|
Post by et on Oct 16, 2020 9:40:17 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.
all really good points. the loan book sale included 16 loans and CVA alleged £61m due to complete ongoing developments of which around £20m is due to this two borrowers. so there has to be more developments to bridge the £41m gap so good question about why only two were given a vote. from day one I have been asking where is the cash coming from to fund the borrowers but never got a response. we know ~£7m came from the PMB secured account (if I understand the CVA correctly and must admit that section was confusing to me). there is clearly going to be a legal reason so support why future committed payments were included for borrowers but excluded for lenders as neither would show on the companies balance sheet as a creditor. my other main issue is that the CVA says they are included because compromised but the explanation of why they are compromised is "All Borrower Creditors will be paid in full in accordance with the terms of the Loans". once again, no expert, but that doesn't sound compromised at all to me. the sad thing is, whether this was dodgy or not, even without their votes the CVA would have passed.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 16, 2020 10:55:20 GMT
Can anyone shed some more light on this :
1) P2P Investors, whose Loans were Secured by Property backed Assets, are either Secured Creditors of Wellesley Finance, in which case their Votes should Count for their Full Debt Value (and not £1) OR
2) Their Secured Debts are Not Owned by Wellesley Finance and hence could NOT be Sold.
I think 2) is correct and that's why they compromised the Votes for £1 (as they are Secured Creditors) and Wellesley & Co immorally/illegally used Term 9.13 to allow Wellesley Finance to Sell those Loans and eventually dissolve the Co. How can Unsecured Creditors of Wellesley Finance Trump the Secured Creditors of Wellesley & Co and Waive all their Legal Rights to sue the Co & the Directors ? Term 9.13 says WACL can Sub-Contract the Recovery of Defaulted Loans to a 3rd Party, not Sell them ?
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 16, 2020 11:00:47 GMT
Hi 2boi, exbanker & et, do you mind posting your latest posts in the FaceBook Forum "Wellesley P2P Creditors 2020". Or if you allow, I can post them there.
|
|
|
Post by exbanker on Oct 16, 2020 13:38:51 GMT
Hi 2boi, exbanker & et, do you mind posting your latest posts in the FaceBook Forum "Wellesley P2P Creditors 2020". Or if you allow, I can post them there. Happy for you to post my post to Facebook as I am not a member - I am not a current investor, just keeping an interest as something feels wrong - worst part of it is how they continued to take investments for 2+ years when they knew this would be the eventual outcome, and those investments in the main from retail investors of average wealth who they knew would be hurt by each losing sums of material consequence. p.s. Just noticed that Nmcn posted a profit warning yesterday. Came across them when was googling TBQ as noticed they announced last year that they are the contractor on that development. Hopefully won’t have a direct impact on the unwinding of funding provided to TBQ but am sure it was a convenient risk of note to anybody buying the loan book recently and trying to suppress its value!
|
|
|
Post by dm on Oct 17, 2020 9:55:00 GMT
Exbanker. Would you be so kind as to request membership of the FB Group? Although you say you are not a Wellesley creditor I think your insights and perspectives would be highly valuable to the Group going forward. Many thanks.
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 17, 2020 11:39:34 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
Thanks Ton but the document (with all the creditors and borrowers listed) is a public domain document, hence the title "In the High Court of Justice no. CR-2020-BHM-000465 BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, INSOLVENCY AND COMPANIES LIST IN THE MATTER OF Wellesley Finance Plc Company Number: 08331511 COMPANY VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT under Part 1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended)" Please have a look at the document and you will see that. This is despite Wellesley's lame password protection (if they are hosting a copy of this public domain document they can put passwords on if they like, it's still a High Court document).
|
|
2boi
Posts: 69
Likes: 43
|
Post by 2boi on Oct 17, 2020 12:28:25 GMT
Hi 2boi, exbanker & et, do you mind posting your latest posts in the FaceBook Forum "Wellesley P2P Creditors 2020". Or if you allow, I can post them there. yes go ahead thanks, I don't use facebook.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 328
Likes: 366
|
Post by mah on Oct 18, 2020 10:38:36 GMT
A £1.7 Million was recently Loaned to G Wellesley against one of his European Properties.
|
|
|
Post by belladog on Oct 18, 2020 11:31:39 GMT
Big piece in today’s Sunday Times. I think(hope) that all this “mud” will stick with him for a long time.
sws
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,250
Likes: 2,693
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 18, 2020 19:45:48 GMT
I really feel for some of the people posting on the FB page, totally blindsided and possibly lost (most) or all their funds, in what they were informed (or they interpreted) was a relatively safe investment. Terrible.
|
|
morris
Member of DD Central
Posts: 261
Likes: 149
|
Post by morris on Oct 19, 2020 9:08:26 GMT
Once the losses have been quantified for P2P investors presumably we will be able to offset losses against other P2P income. Lucky for us, no consolation to bond Investors.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,250
Likes: 2,693
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 19, 2020 12:12:21 GMT
Once the losses have been quantified for P2P investors presumably we will be able to offset losses against other P2P income. Lucky for us, no consolation to bond Investors. If they are true P2P loans. I've forgotten exactly but they have to be compliant to some definition, Wellesley's were structured in a different way to most so it would need checking. I'm sure someone around here will know.
|
|
|
Post by exbanker on Oct 26, 2020 8:35:09 GMT
Wellesley Group Investors Ltd has just filed its December 2018 accounts at Companies House in the last few days, yes that’s not a typo, it is their 2018 accounts, 12 months late and materially restated for 2017 too - somebody else may care to analyse them in more detail but appears materially insolvent for 2017 and 2018, so if I was an investor (I am not) then I would feel I am justified in asking :- - Why were the directors still taking new investors money in 2018 when liquidity issues were evident (now we see the evidence of why)
- What on earth were they thinking making a strategic acquisition in September 2019 when the wheels were already well and truly coming off their existing business. Were investors advised of this (poorly) calculated gamble.
- Why were they not approaching investors for a more consensual outcome - they have had time given the length of time this tale of woe has been building up over
- Directors pay >£1m again
- Do the auditors have a duty to escalate any of this - can only imagine what they found given how long it’s taken to publish these accounts for what should be a fairly simple Company - after all they haven’t got many loans to developers.
Some window dressing blaming COVID in 2020 for their demise when these accounts clearly show they were at the wheel of a runaway train from at least 3 years prior to that, and the sheer volume of restated sums in the accounts clearly shows that they weren’t capable of controlling that train. Well done Hays Macintyre (new auditors from 2018) for having the drains up on the director’s and BDO’s previously erroneous work - sadly these things take too long to have prevented a lot of innocent people investing based on incorrect accounting info. Has anybody ever seen so many items being restated in a single set of accounts ?! I say again, this is the financial snapshot some 2 years ago - yet apparently it’s all Covid and recent changes in the regulatory regime to blame.........
|
|
|
Post by angel19 on Oct 28, 2020 18:31:19 GMT
First bond repayments under the CVA should be hitting accounts by Friday. Surely the CVA cannot fall at this first hurdle?
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Oct 29, 2020 6:38:40 GMT
should be plenty from suspended interest/non repayment etc to pay investors pennies in the pound to keep them quite. will there be enough to keep paying directors wages of £8k to £10k per week each for the next few years is another story
|
|