|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 7, 2024 8:37:56 GMT
Can anybody explain the latest update on this loan , this expected loss has gone down the capital value has gone up but update reads discounted value and greater risk of losses. Puzzled here or stupid. Just come back from walking dog on chisel beach so most of brains blown away.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
977 (AC)
Oct 7, 2024 15:21:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by jlend on Oct 7, 2024 15:21:27 GMT
It might be a very minor correction from the previous update or simply because an interest payment has been made so the risk is deemed very marginally better.
The expected loss has got very marginally better so the capital valuation has got very marginally better.
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 636 
Likes: 658
|
Post by warn on Oct 7, 2024 15:47:30 GMT
...Just come back from walking dog on chisel beach... Sideways? 
|
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Oct 9, 2024 20:18:55 GMT
Am I alone in feeling very uncomfortable with the vote text for this loan and linked loan #956 – in particular the way AC has tried to shut down all consideration of any action other than the one they want? I can well understand AC’s exasperation with this borrower – the lateness of management accounts, the blatant inaccuracies in these accounts when eventually received (ditto the accounts filed at Companies House), the repeated failures of the EBITDA covenant, the frequent failure to engage with AC and a level of overall indebtedness that suggests the care home business is unviable.
But the simple fact is that from the start of these loans right up to the present day, payments of interest and capital have been made in full and in a timely manner. The borrower did not ask AC for forbearance during the pandemic (although they did receive other government support) – they simply prefer to spend their time in ways that don’t involve talking to AC. That is not, for me at least, a good enough reason for appointing administrators and realising the security – a course of action that AC would love because it will get a troublesome borrower out of their hair and will generate huge fees but will inevitably result in lenders losing money.
Personally I don’t care if continuing to extend the loan informally causes AC more hassle – it would make a pleasant change for AC to have to do some work for their extortionate monitoring fees. And it would be a grave error for QAA voters (of which I am one) to assume that they will be covered by the provision fund – they won’t, because loan #1226 has been such a debacle that there’s nothing left in the PF. So I’m voting ‘B’ on both loans unless someone can give me a convincing reason why I shouldn’t, and I hope others follow suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by frank121 on Oct 9, 2024 22:58:05 GMT
Am I alone in feeling very uncomfortable with the vote text for this loan and linked loan #956 – in particular the way AC has tried to shut down all consideration of any action other than the one they want? I can well understand AC’s exasperation with this borrower – the lateness of management accounts, the blatant inaccuracies in these accounts when eventually received (ditto the accounts filed at Companies House), the repeated failures of the EBITDA covenant, the frequent failure to engage with AC and a level of overall indebtedness that suggests the care home business is unviable. But the simple fact is that from the start of these loans right up to the present day, payments of interest and capital have been made in full and in a timely manner. The borrower did not ask AC for forbearance during the pandemic (although they did receive other government support) – they simply prefer to spend their time in ways that don’t involve talking to AC. That is not, for me at least, a good enough reason for appointing administrators and realising the security – a course of action that AC would love because it will get a troublesome borrower out of their hair and will generate huge fees but will inevitably result in lenders losing money. Personally I don’t care if continuing to extend the loan informally causes AC more hassle – it would make a pleasant change for AC to have to do some work for their extortionate monitoring fees. And it would be a grave error for QAA voters (of which I am one) to assume that they will be covered by the provision fund – they won’t, because loan #1226 has been such a debacle that there’s nothing left in the PF. So I’m voting ‘B’ on both loans unless someone can give me a convincing reason why I shouldn’t, and I hope others follow suit. Same feeling. Just read it..so the administrators fees range from 300-700K to obtain 1.2M from the sale of the properties! Madness. Currently on the table is a 1M refinance loan which is only about 270K short but AC say voting B is not viable!! Crackers. I think AC should to do some more work on getting this settled and the administrators can wait. Currently as you said the lender is meeting the interest payments and hasn't missed any; providing evidence of a 1M refinance deal says its closer to settle than AC are making out. B for me too.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
977 (AC)
Oct 10, 2024 6:18:03 GMT
via mobile
min likes this
Post by jlend on Oct 10, 2024 6:18:03 GMT
Am I alone in feeling very uncomfortable with the vote text for this loan and linked loan #956 – in particular the way AC has tried to shut down all consideration of any action other than the one they want? I can well understand AC’s exasperation with this borrower – the lateness of management accounts, the blatant inaccuracies in these accounts when eventually received (ditto the accounts filed at Companies House), the repeated failures of the EBITDA covenant, the frequent failure to engage with AC and a level of overall indebtedness that suggests the care home business is unviable. But the simple fact is that from the start of these loans right up to the present day, payments of interest and capital have been made in full and in a timely manner. The borrower did not ask AC for forbearance during the pandemic (although they did receive other government support) – they simply prefer to spend their time in ways that don’t involve talking to AC. That is not, for me at least, a good enough reason for appointing administrators and realising the security – a course of action that AC would love because it will get a troublesome borrower out of their hair and will generate huge fees but will inevitably result in lenders losing money. Personally I don’t care if continuing to extend the loan informally causes AC more hassle – it would make a pleasant change for AC to have to do some work for their extortionate monitoring fees. And it would be a grave error for QAA voters (of which I am one) to assume that they will be covered by the provision fund – they won’t, because loan #1226 has been such a debacle that there’s nothing left in the PF. So I’m voting ‘B’ on both loans unless someone can give me a convincing reason why I shouldn’t, and I hope others follow suit. Same feeling. Just read it..so the administrators fees range from 300-700K to obtain 1.2M from the sale of the properties! Madness. Currently on the table is a 1M refinance loan which is only about 270K short but AC say voting B is not viable!! Crackers. I think AC should to do some more work on getting this settled and the administrators can wait. Currently as you said the lender is meeting the interest payments and hasn't missed any; providing evidence of a 1M refinance deal says its closer to settle than AC are making out. B for me too.
Without near real-time updates to the PF stats on the website it is getting difficult for Access Account holders to make informed decisions, even with the obvious limitation that the PF is discretionary. It would help if the vote text included a comment on what AC plan to adjust the Capital Valuation to in the event of option A. It may be within their gift to ring fence this amount now or tell us if there is already insufficient money in the PF as the PF is discretionary and so they have flexibility. We already have the complications that all the AA account PFs were collapsed into one PF which penalised the QAA holders as the QAA PF had more non ring fenced cash that the other AAs.
|
|
|
|
Post by scotty on Oct 10, 2024 9:19:31 GMT
Am I alone in feeling very uncomfortable with the vote text for this loan and linked loan #956 – in particular the way AC has tried to shut down all consideration of any action other than the one they want? I can well understand AC’s exasperation with this borrower – the lateness of management accounts, the blatant inaccuracies in these accounts when eventually received (ditto the accounts filed at Companies House), the repeated failures of the EBITDA covenant, the frequent failure to engage with AC and a level of overall indebtedness that suggests the care home business is unviable. But the simple fact is that from the start of these loans right up to the present day, payments of interest and capital have been made in full and in a timely manner. The borrower did not ask AC for forbearance during the pandemic (although they did receive other government support) – they simply prefer to spend their time in ways that don’t involve talking to AC. That is not, for me at least, a good enough reason for appointing administrators and realising the security – a course of action that AC would love because it will get a troublesome borrower out of their hair and will generate huge fees but will inevitably result in lenders losing money. Personally I don’t care if continuing to extend the loan informally causes AC more hassle – it would make a pleasant change for AC to have to do some work for their extortionate monitoring fees. And it would be a grave error for QAA voters (of which I am one) to assume that they will be covered by the provision fund – they won’t, because loan #1226 has been such a debacle that there’s nothing left in the PF. So I’m voting ‘B’ on both loans unless someone can give me a convincing reason why I shouldn’t, and I hope others follow suit. Same feeling. Just read it..so the administrators fees range from 300-700K to obtain 1.2M from the sale of the properties! Madness. Currently on the table is a 1M refinance loan which is only about 270K short but AC say voting B is not viable!! Crackers. I think AC should to do some more work on getting this settled and the administrators can wait. Currently as you said the lender is meeting the interest payments and hasn't missed any; providing evidence of a 1M refinance deal says its closer to settle than AC are making out. B for me too.
Agree, Vote A if you want to fund extortionate administrators fees and AC's default monitoring fees until the end, I'm voting B too.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Oct 10, 2024 13:16:47 GMT
Without near real-time updates to the PF stats on the website it is getting difficult for Access Account holders to make informed decisions, even with the obvious limitation that the PF is discretionary. It would help if the vote text included a comment on what AC plan to adjust the Capital Valuation to in the event of option A. It may be within their gift to ring fence this amount now or tell us if there is already insufficient money in the PF as the PF is discretionary and so they have flexibility. We already have the complications that all the AA account PFs were collapsed into one PF which penalised the QAA holders as the QAA PF had more non ring fenced cash that the other AAs. Even if there was money in the PF, it would be very unwise for QAA lenders to make voting decisions on the assumption that the PF would cover their losses. The latest figure for the QAA PF is as at 31/7/24 when the balance was said to be £840K. On that date the loss on loan #1226 could not have been quantified so cannot be included in the ringfenced amount. The majority of lenders who voted in the last vote on loan #1226 went for option 'A', which AC said would result in an estimated shortfall of £2,064,849. Ergo, I think one can safely assume that there's b*gg*r all in the PF left to cover any losses in #977/#956.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 10, 2024 14:11:56 GMT
Feeling crabby old and pfed up, B
|
|
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 Oct 10, 2024 16:38:47 GMT
Without near real-time updates to the PF stats on the website it is getting difficult for Access Account holders to make informed decisions, even with the obvious limitation that the PF is discretionary. It would help if the vote text included a comment on what AC plan to adjust the Capital Valuation to in the event of option A. It may be within their gift to ring fence this amount now or tell us if there is already insufficient money in the PF as the PF is discretionary and so they have flexibility. We already have the complications that all the AA account PFs were collapsed into one PF which penalised the QAA holders as the QAA PF had more non ring fenced cash that the other AAs. Even if there was money in the PF, it would be very unwise for QAA lenders to make voting decisions on the assumption that the PF would cover their losses. The latest figure for the QAA PF is as at 31/7/24 when the balance was said to be £840K. On that date the loss on loan #1226 could not have been quantified so cannot be included in the ringfenced amount. The majority of lenders who voted in the last vote on loan #1226 went for option 'A', which AC said would result in an estimated shortfall of £2,064,849. Ergo, I think one can safely assume that there's b*gg*r all in the PF left to cover any losses in #977/#956. Some will already be ringfenced in line with capital valuation for these loans. While the PF ringfencing is insufficient to cover current predicted losses, not including additional shortfalls on #1226 etc no assumptions can be made on what the PF will or wont cover ... it's discretionary so they could just ignore 1226, the PF on paper should start growing again next year when the fee ceases ... they could just wait until all the book is done & then pro-rata the PF out across the accumulated shortfall. What they should be doing is making the position clear in votes rather than leave themselves wide open to yet more FOS complaints. (any more than they are already)
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
977 (AC)
Oct 10, 2024 19:38:16 GMT
via mobile
Ace likes this
Post by jlend on Oct 10, 2024 19:38:16 GMT
Even if there was money in the PF, it would be very unwise for QAA lenders to make voting decisions on the assumption that the PF would cover their losses. The latest figure for the QAA PF is as at 31/7/24 when the balance was said to be £840K. On that date the loss on loan #1226 could not have been quantified so cannot be included in the ringfenced amount. The majority of lenders who voted in the last vote on loan #1226 went for option 'A', which AC said would result in an estimated shortfall of £2,064,849. Ergo, I think one can safely assume that there's b*gg*r all in the PF left to cover any losses in #977/#956. Some will already be ringfenced in line with capital valuation for these loans. While the PF ringfencing is insufficient to cover current predicted losses, not including additional shortfalls on #1226 etc no assumptions can be made on what the PF will or wont cover ... it's discretionary so they could just ignore 1226, the PF on paper should start growing again next year when the fee ceases ... they could just wait until all the book is done & then pro-rata the PF out across the accumulated shortfall. What they should be doing is making the position clear in votes rather than leave themselves wide open to yet more FOS complaints. (any more than they are already) I already asked about 1226 earlier in the week. The easiest thing to do right now is to ask after every change in capital valuation Question Has money been ring fenced in the PF for loan 1226 to cover the recently revised capital valuation, if payment is ever approved in the future? Answer on Tuesday Thank you for your email. An amount equivalent to 11.55% of the AA holding in this loan has been ringfenced by the PF.
|
|
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
|
977 (AC)
Oct 10, 2024 20:34:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by ilmoro on Oct 10, 2024 20:34:36 GMT
Some will already be ringfenced in line with capital valuation for these loans. While the PF ringfencing is insufficient to cover current predicted losses, not including additional shortfalls on #1226 etc no assumptions can be made on what the PF will or wont cover ... it's discretionary so they could just ignore 1226, the PF on paper should start growing again next year when the fee ceases ... they could just wait until all the book is done & then pro-rata the PF out across the accumulated shortfall. What they should be doing is making the position clear in votes rather than leave themselves wide open to yet more FOS complaints. (any more than they are already) I already asked about 1226 earlier in the week. The easiest thing to do right now is to ask after every change in capital valuation Question Has money been ring fenced in the PF for loan 1226 to cover the recently revised capital valuation, if payment is ever approved in the future? Answer on Tuesday Thank you for your email. An amount equivalent to 11.55% of the AA holding in this loan has been ringfenced by the PF. Yeah, just under £500k in my spreadsheet. Under 10% for 977. 40% for 956
|
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Oct 10, 2024 21:45:37 GMT
The point is that regardless of which loans you allocate the PF to, in aggregate there’s going to be a shortfall. I don’t think there’s anyone who disagrees with that. So voting for an option that is inevitably going to lead to lender losses when you don’t need to is a pretty stupid thing to do.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
977 (AC)
Oct 11, 2024 14:58:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by jlend on Oct 11, 2024 14:58:28 GMT
The point is that regardless of which loans you allocate the PF to, in aggregate there’s going to be a shortfall. I don’t think there’s anyone who disagrees with that. So voting for an option that is inevitably going to lead to lender losses when you don’t need to is a pretty stupid thing to do. It is what it is now. AC could drop the interest rate so the PF was topped up but there doesn't seem much point in that now. Shame AC changed their original approach with the wind turbine compensation. The original strategy AC told lenders is that AC were going to borrow money to pay compensation. Then they switched to removing all the deemed excess at the time from the PF, several million pound. It could be very different now for the AA account holders if AC hand not changed their mind...
|
|
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
|
977 (AC)
Oct 11, 2024 16:01:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by ilmoro on Oct 11, 2024 16:01:24 GMT
The point is that regardless of which loans you allocate the PF to, in aggregate there’s going to be a shortfall. I don’t think there’s anyone who disagrees with that. So voting for an option that is inevitably going to lead to lender losses when you don’t need to is a pretty stupid thing to do. It is what it is now. AC could drop the interest rate so the PF was topped up but there doesn't seem much point in that now. Shame AC changed their original approach with the wind turbine compensation. The original strategy AC told lenders is that AC were going to borrow money to pay compensation. Then they switched to removing all the deemed excess at the time from the PF, several million pound. It could be very different now for the AA account holders if AC hand not changed their mind... I doubt they can drop the rate as its part of the account terms & there isnt a variation clause, in fact the merging of the AA boxed them in more as they had to meet the 30DAA 4% target rather than the lower QAA. As a consequence, they have to earn more interest & end up pissing everyone off more regularly than they might off. (May do some maths at some point as an academic exercise)
|
|
