|
|
Post by jevans4949 on Dec 24, 2013 16:46:24 GMT
Given the time of year, should we be calling this the Westward Ho-Ho-Ho loan?  |
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043 
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 24, 2013 17:20:52 GMT
Given the time of year, should we be calling this the Westward Ho-Ho-Ho loan? If you'd ever been to WH yo wouldn't contemplate such a thing. If you want some Ho-Ho-Ho you have to go to Bideford!
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 29, 2013 13:25:06 GMT
Still 9% to fund, with 8 days remaining.
Are people hanging back to see if it looks like it will fill, or are people put off by the anon borrower?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 29, 2013 14:00:50 GMT
Still 9% to fund, with 8 days remaining. Are people hanging back to see if it looks like it will fill, or are people put off by the anon borrower? I want to see the answers to some of the questions which are currently unanswered. Particularly ref. the subsidiary that went pop.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Dec 29, 2013 14:20:48 GMT
With so much likely to be in the hands of the underwriters it's a good bet you could pick up as much as you want on the aftermarket, thereby missing the drawdown period, but if everyone thinks like that...
|
|
unmadem
Member of DD Central
Posts: 377
Likes: 181
|
Post by unmadem on Dec 29, 2013 16:27:56 GMT
Still 9% to fund, with 8 days remaining. Are people hanging back to see if it looks like it will fill, or are people put off by the anon borrower? I want to see the answers to some of the questions which are currently unanswered. Particularly ref. the subsidiary that went pop. Me too. Surprised it has taken so long to answer even over Xmas, it seems such an obvious question.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 6,926
|
Post by duck on Dec 29, 2013 18:00:32 GMT
I asked AC a very simple question regarding the liquidation and impact on the security of this loan before it went live .... I was also assured that all interested parties would be notified when clarification had been made.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Dec 29, 2013 18:27:42 GMT
I asked AC a very simple question regarding the liquidation and impact on the security of this loan before it went live .... I was also assured that all interested parties would be notified when clarification had been made. Thats all I got as well by way of explanation. However the impression gained when something is described as a "historic matter" is perhaps slightly different to that formed when you realise the timeline recorded at companies house started on 30th April 2013 with a Gazette notice of a winding up petition and concluded on 2nd July 2013 with the winding up order. To describe this as a historic matter is disingeneous, and as others have noted this loan is unlikely to go much further until further details are released. The delay over the holiday period is not surprising as any public comment will need the approval of the borrower, the introducer and Assetz. My contribution to the Q&A (and repeated earlier in this thread) describes the group structure of holding company and three subsidiaries, one of which is the liquidated one. What is needed is a brief overview of what role each of the 4 companies plays in the bigger picture.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,874
Likes: 6,926
|
Post by duck on Dec 29, 2013 19:19:53 GMT
I don't disagree with you mrclondon, my post is simply a statement of what I received.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Dec 29, 2013 19:38:43 GMT
Thats all I got as well by way of explanation. However the impression gained when something is described as a "historic matter" is perhaps slightly different to that formed when you realise the timeline recorded at companies house started on 30th April 2013 with a Gazette notice of a winding up petition and concluded on 2nd July 2013 with the winding up order. To describe this as a historic matter is disingeneous, and as others have noted this loan is unlikely to go much further until further details are released. The delay over the holiday period is not surprising as any public comment will need the approval of the borrower, the introducer and Assetz. My contribution to the Q&A (and repeated earlier in this thread) describes the group structure of holding company and three subsidiaries, one of which is the liquidated one. What is needed is a brief overview of what role each of the 4 companies plays in the bigger picture. One of the other subsidiaries went into Receivership for 6 months between February 2013 and August 2013. There also a fifth company bearing a remarkably similar name to the liquidated company which is not part of the group but which has the same registered address plus the director's surname and address are the same however the forenames are reversed.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 29, 2013 21:21:08 GMT
Still 9% to fund, with 8 days remaining. Are people hanging back to see if it looks like it will fill, or are people put off by the anon borrower? Aside from the possibility raised by others that lenders are waiting for answers to the outstanding questions, it seems clear that this loan can't be closed until it gets to 100% funded, so there's no point in committing money to an offer until it's closer to being fully funded. And even if it were to be fully funded, I'd expect it to continue to be available after that for lenders to place bids so that the underwriters could be relieved of some of their obligations. I'd also guess that once it becomes fully funded the borrower will be informed that they should start proceeding with their preparations to draw down the loan, but that the loan opportunity still would be left available for lenders to place new bids -- probably until drawdown is all set to happen.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 29, 2013 22:57:24 GMT
Still 9% to fund, with 8 days remaining. Are people hanging back to see if it looks like it will fill, or are people put off by the anon borrower? Aside from the possibility raised by others that lenders are waiting for answers to the outstanding questions, it seems clear that this loan can't be closed until it gets to 100% funded, so there's no point in committing money to an offer until it's closer to being fully funded. And even if it were to be fully funded, I'd expect it to continue to be available after that for lenders to place bids so that the underwriters could be relieved of some of their obligations. I'd also guess that once it becomes fully funded the borrower will be informed that they should start proceeding with their preparations to draw down the loan, but that the loan opportunity still would be left available for lenders to place new bids -- probably until drawdown is all set to happen. I think the biggest 'problem' that AC face is the delay in drawdown. Fully appreciate that many of the delays may or probably are caused by third parties so effectively outside of the control of AC but - AC now have a track record of managing to fulfil all of the loans they have requested lately so I think possibly more background work could be commenced and possibly completed before the auction ends. Any delays of course affect the returns. It's almost worth not bidding and taking your chances on the aftermarket especially if an underwriter is involved. At least the communication from AC is first class so long may that continue even if they are unable to shorten those drawdown time delays.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 30, 2013 2:33:54 GMT
It's almost worth not bidding and taking your chances on the aftermarket especially if an underwriter is involved. That's something I've wondered about. But, of course, if everyone did that they'd need underwriters to take 100% of every project -- which wouldn't be such a bad idea if it wasn't for the fact that underwriters don't do what they do out of the kindness of their hearts. So someone has to pay for the underwriting. Lenders can take things as they are now and suffer the uncertain drawdown timing, or they can call for the underwriters to be brought in and pay for the privilege of no drawdown delay with lower returns after the underwriters take their cut. I suspect that many lenders would prefer a lower return from the time of their investment to an uncertain period with no return while waiting for drawdown followed by a period of higher return. There is, however, one significant drawback to underwriting everything first and then bringing in the 'ordinary' lenders via the aftermarket, and that is the underwriters would get first choice on everything -- they'd hang onto all the best deals, and only offer the worst deals on the aftermarket. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 30, 2013 9:12:43 GMT
It also bares resemblance to allowing / encouraging the flippers to come in, something the lending community has been very against. I can only speak from a technical point of view, so this isn't an official line of thought from the business, but what would people think of opening up loans like this one that aren't filling naturally to selling loan units for a profit on the aftermarket? Would that encourage people to lend now rather than wait? After all it does look like we need to do something to get this one over the line, be it just marketing it out to the user base again through to bringing in additional underwriting.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 30, 2013 10:01:08 GMT
It also bares resemblance to allowing / encouraging the flippers to come in, something the lending community has been very against. I can only speak from a technical point of view, so this isn't an official line of thought from the business, but what would people think of opening up loans like this one that aren't filling naturally to selling loan units for a profit on the aftermarket? Would that encourage people to lend now rather than wait? After all it does look like we need to do something to get this one over the line, be it just marketing it out to the user base again through to bringing in additional underwriting. Speaking obviously from my point of view but I would not be prepared to pay a premium on the aftermarket simply because someone was faster on the mouse at the go time for an auction. Also if I needed to liquidate assets then a premium would be 'nice' but I would be more interested in simply offloading rather than trying to gather a few additional pennies here and there. If underwriting is required then it's normally the borrower that pays a higher premium - hence the request for bids to take the underwriters out thereby lowering the eventual borrowing cost. So if the suggestion is being made that us 'normals' act as underwriters for a premium then that may be worthy of consideration. The costs though should be borne by the borrower. When a certain unusually high borrowing requirement occurs, why not start off with a higher return and then lower it after say 50% or whatever has been achieved. May be messy from a technical pov though. My concern, if that's what you call it, was the time delays in auction closure and drawdown and as AC generally does not have a problem fulfilling loan requests then a great deal of the work being conducted after close could in effect be done prior to if that makes sense.
|
|
