|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Oct 1, 2016 19:01:31 GMT
Ed, is there a way we can have a method of investing an equal amount (up to the limit of course) in each tranche with a single bid step please.
This would make life a lot easier for bidders and should reduce the load on the website.
Thanks
LW
|
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Oct 1, 2016 20:39:15 GMT
Ed, is there a way we can have a method of investing an equal amount (up to the limit of course) in each tranche with a single bid step please. This would make life a lot easier for bidders and should reduce the load on the website. Thanks LW Evening, I agree that this would be useful, however for the time being it is not possible with the platform as it stands I'm afraid. We do have on the development road map a better system for handling amortising loans rather than the work around we have at the moment. No ETAs at the moment but we will address it in due course. Please bare bear with us.  Regards, Ed
|
|
ali
Member of DD Central
Posts: 313 
Likes: 311
|
Post by ali on Oct 1, 2016 20:39:34 GMT
I suspect that would be too difficult to do (especially by Monday afternoon). What MoneyThing might want to consider, however, is staggering the bid starting times by 1 minute or something which wouldn't be anything like as convenient, but should at least mean that we don't have to worry about all of tranche 9 going while we're busy bidding on the first 8. |
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Oct 1, 2016 20:45:29 GMT
I suspect that would be too difficult to do (especially by Monday afternoon). What MoneyThing might want to consider, however, is staggering the bid starting times by 1 minute or something which wouldn't be anything like as convenient, but should at least mean that we don't have to worry about all of tranche 9 going while we're busy bidding on the first 8. The bid restrictions of late have been a little out of kilter because of the recent large amounts of uninvested funds following the Cardiff loan repayment. Now that a large proportion of these funds have been reinvested or withdrawn I hope that the bid limits we have applied on these loans should allow a bit of breathing space to be able to bid more leisurely again without the FFF. Fingers crossed anyway...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 1, 2016 20:59:54 GMT
Ed, is there a way we can have a method of investing an equal amount (up to the limit of course) in each tranche with a single bid step please. This would make life a lot easier for bidders and should reduce the load on the website. Thanks LW Evening, I agree that this would be useful, however for the time being it is not possible with the platform as it stands I'm afraid. We do have on the development road map a better system for handling amortising loans rather than the work around we have at the moment. No ETAs at the moment but we will address it in due course. Please bare bear with us. Regards, Ed I see your'e learning  What have you done with the Shuang. He'd have had that coded over breakfast. Have you given him ... time off, a holiday? Desist such charitable behaviour! Next think we know you wont expect the chickens to lay eggs! 
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Oct 1, 2016 21:31:53 GMT
I've read the F&P prospectus and the MT commentary text several times, and I still don't really understand this set-up.
Am I correct in understanding that D***y themselves neither grow the grapes that are used in their product, nor do they actually manufacture their product? That the product is actually made by F***** P*** F*** (W***** E***** W****y) under contract? How is F***** P*** F*** in any sense a 'bonded warehouse'?
Are D**** essentially just finance, brand-building and marketing, and wholly dependent on third parties for the quality of their raw materials and the quality of their finished product (and hence its reputation)?
The fifth paragraph of the Sponsor's Report (page 5 of the Info pack) states (my boldening)
"The loan will be secured by debenture of all the assets of D**** W*** L****** which is the manufacturer and an inter-company guarantee from D**** F*** E****** L******, the holding company. This secure method of storage will enable us to monitor and control the stock to ensure that the present loan never exceeds 50% of the value of the stock held by the company at any time. "
What secure method of storage is being referred to? This statement is a complete non-sequitur. Indeed, I found most of the Information Pack seemed more designed to obscure the fundamentals of the borrower's operation and the nature of the lenders' security than to elucidate it.
Is it just me, or does anybody else find it unclear? Could anybody (Moneything? pleeease?) shed some light.
|
|
|
|
Post by moneymagnet on Oct 2, 2016 0:53:41 GMT
D***y was involved with Seedrs a while back and their explanation of how D***y works and why is much clearer. A quick Google search should find it. Having worked in the wine and spirits industry, I can see the advantages producing wine without owning a vineyard or winery. I worked at an English vineyard for a short time and one year, due to bad weather, their harvest was virtually unusable. However, other vineyards in other parts of the country had much better harvests. Knowing from the start that you're going to get grapes from a number of vineyards, as opposed to just one, could be a significant advantage. Large brands in the industry already blend grapes from different vineyards to guarantee consistency from year to year. In addition, many vineyards have no winery and send their grapes to wineries to be made into wine for them. Conversely, many wineries make some or all of their wine from grapes grown in vineyards they don't own. I find this offering from MT very intriguing but like you, baldpate, I would like more clear info on how the business works especially in relation to this loan. I assume the secure method of storage is a bonded warehouse at W***** E***** W****y but I didn't see that term used in the information pack. |
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 909
Likes: 456
|
Post by spiral on Oct 2, 2016 6:44:57 GMT
Fingers crossed anyway... Ah, so this is what is meant by FCA protection!
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 2, 2016 7:23:31 GMT
For any storage or processing facility to be approved to operate as a customs bonded warehouse (thereby postponing tax / duty liability), it must provide secure storage for its contents and rigorous stock movement records. I assume that's what is being referred to.
From the loan preamble: "Their current stock in production has a value of £700,000 is held in a bonded warehouse by a third party, F***** P*** F***."
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 2, 2016 9:20:55 GMT
There seems to be a problem with the numbers. 9 tranches of £33,333 sums to £299,997, or as near to £300,000 as makes no difference. Against an asset value of £800,000 this is an LTV of 37.5%, not 50% as stated. Am I missing something, or is either the asset value or the LTV incorrect? Edit: I see that I am indeed missing something - there will be a subsequent second advance of £100,000. However it is stated that the LTV will be unaffected, as this will be secured against additional stock, which suggests to me that the day 1 asset value is £600,000. Can MoneyThing clarify this point? |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 2, 2016 9:29:12 GMT
I wonder how much value, in reality, there is in the step-in rights. If the business has gone belly up, MT or similar managing the completion of the production process with a long tail of 2.5-3.5 years I'm not sure would be viable. obviously they would contract someone to do it, but if the business has gone belly up becausae e.g. it's unable to trade profitably, brand name has been 'impacted' etc., then it would seem likely that the in production stock would have significantly lower end sale value. I'd also assume - rightly or wrongly - that a sale of in-flight production stock to another sparkling wine producer would not be realistic (unless to a lower end producer).
Also: who in reality would have first dibs ? If the owners of the bonded warehouse were due monies, since they would have physical control over the assets would they not have to be made good first ?
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Oct 2, 2016 9:42:27 GMT
moneymagnet , thanks for your post and in particular to the seedrs link - the seedrs presentation makes the D**** operation a whole lot clearer. Pity the F&P pitch wasn't equally clear. I still have a problem with the 'bonded warehouse' concept as it applies to this product. And the valuation. From what little I understand, the production of these fine sparkling wines is a lengthy process, and isn't over when the wine is first bottled. At what point does ther product become 'bonded', and subject to the consequent tight inventory controls? We are told that stock is valued at 'cost price'- but with such a complex & lengthy production process the 'cost price' must be an ever increasing one (I doubt that bonded storage of even the 'finished' product is cost free!), and will presumably vary for different vintages? Seems to me valuation of the stock - which is our security -and the relevance of that valuation in a default situation (how much is a tank of fermenting grape juice worth? or a finished bottle of fizz for a brand that has itself just gone 'pop') are the weak points. Edit: crossed with bracknellboy - I see he has concerns similar to mine.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Oct 2, 2016 9:47:34 GMT
I wonder how much value, in reality, there is in the step-in rights. If the business has gone belly up, MT or similar managing the completion of the production process with a long tail of 2.5-3.5 years I'm not sure would be viable. obviously they would contract someone to do it, but if the business has gone belly up because e.g. it's unable to trade profitably, brand name has been 'impacted' etc., then it would seem likely that the in production stock would have significantly lower end sale value. I'd also assume - rightly or wrongly - that a sale of in-flight production stock to another sparkling wine producer would not be realistic (unless to a lower end producer). Also: who in reality would have first dibs ? If the owners of the bonded warehouse were due monies, since they would have physical control over the assets would they not have to be made good first ? The information pack says "Loan will never exceed 50% of the value of stock at cost." (my emphasis). I was also wondering about what returns are available in a fire-sale, but we should have an additional margin from the value added during the production process.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 2, 2016 9:53:04 GMT
There seems to be a problem with the numbers. 9 tranches of £33,333 sums to £299,997, or as near to £300,000 as makes no difference. Against an asset value of £800,000 this is an LTV of 37.5%, not 50% as stated. Am I missing something, or is either the asset value or the LTV incorrect? Edit: I see that I am indeed missing something - there will be a subsequent second advance of £100,000. However it is stated that the LTV will be unaffected, as this will be secured against additional stock, which suggests to me that the day 1 asset value is £600,000. Can MoneyThing clarify this point? Last tranche is £3 more to bring the loan to £300k 50% is the max LTV which MT tend to use as the displayed LTV on multiple tranche/phased drawdown loans for simplicity, with actuall LTV in text/docs. eg BPF526, displayed LTV 59.5%, actual 28.1% LTV will actually fluctuate over the course of the loan as value of stock increases though the production process, generally falling month on month. According to the figures provided, value of the stock at Sept Month end is £900k so LTV has already potentially decreased (might be phasing issues with late drawdown). Factor in cash as well and LTV is in the 20's.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Oct 2, 2016 10:12:15 GMT
I wonder how much value, in reality, there is in the step-in rights. If the business has gone belly up, MT or similar managing the completion of the production process with a long tail of 2.5-3.5 years I'm not sure would be viable. obviously they would contract someone to do it, but if the business has gone belly up because e.g. it's unable to trade profitably, brand name has been 'impacted' etc., then it would seem likely that the in production stock would have significantly lower end sale value. I'd also assume - rightly or wrongly - that a sale of in-flight production stock to another sparkling wine producer would not be realistic (unless to a lower end producer). Also: who in reality would have first dibs ? If the owners of the bonded warehouse were due monies, since they would have physical control over the assets would they not have to be made good first ? The information pack says "Loan will never exceed 50% of the value of stock at cost." (my emphasis). I was also wondering about what returns are available in a fire-sale, but we should have an additional margin from the value added during the production process. get that it is 'at cost' (though what 'cost' means might be a little subject to subjective judgement, since maybe it is cost of production so far (certainly not raw material cost)). Sparkling wine is a premium product with branding being an important part of the final sale value. If the borrower gets into trouble because they e.g. can't produce profitably at the volumes they are selling in (for whatever combination of reasons) then I wonder what value the step in rights would end up really having: would there even be a resale market or would it have to be managed through the production process and would that have any value if the borrower has failed to make it work.
|
|
