cb25
Posts: 3,528 
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 5, 2020 13:40:54 GMT
But AC doesn't do those things (as I know to my cost with the infamous loan #227). As long as the company is solvent (which AC don't question/check), AC let the borrower put a proposal to lenders to vote on. Imo if lenders went with Option B, we'd simply see a lender vote - of essentially the same form - on a huge number of loans in the next few months. I accept you and a few others want that, but I don't. I want AC to do the job they are paid to do, this includes due diligence on non performing loans, so from what you are saying AC have a history of lack of due diligence, in this crisis they should step up to the plate and do the job they are paid for not waste time with votes which are indented to let them of the hook when things go wrong. No, I'm saying is that things have never worked the way you describe. We can debate whether they should work differently, or whether they might be better if they worked differently, but it's their platform, their Ts&Cs, all legal and regulated. Just as I found years ago with loan #227, it's irrelevant whether I (or anybody else) would like a different set of Ts&Cs.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 5, 2020 13:45:06 GMT
Scenario: Borrower is a Ltd Company. Borrower's main creditor is AC via a platform loan. Borrower also has other creditors. AC's loan reaches its redemption date. AC decides not to show forbearance and starts to aggressively pursues payment. Borrower (director) says, this'll kill the business, might as we call in the administrators. Administrators appointed. AC no better off. Lenders worse off. Yes? No? Question: How many AC borrowers are Ltd companies? The question could also be did AC secure personal assets from directors of Ltd companies that were insecure, if not why not?
My point is each loan should be consider on a case by case basis (Vote B) not a carte blanche approach to all borrowers to extend the loans no matter how little chance of getting the money back in the future, some now is better than none latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 5, 2020 13:54:22 GMT
I am still stuck with a low three figure sum in 227, that loan is a like thorn in AC back just like the green energy loan. Although both of these examples are somewhat outlayers to AC record of recoveries, which for the most part is satisfactory. Its investors who went in the GBBA series 1 that have been burnt quite badly. Mainly due to the very bad yes lets give 20% to this one loan, which happens to usally been 227. I renember that happening at the time, people were very angry here back then. That loan is still on going. Honestly imagine that loan repaying in full, 6 million pound returned to investors would be no small deal right now. Very unlikely, well impossible right this second.
Anyway, AC have first charge on property assets to companies and persons. Although this can fall flat on its face, it is very diffrent to lending to a company depending on that companies cash flow to be your repayment/recovery. That is why some recievers must go aggressively to avoid being last in queue when they lack a hold on first charge assets.. Other debitors cannot take control of the property as we have first charge over it. (Assuming our legals checkout ofc.)
I'm not a legal expert so I could be completely wrong and I'm sure they be a heated debate now. But I know that it is very diffrent to loans that say RS lend to, or that unsecure lending that Funding Circle often did that was based Purely on a worthless PG.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 5, 2020 14:19:27 GMT
I do not know anything loan #227 but perhaps is AC had pushed more aggressively on this loan they could have sold of the assets by now and returned at least some monies to lenders, I somehow think there will be less money to go round no matter how long you wait. I really hope not and the unfortunate lenders get more of their money back
There is a saying in the business I was in "Your first Loss is best Loss", proved true for me many times i.e. cut your loses while you can when recovering money tomorrow rarely proves better than what you can get today. Of course there will be exception in the current crisis but these can be dealt with on a case by case basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 5, 2020 15:00:31 GMT
I have to agree that AC are asking for trouble by obscuring the full balances of the Access Accounts at this difficult time. I find this concerning and urge them to reconsider.
However, the rest of this thread has deteriorated into one akin to loony Americans discussing how much tin foil to keep under their hats to keep the aliens from reading their thoughts. (Apologies to all sane Americans).
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 5, 2020 15:11:30 GMT
I have to agree that AC are asking for trouble by obscuring the full balances of the Access Accounts at this difficult time. I find this concerning and urge them to reconsider. However, the rest of this thread has deteriorated into one akin to loony Americans discussing how much tin foil to keep under their hats to keep the aliens from reading their thoughts. (Apologies to all sane Americans). That last sentence gave me a chuckle haha 
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 5, 2020 18:59:50 GMT
The truth is, its platform risk I'm terrfied of, and Im sure its what has gotten other investors railed (on all boards on this forum). Not even the underlying assets, but the platform. COL, FS, Lendy are great examples of terror for this. I think with AC current loan book, when we look at what the QAA holds, a majority of the loans will hold up after this crisis and even if not the recovery of those loans will be acceptble. But ONLY if the platform is healthy.As a larger retired investor I am terrified of the platform risk but I am also terrified of the consequence of AC actions if the platform survives, the one thing we know is AC decides who are the deserving and undeserving lenders. AC's enforced bailout of small investors by large investors has not happened on any other platform and has set the 2 sets of investors against each other with what is now totally conflicting interests. Small investors are in a great position with a get out of jail free card and can walk away with all their money - of course they are going to be on this forum saying "oh I love Assetz Capital, they are doing all the right things and have a great future blah blah" whilst presumably sitting waiting for their money to be redeemed from the platform. Large investors can only sit and watch while money is taken away from them and given to others on a daily basis. The best bet for them is probably the administration of the platform as the recovery rate would most likely be higher than what they are going to end up with. I know there are people on here who think "oh well that lot are loaded so if we take all their money away its OK", but there are also going to be older, retired people on here who have put a huge chunk of their savings into this and now face financial ruin. Ah- who cares, it serves them right for having too much money to begin with. Its not up to Assetz Capital to take money away from certain groups of people and give it away to others. These were and always had been proportional accounts, and they should have stayed that way.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 5, 2020 19:27:29 GMT
Question: How many AC borrowers are Ltd companies? To answer my own question. (Cos the rest of you are a lazy bunch of wotsits  ) | | Count | Principal Rem'g | | | Count | Principal Rem'g | | Suspended | 90 | £ 67,745,244 | | Not Suspended | 499 | £ 314,629,865 | | Limited Company | 76 | £ 60,643,200 | | Limited Company | 342 | £ 250,054,837 | | Partnership | 3 | £ 974,887 | | Partnership | 51 | £ 18,910,695 | | Sole Trader | 6 | £ 3,441,906 | | Sole Trader | 98 | £ 40,496,600 | | LLP | 1 | £ 396,864 | | LLP | 4 | £ 3,606,296 | | Other | 2 | £ 994,305 | | Other | 4 | £ 1,561,437 | | N/A | 2 | £ 1,294,082 | | N/A | 0 | £ - |
Of those loans 'in play': | Term Remaining | <= | 3 months | >3, | <= 6 months | >6, | <= 9 months | >9, | <= 12 months | >12 | months | | Limited Company | 45 | £ 65,465,839 | 29 | £ 26,814,046 | 27 | £ 21,560,155 | 27 | £ 19,703,183 | 214 | £ 116,511,615 | | Partnership | 1 | £ 650,000 | 1 | £ 165,000 | 1 | £ 415,043 | 0 | £ - | 48 | £ 17,680,652 | | Sole Trader | 7 | £ 5,521,357 | 3 | £ 4,111,782 | 4 | £ 3,471,350 | 6 | £ 3,424,714 | 78 | £ 23,967,396 | | LLP | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 739,292 | 3 | £ 2,867,004 | | Other | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 4 | £ 1,561,437 | | N/A | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - |
NB: These are the current Loan Principal amounts, some of the Dev loans may increase over time.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 5, 2020 21:05:22 GMT
And to complete the analysis; non-suspended loans by business type. Seems to me there are a large number of dev loans that are likely to be incomplete, but nearing completion if AC have done their monitoring duties, that will likely have to be mothballed for the time being. Is it wise to get 'heavy' with the default protocols when the outcome is potentially the forced sale of an incomplete development? Next category is the Property Investments, anyone fancy calling in the LPA Receivers in a market where essential things like viewings are almost impossible? | Business Type |
| <= 3 months | >3,
| <= 6 months | >6,
| <= 9 months | >9,
| <= 12 months |
| > 12 months | | Property Development | 40 | £ 61,948,455 | 23 | £ 24,672,948 | 23 | £ 19,967,010 | 22 | £ 20,332,069 | 49 | £ 29,652,911 | | Property Investment | 7 | £ 5,397,715 | 7 | £ 3,731,278 | 3 | £ 851,745 | 8 | £ 1,814,261 | 118 | £ 50,104,149 | | Service | 3 | £ 2,234,534 | 3 | £ 2,686,602 | 1 | £ 596,149 | 2 | £ 1,000,375 | 40 | £ 16,777,672 | | Leisure | 2 | £ 1,365,689 | 0 | £ - | 3 | £ 3,293,210 | 1 | £ 667,000 | 22 | £ 12,675,450 | | Care Home | 1 | £ 690,804 | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 444,278 | 0 | £ - | 20 | £ 11,020,192 | | Restaurant | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 53,485 | 7 | £ 2,418,602 | | Pub | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 294,156 | 0 | £ - | 30 | £ 7,536,384 | | Hotel | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 22 | £ 14,217,739 | | Retail | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 14 | £ 6,530,496 | | Renewables | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 12 | £ 6,737,358 | | Manufacturing | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 6 | £ 2,841,173 | | Financial | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 4 | £ 1,253,478 | | Medical | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 315,000 | | Wholesale | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 157,500 | | Contracting | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 350,000 |
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 5, 2020 21:29:45 GMT
Thank you for your research iRobot. It shows clearly that force selling right now would be nothing short of suicide on what would be unfinished plots of land. That is even if the courts allowed such a thing to take place in the current context with the FCA given advice.
Yes, borrowers should be able to complete projects, sell or refinace to repay lenders here. They can only do that if we don't break their knee caps over the next 60-90 days, simple as.
(Think this research might be best shown on the VOTE NO THREAD thing honestly. Amount of crazy talk on that thread honestly likely making readers not take this place seriously anymore. Likely for the best....)
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 5, 2020 22:14:25 GMT
Question: How many AC borrowers are Ltd companies? To answer my own question. (Cos the rest of you are a lazy bunch of wotsits ) | | Count | Principal Rem'g | | | Count | Principal Rem'g | | Suspended | 90 | £ 67,745,244 | | Not Suspended | 499 | £ 314,629,865 | | Limited Company | 76 | £ 60,643,200 | | Limited Company | 342 | £ 250,054,837 | | Partnership | 3 | £ 974,887 | | Partnership | 51 | £ 18,910,695 | | Sole Trader | 6 | £ 3,441,906 | | Sole Trader | 98 | £ 40,496,600 | | LLP | 1 | £ 396,864 | | LLP | 4 | £ 3,606,296 | | Other | 2 | £ 994,305 | | Other | 4 | £ 1,561,437 | | N/A | 2 | £ 1,294,082 | | N/A | 0 | £ - |
Of those loans 'in play': | Term Remaining | <= | 3 months | >3, | <= 6 months | >6, | <= 9 months | >9, | <= 12 months | >12 | months | | Limited Company | 45 | £ 65,465,839 | 29 | £ 26,814,046 | 27 | £ 21,560,155 | 27 | £ 19,703,183 | 214 | £ 116,511,615 | | Partnership | 1 | £ 650,000 | 1 | £ 165,000 | 1 | £ 415,043 | 0 | £ - | 48 | £ 17,680,652 | | Sole Trader | 7 | £ 5,521,357 | 3 | £ 4,111,782 | 4 | £ 3,471,350 | 6 | £ 3,424,714 | 78 | £ 23,967,396 | | LLP | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 1 | £ 739,292 | 3 | £ 2,867,004 | | Other | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 4 | £ 1,561,437 | | N/A | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - | 0 | £ - |
NB: These are the current Loan Principal amounts, some of the Dev loans may increase over time. Are you saying there is £65m of loans due for repayment in the next 3 months?
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 5, 2020 22:25:01 GMT
£40m loans are due to be paid back in the next month - They better all pay up!
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 5, 2020 22:33:33 GMT
Loan #798 #2 #9 #28 #48 These have all been paid off about £2.6m the last few days why is this money not being paid back to lenders?  ? chrisstuartassetzcapital |
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 5, 2020 22:36:29 GMT
£40m loans are due to be paid back in the next month - They better all pay up!
How do you intend on them to all pay up, people can't even leave their homes to view a property during the lockdown. Goverment is also suggesting individals do not purchase a home at this time. This isnt' a AC problem, this is a problem for the entire property market right now. What will likely happen to most projects is that forebarance will protect the interests of all parties. Development will resume as soon as the guidelines lessen, then once development has completed (for suspended loans), they borrowers will move onto re-finance or sale. Sales usally take alot of backwork which is done before sometimes the property is even fully completed in the drawdown stages. Therefore re-finance. Also, those loans you listed were repaid years ago, there is a reporting bug with them showing up. They show up for me too, dont' know if it shows on the beta site though.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 5, 2020 22:40:13 GMT
Loan #798 - repaid 3 Apr 2020 #2 - repaid 25 Oct 2013 #9 - repaid 12 Sep 2013 #28 - repaid 16 Jan 2014 #48 - repaid 21 Dec 2013 These have all been paid off about £2.6m the last few days why is this money not being paid back to lenders? ? Only #798 is recent, as shown above - dates taken from the Repayments tab. With Repaid loans the Last Updated date gets updated (and may look extremely recent) for no reason I've ever understood.
|
|
)
?