ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315 
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 1, 2020 17:01:39 GMT
The turbine loans repayment schedule was presumably only offered to lenders due to AC being advised by its lawyers that it would lose in court.
The Scottish Laird loan, and let's not forget he's a convicted criminal, is <redacted> due to AC using its lenders money to clear the bad debt of RBS. The majority of the Laird loan wasn't used as a loan at all, and this was never made clear in the documentation, nor was it made clear to people who were auto invested in the "loan" by the GBBA. It's a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the site, trust, competence, and is likely fraudulent. Given that AC admits he defaulted on £7m (that we know of) of RBS loans, lending him another £5m and expecting him to pay it back, all while drastically over valuing the security which has left lenders with little to no recourse, and blocking administration [snip}
Have you actually read the documents? The CR clearly states that the loan is to refinance the bank and says how much in the Executive Summary. The GBBA terms didn't require any information to be provided as it was a black box auto-invest account. AC hasn't overvalued the security, its based on a RICS valuation. AC isn't blocking administration, that is based on a lender vote as the majority of lenders consider a distressed fire sale to not be the best outcome. Ive not quoted the libellous bit but the third party housing company is not building on the site but on adjoining site
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Jul 1, 2020 17:21:36 GMT
It's a common complaint on Trustpilot that AC's security turns out to have been grossly overvalued when a loan defaults and the administrators are called in. Doesn't seem to matter who the valuer is. I wonder why that is. They can't all be incompetent. It's been raised on the Laird Q&A that as the valuer got it wrong to the extent it did, then AC should be taking legal action. But of course, the suggestion got the usual short shrift.
What has Law wanting to build houses on an adjoining site got to do with the loan if the site doesn't form part of the security? Am I missing something? I know the recent updates have been badly written and are like wading through treacle, but I though he wants to build homes on an area of the estate which has planning permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Jul 1, 2020 18:06:26 GMT
the adjacent site is independant and has nothing to do with the loan, however the business involved has proposed a bung to said scottish individual to provide him with some cash towards paying off the loan, although I suspect it will all disappear in his money pit business.
As to the 'votes', yes a solvent repayment would be rather nice, but the lender has taken 'economy with the truth' way beyond reasonable, surely Assets must be on gullibility enhancers for quoting the guff verbatim. The story relating to the second revaluation, the missing surveyor, the valuation due in mid Feb, has zero credibility. To me it looks like Lenders voted for a scheme based on a set sum and the said borrower asked for more, leaving us exactly where we have been for several years and without the promised 25% repayment. Just how long does it take to compile a valuation report?.
There is no value in the trading businesses. They should be placed in administration and closed down. The value might be in the building land, but this needs someone with at least a gram of integrity to progress.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 1, 2020 18:20:28 GMT
It's a common complaint on Trustpilot that AC's security turns out to have been grossly overvalued when a loan defaults and the administrators are called in. Doesn't seem to matter who the valuer is. I wonder why that is. They can't all be incompetent. It's been raised on the Laird Q&A that as the valuer got it wrong to the extent it did, then AC should be taking legal action. But of course, the suggestion got the usual short shrift.
What has Law wanting to build houses on an adjoining site got to do with the loan if the site doesn't form part of the security? Am I missing something? I know the recent updates have been badly written and are like wading through treacle, but I though he wants to build homes on an area of the estate which has planning permission.
Its a common complaint on most platforms … the principle reason is that valuers don't provide distressed sale valuations so the minute a loan goes into recovery, all bets are off. AC wont take any legal action until there is a case to argue which wouldn't be evident until the property has been disposed of following a full marketing exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Jul 1, 2020 18:39:27 GMT
Yep, not really a surprise. What is a surprise that AC waited until the 11th hour to say so....I guess it must have been a pretty close call  And was quickly followed by a good news lender bulletin stating that they've seen 'minimal loan defaults' and 'bumper interest payments'. <redacted> It's become quite apparent to me in recent months that AC's lenders are being laughed at and taken for fools by the company. No one is unintentionally so tone deaf as to send that email to turbine lenders 10 mins after telling them they're not getting their money for the second quarter running.
|
|
|
|
Post by wanderer on Jul 1, 2020 18:50:57 GMT
It's a common complaint on Trustpilot that AC's security turns out to have been grossly overvalued when a loan defaults and the administrators are called in. Doesn't seem to matter who the valuer is. I wonder why that is. They can't all be incompetent. It's been raised on the Laird Q&A that as the valuer got it wrong to the extent it did, then AC should be taking legal action. But of course, the suggestion got the usual short shrift.
What has Law wanting to build houses on an adjoining site got to do with the loan if the site doesn't form part of the security? Am I missing something? I know the recent updates have been badly written and are like wading through treacle, but I though he wants to build homes on an area of the estate which has planning permission.
Its a common complaint on most platforms … the principle reason is that valuers don't provide distressed sale valuations so the minute a loan goes into recovery, all bets are off. AC wont take any legal action until there is a case to argue which wouldn't be evident until the property has been disposed of following a full marketing exercise. All valuations for security purposes should be based on the asset being "distressed" since the asset will only be needed should the borrower default. It's entirely negligent for AC to accept a valuation of say £5m on a property for a loan of £3.5m, if when the administrators get called in, the property value will likely be no more than £2.5m. If AC do not ask for distressed valuations, then IMO, it's not doing it's job properly, and the information provided to lenders, particularly things like LTV figures, will be materially false.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 1, 2020 19:10:01 GMT
Its a common complaint on most platforms … the principle reason is that valuers don't provide distressed sale valuations so the minute a loan goes into recovery, all bets are off. AC wont take any legal action until there is a case to argue which wouldn't be evident until the property has been disposed of following a full marketing exercise. All valuations for security purposes should be based on the asset being "distressed" since the asset will only be needed should the borrower default. It's entirely negligent for AC to accept a valuation of say £5m on a property for a loan of £3.5m, if when the administrators get called in, the property value will likely be no more than £2.5m. If AC do not ask for distressed valuations, then IMO, it's not doing it's job properly, and the information provided to lenders, particularly things like LTV figures, will be materially false. RICS do not provide distressed valuations because they would have to be guesswork as they cant make assumptions on unknown circumstances. 'Forced sale' is not permitted to be used in a valuation as it is not a basis of value but the situation at a specific time. Valuers will not give a value based on future unknown circumstances, a forced sale valuation can only be provided at the point that these circumstances are known.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jul 1, 2020 20:29:02 GMT
On the subject of valuations, I read the following on a RICS VR which was produced for a loan I'm in on another platform. (It's effectively a bridging loan, there will be no development activities undertaken without the loan I'm in being redeemed first. The development aspects presented were purely for indicative purposes.) " Property development is a process carrying considerable risk, and accordingly, loans advanced for development properties carry much greater risk for you than would be normal for investment properties. Whilst we consider that the subject property forms suitable security at the present time, any development works will be completed over an extended time period during which it is possible that there could be changes in the economy or the property market which could impact on the value of the completed development or the viability of the project as a whole.
Furthermore, you should be aware that once the development work is underway should a sale become necessary, then disposal may be more problematic. Delays in the development process could have a disproportionate impact on values, and the value of the subject property may be at its lowest point during the course of developments. Accordingly, it is most important that the Bank employs an independent monitoring surveyor and maintains a close watch on the development as it proceeds." My emphasis. A refreshingly clear summary of the risks as they relate to dev loans, I think, and not one I can recall reading on a Valuation Report before. Maybe because this one wasn't for a development loan  |
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 1, 2020 20:34:25 GMT
On the subject of valuations, I read the following on a RICS VR which was produced for a loan I'm in on another platform. (It's effectively a bridging loan, there will be no development activities undertaken without the loan I'm in being redeemed first. The development aspects presented were purely for indicative purposes.) " Property development is a process carrying considerable risk, and accordingly, loans advanced for development properties carry much greater risk for you than would be normal for investment properties. Whilst we consider that the subject property forms suitable security at the present time, any development works will be completed over an extended time period during which it is possible that there could be changes in the economy or the property market which could impact on the value of the completed development or the viability of the project as a whole.
Furthermore, you should be aware that once the development work is underway should a sale become necessary, then disposal may be more problematic. Delays in the development process could have a disproportionate impact on values, and the value of the subject property may be at its lowest point during the course of developments. Accordingly, it is most important that the Bank employs an independent monitoring surveyor and maintains a close watch on the development as it proceeds." My emphasis. A refreshingly clear summary of the risks as they relate to dev loans, I think, and not one I can recall reading on a Valuation Report before. Maybe because this one wasn't for a development loan Somewhat similar to this then The value of security can vary across the lifetime of a loan. This may be through ordinary course of business during the natural course of a development/construction project or it could be where security is lost or harmed. Details of security taken are provided in each credit report and, wherever possible, any third party independent valuations are also provided. In the case of a development loan/construction project we will provide details of the loan to value when the loan is initially drawn and the forecast end loan to value post completion of all work. The transition of value throughout a development is not, however, linear and will vary according to the development and is also reliant upon continued funding of the development each month. As such, the loan to value during the course of a development/construction project may exceed the maximum opening and closing values quoted.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jul 2, 2020 9:35:28 GMT
Its a common complaint on most platforms … the principle reason is that valuers don't provide distressed sale valuations so the minute a loan goes into recovery, all bets are off. AC wont take any legal action until there is a case to argue which wouldn't be evident until the property has been disposed of following a full marketing exercise. All valuations for security purposes should be based on the asset being "distressed" since the asset will only be needed should the borrower default. It's entirely negligent for AC to accept a valuation of say £5m on a property for a loan of £3.5m, if when the administrators get called in, the property value will likely be no more than £2.5m. If AC do not ask for distressed valuations, then IMO, it's not doing it's job properly, and the information provided to lenders, particularly things like LTV figures, will be materially false. As others have said you are not going to see "distressed valuations" in surveys. This is about as much as you will see in terms of valuations on AC loans, and you won't always see this. "Formal, independent valuation by a RICS qualified valuer of the Property, including, Going Concern Value, Open Market Value and Restricted Valuation with assumption of 6 months to complete a sale addressed to Assetz Capital." You would have to look at a selection of loans to see what the variations are. The credit reports and valuation documents are a good place to start. AC make a judgement call about whether to list the loan, not all make it. Then lenders have to make a judgement call based on their due diligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Jul 2, 2020 9:36:07 GMT
The turbine loans repayment schedule was presumably only offered to lenders due to AC being advised by its lawyers that it would lose in court.
The Scottish Laird loan, and let's not forget he's a convicted criminal, is <redacted> due to AC using its lenders money to clear the bad debt of RBS. The majority of the Laird loan wasn't used as a loan at all, and this was never made clear in the documentation, nor was it made clear to people who were auto invested in the "loan" by the GBBA. It's a clear breach of the terms and conditions of the site, trust, competence, and is likely fraudulent. Given that AC admits he defaulted on £7m (that we know of) of RBS loans, lending him another £5m and expecting him to pay it back, all while drastically over valuing the security which has left lenders with little to no recourse, and blocking administration so <redacted> by building houses on the site through one of his other companies, will not be viewed in a positive light when this ends up in court, which undoubtedly it will.
The papers say he was fined £800 for a couple of threatening letters. On that basis there a fair number of criminals posting on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by buzzablinio on Sept 23, 2020 16:00:10 GMT
Hmmm....looks like its going to the wire again....just a week left to tell us the next scheduled I** payment isn't going to happen again  |
|
|
|
Post by p2psws on Sept 27, 2020 5:32:52 GMT
Ive completely lost track of whats happening with these. From memory, was AC going to cover the losses of all of these from the provision fund?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by buzzablinio on Sept 28, 2020 20:15:24 GMT
2 days left.,,,no update yet, so excited about finally getting another installment paid back on another massive AC blackbox Scottish investment car crash....unless....they couldn't just be compiling another excuse could they?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Sept 29, 2020 15:28:44 GMT
The email a month or so ago about the PFs suggests to me AC's original plan for these loans is dead in the water. But I expect the recent tiny uptick in the PFs and some handy optimism about future events will see AC kick the can down the road for another 3-6 months. Unless they show a serious willingness to look at other options for repaying these loans then I suspect the only way it is going to happen in the next few years, if ever, is to restart/start progressing down the official complaint route.
|
|
