blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 19, 2018 19:02:10 GMT
ilmoro was right - none is likely to make the next repayment.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 19, 2018 20:26:17 GMT
ilmoro was right - none is likely to make the next repayment. I have modified my position and now hold some (fairly trivial) holdings in these. The most likely reason is that I have totally lost the plot. However I feel they are being ridiculously discounted, yes the overall asset is weakened, but I still see the core being only slightly worse.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 19, 2018 21:36:55 GMT
ilmoro was right - none is likely to make the next repayment. I have modified my position and now hold some (fairly trivial) holdings in these. The most likely reason is that I have totally lost the plot. However I feel they are being ridiculously discounted, yes the overall asset is weakened, but I still see the core being only slightly worse. Whether the loans are being ridiculously discounted might depend on your view of the sale value of the physical assets we hold as security. Whether it is good to have a punt on the discounted loans depends on your overall position on Ablrate, and whether you think confidence will increase or decrease. Lots of known unknowns there and probably a few unknown unknowns. Ablate is still my major platform, and I hope it will remain so.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 19, 2018 21:47:05 GMT
I have modified my position and now hold some (fairly trivial) holdings in these. The most likely reason is that I have totally lost the plot. However I feel they are being ridiculously discounted, yes the overall asset is weakened, but I still see the core being only slightly worse. Whether the loans are being ridiculously discounted might depend on your view of the sale value of the physical assets we hold as security. Whether it is good to have a punt on the discounted loans depends on your overall position on Ablrate, and whether you think confidence will increase or decrease. Lots of known unknowns there and probably a few unknown unknowns. Ablate is still my major platform, and I hope it will remain so. I took advice from somebody with considerable knowledge of public houses. He looked at me with bleary eyes and said 'I lub u man' I took that as confirmation my plan was solid.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 19, 2018 22:29:14 GMT
Oh dear! You may have consulted a drunk when what you needed was an alcoholic. Always best to take professional advice, though the top-ranking inebriates can be expensive .
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Oct 30, 2018 11:01:06 GMT
I've just had a look at the CH records for the sole director of S*********e Ltd, borrowing company on 067 & 068. It would appear that she became a director at 7 companies on 22 Oct including B*** M****** B*** Co Ltd, the borrower on 085, and A******** A******** Ltd, a borrower on Crowdstacker. In several instances she appears to replace D***** H****** who resigned on the same date and is/was the group finance director IIRC.
In addition, this sole director has incorporated and been appointed sole director of 5 other companies on 29 Oct, which appear to be named after the City where individual bars under the groups control reside. The SIC code is as follows... 77390 - Renting and leasing of other machinery, equipment and tangible goods not elsewhere classified
I've no idea of the significance, if any, and I have not had time to delve further into the other group companies but I wanted to get it out there for others to research if they so desire. I've no doubt that Ablrate, Huddle Capital and Crowdstacker are fully aware.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 30, 2018 14:40:06 GMT
Yes, five newcos established on 29th. However the borrower of 97, 104, 105 has not been colonised by the lady, and remains in the charge of the original director/controlling person. This borrower company had a change of name on 16 Oct, and so the platform is out of date. The cross guarantees between this borrower and other companies in administration must be a problem - assuming they really are cross guarantees.
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Nov 3, 2018 11:24:31 GMT
ablrate, please could we have an update on these loans, and what is likely to happen with them? Even if it was just a 'we're still discussing with the borrowers the best way forward for these loans' type of update, that would be better than nothing!
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Nov 3, 2018 21:17:33 GMT
ablrate, something has just occured to me about these loans, which I would be very grateful if you could explain please. Loans 67 and 68 are to S********** Ltd, which is over 75% owned by B******N**** Ltd, which is now in administration. So I fully understand why loans 67 and 68 are currently not making any repayments, as their parent company is in administration. But loans 97, 104 and 105 are to T**** S***** Ltd (name changed to I******* L****** & E************ Ltd on 16th Oct 18) which is not owned by B******N**** Ltd, although the owner (owns >75% of the shares) is a director of one B******N**** Ltd subsidiary company (C********** Ltd, now also in administration), and has been a director of another. Loans 97, 104 and 105 also have cross-guarantees by B******N**** Ltd and C********** Ltd (both now in administration) as part of their secondary security. From this, I do not understand why B******N**** Ltd and C********** Ltd going into administration, has caused loans 97, 104 and 105 to default on their repayments? As these three loans only seem to have indirect connections to B******N**** Ltd and C********** Ltd, which don't seem a sufficient reason for these three loans to cease their repayments? As well, the borrowing proposal for loan 97 said the pub the loan is secured on should commence trading in spring 2018 - did this happen, please? And for loan 105, the borrowing proposal states that the pub this loan is secured against will be fully refurbished and then opened in September 2018 - has this also happened, please?
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Nov 3, 2018 21:49:50 GMT
<snip> As well, the borrowing proposal for loan 97 said the pub the loan is secured on should commence trading in spring 2018 - did this happen, please? And for loan 105, the borrowing proposal states that the pub this loan is secured against will be fully refurbished and then opened in September 2018 - has this also happened, please? Pub on loan 97 opened for trading on 13 April 2018 according to whatpub.com Looks like you can still book a room above the pub on loan 105 according to booking.com
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 3, 2018 22:34:22 GMT
ablrate , something has just occured to me about these loans, which I would be very grateful if you could explain please. Loans 67 and 68 are to S********** Ltd, which is over 75% owned by B******N**** Ltd, which is now in administration. So I fully understand why loans 67 and 68 are currently not making any repayments, as their parent company is in administration. But loans 97, 104 and 105 are to T**** S***** Ltd (name changed to I******* L****** & E************ Ltd on 16th Oct 18) which is not owned by B******N**** Ltd, although the owner (owns >75% of the shares) is a director of one B******N**** Ltd subsidiary company (C********** Ltd, now also in administration), and has been a director of another. Loans 97, 104 and 105 also have cross-guarantees by B******N**** Ltd and C********** Ltd (both now in administration) as part of their secondary security. From this, I do not understand why B******N**** Ltd and C********** Ltd going into administration, has caused loans 97, 104 and 105 to default on their repayments? As these three loans only seem to have indirect connections to B******N**** Ltd and C********** Ltd, which don't seem a sufficient reason for these three loans to cease their repayments? As well, the borrowing proposal for loan 97 said the pub the loan is secured on should commence trading in spring 2018 - did this happen, please? And for loan 105, the borrowing proposal states that the pub this loan is secured against will be fully refurbished and then opened in September 2018 - has this also happened, please? I would have thought that the cross guarantees between TS and BN would be a sufficient reason, in that the debts of BN become the debts of TS. I wonder also if TS operates the pubs directly or leases them to a co such as C. All we have is the first charge on the pubs, and their open market value will be closely related to their trade. I wonder if the newcos are intended as homes for the pubs, and each will be purchased. We can be sure that Ablrate will be all over this and will say something when they have something to say, which is not going to crumble under them a day later.
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Nov 4, 2018 16:58:15 GMT
dan1, thank you for the news about the loans 97 & 105 pubs, I'm glad to see they are trading now. blender, thanks for your reply, I'd understood the cross guarantees to mean that BN Ltd and CT Ltd guaranteed the TS loans, but hadn't realised that it also meant that TS guaranteed BN & CT loans/debts. That does make sense of why the TS loan repayments have not been made due to BN and CT being in administration.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Nov 4, 2018 18:05:16 GMT
dan1 , thank you for the news about the loans 97 & 105 pubs, I'm glad to see they are trading now. blender , thanks for your reply, I'd understood the cross guarantees to mean that BN Ltd and CT Ltd guaranteed the TS loans, but hadn't realised that it also meant that TS guaranteed BN & CT loans/debts. That does make sense of why the TS loan repayments have not been made due to BN and CT being in administration. Cross guarantees between two or more parties are reciprocal guarantees for each other's liabilities - the "cross" term indicates the reciprocal nature otherwise it would just be described as a guarantee. However, I'm not sure Abl have used the correct terminology in the loan proposal and it may well be the case that BN have provided guarantees (and not cross-guarantees). I had queried Abl on this on one the loans at the time of launch and the response indicated that it BN have provided guarantees and not cross guarantees, but i'm not sure how reliable this answer was.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 4, 2018 22:54:57 GMT
It seems like wishful thinking to suggest that they write cross-guarantees on three borrowing proposals and get it wrong each time. It is prominently written. The meaning is clear, as you say, and so it is either right or a straight error. A cross guarantee is disadvantageous compared with a guarantee, and so I think that if it is wrong, and our borrower has not provided an uncapped guarantee to BN and CT, they would have corrected it. It seems that Ablrate has not called a mistake, and that these companies are bound together in death or glory. Though I cannot explain the change of name.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 12, 2018 16:51:34 GMT
CT loan on huddle just made another capital and interest payment.
|
|