mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 13:36:56 GMT
I have put the votes into a spreadsheet, some things that stand out: How few voters voted no, irrespective of their holdings. How many voters only got a £1 vote - 24% of the total number of voters. Me included I suspect. I don't really understand this, I had 'secured' loans not minibonds, is that why? The 2 really big holders - Trent Bridge Quays Ltd (18% of total) and Generator Optima (Ferry Road) Ltd (10% of total). Who are they and why were they holding so much? What decided them to vote yes? The 6 'Employee' holders. All had quite modest holdings (under £6K), all voted yes. This is the bit I don't understand either. P2P Investors are Secured Creditors, while this CVA was wrt Wellesley Finance for unsecured Creditors. So, Secured Creditors were compromised for a £1 Value. Now, why would we be impacted with this and how can Wellesley Finance Sell the Secured Loans belonging to P2P Lenders (contract was directly between Borrowers and Lenders with WACL acting as mere Agent).
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 13:38:50 GMT
I have put the votes into a spreadsheet, some things that stand out: How few voters voted no, irrespective of their holdings. How many voters only got a £1 vote - 24% of the total number of voters. Me included I suspect. I don't really understand this, I had 'secured' loans not minibonds, is that why? The 2 really big holders - Trent Bridge Quays Ltd (18% of total) and Generator Optima (Ferry Road) Ltd (10% of total). Who are they and why were they holding so much? What decided them to vote yes? The 6 'Employee' holders. All had quite modest holdings (under £6K), all voted yes. BTW, did you do it all manually ? Or is there a way to extract pdf data (read only, so even cut & paste not possible, only screenshot possible) into Excel ?
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,249
Likes: 2,693
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 15, 2020 13:55:00 GMT
Thanks I did look up the 2 companies on companies house and have read the charges (e.g. TBQ LIMITED Link to more info in DDC) So as I understand it the two companies who made up 30% of the 'yes' vote are actually property developers who are borrowers from Wellesley, not lenders to Wellesley. I wouldn't expect borrowers to be creditors of a company but because of the 2 charges (both set up in late 2017) it seems they have become creditors to the value of the money they borrowed. I find that extraordinary, is that normal? Could it be that they are creditors for funds already contracted for but not yet supplied? All rather strange. Edit: If I understand it correctly someone on the facebook page is saying that Wellesley may owe some companies development funds that they promised (contracted to provide), but may not have been able to raise making them creditors (the amounts seem huge though!). All a bit over my pay grade. I'm sure someone will be along to explain properly.
|
|
|
Post by et on Oct 15, 2020 14:08:48 GMT
Thanks I did look up the 2 companies on companies house and have read the charges (e.g. TBQ LIMITED Link to more info in DDC) So as I understand it the two companies who made up 30% of the 'yes' vote are actually property developers who are borrowers from Wellesley, not lenders to Wellesley. I wouldn't expect borrowers to be creditors of a company but because of the 2 charges (both set up in late 2017) it seems they have become creditors to the value of the money they borrowed. I find that extraordinary, is that normal? Could it be that they are creditors for funds already contracted for but not yet supplied? All rather strange. there is a section in the CVA on this. essentially, Wellesley have entered into loan agreements whereby they have committed future funds to the borrowers. they did a calculation on the total future amount promised and discounted it to the 17.5m votes. This would not usually count as a creditor on their balance sheet but I was unable to get an answer whether they count as creditors under insolvency law. I suspect they do. Wellesley said the borrowers will get 100% of what they were contractually obliged owed under the CVA so the borrowers had no reason but to vote in favour as they are certainly better off. unlike us.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 15, 2020 14:41:04 GMT
"BTW, did you do it all manually ? Or is there a way to extract pdf data (read only, so even cut & paste not possible, only screenshot possible) into Excel ?" Cut and paste from the pdf to a text file, import to Excel with space as the delimiter, remove headings, tidy up.
|
|
|
Post by mrb on Oct 15, 2020 14:48:24 GMT
I have put the votes into a spreadsheet, some things that stand out: How few voters voted no, irrespective of their holdings. How many voters only got a £1 vote - 24% of the total number of voters. Me included I suspect. I don't really understand this, I had 'secured' loans not minibonds, is that why? The 2 really big holders - TBQ Ltd (18% of total) and GO (Ferry Road) Ltd (10% of total). Who are they and why were they holding so much? What decided them to vote yes? The 6 'Employee' holders. All had quite modest holdings (under £6K), all voted yes. This is the bit I don't understand either. P2P Investors are Secured Creditors, while this CVA was wrt Wellesley Finance for unsecured Creditors. So, Secured Creditors were compromised for a £1 Value. Now, why would we be impacted with this and how can Wellesley Finance Sell the Secured Loans belonging to P2P Lenders (contract was directly between Borrowers and Lenders with WACL acting as mere Agent). Would mind sharing where the vote data came from? Is it on the website?
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 14:53:26 GMT
It was in the Chairman's report that was emailed to creditors earlier today.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 14:58:19 GMT
Does anyone know where “the Clarification Letter” is ?
|
|
|
Post by et on Oct 15, 2020 15:05:00 GMT
Does anyone know where “the Clarification Letter” is ? it was a typo. pretty sure said a connected company was not connected. it got uploaded to the document library so you can find it there
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 15, 2020 15:24:18 GMT
Hmm, nothing in my documents library when I login.
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 15, 2020 16:40:26 GMT
Used absolutely every underhanded trick to get this crock of you know what passed. They have no scruples or integrity and even the Yes voters must despise the Directors now.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Oct 15, 2020 16:52:09 GMT
scruples,morals,integrity,honesty,,this is THE WELLESLEY WAY.although when it comes to it these things do not seem to be part of the fintech era.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 15, 2020 16:59:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Oct 15, 2020 18:45:39 GMT
I can see that there are two businesses that are being talking about in the last few post above who seem to have voted - who may also be Borrowers - Please can everyone from this point on refer to them using just the businesses initials, so that would be TBQ and GO (or similar).
The forum isn't allowed to (publicly) divulge the names or details of Borrowers or their companies this would includes links to Companies House and links to spreadsheet documents and simialr where the company names are listed. So if you've just posted where you've included these details please can you review and edit them or I may have to.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by exbanker on Oct 16, 2020 8:56:03 GMT
Couple of observations :- - TBQ and GO are the only two Borrowers/Developers with a vote. That implies that they are the only live developments on their books and that any other loans on their (your) portfolio are either completed developments being offered for sale or impaired developments which they aren’t lending any more funds to. If it’s the latter then given they haven’t lent any new money for at least two years then those impaired loans should already be provided for.
- If you look at TBQ and GO schemes on their respective website they are pretty decent developments, both reasonably well advanced and with Borrowers that know how to build.
- If they are creditors and assuming the balances quoted are costs to complete the developments, is it correct that the gross costs to complete are used as their % or should the amount of their outstanding loans (debtor positions on the WF balance sheet) be set off against this at least. Seems weird as they are not creditors in the real sense of the word i.e. in an insolvency process D&P would be asking them for money, not telling them how much they are owed !
So, if the portfolio comprises completed schemes awaiting sale and only two live development schemes then why the huge discount when selling it internally would seem a fair question. The unfortunate problem is of course in these stressed times that there aren’t too many people wanting to fund/buy developments mid-build or do sales bridges on completed schemes, hence its easy to fashion a case that says nobody else wanted to take it on, hence we were the only option available.
Given the two developers quoted were likely themselves to have also been over the proverbial barrel GW must have at least shown them that the CVA option had certainty of cash flow to keep their developments going. So either there is a steady stream of property sales coming in to Cloverleaf from completed property sales, which in turn would imply those assets didn’t warrant a sale at such huge discount, or some third party has been tapped up to finance Cloverleaf and that would likely carry a very heavy cost.
|
|