balance sheet.
I call the latter fraud.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 8, 2018 15:22:16 GMT
Given both this and the windmill debacles, I can only assume either AC carry out no due diligence on borrowers, or that it's deliberately lending our money to borrowers they know will never pay it back. Given that the borrowers in both loans were heavily indebted to RBS before AC lent them our money, I can only assume we're being used to shore up RBS' balance sheet. I call the latter fraud. Back to trying to accuse AC of doing something illegal again but post is deviod of any facts, just accusation and inference.. You'd give Trump a run for his money if you ever started tweeting
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Apr 8, 2018 17:16:48 GMT
I am sure I remember a statement at some time from A.C. that loans were divided and offered to the retail or institutions, in effect to separate and totally divided loan books, institutions would have not been involved in this vote in that case.
However we are where we are , but one thing for sure as far as I am concerned A.C. have a responsibility to hold the borrowers feet to the fire to ensure active and urgent moves are made to try and secure a refinance , this can not be allowed to drift for 6 months until he is back for more. I will be asking every month for updates and urge others to push as well.
|
|
teddy
Posts: 214
Likes: 90
|
Post by teddy on Apr 8, 2018 17:23:58 GMT
It's becoming an unfortunate pattern. Borrower in debt to RBS, borrower lent millions of our money by AC, who incidentally don't make a secret of operating as the bad debt arm of RBS, borrower can't make repayments, loan defaults, no interest or capital payments are made from the PF, and AC make little, if no effort to recover funds while allowing the bankrupt borrower to dictate terms.
That's simple observation based on the facts.
|
|
lucky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 79
Likes: 46
|
Post by lucky on Apr 8, 2018 17:43:00 GMT
Loan to borrower £5,970.000
Made up as follows;
Loan repayment RBS £3,500.000
Capex. £1,000.000
Retained interest £1,289.100
Fees. £178.950
Interesting figures.
|
|
Mick
Be nice... People respond.
Posts: 138
Likes: 93
|
Post by Mick on Apr 8, 2018 18:13:49 GMT
I'm concerned during the six months, if the company's assets are sold ....say couple of housing units, will the money come to us or be used as day to day funds.
|
|
gibmike
Member of DD Central
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Posts: 256
Likes: 160
|
Post by gibmike on Apr 8, 2018 21:57:51 GMT
I was not in this loan (unless in 30DAA or QAA) so did not vote but i assume the company gave some sort of business projection that gave confidence to lenders. I am therefore assuming it wasn't simply a "give us another six months please, guv, or my kids starve and the wife is on the streets". Erm, yep that sums it up.
|
|
gp
New Member
Posts: 1
Likes: 2
|
Post by gp on Apr 10, 2018 11:11:03 GMT
I think AC is negligent in even putting this option before lenders. Giving them 6 months free of interest doesn't give them any incentive to find a refinance package or sell assets quickly. Why refinance and start paying interest when you can stay with AC and pay nothing! And as for the people who voted for it.... words fail me!!!!!!!
|
|
