ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 24, 2020 12:04:22 GMT
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 431
Likes: 267
|
Post by ton27 on Apr 24, 2020 12:27:23 GMT
Including one on AC
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 24, 2020 12:36:25 GMT
Seems like it ran into issues as early as October 2019 from the article. Not invested in this, not sure if anybody is on this board? Wounder how long it take for them to "recover" capital for the holders.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781 
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Apr 24, 2020 21:51:15 GMT
Seems like it ran into issues as early as October 2019 from the article. Not invested in this, not sure if anybody is on this board? Wounder how long it take for them to "recover" capital for the holders. Perhaps three or four years? Two years if they're very lucky. The only people who win in these administration scenarios as the administrators themselves. They are as close as we have to having a legal Mafia in this country and can charge unlimited amounts of money for their 'work', leaving the actual creditors with little at the end of the process. For example, I once went to a one-and-a-half hour update/Q&A session run in a fancy hotel in London organised by an administrator for a company that owed me and other lenders a significant amount of money and the administrators billed £25,000 for the session. Yes, these things take considerable work to organise, but £25k is beyond absurd.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Apr 24, 2020 23:10:19 GMT
I didn't initially realise, but, as referred to above, one of the loans (#1116) on AC was to [removed by Mod] this company and is now showing as "Trading Suspended". Worryingly today's note for it states that they've discovered another charge has been registered on the site by another entity, so the other body could end up taking much of what can be sold.
The amount borrowed so far via AC is £3.416 million so the administration could be quite painful for AC lenders.
Does anybody know which other loan on AC was to <removed>?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Apr 25, 2020 6:44:36 GMT
This article gives some further info on the challenges facing the bond holders. www.standard.co.uk/business/blackmore-bond-collapses-leaving-thousands-in-fear-for-their-savings-a4422211.htmlIt appears many of the properties had mortgages on them and it appears the mortgage holders will rank above the bond holders. I am not in this mini bond. I was in the Secured Energy mini bond which collapsed, luckily I did get my money back in full from the FSCS due to gross negligence in some of the promotional material. Unfortunately FSCS coverage of mini bonds is a complex area and dependent on the negilence of third party FCA regulated companies performing a regulated activity in many cases. Some mini bond negligence claims have been successfull but many have not been. Am sure the lawyers and FSCS will go over this to make a judgement. |
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 25, 2020 11:19:39 GMT
For those looking about coverage; Apr 25, 2020 1:54:17 GMT 1 ilmoro said: For clarification the company in administration had no loans on but had raised funds that were invested in the projects and is a subsidiary of the parent company of the borrowers.
The new charge is a third party charge in support of another group company not further borrowing by the borrower. It also may be an equitable charge rather than a legal charge. charges should have priority.He also deliberately didn't mention the platform to avoid linking loans on a platform to a borrower. Ive also since edited the quoted post and provided further info - could you amend your post accordingly
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 25, 2020 11:25:57 GMT
For those looking about coverage; Apr 25, 2020 1:54:17 GMT 1 ilmoro said: For clarification the company in administration had no loans on but had raised funds that were invested in the projects and is a subsidiary of the parent company of the borrowers.
The new charge is a third party charge in support of another group company not further borrowing by the borrower. It also may be an equitable charge rather than a legal charge. charges should have priority.He also deliberately didn't mention the platform to avoid linking loans on a platform to a borrower. Ive also since edited the quoted post and provided further info - could you amend your post accordingly Yeah sure, I've deleted I'll let u post info didn't relise u were the OP to begin with! 
|
|
Nomad
Member of DD Central
Posts: 755
Likes: 513
|
Post by Nomad on Jun 19, 2020 12:49:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Jun 19, 2020 13:17:50 GMT
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Jun 19, 2020 13:24:24 GMT
Part of the paragraph in the story that starts "The term mini bond refers to a term of investment................"and where it then goes on to deal with property reminds me of some forms of p2p?
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Jun 19, 2020 13:49:58 GMT
Part of the paragraph in the story that starts "The term mini bond refers to a term of investment................"and where it then goes on to deal with property reminds me of some forms of p2p? I've lost huge amounts through mini-bonds (even though I did an enormous about of due diligence and only lent to the 1% of the ones I came across) and will never go near them again. Yes, they are very similar to P2P lending, often involving lending money to property development companies that can't borrow money from banks for the usual reasons. It usually boils down to the fact that they haven't got a good enough credit rating or their securities are weak. The one enormous difference I should have paid more attention to earlier is that, alongside P2P enabling you to lend much smaller sums of money and therefore diversify your risk, P2P loans that default can be written off in terms of your tax whereas mini-bonds can't be (as far as I'm aware). Therefore, IMHO, P2P lending is significantly more advantageous and less risky in terms of the downside.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Jun 19, 2020 13:52:20 GMT
Delighted to hear you got your money back! Four years is a long time to wait, but I'm very pleased you got your loan back in the end. I'm in a similar position with mini-bonds which have a Security Trustee. They are nightmare positions to be in when your loans are defaulted on and involve years of administration and stress to try to get your loans back.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 19, 2020 14:52:27 GMT
Some sites are reporting that the FCA is even considering extended the ban to listed bonds, I'm presuming they are including ORB listed bonds, that are speculative and illiquid. That I think would be a great shame. ORB never caught on the way it could have done, but it's still a useful tool for retail investors.
As usual, baby and bathwather come to mind.
At a times like this all assets could be considered specualive and illiquid, but where do they stop? No more investing in the stockmarket? Peer-to-peer?
How different is letting private investors invest in an illiquid speculative listed bond to letting them speculate in an Aim, blue-sky, never generated a sous resource stock?
Lets not even mention day trading and speculating in FX and spreadbetting - where 95% of retail investors lose their capital...and if the lurid headlines are to be believe, occasionaly their lives.
You could argue you can always sell in AIM, but there's plenty of times I'd prefer to be in an illiquid asset than a merry-go-round. Speculative or not.
Would I touch a mini-bond from a name I didn't know? No. But because others will I don't see why it should limit me (and others) from using specualtive listed entities if that's what we want.
If it's just listed on Google, well, that's another thing...
It's only certain listed bonds considered speculative & high risk. You shouldn't be affected as you can certify as sophisticated to have all products marketed to you Aiui
|
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on Jun 19, 2020 15:48:50 GMT
Delighted to hear you got your money back! Four years is a long time to wait, but I'm very pleased you got your loan back in the end. I'm in a similar position with mini-bonds which have a Security Trustee. They are nightmare positions to be in when your loans are defaulted on and involve years of administration and stress to try to get your loans back. Me too, It was a great loop hole to find . For me as IPM went bust we complained to the FOS and because the FOS couldn't deal with a company in administration they past it to the FSCS . So I guess If your security Trustee is FCA approved then do some research as you could get some money back I was 25K and it all happened whilst I was out of the country. I only got back the 25K minus the coupon payments that I'd recieved . So I wasn't out of pocket but I had a 'dead' 25K for 6 years. FSCS/FCA say they will reimburse you to the position you we at when the investment was taken out. I think we should have been entitled to some sort of Interest comp on the 25K but the FCA said no. And guess where that 25K went..once I recieved it - RS and AC so I guess this 25K is maybe not meant for me...
|
|
