|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 8, 2020 21:32:02 GMT
I don't like the idea that Drawdowns are being funded from Loan repayments, I believe the withdrawal queue needs to be addressed prior to funding additional loans.
Please feel free to share your view in the poll.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 8, 2020 21:53:46 GMT
I don't think any loans have been drawndown, and I don't believe AC are planning on that in the short term now.
Only loans which are being supplied additional money are tranche drawdowns. AC have a contractual obligation to honour these, and its in our best interest they do.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Apr 9, 2020 6:07:40 GMT
I don't like the idea that Drawdowns are being funded from Loan repayments, I believe the withdrawal queue needs to be addressed prior to funding additional loans. Please feel free to share your view in the poll. Thanks AC need to prioritize contractual obligations otherwise they wont have much of a business after this Corona business ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 9, 2020 16:15:22 GMT
I don't think a lot of people understand what they have invested in with AC - I genuinely believe a lot of people here are going to get a royal shafting and overtime when you have suffered significant losses because you have given AC maximum control of your cash you will then realise what you have done.
This is not a time to be refinancing new loans - Too risky and uncertain until things stabilise.
AC earn big fees when they refinance loans with your cash, simple as that.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
Post by jlend on Apr 9, 2020 16:30:49 GMT
I don't like the idea that Drawdowns are being funded from Loan repayments, I believe the withdrawal queue needs to be addressed prior to funding additional loans. Please feel free to share your view in the poll. Thanks AC need to prioritize contractual obligations otherwise they wont have much of a business after this Corona business ends. I do think AC should fund tranche drawdowns of existing loans where appropriate and right now realistically I assume they have to use the Access Accounts rather than underwriters, manual lenders or other sources of funding. I don't think there is a legal obligation on the part of AC and lenders, although I am sure Stuart can confirm. This has been discussed by AC in the past. But I do think it is the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 9, 2020 16:34:42 GMT
AC need to prioritize contractual obligations otherwise they wont have much of a business after this Corona business ends. I do think AC should fund tranche drawdowns of existing loans where appropriate and right now realistically I assume they have to use the Access Accounts rather than underwriters, manual lenders or other sources of funding. I don't think there is a legal obligation on the part of AC and lenders, although I am sure Stuart can confirm. This has been discussed by AC in the past. But I do think it is the right thing to do. Will be interesting to hear what you think when you start seeing losses in your AC account....
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,896 
Likes: 11,118
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 9, 2020 16:38:50 GMT
I don't think a lot of people understand what they have invested in with AC - I genuinely believe a lot of people here are going to get a royal shafting and overtime when you have suffered significant losses because you have given AC maximum control of your cash you will then realise what you have done. This is not a time to be refinancing new loans - Too risky and uncertain until things stabilise. AC earn big fees when they refinance loans with your cash, simple as that. No new loans have been financed and no loans have been refinanced though in some cases this is potentially to lenders disadvantage where a loan was being refinanced onto an improved facility or exit loan (replenishing retention pots). The only drawdowns that are occurring are those to fund existing commitments, generally in arrears ie paying bills already incurred. AC fees are fully disclosed in the docs, the arrangement fee is general 1-2% often relating to the risk category … whether you consider that big I guess is subjective.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,896
Likes: 11,118
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 9, 2020 16:40:56 GMT
I do think AC should fund tranche drawdowns of existing loans where appropriate and right now realistically I assume they have to use the Access Accounts rather than underwriters, manual lenders or other sources of funding. I don't think there is a legal obligation on the part of AC and lenders, although I am sure Stuart can confirm. This has been discussed by AC in the past. But I do think it is the right thing to do. Will be interesting to hear what you think when you start seeing losses in your AC account.... More likely if they don't fund tranches to pay bills as then the borrowers will be open to creditors and winding up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 9, 2020 16:42:51 GMT
I don't think a lot of people understand what they have invested in with AC - I genuinely believe a lot of people here are going to get a royal shafting and overtime when you have suffered significant losses because you have given AC maximum control of your cash you will then realise what you have done. This is not a time to be refinancing new loans - Too risky and uncertain until things stabilise. AC earn big fees when they refinance loans with your cash, simple as that. No new loans have been financed and no loans have been refinanced though in some cases this is potentially to lenders disadvantage where a loan was being refinanced onto an improved facility or exit loan. The only drawdowns that are occurring are those to fund existing commitments, generally in arrears ie paying bills already incurred. AC fees are fully disclosed in the docs, the arrangement fee is general 1-2% often relating to the risk category … whether you consider that big I guess is subjective. I am aware of what is happening, I would not fund additional tranches to borrowers who can't pay up on the original loan. The economic environment has changed, the borrower rating is more risky than previous terms so to simply borrow more money on those same terms does not compensate lenders for the additional risk. People who can't pay back original loan need to be repossessed, they hold equity so by repossessing you won't incur a haircut. Loans repaid should purely be used to clear the withdrawal queue.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,896
Likes: 11,118
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 9, 2020 16:55:26 GMT
No new loans have been financed and no loans have been refinanced though in some cases this is potentially to lenders disadvantage where a loan was being refinanced onto an improved facility or exit loan. The only drawdowns that are occurring are those to fund existing commitments, generally in arrears ie paying bills already incurred. AC fees are fully disclosed in the docs, the arrangement fee is general 1-2% often relating to the risk category … whether you consider that big I guess is subjective. I am aware of what is happening, I would not fund additional tranches to borrowers who can't pay up on the original loan. The economic environment has changed, the borrower rating is more risky than previous terms so to simply borrow more money on those same terms does not compensate lenders for the additional risk. People who can't pay back original loan need to be repossessed, they hold equity so by repossessing you won't incur a haircut. Loans repaid should purely be used to clear the withdrawal queue. These are development projects, repossession of a half completed building site in the current circumstances almost guarantees a haircut, just check out the outcomes on other platforms. Valuers have given indicative values of a 40% haircut or worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 9, 2020 16:56:18 GMT
No new loans have been financed and no loans have been refinanced though in some cases this is potentially to lenders disadvantage where a loan was being refinanced onto an improved facility or exit loan. The only drawdowns that are occurring are those to fund existing commitments, generally in arrears ie paying bills already incurred. AC fees are fully disclosed in the docs, the arrangement fee is general 1-2% often relating to the risk category … whether you consider that big I guess is subjective. I am aware of what is happening, I would not fund additional tranches to borrowers who can't pay up on the original loan. The economic environment has changed, the borrower rating is more risky than previous terms so to simply borrow more money on those same terms does not compensate lenders for the additional risk. People who can't pay back original loan need to be repossessed, they hold equity so by repossessing you won't incur a haircut. Loans repaid should purely be used to clear the withdrawal queue. Loans repaid are already used to clear withdrawals, except for that cash held in rentention. Why are you deseperate to plunge investors into creditor receivers on properties unfinished. Do you understand that the LTV will also have plummeted, so there isnt' any point in selling those plots of land if borrowers are still eager to develop, re-fiance or in the future sale to give us our capital back. (and interest) You might want massive losses, but I dont' want to be the feast of vultures and neither do most other lenders. I don't get the logic, knee cap the loan book so we can all incur losses?? It has been repeated a number of times to you so you clearly wont' change your mind. Haircuts are priced in when you invested in Peer to Peer if things go south, I am fascinated as to how you end up investing into P2P when you clearly have a extremely low risk-appietate. (or lack of understanding of risk?)
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 9, 2020 17:01:44 GMT
No new loans have been financed and no loans have been refinanced though in some cases this is potentially to lenders disadvantage where a loan was being refinanced onto an improved facility or exit loan. The only drawdowns that are occurring are those to fund existing commitments, generally in arrears ie paying bills already incurred. AC fees are fully disclosed in the docs, the arrangement fee is general 1-2% often relating to the risk category … whether you consider that big I guess is subjective. I am aware of what is happening, I would not fund additional tranches to borrowers who can't pay up on the original loan. The economic environment has changed, the borrower rating is more risky than previous terms so to simply borrow more money on those same terms does not compensate lenders for the additional risk. People who can't pay back original loan need to be repossessed, they hold equity so by repossessing you won't incur a haircut. Loans repaid should purely be used to clear the withdrawal queue. If a house developer has drawn down (say) 30% of a loan for works already completed - maybe ground clearance, foundations and some first storey block/brick work - how do you see them being able to repay that 30% if we deny the money to complete the houses? They don't have the cash and you can't sell a 30% built house at anywhere near 30% of the finished value. Clearly, the value of the land is part of the security the loan is secured against, but whilst people are happy to buy undeveloped land I suspect not many want to buy land with bits of development on it. Imo it's as simple as - guarantee a big capital loss by withholding money for future tranches, or risk the potential of a capital loss if the future tranches are funded. I agree with going for the latter.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,896
Likes: 11,118
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 9, 2020 17:57:47 GMT
It should also be noted that the requirements for tranches will likely decrease as work slows or stops. The number of drawdowns requested this week is about third of last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Apr 9, 2020 18:23:40 GMT
I gain more and more faith in the investers in AC with the recent votes, yes its going to be nasty and we may loose money but feeding the vultures will only make it worse.We already have potential buyers of distressed loan property, seeking substantial reductions in previously agreed prices, this should be resisted if posible or there will be a race to the bottom in the short term in my opinion.
I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but i think some investers hope that posible new funds from the tax payer should be used to buy out existing loans of those wishing exit peer to peer. That would not be the purpose of any such funds and any attempt to divert it from supporting the recovery of the economy by providing funding to recovering companies would be stamped on by the government in short order one would hope.On the other hand previous banking history makes you wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 9, 2020 19:49:34 GMT
New loans are being funded by the British Business Bank - These additional tranches should be funded the same way.
To use investor cash and not funding the withdrawal queue with the money is suicidal.
People seem happy to fund loans for properties that may not get sold for a number of years. You lot should ask yourself why a traditional bank doesn't fund these loans instead, most people really have no idea what they are talking about and are on course to realise substantial losses given enough time. In the mean time AC will have collected their fees and paid their salaries etc.
|
|
