criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on May 6, 2020 18:17:20 GMT
The borrowers circumstances appear harrowing.
However some lenders could be in a difficult position also.
We are asked to vote to allow the borrower to keep part of the security, even though the remaining security may not cover our losses. The extent of any losses are not yet known.
As lenders we are :
1) Paying to support the platform.
2) Allowing interest payment holidays.
3) Have no idea of any imminent house price reductions.
Should we be asked to vote a second time on part of the security, after a decisive vote for the complete security has already taken place.
Please do not identify this loan.
Edited, as my original post was unclear.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,850 
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on May 6, 2020 18:39:36 GMT
The borrowers circumstances appear harrowing. However some lenders could be in a difficult position also. We are asked to vote to allow the borrower to keep part of the security, even though the remaining security may not cover our losses. The extent of any losses are not yet known. As lenders we are : 1) Paying to support the platform. 2) Allowing interest payment holidays. 3) Have no idea of any imminent house price reductions. If some lenders do not vote, will it be deemed they accept the proposition ? Should we be asked to vote in the first place? Should other lenders be asked to vote to remove my security ? What is the position in law ? No different to any other vote, other than the forbearance vote. It is on standard voting rules so non votes will not count and the decision will be based solely on those who do vote. Those who don't vote will not be counted as yes votes Yes, per the t&cs, as we are forgoing an avenue of recovery. AC couldn't make that decision under the t&cs without potential challenge No different to any other vote, lenders voted to accept a potential loss when they enforced the security, should they have been able to impose that. Yes, because that's what we signed up for In regards to what? The votes are in the t&cs so you accepted the principle of a majority decision whether or not that was in your personal interest or not.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on May 6, 2020 18:48:34 GMT
which loan is this?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 6, 2020 19:02:59 GMT
It's a weighted vote among those who have lent to it. Every pound voted counts. I do not think we should be discussing the details or identifying it further here, personally.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on May 6, 2020 19:06:33 GMT
It's a weighted vote among those who have lent to it. Every pound voted counts. I do not think we should be discussing the details or identifying it further here, personally. It should not be identified, I agree, but surely the principle could be discussed.
|
|
|
|
Post by capricorn on May 6, 2020 20:43:47 GMT
Probably best if any discussion is in the private board IMO - registered investors who may have lent on this loan can always join to get access.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on May 7, 2020 7:18:01 GMT
Question - is it ever worth voting. I would ask Stuart@asserzcapital to verify my numbers however I believe there are circa 5000 active investors with circa 20,000 lapsed / passive. This second category never vote so by default tow the AC party line. They may only have a fraction of a penny invested but they rank equal to someone with £’000s invested.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on May 7, 2020 7:21:17 GMT
Question - is it ever worth voting. I would ask Stuart@asserzcapital to verify my numbers however I believe there are circa 5000 active investors with circa 20,000 lapsed / passive. This second category never vote so by default tow the AC party line. They may only have a fraction of a penny invested but they rank equal to someone with £’000s invested. Abstentions don't count and votes are on a per investment basis, so yes it's worth voting.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on May 7, 2020 17:41:22 GMT
If AC are to use this as a mechanism for future defaults, I felt this could be discussed here for any loans, before a precedent is set.
Hence the reason I did not identify any particular loan.
When I remarked on the legality, my real point was, with regard to the vote; should a court decide on a plea from the guarantor, rather than the lenders having to make that decision, without any scrutiny.
I can think of many circumstances, whereby after a vote, the lenders would be kicking themselves, having found they had been exploited.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 7, 2020 18:08:47 GMT
On the general point, this is not a legal matter because the contractual obligations are not in dispute, afaik. The question is whether lenders wish to exercise their full rights in this particular case. So there really is no general point to consider, and no precedent being set. That is why I felt it not good to discuss in public - which includes the borrower, who may not be happy.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on May 7, 2020 18:18:31 GMT
On the general point, this is not a legal matter because the contractual obligations are not in dispute, afaik. The question is whether lenders wish to exercise their full rights in this particular case. So there really is no general point to consider, and no precedent being set. That is why I felt it not good to discuss in public - which includes the borrower, who may not be happy. This leads to another point. Should a vote be made blind, where no one knows the extent of their overall loss on a total security.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on May 7, 2020 18:30:02 GMT
If I've identified the loan being discussed correctly, the last vote explicitly stated we would accept all further recommendations of the administrators without conducting a further lender vote, so AC should ask the administrators for their recommendation rather than us?
(Administrators undoubtedly having more opportunity to evaluate the situation on its merits).
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on May 8, 2020 7:51:40 GMT
If I've identified the loan being discussed correctly, the last vote explicitly stated we would accept all further recommendations of the administrators without conducting a further lender vote, so AC should ask the administrators for their recommendation rather than us?
(Administrators undoubtedly having more opportunity to evaluate the situation on its merits).
Correct; the original vote did not separate any securities, shown in the credit report as 'Total Security Value', so we are being asked to vote for part of the same security again. Judging by some of the questions asked, AC may pull this vote, due to controversy, if a representative appears to have taken pity by including a plea from the guarantor, knowing it could influence the vote. Please do not identify this loan.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 10, 2020 17:09:54 GMT
I don't think there is any problem of legality, nor is AC prevented from putting the plea forward. They are empowered to accept the recommendations without a vote, they are not prevented from giving the administrators further instructions from the secured creditors. However, I agree that this is not a good procedure, in that we do not have the information on which to judge whether a compassionate dispensation is appropriate. I decided I could not vote through lack of information about the impact. I would not like to see this approach being taken on a regular basis. I still do not like discussing this.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on May 11, 2020 14:09:48 GMT
Now that AC have answered another of my questions & confirmed vote 'A' will reduce the capital valuation to 50%, I asked another question under Q & A, putting forward separate figures for minimum losses for vote 'A' & minimum losses for vote 'B' which I will not post here for obvious reasons.
AC appear to answer questions very cleverly, but I would like to get to the bottom of the figures, so that I know how I stand.
|
|
