|
|
Post by jevans4949 on Sept 26, 2014 2:23:36 GMT
Indeed, I was disappointed to miss out on the recent E***x loan as it went so quickly. Actually, I avoided E***x because it looked to me like it might go the same way in the end. I think we should become more suspicious of "borrower seeks bridging loan to replace expired bank finance while he tries to sell property against all odds".
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902 
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Sept 26, 2014 7:11:25 GMT
Yes the honeymoon certainly looks like it is over but isn't that exactly what we should have expected? High rates of return spell HIGH RISK.
So now is the time to man up and take a bit of pain. Hopefully the original valuations were near the mark and in the worst scenarios we will get back most of our capital. If not say whatever naughty words come to mind, pick your self up and carry on as slightly wiser investor.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Sept 26, 2014 12:43:28 GMT
Hopefully AC strong words with the bridging loan lenders will bring the focus & urgency needed to get through the red tape. I'm not panicking (yet).
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Sept 26, 2014 14:29:48 GMT
Yes the honeymoon certainly looks like it is over but isn't that exactly what we should have expected? High rates of return spell HIGH RISK.
So now is the time to man up and take a bit of pain. Hopefully the original valuations were near the mark and in the worst scenarios we will get back most of our capital. If not say whatever naughty words come to mind, pick your self up and carry on as slightly wiser investor. Interestingly, fundingKnight just announced they'll be doing property bridging loans. We'll see what sort of rates the auctions produce, especially on a somewhat smaller site.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 26, 2014 19:33:22 GMT
The actual words are "...we will be issuing a formal demand for full repayment on Wednesday 1 October 2014 with a view to appointing an LPA Receiver...". I don't think the receiver is appointed straight away. The borrower probably gets a variable amount of time before that happens, depending on progress / other circumstances. For now they are just ramping up the pressure and making sure that they can appoint the receiver as soon as needed. Presuming pikestaff was responding to my posting that immediately preceded his, he must have been looking at a different loan than I was. I was referring to South M*********, and the update on that loan says... But I do accept that the need to involve the first charge holder probably means things will have to progress a bit more slowly, so the actual appointment of the receiver won't be immediate. As soon as AC start working with the other charge holder, however, I expect that fees chargeable to the borrower will start mounting dramatically.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Sept 27, 2014 15:08:24 GMT
Presuming pikestaff was responding to my posting that immediately preceded his, he must have been looking at a different loan than I was. I was looking at acne 
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 27, 2014 16:30:16 GMT
Presuming pikestaff was responding to my posting that immediately preceded his, he must have been looking at a different loan than I was. I was looking at acne : Sorry if I'm being a bit thick, but I can't decode the reference. My ACME loan is on time, as are two other loans I have that start with A. The one late loan I have that starts with A doesn't seem to have a comment relating to 1/Oct. Could you please supply the Auction number?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Sept 27, 2014 16:42:06 GMT
Given AH's comment yesterday that "All the problematic bridging loans have come from one introducer and each loan has been difficult. To that end we are moving away from that introducer and once the loans are exited we will not be entering into more. On other bridging loans we have had much more control on how it exits and these should not be problematic." the sudden spate of updates indicating tough action is imminent suggests that AC have decided to send the introducer a loud and clear message of "pull your finger out, NOW."
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Sept 27, 2014 16:59:54 GMT
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 27, 2014 17:05:45 GMT
Gotcha! I obviously missed the invisible apostrophe. 
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Sept 27, 2014 17:12:58 GMT
I shall watch the upcoming FK bridging loans to see whether this particular introducer provides any. Avoid.
edit: Oh! He isn't named.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Sept 30, 2014 7:08:50 GMT
Who are these shady "introducers", and what is their cut? When I joined AC, I thought the only "middleman" was AC itself. Too many middlemen means the rates to the borrowers, with all fees, become unsustainable.
Another thing is worrying me slightly about this thread. There are several lenders here who saw the writing on the wall and got out of the troubled bridging loans quickly. As a newbie to AC (but not to P2P), I find it a little disturbing that rumours can spread about loans being potentially in trouble "from chats, or elsewhere", and those in the know, or with more experience in AC, can sell up, leaving inexperienced or newbie investors holding the can. I'm not naïve, and I knew there were considerable risks in expecting a 12% yield, and I'm also well diversified on AC. However, on most platforms I've had experience with, even some that folded, loans are blocked from sale at the first sign of trouble.
Another thing that disturbs me is that even when a loan is blocked from sale, AC has the habit of forming some kind of extension loan to the same borrower, and because it is now a "new loan" with no history of non-repayment, suddenly the units are available for sale again. This practice -- if I've understood it correctly -- doesn't seem fair to me, for the simple reason that it benefits insiders, experienced lenders and underwriters at the expense of those who do not understand the intricate ins and outs of the AC platform. How is a newbie supposed to know that a "new" loan with no history of default, is in fact a repackaged version of a loan that got into trouble previously, even of one that could not be sold before? Yes, the knowledge *might* be available if the newbie reads every bit of documentation (arguably they should), including all the forum posts, but even so it takes a while fully to understand the system. Any loan from a borrower with a history of repayment problems, including asking for an extension at the last minute, should not be saleable even in repackaged form. Period. And AC should be much more proactive in blocking sale of loan units as soon as they receive news that a borrower is in trouble.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Sept 30, 2014 7:20:37 GMT
Why shouldn't the loans be tradeable? It's called a market.
Many people want to buy loans that have gone past the maturity date to pick up the higher yield (18-24%) and often a discount, it's their risk. For most of these loans the issue is the property has been sold so the principal can not be repaid by the maturity date, not that they are unservicable or have missed interest payments. The loans are clearly marked as extensions, if you don't want them, don't buy them.
|
|
|
|
Post by planetx on Sept 30, 2014 7:25:58 GMT
So far as I can see, all the loans available for resale specify "now in default as not repaid on time" or "given loan expiry this is to allow default margin to be accrued" on the Units for Sale page, and if you click through to the loan details it states "Warning - There has been a material change in the credit position of this loan". Banning them from sale might protect the occasional negligent investor who doesn't bother to read anything, but at the expense of preventing a lot of legitimate transactions between those who want to reduce their risk and those who are happy to accrue default interest.
I definitely agree that more transparency on fees charged to borrowers would be a good thing though.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 30, 2014 9:06:22 GMT
There is no reason to restrict the sale of loans with issues as they are clearly marked, well secured on assets, lenders have full access to all information, comments & Q&A if they do a minimal amount of research and, crucially, are compensated for the higher risk involved with default interest. AC also has demonstrated in the one significant example to date a reasonable chance of recovery after default. In contrast, IMHO, as an example, FC, who restrict the sale of loans with adverse events, dont pay default interest, generally rely on PG's, are poor at communicating and have a poor track record at default recovery. Its up to lenders to decide which approach they prefer, do their own research and make decisions accordingly. Personally I am shifting away from FC to AC, SS, Ablrate.
|
|
