blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 21, 2022 8:59:35 GMT
So the thing that is confusing me ... the S project has a contract for providing power but there is no mention of where the money is going and why it cant be paid to us Also I cant see any mention of #113 DT project in the updates These updates are like the bit in Terry Paratchetts Eric where Rincewind is being sacrificed to summon a God who manifests as 6" tall and promptly gets trodden on by the Luggage! Terry Pratchett is just fiction. I expect on 15th August to receive an update from Pope Dave confirming that our AF loans have been the subject of a mysterious and miraculous dormition. This has been unknown since 'the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory'. We should be honoured to be chosen - we are not worthy.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Jun 21, 2022 9:44:23 GMT
We didn't expect a round of applause, but it seems that the addendum missed the mark. For simple clarity; £5.1 million has been injected into the business, essentially securing the debt upon completion of the northern project. The company has secured funders and buyers of renewable development projects that throw off cash which will be used to service/settle loans in the interim period and they are in the process of seeking equity which, again, will be used to service/reduce the debt. If all that fails there is c. £2m per annum coming in as of next year from these assets alone.
I think where this may have missed is that it seems like 'jam tomorrow', that is not the intention. The intention is that this part of the AF businesses is on a more stable footing, with income coming in as of next year and/or a saleable asset to retire debt and outstanding interest. Now that it has a future income stream, which is certain upon completion of the northern project, that can be leveraged into 'jam today'. i.e equity/sale of the company/refinance/energy development projects to generate funds now to pay down debts. Nobody is now sitting on their hands and waiting for the northern project to be built, this has been the first phase that will allow the second phase to happen, we believe, quickly.
|
|
squid
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 204
|
Post by squid on Jun 21, 2022 9:59:50 GMT
Thank you ablrateLets look forward to the best possible outcome.
|
|
GreenZero
Member of DD Central
The early bird may get the worm, but it's the second mouse who gets the cheese
Posts: 222
Likes: 315
|
Post by GreenZero on Jun 21, 2022 10:48:59 GMT
ablrate From an investors point of view who has not received any repayments in the last 10mths, a quote from UK series of the office springs to mind "Bad News and Irrelevant News" Not sure if this forum allows links - www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsLH70BrnnMIf not, YouTube David's "Bad News and Irrelevant News" | The Office
|
|
hubert
Member of DD Central
Posts: 175
Likes: 119
|
Post by hubert on Jun 21, 2022 11:08:17 GMT
We didn't expect a round of applause, but it seems that the addendum missed the mark. For simple clarity; £5.1 million has been injected into the business, essentially securing the debt upon completion of the northern project. The company has secured funders and buyers of renewable development projects that throw off cash which will be used to service/settle loans in the interim period and they are in the process of seeking equity which, again, will be used to service/reduce the debt. If all that fails there is c. £2m per annum coming in as of next year from these assets alone. I think where this may have missed is that it seems like 'jam tomorrow', that is not the intention. The intention is that this part of the AF businesses is on a more stable footing, with income coming in as of next year and/or a saleable asset to retire debt and outstanding interest. Now that it has a future income stream, which is certain upon completion of the northern project, that can be leveraged into 'jam today'. i.e equity/sale of the company/refinance/energy development projects to generate funds now to pay down debts. Nobody is now sitting on their hands and waiting for the northern project to be built, this has been the first phase that will allow the second phase to happen, we believe, quickly. ablrateThanks for the clarity. Have we actually relinquished the whole of the 75% equity of F**ep*wer previously negotiated, or does it just apply to part of the company ie Doncaster. How do we now stand as far as the additional security for the remaining AF loans, because the original 75% equity was to remain until all of AF loans were repaid. Please advise.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jun 21, 2022 12:06:39 GMT
ablrate From an investors point of view who has not received any repayments in the last 10mths, a quote from UK series of the office springs to mind "Bad News and Irrelevant News" Not sure if this forum allows links - www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsLH70BrnnMIf not, YouTube David's "Bad News and Irrelevant News" | The Office In the spirit of the old Yorkshireman sketch... Tha should think thee sen lucky, some ant seen a single penny on some blasted airplanes since 01/03/2019. 10mths? By heck, you don't know ye born!
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,962
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Jun 21, 2022 12:16:14 GMT
2019?? You were loocky! t'container loan sunk in 2015 and all weir gotta show for't is shoebox foola papers in't middle of t'courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Jun 21, 2022 14:10:20 GMT
We didn't expect a round of applause, but it seems that the addendum missed the mark. For simple clarity; £5.1 million has been injected into the business, essentially securing the debt upon completion of the northern project. The company has secured funders and buyers of renewable development projects that throw off cash which will be used to service/settle loans in the interim period and they are in the process of seeking equity which, again, will be used to service/reduce the debt. If all that fails there is c. £2m per annum coming in as of next year from these assets alone. I think where this may have missed is that it seems like 'jam tomorrow', that is not the intention. The intention is that this part of the AF businesses is on a more stable footing, with income coming in as of next year and/or a saleable asset to retire debt and outstanding interest. Now that it has a future income stream, which is certain upon completion of the northern project, that can be leveraged into 'jam today'. i.e equity/sale of the company/refinance/energy development projects to generate funds now to pay down debts. Nobody is now sitting on their hands and waiting for the northern project to be built, this has been the first phase that will allow the second phase to happen, we believe, quickly. So a sort of Schrödinger's Jam? Looking at the bigger picture, in burning house fireman terms. You have dragged out out the fit healthy adult (and quite rightly expected no cheering), when will you be going back in to get the children and old people? Maybe even some of the dogs?
|
|
blueblazer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 60
Likes: 35
|
Post by blueblazer on Jun 21, 2022 14:56:14 GMT
It is an interesting theory I'm especially interested in the theory I first mentioned yesterday. That when the debt becomes tradeable (likely outside the Loan Exchange) - will we see AF / a related party pop up with a low offer to buy it? Is there anything in the agreements made so far that would prevent that? Or set a floor on the price at which such a bid is allowed? Or open up the bidding to a wider audience quickly? When the Secondary Market was alive, a late payment of even a day was enough to suspend a loan and make it untradeable.
Yet, if these loans do become tradeable, someone would be able to buy a loan which is in default with no guarantee of any payments.
Surely, the only ones to benefit would be AF or cohorts who could buy at a discount, reducing their debt and paying any outstanding interest to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Jun 21, 2022 15:30:28 GMT
It is an interesting theory I'm especially interested in the theory I first mentioned yesterday. That when the debt becomes tradeable (likely outside the Loan Exchange) - will we see AF / a related party pop up with a low offer to buy it? Is there anything in the agreements made so far that would prevent that? Or set a floor on the price at which such a bid is allowed? Or open up the bidding to a wider audience quickly? When the Secondary Market was alive, a late payment of even a day was enough to suspend a loan and make it untradeable.
Yet, if these loans do become tradeable, someone would be able to buy a loan which is in default with no guarantee of any payments.
Surely, the only ones to benefit would be AF or cohorts who could buy at a discount, reducing their debt and paying any outstanding interest to themselves.
Especially as ABLRate's update stated "the borrower is seeking to have its debt tradable as soon as possible" - which given how AF has behaved over the past 9 months, certainly makes me suspicious of his motives!
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Jun 21, 2022 16:09:01 GMT
But surely ABL will have written into the agreement some protection from such abuse? If you haven't had the money to pay the interest, how could you manage to rustle up the money to buy back the debt? By not paying the interest, you have diminished the value of the loan. You should not be the beneficiary of that reduction in value. It would be more wrong than allowing the last AF loan to be drawn down was imo. I would very much doubt ABLRate would have made sure the agreement had protection from AF buying back his debt at a knock-down price, and even if they had, they would be unlikely to enforce it. After all, ABLRate loans have in their General Loan Conditions (at the end of each borrowing proposal) section 6, which states that the borrower will be charged default interest (set at 6% in the definitions) on top of the loan's interest rate, on any payments that are not on time. Yet ABLRate has (to my knowledge) only enforced this condition on one loan (the Scottish fishing loan), for the other loans which were paid late, this default interest due to lenders has been waived. This behaviour of ABLRate makes me wonder whether they have the lenders' interests as their priority, or the borrowers' interests. Actions tend to speak louder than words!
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 21, 2022 18:36:22 GMT
The delightful part for me was the willingness to reopen SM. If this will ever happen I'd be very happy to sell at discount... What if AF is the bidder? Or the new, as yet unidentified, financier?
At, say, 9p in the pound... The wording "Therefore we have been working with the Company looking at alternative ways that the debt could be traded, if the Loan Exchange is not online in the short term. We will be updating lenders as progress is made on this, but the borrower is seeking to have its debt tradable as soon as possible and, of course, we are willing to facilitate whatever is required to make that happen where security and commitments remain as they are." just makes cynical little old me think there might be another little twist in the tale still to come. I don't mind who the buyer is. We'll have to see when/if it comes to this, but even at 9% discount I will still retain the capital I originally invested and will be in some profit (i.e. the interest I've received from these loans in the past few years will offset the loss).
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 21, 2022 18:46:32 GMT
I don't mind who the buyer is. We'll have to see when/if it comes to this, but even at 9% discount I will still retain the capital I originally invested and will be in some profit (i.e. the interest I've received from these loans in the past few years will offset the loss). how about at the 91% discount level that I mentioned? Yes, trading at 91% is 9% discount.
|
|
|
Post by df on Jun 21, 2022 19:09:42 GMT
Yes, trading at 91% is 9% discount. I am talking about trading at 9%. A 91% discount. How would that suit you if it was the only bid? I misunderstood you, my apologies.... no, I don't think I'll be selling at 91% discount
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,906
Likes: 11,128
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 21, 2022 19:14:58 GMT
Someone has to be willing to sell at the price offered Ablrate normally restricts pricing, think 75% was the hard bottom of the market FCA regulation requires platforms to indicate the the likely recovery level and the effect price of capital at a given time so that buyers/sellers can make informed decisions These are article 36h loans - there are restrictions on the participation of corporate entities in the loans The platform cannot invest in its own loans
All of the above are likely to preclude the scenario being posited here
|
|