adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,009
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 21, 2021 11:56:46 GMT
RSM have just provided a progress report. It doesn't seem like they have made much (progress) but have made much (money for themselves) 24 months into the administration 28% of outstanding money recovered £117m DFLs outstanding at start £79.5m DFLs outstanding now £46m PBLs outstanding at start £27.6m PBLs outstanding now £163m total outstanding at start £107.1m outstanding now I make that 66% outstanding. £34.7m gross DFL realisations £16m DFL distributed... £13.5m gross PBL realisations £3.5m PBL distributed... £48.2m total realisations £19.5m total distributed Now, I'm a realist... I understand that the costs of doing all this are substantial, and that the loans were Less Than Gold-Plated - including some real long-term stinkers having been finally wrapped up... But, even so, on that basis, £56m reduction in outstanding loans, £19.5m distributed, we're looking at about 35% return on the remainder. Less, most likely, because the stuff that's come back in so far is the easy ones... I'm going to guess at low 20s.
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Dec 21, 2021 14:23:40 GMT
I'm afraid I have to agree and even a 20% return may look optimistic by the time it all wraps up. I made a similar prediction a long time back not only about Lendy but several other P2P lenders that had or were about to fold.
Lenders (me included) put far too much faith in the supposed RICS valuations when the loans were first launched. Trouble was these valuations turned out to be not worth the paper they were written on - surprise, surprise. Then when you add in a good dose of dishonesty on the part of the provider, none of us stood a chance of really recovering all our investments and as for the interest - well!
The only real question left to ask was "where the F**k" were the people who licenced these crooks?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 21, 2021 15:41:36 GMT
I'm afraid I have to agree and even a 20% return may look optimistic by the time it all wraps up. I made a similar prediction a long time back not only about Lendy but several other P2P lenders as well that had or were about to fold. Lenders (me included) put far too much faith in the supposed RICS valuations when the loans were first launched. Trouble was these valuations turned out to be not worth the paper they were written on - surprise, surprise. Then when you add in a good does of dishonesty on the part of the provider, none of us stood a chance of really recovering all our investments and as for the interest - well! The only real question left to ask was "where the F**k were the people how licenced these crooks?
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Dec 21, 2021 16:48:43 GMT
24 months into the administration 28% of outstanding money recovered £117m DFLs outstanding at start £79.5m DFLs outstanding now £46m PBLs outstanding at start £27.6m PBLs outstanding now £163m total outstanding at start £107.1m outstanding now I make that 66% outstanding. £34.7m gross DFL realisations £16m DFL distributed... £13.5m gross PBL realisations £3.5m PBL distributed... £48.2m total realisations £19.5m total distributed Now, I'm a realist... I understand that the costs of doing all this are substantial, and that the loans were Less Than Gold-Plated - including some real long-term stinkers having been finally wrapped up... But, even so, on that basis, £56m reduction in outstanding loans, £19.5m distributed, we're looking at about 35% return on the remainder. Less, most likely, because the stuff that's come back in so far is the easy ones... I'm going to guess at low 20s.
Hi adrianc, thanks for the figures above. I have a couple of comments/questions. Maybe you or someone else could confirm if my understanding is correct.
1. On the positive side, the figures you have quoted above appear to be the interim distributions. We should be getting some further repayment given the court decision about the waterfall was in our favour. Although who knows when this might be as the report says this...
Please note, as the Judgment only deals with some of the issues in the Application, once the costs position has been agreed, the Joint Administrators will need to consider the further issues in the Application, which still require a final determination by the Court, and the most efficient way in which to seek the Court’s determination on these points
So it looks like RSM are going to wait until absolutely everything is resolved before making any more payments and no doubt they will drag this out.
2. On the negative side, the outstanding balance includes all live loans where live loans are defined as...
Any loan where the Joint Administrators expect further recoveries, either through asset realisations or claims under professional indemnity or guarantees
Which I take to include loans where the asset has been realised, a payment has been made, there is no more security but RSM hope to get a bit more back through a legal process. Sometimes this can yield results but my guess is that in most cases it won't or the costs will significantly reduce the return.
|
|
|
Post by stanley on Dec 21, 2021 17:12:07 GMT
The report says "In Appendix F, the Joint Administrators have highlighted loans where we expect no further realisations in respect of property sales or refinances." What does this mean? I'm not seeing any loans highlighted in Appendix F. Is it the ones that have "0" in the Loan Amount Outstanding column?
I'm equally confused. I too do not see any "highlighted loans", in appendix F!
Bottom of page 5:
"In Appendix F, the Joint Administrators have highlighted loans where we expect no further realisations in respect of property sales or refinances"
Anyone?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,868
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 21, 2021 19:46:35 GMT
Is it the ones that have "0" in the Loan Amount Outstanding column?
I'm equally confused. I too do not see any "highlighted loans", in appendix F!
Bottom of page 5:
"In Appendix F, the Joint Administrators have highlighted loans where we expect no further realisations in respect of property sales or refinances"
Anyone?
Cut & paste from the last report I suspect where the loans were identified that were not expected to result in further realisations. In this report it is any loan with £0 in the Loan amounts outstanding at 24/11 (column 5).
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,868
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 21, 2021 22:44:02 GMT
£117m DFLs outstanding at start £79.5m DFLs outstanding now £46m PBLs outstanding at start £27.6m PBLs outstanding now £163m total outstanding at start £107.1m outstanding now I make that 66% outstanding. £34.7m gross DFL realisations £16m DFL distributed... £13.5m gross PBL realisations £3.5m PBL distributed... £48.2m total realisations £19.5m total distributed Now, I'm a realist... I understand that the costs of doing all this are substantial, and that the loans were Less Than Gold-Plated - including some real long-term stinkers having been finally wrapped up... But, even so, on that basis, £56m reduction in outstanding loans, £19.5m distributed, we're looking at about 35% return on the remainder. Less, most likely, because the stuff that's come back in so far is the easy ones... I'm going to guess at low 20s.
Hi adrianc , thanks for the figures above. I have a couple of comments/questions. Maybe you or someone else could confirm if my understanding is correct.
1. On the positive side, the figures you have quoted above appear to be the interim distributions. We should be getting some further repayment given the court decision about the waterfall was in our favour. Although who knows when this might be as the report says this...
Please note, as the Judgment only deals with some of the issues in the Application, once the costs position has been agreed, the Joint Administrators will need to consider the further issues in the Application, which still require a final determination by the Court, and the most efficient way in which to seek the Court’s determination on these points
So it looks like RSM are going to wait until absolutely everything is resolved before making any more payments and no doubt they will drag this out.
2. On the negative side, the outstanding balance includes all live loans where live loans are defined as...
Any loan where the Joint Administrators expect further recoveries, either through asset realisations or claims under professional indemnity or guarantees
Which I take to include loans where the asset has been realised, a payment has been made, there is no more security but RSM hope to get a bit more back through a legal process. Sometimes this can yield results but my guess is that in most cases it won't or the costs will significantly reduce the return.
1. Only the question of fees in theory delays payouts. The other two issues relate to who gets 3rd party claims and position of lenders as creditors which dont prevent distribution of security realisations. That said any resolution of the fees question is likely to have to be endorsed by the court if not determined by it and not clear if RSM will do that separate to the sorting the other two issues. Im sure LAG will be seeking to prevent any procedure shennigans causing delays 2. Yes, mixture of loans with security to be realised, deferred payments and third party claims in progress. Actually surprising number of loans with cash still coming in or expected (not sure the £22 from DFL016/17 will go far) ... answers on a postcard why DFL012 is negative
|
|
quidco
Member of DD Central
Posts: 290
Likes: 361
|
Post by quidco on Dec 22, 2021 9:08:24 GMT
24 months into the administration 28% of outstanding money recovered £117m DFLs outstanding at start £79.5m DFLs outstanding now £46m PBLs outstanding at start £27.6m PBLs outstanding now £163m total outstanding at start £107.1m outstanding now I make that 66% outstanding. £34.7m gross DFL realisations £16m DFL distributed... £13.5m gross PBL realisations £3.5m PBL distributed... £48.2m total realisations £19.5m total distributed Now, I'm a realist... I understand that the costs of doing all this are substantial, and that the loans were Less Than Gold-Plated - including some real long-term stinkers having been finally wrapped up... But, even so, on that basis, £56m reduction in outstanding loans, £19.5m distributed, we're looking at about 35% return on the remainder. Less, most likely, because the stuff that's come back in so far is the easy ones... I'm going to guess at low 20s. It shows the valuations were totally meaningless.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 22, 2021 14:54:21 GMT
Y'all need to put pen to paper, write and complain to RICS about their so called "Professional Valuations" (for what THAT's worth ) but, more importantly, the media, your MP, etc, and kick up a massive STINK - the entire scandal needs to be outed.
|
|
merlin99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 269
|
Post by merlin99 on Dec 22, 2021 15:17:30 GMT
Unfortunately RICS has got more wriggle room than a python. We have no idea what the instruction to the surveyor was at the time the valuation took place. These could have ranged from "fire sale" to complete refurbishment of property and this is precisely where RICS would want to wriggle. We I am am sure expected the valuation to be based on a fair basis. However a fair basis for us may be many percentage points away from what the P2P vendor wanted.
Lets face it we all got screwed big time and no one including the FCA want to know anything about it.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,868
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 22, 2021 15:55:47 GMT
Unfortunately RICS has got more wriggle room than a python. We have no idea what the instruction to the surveyor was at the time the valuation took place. These could have ranged from "fire sale" to complete refurbishment of property and this is precisely where RICS would want to wriggle. We I am am sure expected the valuation to be based on a fair basis. However a fair basis for us may be many percentage points away from what the P2P vendor wanted. Lets face it we all got screwed big time and no one including the FCA want to know anything about it. The valuations are based on a sale in market conditions (be it 90 day, 180 day or longer) and is only meaningful in that situation as set out in the RICS rules. It is less meaningful in the distressed sale of a complete property and is largely meaningless for the distressed sale of a incomplete development site where the buyer may have to redo work which isnt guarenteed and will price accordingly (even more so if it doesnt meet fire regulations!) There are two issues 1) Lenders dont understand valuations and the platform does nothing to educate them to allow a proper understanding of the risk. That is a regulatory failure, particularly true in the case of development loans which is why the FCA is looking to tighten regulations on those, even to the extent of banning them to restricted investors 2) Just plain inaccurate valuations for whatever reason. Potentially more telling than the poor realisations is the number of successful PI claims (4 now) Thats firmly in RICS court
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 22, 2021 16:10:48 GMT
Y'all can just roll over and take it if you wish.
Or DO something, and expose it for the racket it is.
The "justifications" on here make me laugh.
|
|
stokeloans
Member of DD Central
Posts: 400
Likes: 484
|
Post by stokeloans on Dec 22, 2021 16:20:48 GMT
Y'all can just roll over and take it if you wish. Or DO something, and expose it for the racket it is. The "justifications" on here make me laugh. Oh there's no justifications ,we were stitched up like kippers,the naive fools we were to invest in these 'ponzi lite' schemes
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,890
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 22, 2021 17:05:55 GMT
Unfortunately RICS has got more wriggle room than a python. We have no idea what the instruction to the surveyor was at the time the valuation took place. These could have ranged from "fire sale" to complete refurbishment of property and this is precisely where RICS would want to wriggle. We I am am sure expected the valuation to be based on a fair basis. However a fair basis for us may be many percentage points away from what the P2P vendor wanted. Lets face it we all got screwed big time and no one including the FCA want to know anything about it. The valuations are based on a sale in market conditions (be it 90 day, 180 day or longer) and is only meaningful in that situation as set out in the RICS rules. It is less meaningful in the distressed sale of a complete property and is largely meaningless for the distressed sale of a incomplete development site where the buyer may have to redo work which isnt guarenteed and will price accordingly (even more so if it doesnt meet fire regulations!) There are two issues 1) Lenders dont understand valuations and the platform does nothing to educate them to allow a proper understanding of the risk. That is a regulatory failure, particularly true in the case of development loans which is why the FCA is looking to tighten regulations on those, even to the extent of banning them to restricted investors 2) Just plain inaccurate valuations for whatever reason. Potentially more telling than the poor realisations is the number of successful PI claims (4 now) Thats firmly in RICS court Do you mean lenders didn't understand that many of the valuations were of zero value ? Do we think professional lenders such as banks make use of such valuations?
|
|
|
Post by billy169 on Dec 22, 2021 17:22:10 GMT
No chance,,the valuations we got were especially for us,,all paid for to be thus. We were set up all the way,,by FCA approved organizations.
|
|