#437 I** N******* - An important vote

The phrase 'throwing good money after bad' comes to mind for some reason.

We need clarification of how voting would affect eligibility to be paid out by the mythical GEIA provision fund.

Although I understand the vote, I am surprised we have been asked? I must seriously be missing something. I presume they have been asked so they have to put it to the vote.

Well we have been told that if the Landlord terminates the lease, the security could be rendered "valueless".  Ok, it may have zero value anyway, but if the info is to be believed, then it will definitely be valueless without the lease. So I'm going to (grudgingly) vote in favour, unless anyone can persuade me otherwise in the next 24 hours.

Regarding "what has happened to the loan proceeds" , all I can say is "good question".  I assume they have all been soaked up in buying the turbine (which currently sits in a shed) , and in the preparatory work on the site.

If I'm not mistaken, this loan is turning into an absolute train wreck. Very few P2P loans are worth precisely zero , but this looks like it could well be a contender.

Mods - please feel free to move this discussion if appropriate - thanks.

Well actually that strikes me as a possible glimmer of hope after all and here's why (as mentioned on the other thread - mods ??)  :

AC are prepared to lend their own funds to pay the rent.  Surely they would only do this if they themselves believed there was still some value in the loan ??  So personally I would still vote "yes".

Well there is no mention of this ?  Surely , as it's being put to the vote, AC would be duty-bound to declare such an interest.  My view is that AC think there is still value in this , and that this is the best way to maximize that value.  Obviously whatever AC lend will take priority and be repaid ahead of any other lenders so they probably also see the risk as minimal.

OK, well it's your call, but  AC have made it clear that if the Landlord terminates the lease, the security could be rendered "valueless"  (to use AC's own word).  I think it's in the best interests of lenders to vote "yes", in the hope of getting something back.

As I outlined in the pink pages, as per the #437 update on  01/06/2017 ,  the monitoring surveyor reckons the loss of FIT will knock about 400k off the value.  If that's even close to being correct, then there is definitely still value in the operation, and possibly quite a bit. I reckon a "yes" vote will offer us the best chance of maximizing that value.

Well as with any wind turbine, there is value to be derived from erecting the turbine in a suitable location and selling the generated electricity to the grid, hopefully for at least 20 years and possibly a lot longer  It's just that in this case it won't be possible to benefit from the government FIT tariff, which as mentioned above, reduces value of the whole security by about 400k (according to the monitoring surveyor). 

Also it's not exactly "an empty field" because plenty of preparatory work has already taken place - although admittedly it's not clear exactly what.  Furthermore this "empty field" was presumably carefully chosen as being a good location for a turbine with regard to average wind speeds and other environmental considerations.