r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336 
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jan 18, 2024 12:05:37 GMT
I think Quantuma have already worked that the administration will cost as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Jan 18, 2024 12:27:27 GMT
DBW’s used all this time to squeeze out as much as he could, protect himself and his interests, and then handed it over to the administrators. They will now squeeze out all they can before handing us the carcass (if any).
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Jan 18, 2024 13:30:58 GMT
DBW’s used all this time to squeeze out as much as he could, protect himself and his interests, and then handed it over to the administrators. They will now squeeze out all they can before handing us the carcass (if any). Attachments:
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 18, 2024 14:08:01 GMT
Sorry what docs are talking about? There is now considerable precedent on P2P administration fees in relation to Trust assets. They would be daft to do too much before they have sorted CC & issued their proposals to investors who are likely to be at least contingent creditors as in other platform admins.
|
|
grumpsimus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 146
Likes: 126
|
Post by grumpsimus on Jan 18, 2024 15:30:20 GMT
Basically, Ablrate has no assets that belong to it. All Ablrate has is a claim over part the return from any investments. Given the poor quality of the outstanding loans, the return is likely to very poor to non-existent. I am doubtful if these returns will even cover the administrators fees. Returns to investor in the loans nil.
Quantuma will soon lose interesr in Ablrate when the realise that there unlikely to be enough money to cover their fees.
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Jan 19, 2024 10:05:34 GMT
I am just hoping they don't have to go to Dubai like everyone else
|
|
optimist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 124
Likes: 72
|
Post by optimist on Jan 21, 2024 16:16:57 GMT
~ There is now considerable precedent on P2P administration fees in relation to Trust assets. They would be daft to do too much before they have sorted CC & issued their proposals to investors who are likely to be at least contingent creditors as in other platform admins. There's a difference between a P2P organisation charging admin and appointed administrators to do so. If the benefit afforded by those administrators does not outweigh their contribution, then that argument should be made in court before they make those charges, but there needs to be a viable alternative.
As an investor, I think I was advised that this court case was going to occur seven days after it did. We could be prepared next time.
We are now paying one set of administrators to recover money from another set of administrators (Fore*****), who seem to be paying themselves from the battery to fail to recover anything from the other assets.
There are a number of potential arguments to be made, as to how sensible an approach this is. Has anyone gone through what we think the assets of each loan really are now, on the open market? The results, ref the poll, depend on what we do about it, and I expect we have some options. Admin would not seem overly costly for a website. There are assets which are not insignificant so the most efficient means of recovering them would seem the task. Some transparency would seem reasonable
If the standard process is not applicable then it should not be used, this is why we have humans as judges making sensible decisions (often), but it's difficult for them to do so unless we make the argument.
Any lawyers among us?
|
|
grumpsimus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 146
Likes: 126
|
Post by grumpsimus on Jan 22, 2024 11:58:29 GMT
Optimist
It is not very clear to me what you think should happen. There is no option to go back to Ablrate administering the loans. Ablrate is clearly insolvent, little in the way of assets and almost no income, do you agrree this basic fact?
I suspect that Quantuma have been appointed as the administrator after dicussions with the FCA, they are really appointed to wind up the Ablrate companies Aviation and Tech Capital and Investments. They also expected to recover what they can from the outstanding loans, if administrators have already been apoointed in respect of some some of the loans it really doesn't make much difference.
Personally I am not expecting any further returns from my outstanding loans. It was high risk lending that failed. Ablrate only attracted borrowers to pay their very high interest rates, because mainstream lenders were not prepared to lend to them. Therefore Ablrate ended up with the worst borrowers, as can be seen on the comments on individual loans
|
|
GreenZero
Member of DD Central
The early bird may get the worm, but it's the second mouse who gets the cheese
Posts: 225
Likes: 318
|
Post by GreenZero on Jan 22, 2024 12:23:07 GMT
I agree with grumpsimus. Whilst I accept P2P attracts subprime loans, in Abl instance there does look to have been some shenanigans with loans to companies linked to, being polite, certain businessmen.
When DBW called in the administrators, Abl position was pretty much one where they knew no more loan repayments were going to be received. Or at least, not in any time that he was willing to wait for. The question surrounds Abl and DBW. Was he naive, taken advantage of or was he aware at inception or at any point of, let's stick to the shenanigans. |
|
grumpsimus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 146
Likes: 126
|
Post by grumpsimus on Jan 22, 2024 19:02:35 GMT
Observer
I agree with what you say. It would be nice to see some of these 'dodgy' chancers face some consequences for the way they have behaved.
However, the chances of any effective action being taken against them are very very slim to non-existent. Firstly, because Ablrate and the number of borrowers is very small, so why bother about them. nobody is going to make a TV drama about it.
Secondly, we can look at what has happened in other cases. With Funding Secure, there was clear evidence of dishonesty and unlawful behaviour. The FCA has closed its investigatioin, nothing has happened. Therefore, why should they bother with Ablrate?
This is the pattern in far too many of these cases, the authorities can't be bothered investigating, what is likey to be a difficult case.
|
|
optimist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 124
Likes: 72
|
Post by optimist on Jan 31, 2024 20:45:13 GMT
Optimist
It is not very clear to me what you think should happen. There is no option to go back to Ablrate administering the loans. Ablrate is clearly insolvent, little in the way of assets and almost no income, do you agrree this basic fact?
I suspect that Quantuma have been appointed as the administrator after dicussions with the FCA, they are really appointed to wind up the Ablrate companies Aviation and Tech Capital and Investments. They also expected to recover what they can from the outstanding loans, if administrators have already been apoointed in respect of some some of the loans it really doesn't make much difference.
Personally I am not expecting any further returns from my outstanding loans. It was high risk lending that failed. Ablrate only attracted borrowers to pay their very high interest rates, because mainstream lenders were not prepared to lend to them. Therefore Ablrate ended up with the worst borrowers, as can be seen on the comments on individual loans
I suppose I thought that the assets we considered security had some value. All of us that lost a chunk did some DD to lead us to believe this, I imagine.
Ablerate being insolvent is expected, but the loan security should retain its value to some extent, and our contract is primarilly a loan, rather than with Abl. Considering F*******n, the land in scotland a battery etc would seem to have value
Winding up the company (abl) might be seen as different from winding up the loans which are a contract between us and the companies we invested in. The problem with Greenshill wasn't that the borrowers were bad but that high risk taking investors took loans from risk taking lenders (inclucing ourselves)
Not a lawyer, just considering that the landscape seems to have changed more than I personally expected In my experience, most legal processes tend to take the path of least resistance and maximum beaurocracy so I was wonderining how to be a dam in the path of the tide
Just looking for options / grasping at straws I guess
|
|
grumpsimus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 146
Likes: 126
|
Post by grumpsimus on Feb 1, 2024 23:06:37 GMT
Optimist
It is not very clear to me what you think should happen. There is no option to go back to Ablrate administering the loans. Ablrate is clearly insolvent, little in the way of assets and almost no income, do you agrree this basic fact?
I suspect that Quantuma have been appointed as the administrator after dicussions with the FCA, they are really appointed to wind up the Ablrate companies Aviation and Tech Capital and Investments. They also expected to recover what they can from the outstanding loans, if administrators have already been apoointed in respect of some some of the loans it really doesn't make much difference.
Personally I am not expecting any further returns from my outstanding loans. It was high risk lending that failed. Ablrate only attracted borrowers to pay their very high interest rates, because mainstream lenders were not prepared to lend to them. Therefore Ablrate ended up with the worst borrowers, as can be seen on the comments on individual loans
I suppose I thought that the assets we considered security had some value. All of us that lost a chunk did some DD to lead us to believe this, I imagine.
Ablerate being insolvent is expected, but the loan security should retain its value to some extent, and our contract is primarilly a loan, rather than with Abl. Considering F*******n, the land in scotland a battery etc would seem to have value
Winding up the company (abl) might be seen as different from winding up the loans which are a contract between us and the companies we invested in. The problem with Greenshill wasn't that the borrowers were bad but that high risk taking investors took loans from risk taking lenders (inclucing ourselves)
Not a lawyer, just considering that the landscape seems to have changed more than I personally expected In my experience, most legal processes tend to take the path of least resistance and maximum beaurocracy so I was wonderining how to be a dam in the path of the tide
Just looking for options / grasping at straws I guess
Optimist
The loans and Ablrate are two different issues and you should not conflated them together.
We will get a much better idea of the indebtedness of Ablrate when the Administrators produce their report and the Statement of Affairs, which should by the end of this month.
It can also be expected that the Administrators will indicate how much extra money they want to try collect the monies owing from the outstanding loans. In the case of Funding Secure the Administrators take 25% of all monies recovered. At the end of the Administration any surplus is meant to be returned to lenders, but this is unlikely to happen.
With regard to the 'security' of the loans. Remember in many cases misleading information, sometimes lies were given. I suggest that you look through your outstanding loans and at the comments about them of this forum and try to estimate how much if anything is likely to be returned.
Observer has dealt with Greensil Capital, which is a horrible can of worms, affecting the AF loans.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 2, 2024 0:13:11 GMT
I suppose I thought that the assets we considered security had some value. All of us that lost a chunk did some DD to lead us to believe this, I imagine.
Ablerate being insolvent is expected, but the loan security should retain its value to some extent, and our contract is primarilly a loan, rather than with Abl. Considering F*******n, the land in scotland a battery etc would seem to have value
Winding up the company (abl) might be seen as different from winding up the loans which are a contract between us and the companies we invested in. The problem with Greenshill wasn't that the borrowers were bad but that high risk taking investors took loans from risk taking lenders (inclucing ourselves)
Not a lawyer, just considering that the landscape seems to have changed more than I personally expected In my experience, most legal processes tend to take the path of least resistance and maximum beaurocracy so I was wonderining how to be a dam in the path of the tide
Just looking for options / grasping at straws I guess
Optimist
The loans and Ablrate are two different issues and you should not conflated them together.
We will get a much better idea of the indebtedness of Ablrate when the Administrators produce their report and the Statement of Affairs, which should by the end of this month.
It can also be expected that the Administrators will indicate how much extra money they want to try collect the monies owing from the outstanding loans. In the case of Funding Secure the Administrators take 25% of all monies recovered. At the end of the Administration any surplus is meant to be returned to lenders, but this is unlikely to happen.
With regard to the 'security' of the loans. Remember in many cases misleading information, sometimes lies were given. I suggest that you look through your outstanding loans and at the comments about them of this forum and try to estimate how much if anything is likely to be returned.
Observer has dealt with Greensil Capital, which is a horrible can of worms, affecting the AF loans.
FS admin fees are 2.5% not 25%
|
|
grumpsimus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 146
Likes: 126
|
Post by grumpsimus on Feb 2, 2024 22:39:47 GMT
FS admin fees are 2.5% not 25% FS admin fees might be 2.5% , but the Administrators are collecting an extra 25% on top of this. This arrangement was agreed by the court. The idea was that this should cover the Administrators costs in collecting the remaining loans and any surplus would be returned to lenders at the end of the administration. Lenders have already been advised that there is unlikely to be a surplus.
I know this because I am a FS lender and 25% is deducted from all funds returned.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,315
Likes: 11,523
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 3, 2024 0:39:09 GMT
FS admin fees are 2.5% not 25% FS admin fees might be 2.5% , but the Administrators are collecting an extra 25% on top of this. This arrangement was agreed by the court. The idea was that this should cover the Administrators costs in collecting the remaining loans and any surplus would be returned to lenders at the end of the administration. Lenders have already been advised that there is unlikely to be a surplus.
I know this because I am a FS lender and 25% is deducted from all funds returned.
Ive not seen any comms on a Court ruling regarding 25%, not has it been referenced in the statutory reports IIRC. The admin fee is 2.5%, above this they have agreed with the CC they can take 5% to cover realisations costs and retain a further sum to allow payments to made while the QT case is ongoing (7.5%?) Seems to be about 15% deducted in total plus third party costs which are variable. Are you getting mixed up with Lendy where there is a 25% retention agreed with the AG & signed off by the Court? (Some FS loans have a settlement fee as well) Ablrate proposals are due 15 Mar - 8 weeks after appt date
|
|
