|
Post by uksoul on Jul 7, 2023 8:16:10 GMT
Seems the sale should cover B, maybe a slight loss for C. im in B and C. 😰 Whilst the auction sale price mentioned *may* cover Tranche B, I don't think this is certain: *The price stated by PL is gross, so depending on the auction and other fees (Receiver, legal etc.), the net amount available for distribution could be (significantly?) lower. *If I understand correctly, the unpaid accrued interest on Tranche A takes priority over the capital (and unpaid interest) for Tranches B & C. Yeah, A takes priority over the other 2 tranches.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 7, 2023 8:49:14 GMT
Without the PG, it looks to me like C will be a wipeout, and B will be a severe haircut depending on costs.
With the PG, it will depend on costs, but C could still be a wipeout as the PG is limited.
I'm in B and C too.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 7, 2023 8:57:24 GMT
A wipeout on C and a 50% haircut on B (No idea if these are realistic as we don't know the costs or PG outcome yet) would drop my platform XIRR from 9.82% to 7.73%.
So, not a disaster if well diversified (my sympathies to those that aren't).
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jul 7, 2023 9:17:18 GMT
Sold at auction. Glad i am in tranche A. Lets see if PL are successful in enforcing the personal guarantee. If not, those in Tranche C (and possibly B too) could suffer a loss. Any idea of PL's success record on enforcing a personal guarantee on any previous loan(s) where this was needed?
I'm aware of only one capital loss at Hay* Hea* for tranche B. The actual loss was stated somewhere, either 10% or 20% and after looking at the loan details, auction sale amount, the PG and any overdue tranche A interest I'm guessing the PG must have been paid.
There may have been other PGs exercised which resulted in no capital loss but not for my loans.
It's an interesting topic as I've no idea why P2P companies have so much trouble enforcing PGs when they are usually 25-50 times less than the borrower's net worth, as it was for the loan above.
My last unhelpful comment is that I absolutely hated this Bath loan and gave it a wide berth which is rare for PL.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on Jul 7, 2023 13:04:15 GMT
Per their stats page ( www.proplend.com/about-platform/loan-statistics/ ) , so far PL have had only one loss - a £311 loss on a Tranche B loan issued in 2018. I expect PL will be keen to not have another blemish on their record, so will try their best to avoid / minimise the loss on this loan. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jul 7, 2023 14:02:26 GMT
Per their stats page ( www.proplend.com/about-platform/loan-statistics/ ) , so far PL have had only one loss - a £311 loss on a Tranche B loan issued in 2018. I expect PL will be keen to not have another blemish on their record, so will try their best to avoid / minimise the loss on this loan. Time will tell.
That's more than my rough calculation then, either the auction /receiver fees were higher or the full PG wasn't obtained. At least it wasn't Assetzcapital.
tranche a 490000 + tranche b 135000
tranche a overdue 7 months interest on 490000 = 20000 auction sold = 600000 auction fee = 15000 receiver fee = 15000 pg = 63000
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 373
Likes: 383
|
Post by dh1 on Jul 20, 2023 6:41:41 GMT
My money's on (or more correctly, in) as Ace says, a complete wipeout of C and most of B. Likely all of B I think. I suspect that A will get trimmed a bit as well. PG's seem (usually) a bit of a waste of time; the valuation dispute (if any) will take years and is unlikely to return that much.
p2p is a risky investment as we're continually told and Proplend has dodged a bullet for years; Bath may prove a significant wake up call for a small platform like this. Mind you, if you want chalk and cheese, just compare it with Kuflink....
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jul 20, 2023 7:10:47 GMT
My money's on (or more correctly, in) as Ace says, a complete wipeout of C and most of B. Likely all of B I think. I suspect that A will get trimmed a bit as well. PG's seem (usually) a bit of a waste of time; the valuation dispute (if any) will take years and is unlikely to return that much.
p2p is a risky investment as we're continually told and Proplend has dodged a bullet for years; Bath may prove a significant wake up call for a small platform like this. Mind you, if you want chalk and cheese, just compare it with Kuflink....
I'm not sure whether that was a vote for or against Kuflink. Even a complete wipeout of B and C would still leave my Proplend XIRR higher than my Kuflink XIRR once the effects of referral bonuses were striped out. I'm happy to invest with both.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jul 20, 2023 7:46:03 GMT
My money's on (or more correctly, in) as Ace says, a complete wipeout of C and most of B. Likely all of B I think. I suspect that A will get trimmed a bit as well. PG's seem (usually) a bit of a waste of time; the valuation dispute (if any) will take years and is unlikely to return that much.
p2p is a risky investment as we're continually told and Proplend has dodged a bullet for years; Bath may prove a significant wake up call for a small platform like this. Mind you, if you want chalk and cheese, just compare it with Kuflink....
I'm not sure whether that was a vote for or against Kuflink. Even a complete wipeout of B and C would still leave my Proplend XIRR higher than my Kuflink XIRR once the effects of referral bonuses were striped out. I'm happy to invest with both.
It's a vote against any form of auto-lend , the more trustworthy the platform like Proplend the closer the vote !
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 744
Likes: 734
|
Post by eeyore on Aug 3, 2023 17:28:22 GMT
After funds were remitted to Proplend, Tranche A lenders have had their principal and some of their outstanding interest repaid today. As further funds are received, any remaining interest for Tranche A will be paid, together with partial repayments for TrancheB but repayments for TrancheC lenders look unlikely. The details are on the Proplend website.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 744
Likes: 734
|
Post by eeyore on Aug 4, 2023 11:26:14 GMT
For anyone who wishes to check the loan repayment priorities (the order in which the principal and interest are paid for each tranche of any loan), the details are in Para 5.4(a) & 5.5(a) on pages 15 & 16 of the Proplend Members' Agreement document which can be downloaded from the Proplend website here: www.proplend.com/docs/terms-and-conditions.pdfFrom my reading of the Members' Agreement, the priorities take effect at the point of repayment - previously-paid interest is ignored, so, for example, if there are insufficient funds to pay Tranche A in full, then interest already paid to Tranche B & Tranche C lenders will not be clawed back.
|
|
mcfc
I’m invested in Qardus, Loanpad, Proplend, and Crowproperty
Posts: 91
Likes: 62
|
Post by mcfc on Aug 15, 2023 12:19:01 GMT
Penalty interest and late redemption exit charge paid into my account in respect of my Tranche A loan in this investment today. Thank you and well done Proplend. Fingers crossed for others invested in Tranche B and C.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Aug 15, 2023 12:34:24 GMT
£613.34 per £1k for Tranche B.
Now have to wait for PG.
|
|
dh1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 373
Likes: 383
|
Post by dh1 on Aug 15, 2023 12:59:38 GMT
I'm delighted to be proved wrong on Tranche B; 61%+ is certainly better than nothing. I'm a bit concerned about the wording, though "... we believe that all Lenders will be made whole ...". I'm really looking forward to getting that appendix and those tonsils back.... Ahhh, the hidden benefits of p2p.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Aug 15, 2023 14:05:21 GMT
I wonder if it's time for Proplend to reconsider the priority repayment order. I really don't want to sound like a whinging loser. I'm in tranches B and C. I was fully aware of the repayment priorities when I subscribed to this loan. If I end up with losses, I will take it on the chin. I'm also not suggesting that any extant contracts should be changed. Contracts should be immutable, even if your name is Assetz Capital. I'm just suggesting that an alternative priority order be considered for future loans. This loan really makes it clear how much extra risk is taken by higher tranche loans. Before PG and any other recovery options are pursued, the position is (and I'm not suggesting that there won't be further recoveries here): - Tranche A - 8.11% - complete recovery of all capital and all accrued interest and fees paid.
- Tranche B - 11.0% - so far, a 39% capital loss.
- Tranche C - 14.0% - so far, a compete capital loss.
The current priority order for lenders is: - Tranche A Capital
- Tranche A Interest and fees
- Tranche B Capital
- Tranche B Interest and fees
- Tranche C Capital
- Tranche C Interest and fees
A major problem with this is that, even though the Tranche LTV boundaries are well defined at the start they can change substantially if the default drags on for any length of time, as Tranche A Interest, penalty interest, and fees can push the Tranche B starting LTV boundary a lot higher than 50%. Would it not be better to prevent capital losses to as many lenders as possible before paying out profits? Either that or increase the differentials to better balance/reward the risk. So the priority order would be: - Tranche A Capital
- Tranche B Capital
- Tranche C Capital
- Tranche A Interest and fees
- Tranche B Interest and fees
- Tranche C Interest and fees
This is somewhat borne out by Proplend's statistics, which show that the expected returns after losses are Tranche A 6.05%, Tranche B 5.87% and Tranche C 4.81%. I know that HNW changed their priority repayment order as suggested above after having a lower priority tranche wiped out. In that case, the recovery took a very long time, so the accrued interest on the higher priority tranche was largely to blame for the lower priority tranche being wiped out. I suppose that an easy argument against this suggestion would be that Proplend currently have no problems filing the various tranches as they are. What do others think?
|
|