ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,335 
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 16, 2015 18:52:32 GMT
Theyve got previous on AC, 4 of em, all repaid, though one was extended. Recall some issues. Give it a miss myself But the business is 5 months old? Do you mean the owner? Yes, both directors linked to previous loans. Listed in my upcoming list linked from 1st post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 16, 2015 18:53:00 GMT
Can I ask what happened to the first business? I'm assuming it was liquidated by the owners. : There's a reasonable description of what happened in the Credit Report for the new loan. Yes, I've just this minute read to that point and it's not fully clear who liquidated the old co. But it does say that there was "no significant impact on creditors" IN EDIT But the business is 5 months old? Do you mean the owner? Yes, both directors linked to previous loans. Listed in my upcoming list linked from 1st post. It seems that one of the guarantors is no longer a director, ie there's just the one director.
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Nov 16, 2015 21:07:12 GMT
For #204, I concluded that the 9% rate was due to the security - whilst on the face of it the LTV is 70%+, it is spread over two properties (albeit in the same street) which appear to have reasonable headroom between them. Whilst I can't quite explain it terrible rationally, having two properties does (in some small way) de-risk the security position a little (e.g. you need two bad valuations or two bad sales to realise a loss, all other things being equal).
I've seen this kind of pricing-to-risk in other AC loans.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Nov 17, 2015 8:25:55 GMT
For #204, I concluded that the 9% rate was due to the security - whilst on the face of it the LTV is 70%+, it is spread over two properties (albeit in the same street) which appear to have reasonable headroom between them. Whilst I can't quite explain it terrible rationally, having two properties does (in some small way) de-risk the security position a little (e.g. you need two bad valuations or two bad sales to realise a loss, all other things being equal). I've seen this kind of pricing-to-risk in other AC loans. Haven't read any details on the loan myself, but I don't really see this, as I would have thought selling two properties (even if owned by the same person) would be more expensive than selling one and could possibly have an adverse effect on timescales, or prices. However, I am sure it would be very dependant on specifics, and not the easiest thing to quantify either way really.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 17, 2015 18:19:15 GMT
Pricing to Risk. AC must be very confident in this start-up company to offer this at just 9% with 73%+ LTV. Indeed. With the security essentially 2nd / 3rd charges, and the valuation report for one of them mentioning a modern(ish) extension is showing signs of structural movement, I'm not comfortable with the risk vs reward profile. I've set a bid value to mop up the surplus cash in my MLIA, but I'll be offloading in due course.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 19, 2015 18:30:05 GMT
216 underwriting called.
Another fast tracker?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 19, 2015 18:47:41 GMT
216 underwriting called. Another fast tracker? chris indicated last week that processes have changed such that loans will now only appear in the upcoming list as underwriter funds are called.
|
|
|
|
Post by phlitb on Nov 19, 2015 19:14:34 GMT
#216 has "remembered" my target from when it was pulled in September. I can imagine some people are going to be caught out by that if it draws down quickly
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 20, 2015 15:39:54 GMT
It looks like Loan #204 drew down today. My buy instruction picked up £138.15 of that loan. Since my instruction was to buy more than that, I presume that was the maximum allocated. If so, this loan would appear to have been heavily oversubscribed, quite a contrast to the last one, #211.
Does anyone have any results that would suggest otherwise?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 20, 2015 15:51:49 GMT
ditto £138.15  |
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 20, 2015 16:12:08 GMT
#216 has "remembered" my target from when it was pulled in September. I can imagine some people are going to be caught out by that if it draws down quickly : Have you touched your 'remembered' target since writing the above? If not, is it still live? AC have just sent out an email saying all prior targets have been removed, and I don't know whether that's based on their earlier similar statement that turned out not to be true or whether they've responded to recent feedback and made sure that those targets really were cancelled.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 20, 2015 17:06:44 GMT
70% LTV but 90-day MV with vacant possession is 102% LTV (with usual +/-15% tolerance on RICs survey). I think I can skip this one. From my reading of the Credit Report, it would appear that the valuation was based on a rental income amount that is significantly less than what is actually being paid. If my interpretation is correct, the valuation should be very conservative. Does anyone else see it that way? Or have I got it all wrong?
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Nov 20, 2015 17:10:10 GMT
ditto £138.15 Likewise, £138.15, which really quite surprised me. Looks like it was rather popular, although I suspect that's more to do with recent repayments and few new homes for the cash rather than this being a stonkingly good loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by phlitb on Nov 20, 2015 18:59:46 GMT
#216 has "remembered" my target from when it was pulled in September. I can imagine some people are going to be caught out by that if it draws down quickly : Have you touched your 'remembered' target since writing the above? If not, is it still live? AC have just sent out an email saying all prior targets have been removed, and I don't know whether that's based on their earlier similar statement that turned out not to be true or whether they've responded to recent feedback and made sure that those targets really were cancelled. I've just checked and as per the email received my target had now been disabled. So hopefully the same will apply to everyone that you have to create a new buy instruction to participate
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 21, 2015 4:08:05 GMT
ditto £138.15 Likewise, £138.15, which really quite surprised me. Looks like it was rather popular, although I suspect that's more to do with recent repayments and few new homes for the cash rather than this being a stonkingly good loan. Another contributor to the low allocation could be that if AC used the QAA to underwrite the loan they might have released the minimum allowed to the punters, holding back the other 50% (£75k) to give the QAA some income toward the 3.75% obligation. They could hang onto that 50% until just before the next drawdown they intend to use the QAA to underwrite, knowing full well that there's still plenty of unfulfiilled demand for #204 so they could turn the #204 holding into cash very quickly. And the QAA then can repeat the process with the next loan. Full marks to AC for thinking of using the QAA in this way -- it's a brilliant technique! I also note that my GBBA picked up a bit of #204, so some of the parts released at drawdown have gone to the GBBA. (My small experimental GBBA is fully deployed for the first time since I made my investment ten weeks ago.)
|
|
