sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 26, 2014 17:21:08 GMT
Capital remaining seems to be back to normal.
While the error was present, the "repayments" tab had shown an extra payment dated tomorrow, but at the very end of the list (i.e. after the 31st Oct 2017 payment).
Looks to me like whoever entered that payment expected the system to automatically calculate the rest of the repayment schedule to reflect the extra capital repayment - something the system does not appear to [have been designed to] have done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 26, 2014 17:30:55 GMT
What are the possible reasons for missing accreditation?
1. Bad weather held up making the base and/or tower - It couldn't be tested
2. WT not constructed properly so it didn't meet requirements - Tested but fail it
3. The Testers had a problem, they missed they date (management error, on hols etc) - Not even Tested
I can't think of anything else, and I think all three of the above are down to the Borrower and Builder being both the same.
With 3. This might be (partly) an outside agency, power distributors or Gov., anyone know?
I wonder if there's any kind of appeals procedure?
I sure hope it's windy down there to makeup for the loss of income.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 26, 2014 17:44:35 GMT
Capital remaining seems to be back to normal. While the error was present, the "repayments" tab had shown an extra payment dated tomorrow, but at the very end of the list (i.e. after the 31st Oct 2017 payment). Looks to me like whoever entered that payment expected the system to automatically calculate the rest of the repayment schedule to reflect the extra capital repayment - something the system does not appear to [have been designed to] have done. The A to the Q in the Q&A is typical AC, I'm afraid "This is an IT issue." I'm now waiting for Chris to say that it was a data entry issue.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 26, 2014 17:53:48 GMT
What are the possible reasons for missing accreditation? Should we add "Thought the deadline was 30/Nov" to the list? For a project where the failure to make the deadline can mean a drop in valuation of hundreds of thousands of pounds, you'd think the works would be scheduled to complete the commissioning well before the deadline. As it is, there have been a number of AC loans where Qs have been asked about the approaching deadlines and the responses have been that the builder/operator/borrower intends to do the commissioning in the last few days before the deadline. That's not very impressive, as all it would take is a few bad days weatherwise -- not untypical at this time of year -- and the chance of meeting the deadline evaporates, along with a goodly chunk of AC's security.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Nov 26, 2014 18:12:54 GMT
Capital remaining seems to be back to normal. While the error was present, the "repayments" tab had shown an extra payment dated tomorrow, but at the very end of the list (i.e. after the 31st Oct 2017 payment). Looks to me like whoever entered that payment expected the system to automatically calculate the rest of the repayment schedule to reflect the extra capital repayment - something the system does not appear to [have been designed to] have done. The A to the Q in the Q&A is typical AC, I'm afraid "This is an IT issue." I'm now waiting for Chris to say that it was a data entry issue. When comments like this are made and you get public buck passing it strikes me that are huge rifts building within AC and that there is a break down in the management of the business. Clearly those at the top need to get a grip on the situation.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Nov 26, 2014 18:51:22 GMT
As a side, I had an issue with K-Plus when the new site came on board. AI sold a decent chunk of my holding even though AI was switched off. It only took AC some 4 weeks to finally send me an email yesterday to tell me that the figure displayed on my account page was wrong & had been manually reduced to reflect my true holding. The consequent interest payments were accurate though. Not an exact similar problem but, just a reflection of yet another issue with the transition. Wish we'd kept the old site with only some tweaks where needed nice & steady. Nothing to do with rejecting change but, moderated & properly paced/tested change!
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Nov 26, 2014 19:12:52 GMT
What are the possible reasons for missing accreditation? 1. Bad weather held up making the base and/or tower - It couldn't be tested 2. WT not constructed properly so it didn't meet requirements - Tested but fail it 3. The Testers had a problem, they missed they date (management error, on hols etc) - Not even Tested I can't think of anything else, and I think all three of the above are down to the Borrower and Builder being both the same. With 3. This might be (partly) an outside agency, power distributors or Gov., anyone know? I wonder if there's any kind of appeals procedure? I sure hope it's windy down there to makeup for the loss of income. The Credit Report states, "Loan to be advanced in stage payments supported by recommendation from Assetz appointed monitoring surveyor". Perhaps we should ask to see the monitoring surveyor reports.
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Nov 26, 2014 19:19:07 GMT
Same problems, same numbers, same loans. Don't you mean "Mo' loans, mo' problems" ?  Must admit I didn't see anything go wrong with Falmouth. Either only some lenders were affected, or I was napping.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 26, 2014 19:55:16 GMT
FWIW some brief comments hopefully helpful to fellow lenders. My guess is that Falmouth didn’t commission on time due to human error of some type. Ton ⓉⓞⓃ has mentioned some possibilities, it could even have been MC had an appointment with the DNO on the wrong date (eg. 30th Nov). At this point whilst of interest ofcourse, imho the reason is of secondary importance right now, the lesson to be learnt is more important & that is namely that there was no proper process in place to ensure that human error could not lead to a late commissioning. The reason for that is that the borrower/developer/epc & O&M party are all basically the same company with no-one overseeing them. This situation arises on a number of other AC wind deals, & should definitely be addressed asap imo. For those interested the valuers have actually pointed this out (see pages 4, 8, 20, 21 & 22 of the VR), strongly recommending that AC appoint an independent party to monitor the installation, check warranty obligations are undertaken etc etc. My view is that by not having appointed an independent party AC have failed to set up a process that protects lenders interests, no-one was overseeing things (in fact the commissioning deadline discrepancy was pointed out by a lender IINM), so effectively to my mind have assumed the monitoring responsibility for themselves. That said, pure conjecture from my side but I’d guess the human error in this case was by the borrower/epc (MC), if that emerges then I can only imagine they will be looking to rectify the situation at their own cost. They’ve only put in 15% equity into this deal so far, & have a large number of turbine sites – it will be very much in their (& AC’s) interest that a solution to full satisfaction of lenders is found. I think it will (so am feeling relaxed). |
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 26, 2014 20:03:38 GMT
Another thing, I’ve noticed the original valuation on this deal was done with the P50 values, whilst the repayments cover & presumably the other (non LTV) calcs on the CR were done (by AC?) with the more prudent P75.
Given the highly variable nature of wind (& the fact that AC’s WT deals are generally for single turbines, & it’s still early days for these on AC, GEIA upcoming etc) I’d recommend AC ask the valuers to use P75 for valuations in future.
Play it safer & then outperform if you can, much better way for building investor confidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 26, 2014 21:49:15 GMT
Another thing, I’ve noticed the original valuation on this deal was done with the P50 values, whilst the repayments cover & presumably the other (non LTV) calcs on the CR were done (by AC?) with the more prudent P75. <snip> I’d recommend AC ask the valuers to use P75 for valuations in future. You're not recommending P45 then? Anyway, yes jjc, I think the builder/owner etc will have to make it right and indeed seems to be 'making it right' to limit any damage to their reputation and their chance to continue to work with us & AC. Another factor must be the shear numbers of WT all needing commissioning and testing at the same time, not just on AC I imagine, bunching of WT accreditation dates might be caused by the regular reductions in FIT rates, and Borrowers trying to just get in on the better rate. This is one I want the full sp on.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 27, 2014 0:04:27 GMT
Nah nah P45 not necessary yet Ton ⓉⓞⓃ. Nicely put though :-) Stiff word or two maybe with the Numero 1 at AC (via andrewholgate) could be useful though. I think his staff are genuinely trying to do their very best, lots of fronts have opened up for them on the steep bit of the growth curve they’re trying to scramble up & the occasional crack (which is part of building a biz) is starting to show. Someone oughtta call for more hands on deck… The full sp on this one might be something as banal as someone at MC inputting the wrong commissioning date on an excel spread somewhere logging things for the turbines.. For those unfamiliar with renewables I can assure them (poor choice of verb, usually nowt in particular to worry about, just the way things happen due to the parameters the sector works under) it’s as fast-moving & “chaotic” a biz as P2P. FWIW not an expert on UK wind pre-accreditation but I think the bunching-up is not “caused” by the FIT cuts (I think you get 12 months from when you pre-acc) so in that respect it’s just a “coincidence”. In reality then more likely to be caused by the developers pulling out the drawer (a few months ago when they saw they had an opp with AC/CU) a number of sites they considered viable which needed to (& could be in their opinion) be built out quickly before their pre-acc windows closed. Which would be just another reason for the onus being on them to sort things out properly now – they picked the sites so they gotta fix the boobies. They’ll fix things I agree. Too much at stake (also for AC) otherwise. Who knows MC (if it was their fault) might even slip in a (small) sweetener somewhere to compensate lenders for a week of stress & the slightly embarrassing hiccup at the first hurdle. Always good to put yr hand up when you’ve erred, & even better to show you’re willing to make an effort to keep lenders on yr side. Let’s wait & see… Might come down to yr original question… what the reason for missing the date was… & how embarrassing (or not) that might be to explain :-0 |
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Nov 27, 2014 19:01:41 GMT
Memo to self: Never say "I didn't notice anything wrong"...
The partial capital repayment has happened, and credited to lender's accounts. The repayment schedule shows that capital ONLY has been paid, so that's all in accordance with AC's statement of what is to happen.
For no apparent reason, the accrued interest has been chopped back, but no interest has been actually paid.
I'm assuming that this will self correct on the 30th, when the interest is apparently being paid, and this is just another "the computer doesn't understand what we did to it" moment.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 27, 2014 19:35:05 GMT
Memo to self: Never say "I didn't notice anything wrong"... I can honestly make that statement regarding my Falmouth accrued interest -- because my investment in that loan is via my GEIA. Firstly, AC don't tell me how much of this loan I hold in total. In order to try to work it out myself I would have to trawl through my GEIA statement and add up all the bits of this loan purchased or sold. However, we know from other reports that the entries in these statements have been rounded -- and quite oddly in some cases -- so there's no assurance that by adding up the parts I will come to the same total holding that AC think I have. Secondly, AC don't give me any clue at all regarding how much interest I've accrued on my GEIA investments. So if my accrued interest were to halve -- or double -- overnight there's absolutely no way I possibly could notice. Now the critical question is... Does this mean I'm in heaven? Or hell?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 27, 2014 20:34:15 GMT
Has anyone tried to reconcile the principal payment they received today? I have -- and I can't.
My Falmouth holding is in my GEIA. Four separate parts have been bought for me. Each statement entry shows the amount to be an exact number of pence -- i.e. the third through 20th numbers to the right of the decimal all are zeros. My total holding as of this morning was £2.63 followed by 18 zeros.
According to the website, today's principal repayment was £38,783.34 and, because the original loan was for £460k, I was expecting to receive a principal payment of £2.63 x £38,783.34 / £460,000. If I've done the maths correctly, that would be 22.17395p (rounded to five decimal places). My statement, however, shows that I received a credit of 22.16576p (rounded to five dp). So why don't those two numbers match?
Has anyone tried a similar calculation? Do the numbers reconcile more closely for larger holdings?
I realise that the amount involved is trivial, but if I can't explain the small numbers, how can I have any faith in the larger ones?
|
|
