bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 15, 2017 9:26:39 GMT
<snip> I actually believed them when they said that the turbine merely needed connection to the grid.... It did just require connecting to the grid plus the loan was for other group projects. Problem was the connection never happened and the loan effectively funded those other group projects - cash flow perhaps and investors lost 70% - including me. I only read the first part of the report, silly me, so I now read and carry out more in-depth DD and often come to the conclusion that many offerings are speculative rather than loans. It's going to take more than a following wind 12% to recoup that 70% loss although I expect Whitehaven, Wimbledon, etc to 'beat' that loss.
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336 
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Dec 15, 2017 9:37:01 GMT
<snip> I actually believed them when they said that the turbine merely needed connection to the grid.... It did just require connecting to the grid plus the loan was for other group projects. Problem was the connection never happened and the loan effectively funded those other group projects - cash flow perhaps and investors lost 70% - including me. I only read the first part of the report, silly me, so I now read and carry out more in-depth DD and often come to the conclusion that many offerings are speculative rather than loans. It's going to take more than a following wind 12% to recoup that 70% loss although I expect Whitehaven, Wimbledon, etc to 'beat' that loss. Were there not a list of faults with the turbine? Anyway, that's history now but Whitehaven is most definitely not over yet. I expect FS to let it drag on as long as possible but I won't be accepting less that my capital back on tranche five and I know I'm not alone.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 15, 2017 9:47:45 GMT
Like others I praise FS when they get it right and raise concerns where there seems to be a problem with OUR money. When I joined FS I read concerns about "fast and loose" property loans so to such forum members all I can say is "Thank You".
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 15, 2017 10:01:04 GMT
Were there not a list of faults with the turbine? Anyway, that's history now but Whitehaven is most definitely not over yet. I expect FS to let it drag on as long as possible but I won't be accepting less that my capital back on tranche five and I know I'm not alone. Yes there were apparently turbine faults but IIRC this was only disclosed after default - possibly due to deterioration. The loan as presented '....The installation is complete awaiting final connection to the grid and activation....'No mention in the valuer's report of any problems. Anyway, time to move on and it probably won't be with FS in my case. Not that I'll be missed as there are plenty of others fazed, like myself originally, by the headline 12%.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 15, 2017 11:34:24 GMT
As I see it - until we know how much de-contaminating this land will cost it is impossible to value it. Granted one can invest and wait for re-financing but sooner or later this won't be forthcoming. I think this project is about as likely to succeed as building a freezer plant for pork scratchings in the Israeli-held part of the Sinai Desert...
|
|
izigor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 162
Likes: 86
|
Post by izigor on Dec 16, 2017 5:47:14 GMT
"I think this project is about as likely to succeed as building a freezer plant for pork scratchings in the Israeli-held part of the Sinai Desert..." Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated. I don't think the above would have much more success in the Egyptian part of the desert either. Now the thing is, I understand the exit strategy is reliant on the project's progress. However the security itself isn't and I do get the basis of the risk here, in that, if I'm reliant on the underlying security, then I'm also reliant, on what we've been told about the security by the platform and also on the recovery process. I'm very new to FS and I cannot ignore the grumble (in the gist that if there's smoke, I have to at least consider there may be fire). For this reason I'm out. Well while I say, I'm out .. I am going to put a tiny bit of money (probably just the minimum) to gauge some experience of the platform. I was only investing in L before but they are not as good anymore. Thanks again for all contribution.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 16, 2017 21:02:13 GMT
I actually believed them when they said that the turbine merely needed connection to the grid.... It did just require connecting to the grid plus the loan was for other group projects. Problem was the connection never happened and the loan effectively funded those other group projects - cash flow perhaps and investors lost 70% - including me. Were there not a list of faults with the turbine? Yes there were apparently turbine faults but IIRC this was only disclosed after default - possibly due to deterioration. The loan as presented '....The installation is complete awaiting final connection to the grid and activation....'No mention in the valuer's report of any problems. The turbine turned out to require more than just connection. If that's all it had required then IMHO it wouldn't have been difficult to find someone else to take it on and do that, and the bulk of the investors' capital would have been recovered. The fact that the problems that turned up later were AIUI totally unexpected points out the real issue -- we can't rely on the VRs produced by professionals. And if the VRs aren't reliable, then the idea that the borrower doesn't matter since all that's important is the security goes out the window as well. So where does that leave us? 
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 16, 2017 22:46:35 GMT
<snip> The fact that the problems that turned up later were AIUI totally unexpected points out the real issue -- we can't rely on the VRs produced by professionals. And if the VRs aren't reliable, then the idea that the borrower doesn't matter since all that's important is the security goes out the window as well. So where does that leave us? Highly suspicious at the very least I would have thought and the need to do in-depth DD when inclined to do so. What I no longer do is simply accept any valuation as presented by the platform. The problem is that DD is very time consuming and often leads to relevant material facts being uncovered which should IMO have been disclosed. Of course the track record of the borrower is relevant whatever the platform(s) may preach. I've come across goodness knows how many undesirable borrowers who have a string of failed businesses behind them - no doubt still being chased by creditors. Fortunately DD Central is proving invaluable in many areas. Trying to be realistic, all the nonsense regarding a prospective borrower being a HNW individual, low LTV's based upon spurious doubtful VR's, etc I'm always reminding myself why pay 20% when if the P2P proposal was that great then there are far lower interest rates available elsewhere. The dash for growth by some P2P platforms using other folks funds is not commendable.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Dec 17, 2017 8:05:19 GMT
exactly!
|
|
|
|
Post by charlata on Dec 17, 2017 9:54:44 GMT
The dash for growth by some P2P platforms using other folks funds is not commendable. The dash for yield by some investors is equally dubious.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 17, 2017 16:56:01 GMT
I'm always reminding myself why pay 20% when if the P2P proposal was that great then there are far lower interest rates available elsewhere. The usual reason given for paying these high interest rates is the speed with which a P2P loan can be arranged. We've seen enough evidence, when borrowers are trying to refi away from p2p platforms, that the 'mainstream' lenders offering lower interest rates take their time doing their DD and legal work, so getting a loan from those sources doesn't seem to be possible in a hurry. Having said that, though, it always raises a bit of a warning flag with me when a borrower has to renew a P2P loan because they don't seem to have been able to arrange a refi at a lower rate, as that suggests the security isn't as robust, or the borrower isn't as reliable, as I would like. In some cases, of course, there are legitimate reasons why the borrower hasn't managed to arrange a refi and thus wants to renew their P2P loan. ISTM that the most common one of those is that the borrower is waiting for their planning application to be approved as that would improve the value of their security make their refi attempt more likely to succeed -- and at a lower interest rate. In those cases, if the borrower can raise the funds needed to renew their P2P loan from a source other than just a bigger P2P loan, I tend to interpret their willingness to put more money into their project as a positive sign and and that makes me more likely to support the renewal loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by wottalot on Dec 19, 2017 19:53:11 GMT
It did just require connecting to the grid plus the loan was for other group projects. Problem was the connection never happened and the loan effectively funded those other group projects - cash flow perhaps and investors lost 70% - including me. I only read the first part of the report, silly me, so I now read and carry out more in-depth DD and often come to the conclusion that many offerings are speculative rather than loans. It's going to take more than a following wind 12% to recoup that 70% loss although I expect Whitehaven, Wimbledon, etc to 'beat' that loss. Were there not a list of faults with the turbine? Anyway, that's history now but Whitehaven is most definitely not over yet. I expect FS to let it drag on as long as possible but I won't be accepting less that my capital back on tranche five and I know I'm not alone. I'm afraid the Irish wind turbine was a watershed moment for me, and l'll never trust FS with a property loan again. They showed absolutely no signs of being competent in enforcing basic safeguards regarding the security of the loan i.e. immediate completion of the only real item of value underpinning it.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Apr 25, 2018 11:00:37 GMT
New 4th facility of this just announced, with the update below. Update: 24/4/18 Heads of terms have been signed to sell the land to a hedge-fund backed consortium, the selling price being sufficient to repay all loans. We have sight of the unsigned terms and have been advised that signed copies are now with solicitors. fundingsecure would it not be prudent to also have sight of the signed heads of terms? If they're already in existence, could the solicitors not supply a copy of them? |
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 25, 2018 13:05:55 GMT
damn right it would - anybody with half an onze of business acument would also have checked the solicitor on the documents, then validated the practice and then phoned them via an independently obtained number and spoken to the chap or chappesse concerned...FS do you remember Whitehaven?
And here is an excerpt from an earlier post of mine
If there is some excuse for this sale not going ahead there will be a lot of not very happy bunnies...
Just had a quick nibble on the Rolex Watches - I am a tad more confident in that loan.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Apr 26, 2018 3:20:05 GMT
update to my last post - the below is from a legal site specialising in property transactions
and the ones FS have seen aren't even signed...
Now I am really worried about this one - pass me the Smutty Stick
Gordon Bennett!
|
|
