|
Post by brightspark on Mar 6, 2020 8:33:19 GMT
That's true but its how the system works. Same as a shareholder vote not being one vote per shareholder. As it should be. Just that someone else said 81% of us, Pedantry? The formal position is "a vote is approved by a simple majority of Lenders who vote based on one vote for every pound of the nominal value of their loan units." In effect a few block votes means end of story.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on Mar 6, 2020 12:32:19 GMT
As it should be. Just that someone else said 81% of us, Pedantry? The formal position is "a vote is approved by a simple majority of Lenders who vote based on one vote for every pound of the nominal value of their loan units." In effect a few block votes means end of story. I would never claim not to be mildly pedantic (ok maybe moderately) It's a question that's been raised a number of times so I thought I'd get it right. In this instance we have been told that there are not any holders with a huge share (100K max I think), so it would take quite a number of block votes to swing it, even if all the little guys felt differently. More to the point the No Vote is 50-60% every time
|
|
|
Post by investor01010101 on Mar 7, 2020 10:51:07 GMT
81% of voters (including myself) were misled. We voted on releasing security so the borrower could obtain finance from an alternate lender, in exchange part of the refinance would be returned to A/C lenders and A/C would obtain a second charge. As soon as this was agreed, with payment expected by the end of feb, the borrower has tried to increase the borrowing with the following result:- 1) Payment delayed to at least end April, which further delays to the final "potential" recovery. 2) Weakened value of the second charge. If the borrower were to default on the refinanced loan we would have less equity in the refinanced plots due to the larger loan. 3) No suggestion of a larger return of capital to A/C lenders, I assume the extra cash is to shore up the failing hotel/golf course. As lenders we would be be better off if the business did fail because then recovery action could start. Furthermore A/C have not been very forthcoming in their updates/ Q&A responses, considering they claim to be in weekly contact with the borrower they seem to have little idea of what the borrower is up to, and they seem prepared to allow him to string this loan out forever using endless devious tricks. There have been too many failed plans, lies, prevarications and obfuscations, all of which have been passively soaked up by Assetz, who seem to think that a loan can happily stay in indefinite default as long as they can fool sufficient lenders. Should there be formal complaints if no cash appears by the end of April? Definately!! We would need to form an Action Group and communicate proposed actions via a private space. Voting is heavily skewed because the only opinions are provided by A/C and the borrower, if a lender group could make its views known in a ballot Mr. ********* would be long gone from this miserable business. Sniping on this forum will not spur A/C into Action. I have no confidence in the wriggling of A/C directors, the bullet has rotted long past the biting stage. Public Humiliation regarding their appalling response to this loan might produce a better result. The 'Daily Mail' comes to mind. I think the AC team that look after this loan have been so close to the Borrower for so long, listening to the ever growing list of the Borrower's woes that they've unconsciously (if I'm being charitable, otherwise consciously) started to side with the Borrower, letting them put out any statement they like without questioning a single thing. I think we should have an action group, and we should book our castle hotel to hold the first meeting in.
|
|
|
Post by investor01010101 on Mar 8, 2020 17:21:53 GMT
You got to look at the bigger picture, presumably he will default with his new lender and hopefully they will have the actual balls to send him into administration. Unlike AC who are more worried about their image than doing what is right for everyone who was suckered into this pushing jam uphill loan. That is if there is another lender which I very much doubt, more likely another delaying tactic while he syphons cash out of the business.
|
|
jfh82
Posts: 77
Likes: 99
|
Post by jfh82 on Mar 16, 2020 12:38:48 GMT
£100 says the next delay to payment and extension reqest sights Corona virus. No way the borrower won't make full use of that one...
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Mar 16, 2020 14:36:13 GMT
The Coronavirus will probably contribute to the existing business being proven to be insolvent, it seems to be getting by only on scraps of working capital. Unfortunately the realization of the estate will be at a significantly lower value due to the current market panic.
|
|
dermot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 862
Likes: 517
|
Post by dermot on Mar 16, 2020 15:39:41 GMT
It's 81% of the money voted for forbearance, or purgatory or charity or whatever it was. NOT 81% of voters I'm holding around 0.1% of this, very sadly, since the diversification algorithm, um, didn't. My 0.1% is taking the harder line, having already given more forbearance than to any other P2P loan. Where's the other 50% required?
|
|
|
Post by investor01010101 on Mar 16, 2020 21:03:14 GMT
£100 says the next delay to payment and extension reqest sights Corona virus. No way the borrower won't make full use of that one... More likely AC will use Coronavirus to write this off as a total loss.
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Mar 17, 2020 19:28:31 GMT
There was I believe a house building project on one of the castles surrounding land by Ch*rles ch*rch .com nice big houses (5 & 6 beds), about ten years ago. Why is it thought this scheme is pretty much a write-off? I don't know the ins-and-outs of the above dev by CC.com . Clearly there are some big problems but with the right security and corona permitting this should be salvageable.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Mar 17, 2020 20:17:54 GMT
Ultimately the house building plots will have value. Unfortunately the hotel/golf course business, which has been loss making for some years seems unlikely to survive the current shutdowns across the leisure industry. If this business were to become insolvent it could have an impact on the refinance. Equally an impending credit crunch might make a new lender more nervous.
I think we are fast approaching a resolution of this loan, but it may not be pretty.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on Mar 18, 2020 8:38:08 GMT
Any idea of the total amount lent to this one in each of the different account types? (total in MLA, GBAA1, QAA etc.)
Trying to understand the max. potential exposure to the Provision Fund for any losses on this one.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Mar 18, 2020 10:23:07 GMT
The access account exposure should be covered by ring fencing, so balances are not affected. MLIA is not provision fund protected. I think GBBA1 has something like £2-3m, but just a guess. Best to assume no payout from the pf, because
a) It has insufficient funds b) a liquidation of the estate could take several years to complete. Even when every single blade of grass, patch of mud and pile of bricks is sold, even when the borrower has been pursued to debtors prison for the pg, even as the ink has wholly faded on the now crinkly yellowed loan contract, Assetz will keep the loan open waiting for something to turn up. Rule no 1 - the provision fund never pays out (Based on scientific evidence and the number of defaulted loans).
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 18, 2020 11:26:56 GMT
The access account exposure should be covered by ring fencing, so balances are not affected. MLIA is not provision fund protected. I think GBBA1 has something like £2-3m, but just a guess. Best to assume no payout from the pf, because a) It has insufficient funds b) a liquidation of the estate could take several years to complete. Even when every single blade of grass, patch of mud and pile of bricks is sold, even when the borrower has been pursued to debtors prison for the pg, even as the ink has wholly faded on the now crinkly yellowed loan contract, Assetz will keep the loan open waiting for something to turn up. Rule no 1 - the provision fund never pays out (Based on scientific evidence and the number of defaulted loans). GBBA1 provision fund is currently 850k. Outstanding value is 6.41m. I don’t know the entire GBBA1 loan book, but I have 10 loans there, 227 is 78% of the value.
|
|
|
Post by investor01010101 on Apr 27, 2020 16:56:07 GMT
Nearly at the end of the extended extension on an extension and not a single penny returned to investors........well played AC the <redacted> has shafted you yet again with his Ariston and on and on and on strategy.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Apr 28, 2020 15:51:15 GMT
The access account exposure should be covered by ring fencing, so balances are not affected. MLIA is not provision fund protected. I think GBBA1 has something like £2-3m, but just a guess. Best to assume no payout from the pf, because a) It has insufficient funds b) a liquidation of the estate could take several years to complete. Even when every single blade of grass, patch of mud and pile of bricks is sold, even when the borrower has been pursued to debtors prison for the pg, even as the ink has wholly faded on the now crinkly yellowed loan contract, Assetz will keep the loan open waiting for something to turn up. Rule no 1 - the provision fund never pays out (Based on scientific evidence and the number of defaulted loans). The only reason I to invest in all but MLA was the protection of the Provisional Fund. I thought I am trading lower interest and lack of control for the security provided by the PF. I also thought that by AC removing the choice from me where my investments in those A/c will go, AC is assuming the responsibilities for that choice. Does anyone has any information if AC has ever used the Provisional Fund for the purpose it has been set up for and advertised for? If AC hasn't, it will be a gross mis-selling, don't you think?
|
|