|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 30, 2015 17:21:00 GMT
(Another E just landed, if your not phased by over a quarter mil of negative net worth that is) AH, but it surely has a director guarantee, so that's Ok then. 8>. (The bidbots were only slightly deterred, and still chased it down to 18.2%. When will we (if ever) see an E close with marginal rates above MBR?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 30, 2015 17:55:20 GMT
Another E snuck in late, and going more slowly than some
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 30, 2015 17:58:36 GMT
Another E snuck in late, and going more slowly than some And yet another!
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Jul 30, 2015 20:52:22 GMT
Two xE still not completed!
Anyway back to property.. 14695, 2% cash back, 9% rate on a property one. It's a first tranche loan so surely auto bid etc should be snapping it up. The LTV is higher than SS and the previous offer of this loan didn't fill... But what I'm missing is why not?
any thoughts?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 30, 2015 21:43:27 GMT
Two xE still not completed! Anyway back to property.. 14695, 2% cash back, 9% rate on a property one. It's a first tranche loan so surely auto bid etc should be snapping it up. The LTV is higher than SS and the previous offer of this loan didn't fill... But what I'm missing is why not? any thoughts? The same developer is behind the Southampton scheme so I believe Autobid may have to steer clear of this loan for lenders who've already invested in Southampton.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Jul 31, 2015 4:52:01 GMT
Agh, not picked up that auto bid used such things. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 31, 2015 7:55:59 GMT
It does if it is listed as the same company; not sure it is smart enough to avoid multiple SPVs (Single Purpose Vehicles?) from the same folks, since those look like completely separate companies.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jul 31, 2015 8:10:43 GMT
14695 would fill more quickly if they repaid the Beaconsfield money, which is tying up nearly double the capital required.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jul 31, 2015 9:33:24 GMT
The linking of the security of the SPVs in case of default rather denies the assertion that they are independent risks.
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jul 31, 2015 10:08:44 GMT
blender Do you mean the scenario of two deals being cross linked so that each offers additional security for the other? (Can't remember which no., but there's been at least 1 of those on FC) If so it just means that if there is an excess on the first recovery after full repayment of cap+int, it is held on account until we know there won't be a shortfall on the second. Similarly if there is a shortfall on the first, any excess on the second can be used to recoup.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jul 31, 2015 10:45:45 GMT
blender Do you mean the scenario of two deals being cross linked so that each offers additional security for the other? (Can't remember which no., but there's been at least 1 of those on FC) If so it just means that if there is an excess on the first recovery after full repayment of cap+int, it is held on account until we know there won't be a shortfall on the second. Similarly if there is a shortfall on the first, any excess on the second can be used to recoup. Thanks Pepperpot. On the current loan in question FC have answered "Yes, cross default clauses are in place across the schemes to give lenders added protection. Those are noted in the legal documentation the borrower has signed." I had assumed that this was a pooling of the security - as with linked business loans on FC where all lenders to all loans are on equal footing if the business defaults on any loan, which could lessen the security on one loan to benefit another. But if it is the retention of excess security on one loan for the benefit of another than that is OK. How do we know how these cross default clauses work, not seeing the contract? There is definitely a linkage and I would like to be sure that only the excess security is transferred.
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jul 31, 2015 11:40:04 GMT
blender Do you mean the scenario of two deals being cross linked so that each offers additional security for the other? (Can't remember which no., but there's been at least 1 of those on FC) If so it just means that if there is an excess on the first recovery after full repayment of cap+int, it is held on account until we know there won't be a shortfall on the second. Similarly if there is a shortfall on the first, any excess on the second can be used to recoup. Thanks Pepperpot. On the current loan in question FC have answered "Yes, cross default clauses are in place across the schemes to give lenders added protection. Those are noted in the legal documentation the borrower has signed." I had assumed that this was a pooling of the security - as with linked business loans on FC where all lenders to all loans are on equal footing if the business defaults on any loan, which could lessen the security on one loan to benefit another. But if it is the retention of excess security on one loan for the benefit of another than that is OK. How do we know how these cross default clauses work, not seeing the contract? There is definitely a linkage and I would like to be sure that only the excess security is transferred. I've not delved any deeper into FC's deals (as I intent to off load most before term) but if there is any similarity with AC deals, the additional cross linked security ranks as a second charge so as not to dilute the primary loan agreement. The PG is then taken on top to cover any potential overall shortfall, 20% was mentioned in the Q&A which applies to each loan so gains weight the more deals there are. I'd guess that structure would be industry standard from what I've seen thus far, but I'm only a student, no authority here... but it's why secured lending is so much more preferable to unsecured 'spread betting', lots of avenues for recovery, as opposed to playing Russian roulette.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,532
Likes: 6,328
|
Post by registerme on Jul 31, 2015 15:20:31 GMT
Not sure if it's been mentioned already but 14655 looks interesting - 9% A+ property loan with a 2% cashback.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 31, 2015 15:34:07 GMT
14697 looks even better .. it's the other £400k of the one snapped up in huge bites yesterday, so better get in earlier this time!
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 609
Likes: 175
|
Post by min on Jul 31, 2015 15:46:33 GMT
14549 looks like it will struggle on Monday. It's an 8th tranche for £375k and only 38% filled after 4 days.
|
|