|
|
Post by davidricketts1 on Oct 29, 2014 10:43:37 GMT
S****bridge Development (loan no.56) We still have no update on content of the MS report from the visit scheduled for w/c 6th Oct.
Doing it as we speak (as it were...)
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 29, 2014 10:48:29 GMT
This has appeared on Q&A
"The borrower is ready to go but there is still a small proportion of the loan to (underwrite?*)(c.£60k this morning). As soon as this is funded (expected over the next day or so) then we should be able to progress to requesting lenders funds meaning a drawdown early next week (w/c 03/11/14)."
* word missing
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 29, 2014 11:21:26 GMT
This has appeared on Q&A "The borrower is ready to go but there is still a small proportion of the loan to (underwrite?*)(c.£60k this morning). As soon as this is funded (expected over the next day or so) then we should be able to progress to requesting lenders funds meaning a drawdown early next week (w/c 03/11/14)."
* word missing
: Which loan does the above relate to? I was expecting it to be SCP&MS (#99) but I've just checked that loan's Q&A and don't see the quoted entry. And there's still no entry for the replacement loan on the list of Loans Coming Soon.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 29, 2014 11:24:55 GMT
Ah!! It's on SCP & MS #146
They are obviously not placing new information on the old loan. That's bad!!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 29, 2014 12:33:46 GMT
Ah!! It's on SCP & MS #146They are obviously not placing new information on the old loan. That's bad!! : That explains it. And since I didn't place a bid for the replacement loan, I don't have access to SCP & MS #146. Yes, that's really is a poor policy on AC's part, though perhaps I shouldn't call it 'policy' since it simply might be a situation nobody had thought of in advance. And I'm not convinced they could claim that this is a one-off that won't happen again once we get through the transition period to the new system where there are no bids. After all, if a similar situation were to come up in the future, how would they do what they've done here -- which is to offer existing investors in the loan being replaced first priority in the new loan? Perhaps chris or andrewholgate would care to comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 29, 2014 13:21:40 GMT
Ah!! It's on SCP & MS #146They are obviously not placing new information on the old loan. That's bad!! : That explains it. And since I didn't place a bid for the replacement loan, I don't have access to SCP & MS #146. Yes, that's really is a poor policy on AC's part, though perhaps I shouldn't call it 'policy' since it simply might be a situation nobody had thought of in advance. And I'm not convinced they could claim that this is a one-off that won't happen again once we get through the transition period to the new system where there are no bids. After all, if a similar situation were to come up in the future, how would they do what they've done here -- which is to offer existing investors in the loan being replaced first priority in the new loan? Perhaps chris or andrewholgate would care to comment. More one for davidricketts1
|
|
|
|
Post by davidricketts1 on Oct 29, 2014 14:05:09 GMT
oldgrumpy: That explains it. And since I didn't place a bid for the replacement loan, I don't have access to SCP & MS #146. Yes, that's really is a poor policy on AC's part, though perhaps I shouldn't call it 'policy' since it simply might be a situation nobody had thought of in advance. And I'm not convinced they could claim that this is a one-off that won't happen again once we get through the transition period to the new system where there are no bids. After all, if a similar situation were to come up in the future, how would they do what they've done here -- which is to offer existing investors in the loan being replaced first priority in the new loan? Perhaps chris or andrewholgate would care to comment. More one for davidricketts1<passes buck>
One for andrewholgate to confirm I'd imagine.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 29, 2014 15:37:18 GMT
I'd have thought that SCP & MS #146 should be placed into the "coming soon" section.
This would allow those who have not already done so to set an investment target, which [when "backed" by cash in the MLIA or existing loan units that will roll over] can act like a bid on the old system, and avoid the need for further underwriting being sought for that portion.
In future instances, when such a refinancing loan comes onto the platform (in the "coming soon" section), holders of existing loan(s) to the borrower that will be refinanced can be emailed inviting them to set their investment target, and the drawdown process could ensure that these "rolled over" loan units would be allocated first, with the remainder being financed by cash-backed investment targets, or if necessary by underwriter funds.
As with the old system, for some loans underwriting may not be necessary, as sufficient "backed" investment targets may be placed to avoid the need to draw on underwriters' funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidricketts1 on Oct 29, 2014 16:14:29 GMT
Update on the website for CC L****** (loan 68).
|
|
|
|
Post by davidricketts1 on Oct 29, 2014 16:38:51 GMT
Update on the website for H*****y (Loan 130).
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 29, 2014 17:35:56 GMT
I'd have thought that SCP & MS #146 should be placed into the "coming soon" section. I can see the usefulness of this but, IIRC, AC's stated policy is that loan opportunities won't appear in the "Coming Soon" list until they have been fully underwritten, so that the possibility of a loan failing to proceed because of a lack of funding has been completely eliminated.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 29, 2014 19:04:05 GMT
I'd have thought that SCP & MS #146 should be placed into the "coming soon" section. I can see the usefulness of this but, IIRC, AC's stated policy is that loan opportunities won't appear in the "Coming Soon" list until they have been fully underwritten, so that the possibility of a loan failing to proceed because of a lack of funding has been completely eliminated. Given that there is no [further] bidding, and no user funds are tied up merely by setting an investment target (in effect all users have something analogous to a shadow bidding facility), I cannot see any fundamental reason for such a policy. For the current transitional period, there are 2 auctions that were "interrupted" by the new site going live and cutting those auctions short. Anyone who had intended to place bids on those auctions during the final 3 days of the stated auction period was denied the opportunity to do so. By placing it on the "coming soon" section, such users will then be able to place an investment target, which, if backed up by uninvested cash, can be treated equivalently to a "bid". To put it another way - if Assetz are sufficiently confident these loans will proceed that they haven't returned funds from user bids, they can surely be sufficiently confident that they will proceed to put them in the "coming soon" section? Going forward, that policy wastes the limited resource of underwriters, who must keep funds allocated on standby for the entire value of a loan, even in cases where sufficient capacity exists from retail investors' investment targets to fully fund the loan without underwriter support... ... and especially so with cases like this where a retail investor's investment target can be deemed "funded" by holding units of the loan(s) to be refinanced rather than merely with cash.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 29, 2014 19:59:35 GMT
I can see the usefulness of this but, IIRC, AC's stated policy is that loan opportunities won't appear in the "Coming Soon" list until they have been fully underwritten, so that the possibility of a loan failing to proceed because of a lack of funding has been completely eliminated. Given that there is no [further] bidding, and no user funds are tied up merely by setting an investment target (in effect all users have something analogous to a shadow bidding facility), I cannot see any fundamental reason for such a policy. For the current transitional period, there are 2 auctions that were "interrupted" by the new site going live and cutting those auctions short. Anyone who had intended to place bids on those auctions during the final 3 days of the stated auction period was denied the opportunity to do so. By placing it on the "coming soon" section, such users will then be able to place an investment target, which, if backed up by uninvested cash, can be treated equivalently to a "bid". To put it another way - if Assetz are sufficiently confident these loans will proceed that they haven't returned funds from user bids, they can surely be sufficiently confident that they will proceed to put them in the "coming soon" section? Going forward, that policy wastes the limited resource of underwriters, who must keep funds allocated on standby for the entire value of a loan, even in cases where sufficient capacity exists from retail investors' investment targets to fully fund the loan without underwriter support... ... and especially so with cases like this where a retail investor's investment target can be deemed "funded" by holding units of the loan(s) to be refinanced rather than merely with cash. I also wonder why AC have adopted this policy, as earlier involvement of 'ordinary' lenders would allow a bit of crowd duedil that could be useful. Or, I suppose, could be seen by AC as requiring too much resource to deal with our pesky questions. Perhaps AC want to save themselves the loss of face that comes with being unable to entice underwriters to support a loan. (Might that have been what killed the 'high-class' yacht hire loan?) I'm afraid that, under the new AC system, underwriters still must keep funds allocated on standby for the entire value of a loan even if significant support is shown via investment targets set while a loan is on the Coming Soon list. That's because targets are not commitments as bids -- either actual or shadow -- were under the old system. So the new system is not the same as everyone having shadow bidding privileges -- simply because up until the moment of drawdown those targets are subject to being changed/withdrawn and AC could find themselves in a very awkward position at drawdown if they had arranged less than 100% underwriter cover because they thought they had support from lenders who had set targets. IMHO the risks are too great for AC to consider operating with less than 100% u/w cover. One possible exception to this is a situation such as SCP&MS, where lenders in the existing loan could be treated as having made a irrevocable commitment to participating in the replacement loan. Perhaps if AC gave those lenders in #99 who hadn't decided to participate in #146 another chance to make a commitment to be in the new loan they would find they really don't need to arrange any more underwriting than they already have.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 29, 2014 22:44:37 GMT
I'm afraid that, under the new AC system, underwriters still must keep funds allocated on standby for the entire value of a loan even if significant support is shown via investment targets set while a loan is on the Coming Soon list. That's because targets are not commitments as bids -- either actual or shadow -- were under the old system. So the new system is not the same as everyone having shadow bidding privileges -- simply because up until the moment of drawdown those targets are subject to being changed/withdrawn and AC could find themselves in a very awkward position at drawdown if they had arranged less than 100% underwriter cover because they thought they had support from lenders who had set targets. IMHO the risks are too great for AC to consider operating with less than 100% u/w cover. Thinking more carefully, the targets seem more analogous to the old "pre-bid" facility than to shadow bidding. Whilst certainly it cannot be guaranteed that ALL will certainly be funded at the appropriate moment, with sufficient oversubscription you'd be beyond reasonable doubt that the funds would be present to allow drawdown. In any case, I don't see what harm is done by allowing users to set a target before 100% underwriting is in place. Such users are not obliged to commit funds, and any otherwise unallocated funds can in principle be used to provide funding for whichever loan is next due to draw down. Worst case, they have to wait for 100% underwriting anyway (so they're no worse off than now), but there remains a strong possibility that 100% funds will become available with some of this provided by regular users. In particular, it seems likely to me that SCP & MS #146 could have drawn down by now if users had been able to set targets when the new site launched - especially if users without a shadow bidding facility had the opportunity to set a target in order to roll over the old loan to the new without committing further funds highlighted to them.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 29, 2014 23:12:46 GMT
I'm afraid that, under the new AC system, underwriters still must keep funds allocated on standby for the entire value of a loan even if significant support is shown via investment targets set while a loan is on the Coming Soon list. That's because targets are not commitments as bids -- either actual or shadow -- were under the old system. So the new system is not the same as everyone having shadow bidding privileges -- simply because up until the moment of drawdown those targets are subject to being changed/withdrawn and AC could find themselves in a very awkward position at drawdown if they had arranged less than 100% underwriter cover because they thought they had support from lenders who had set targets. IMHO the risks are too great for AC to consider operating with less than 100% u/w cover. Thinking more carefully, the targets seem more analogous to the old "pre-bid" facility than to shadow bidding. Whilst certainly it cannot be guaranteed that ALL will certainly be funded at the appropriate moment, with sufficient oversubscription you'd be beyond reasonable doubt that the funds would be present to allow drawdown. In any case, I don't see what harm is done by allowing users to set a target before 100% underwriting is in place. Such users are not obliged to commit funds, and any otherwise unallocated funds can in principle be used to provide funding for whichever loan is next due to draw down. Worst case, they have to wait for 100% underwriting anyway (so they're no worse off than now), but there remains a strong possibility that 100% funds will become available with some of this provided by regular users. In particular, it seems likely to me that SCP & MS #146 could have drawn down by now if users had been able to set targets when the new site launched - especially if users without a shadow bidding facility had the opportunity to set a target in order to roll over the old loan to the new without committing further funds highlighted to them. I agree with sl75's thinking here. It's unlikely to cause a problem and, with a bit of experience, AC probably could predict with a reasonable level of accuracy what proportion of these pre-bids might be available when drawdown actually arrives, and be able to scale back their underwriting requirements -- and costs -- accordingly. As for SCP&MS #146... When I first queried the seeming lack of interest by SCP&MS #99 lenders to participate in the new loan, someone pointed out that many of them could be waiting until closer to the auction's end before committing themselves, and I accepted that. The go-live of the new system cut out that option, and until either AC go and ask the #99 lenders whether they'd like to participate, or #146 shows up on the Coming Soon list, AC won't really know how much support they'll have from #99 lenders.
|
|
