8 months for a receiver to be appointed?

bababill as a newbie you may not know what ilmoro means by 'pink access'.  He means access to the "Private board for Assetz Capital members only" - see instructions at the top of the Assetz Capital board page for how to get access.

bababill  if the loan you referred to is number 84, a planning decision since the loan has drawn has rendered the security valuation at the time the loan was applied for as null & void, and has almost certainly reduced the value of the security, possibly by a substantial percentage.  Going down the receiver route will crystallise that loss of value, and as such delaying action whilst the implications were worked through with the borrower and their consultants was the right course of action.  A second planning application was developed and submitted a couple of months ago, but this appears to have been inadequate for detailed consideration by the local council and has now been removed from the council's website.

And don't forget receiver fees have to be paid for out of the sale proceeds, so an overly hasty appointment of receivers could be a costly mistake.  Plan on most distressed loans taking around 2 years to be brought to a conclusion.

Quick count makes it 13 in default, though some of those are only technical (ie extensions at default rate), 2 have been brought out, 1 is potentially about to, 1 will be added to the technicals, couple of covenant breaches but not defaulted. No official capital losses, though the ones youve listed are pretty guarantied except #41 which I think will actually be ok.

Thank you for pointing this out. Very interesting... Would this apply for the other loans that are/were in default?

All the bridging loans were tradeable after the initial 'default' for a significant periods. Loans that were suspended immediately were those where the company went belly up, #57, #70 & #146 so AC had to act quickly to secure lenders position before others did (and fast lenders bailed). Some missed loan repayments for a while #39, #41, #68 (#35?) but remained tradeable for a short period. #123 was suspended immediately as was #45 (where AC have been quick to introduce LPA appointment to a vote) So as you can see its quite variable how loans have been handled when in default.

Edit: Further to Ton's post also Liverpool BL was recovered & #68 has just been managed out of default.

I take a contrarian view to perhaps the majority of lenders on p2p platforms, most of whom won't have discovered this forum and the advice within it.  I expect capital losses to the extent I expect to make no more than 6% after losses over an economic cycle.

The rates of 9 to 13% typical of secured asset lending (AC, TC, SS, FS, Abl) with risk of capital losses should be compared to those platforms with strong provision funds (RS, ZP, W&Co) with rates of less than 6%, and in some cases substantially less depending on loan term.  The extra yield you are getting at AC etc is to compensate you for future capital losses.   Also worth noting the long run yield after losses at FC on a fully diversified portfolio is around 6.5%.

Any yield over 13% implies a much elevated risk of capital loss. 

I avoid a few loans I consider to be higher risk (just a few loans on AC but most loans on TC) - usually due to weaker than average security, but beyond that the strategy is diversification both between platforms and between loans on a platform.   Flipping loans is the wrong strategy IMO, as that is implying a fixed level of diversification, far better is when the free cash for investing has been exhausted to sell part of a loan holding to diversify into a new loan.

Its a simple decision - is a yield of 6% after losses worth the effort of managing a portfolio of an absolute minimum of 200 loans ?   For me it is, as I'm overweight in property, already have a substantial amount in equities via my SIPP, and I'm not keen on bonds.