|
Post by supernumerary on Jun 23, 2020 9:29:54 GMT
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 - Loan Launch Details:
•Borrower Sector: Property Development •Loan Amount: £ 480,000 •Term: 12 months (4 months minimum term). •Rate: 13% - Interest Only. •Security: Company Debenture, Corporate Guarantee, Assignment by Way of Security over Project Specific Security including Second Ranking Legal Charge. •Instant Returns: Enabled. •Loan Launch: 11am – 23rd June 2020 (READ ONLY). •Loan Live: 2pm – 23rd June 2020.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Loan to value: 69% Security value: £2,550,000.00
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,744
Likes: 3,136
|
Post by jonno on Jun 23, 2020 10:13:42 GMT
No sign of bid limits as yet, but surely there will be after last week's experience??
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Jun 23, 2020 10:16:24 GMT
No sign of bid limits as yet, but surely there will be after last week's experience?? IMHO, with the loan being much bigger, bid limits don't appear to be necessary. This MAY take a few days to fill...
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Jun 23, 2020 10:54:41 GMT
Nice to see all the figures & LTV percentages laid out in easy to understand plain English.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 23, 2020 10:59:32 GMT
There's one thing I don't understand about this new borrower group.
The different parts of the group are delineated pretty clearly in the borrowing proposal, but why is the Ablrate lending being done through the "*1 investments ltd" part?
According to their own website (link on p4 of the proposal), *1 investments Ltd is not regulated by the FCA and operates in the non-regulated real estate market. Meanwhile, according to the proposal, *1 Ca**al partners is regulated by the FCA.
There is a regulatory risk stated in the borrowing proposal about this, but I honestly don't understand why this risk needs to be taken at all. It's not as if P2P lenders haven't been lending on 2nd charges prior to this loan before. Is there an aspect of this loan that necessitates funds being lent to an unregulated entity? If so, what is it?
If not, why can't we lend to *1 Capital partners instead and not carry the risk?
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jun 23, 2020 11:50:51 GMT
No sign of bid limits as yet, but surely there will be after last week's experience?? Is it as interesting a trick? is this one not just the run of the mill sawing the lady in half (actually quarters with 133, 136 and 144) version. With the others (ignore the wishful thinking offers on 144) trading at a discount, what is the rush. I wanted some of the last one, I am mildly indifferent with this.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 23, 2020 12:06:34 GMT
No sign of bid limits as yet, but surely there will be after last week's experience?? Is it as interesting a trick? is this one not just the run of the mill sawing the lady in half (actually quarters with 133, 136 and 144) version. With the others (ignore the wishful thinking offers on 144) trading at a discount, what is the rush. I wanted some of the last one, I am mildly indifferent with this. They aren't wishful thinking offers on 144 - it is selling at a healthy premium.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jun 23, 2020 12:29:05 GMT
Is it as interesting a trick? is this one not just the run of the mill sawing the lady in half (actually quarters with 133, 136 and 144) version. With the others (ignore the wishful thinking offers on 144) trading at a discount, what is the rush. I wanted some of the last one, I am mildly indifferent with this. They aren't wishful thinking offers on 144 - it is selling at a healthy premium. Did I accidentally tread on your toe? I could make it sound better if it helps.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Jun 23, 2020 12:35:28 GMT
Pity the second property had not exchanged, but when & if it does, it will be the icing on the cake, & on completion with the second charge LTV reducing to 54% & complete loss at 30%, I am in early.
Can't see the filling of this loan hanging around too long !
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Jun 23, 2020 13:34:43 GMT
A bit more sedate than the previous one. roughly 30% taken in the first 30m. I only took a small nibble as I have several of their other loans LW
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 23, 2020 14:39:42 GMT
They aren't wishful thinking offers on 144 - it is selling at a healthy premium. Did I accidentally tread on your toe? I could make it sound better if it helps. no, just that I thought it might be of relevance to know that some 144 has in fact sold at a premium (small sums to my direct knowledge, but I am not tracking closely).
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Jun 23, 2020 14:52:53 GMT
Seeing how many loans now seem to be through P* that in the borrowing paperwork/docs as well as repeating the details on P* and the people involved each time that maybe there could also be some more in depth details on who the people are the funds are ending up with i.e the developer/builder etc
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,851
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 23, 2020 16:49:15 GMT
ablrate There seem to be a number of unsatisfied charges over the underlying borrower MFISH against the security in favour of several individuals from 2018 and more recently early 2020. Are these charges still extant and if so where do they rank?
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 367
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Jun 24, 2020 14:14:20 GMT
There's one thing I don't understand about this new borrower group. The different parts of the group are delineated pretty clearly in the borrowing proposal, but why is the Ablrate lending being done through the "*1 investments ltd" part? According to their own website (link on p4 of the proposal), *1 investments Ltd is not regulated by the FCA and operates in the non-regulated real estate market. Meanwhile, according to the proposal, *1 Ca**al partners is regulated by the FCA. There is a regulatory risk stated in the borrowing proposal about this, but I honestly don't understand why this risk needs to be taken at all. It's not as if P2P lenders haven't been lending on 2nd charges prior to this loan before. Is there an aspect of this loan that necessitates funds being lent to an unregulated entity? If so, what is it? If not, why can't we lend to *1 Capital partners instead and not carry the risk? I'm always a little suspicious if a relatively small company sets up subsidiaries and/or cross-shareholding structures, especially if the junior entity gets piled up with debt. Maybe I'm just being paranoid...
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Jun 24, 2020 15:25:44 GMT
ablrate There seem to be a number of unsatisfied charges over the underlying borrower MFISH against the security in favour of several individuals from 2018 and more recently early 2020. Are these charges still extant and if so where do they rank? As identified MFISH Ltd the underlying borrower to loan #146 has a number of the charges filed against it at Companies House. There is a Intercredior deed signed by all parties dated January 2020 which regulators the waterfall. Ablrate has sighted the executed copy by our Borrower. In this document Ablrate's Borrower is identified as the Mezzanine Lender and the Mezzanie Security is described as "means a second-ranking legal charge over the property in favour of the Mezzanine Lender dated 18 April 2018. This date relates to Ablrate's Borrower charge registered at Companies House.
|
|