|
Post by ladywhitenap on Jul 13, 2017 9:05:19 GMT
I have quite a lot of this asset class over on MT and reasonably comfortable with it as such but there is quite a chunk which is about to mature - about an IFISAs worth - so I might well sit this one out on the grounds of over exposure to a single company and its proposed rapid/meteoric growth plans and move into the ABL-IFISA pending more diverse options.
LW
|
|
DiQ
Member of DD Central
Posts: 61
Likes: 48
|
Post by DiQ on Jul 13, 2017 10:06:10 GMT
11.05 and still nothing showing....
|
|
ganymede
Member of DD Central
Posts: 299
Likes: 207
|
Post by ganymede on Jul 13, 2017 10:07:51 GMT
11.05 and still nothing showing.... It's there now
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 13, 2017 10:13:02 GMT
11.05 and still nothing showing.... It's there now Slow uptake so far. I note that all offers < 99.9% for tranche 1 have been sold/removed. This could take some time to fill unless ~6k gets sold/removed from tranche 1 to take the best offer back up to 100.9%.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jul 13, 2017 11:20:01 GMT
The proposed £500,000 loan will be used solely to
acquire further stock (vehicles). Assuming funds of
£500,000 are raised, this will therefore increase the
retail stock valuation by a further c. £600,000.
This is because the Company typically generates a
gross profit margin of c. 20% on each vehicle
sale (hence vehicles acquired in total for
£500,000 have a retail valuation of c. £600,000).
In relation to the debenture and the LTV the
increased retail valuation has been taken into account.
The valuation of the security post loan draw & stock
purchases will be c. £1,550,000 against a
current outstanding total loan amount of £985,000
(64% LTV).
Even if we assume the retail value in the LTV, how do AB get to £1,550,000? Would this not be around £1,200,000
Should this loan default, I would imagine the auction value would be closer to the trade value, suggesting this might be a 100% LTV loan....
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jul 13, 2017 12:26:44 GMT
That's what they did last time, took the LTV against gross retail value instead of book value. And the cost of sales? So if the security is invoked the cars would not be sold at auction? At least we are told straight the basis of the valuation and can make judgements. And at least the loan has security.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 4, 2017 19:23:40 GMT
Hmmm.. so what's the point/benefit of investing new money in this new second tranche, when there's plenty of the first tranche (1000065) currently available on the SM at a discount (i.e. higher yield)?! I still don't get it, still > £5k at a discount. Why buy tranche 2, perhaps: 1) Help loan fill thus aiding borrower & platform 2) Longer duration, but only 5 months longer in a 48 month term 3) Instant Returns - tax free? 4) No risk of default until (or if) loan draws down What gives? I guess it must be 3) and perhaps 4) given that 1) & 2) comes at an effective premium.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Aug 15, 2017 9:29:00 GMT
According to CH a new director was appointed on 9 Aug 2017. That director has several directorships across several loans and platforms.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Aug 15, 2017 9:43:06 GMT
According to CH a new director was appointed on 9 Aug 2017. That director has several directorships across several loans and platforms. Settle, but several doesn't really cut it, multitude is more apt
|
|
stub8535
Member of DD Central
personal opinions only. Not qualified to advise on investment products.
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 945
|
Post by stub8535 on Aug 15, 2017 11:15:48 GMT
Reads like a who's who of abl loanbook. Not in Huddle but suspect that mr k is involved in several of their loan companies to. I do wonder why so many resignations from dissolved companies and appointments to very closely named companies? Maybe reading too much into this though?
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Oct 3, 2017 20:02:33 GMT
Looking at this loan again, it looks to be around 70% LTV using retail value of car stock (that assumes the 2nd loan is used exclusively to buy stock, it doesn't seem the first loan has been)
Loan details state a 20% mark up of wholesale value to arrive at retail value. Assuming wholesale price is similar to forced auction value, then this would put this at around 90% LTV in default and forced sale
|
|
david42
Member of DD Central
Posts: 419
Likes: 346
|
Post by david42 on Oct 3, 2017 21:27:25 GMT
Looking at this loan again, it looks to be around 70% LTV using retail value of car stock (that assumes the 2nd loan is used exclusively to buy stock, it doesn't seem the first loan has been) Loan details state a 20% mark up of wholesale value to arrive at retail value. Assuming wholesale price is similar to forced auction value, then this would put this at around 90% LTV in default and forced sale ... and? Can you find me a 12% loan that is better than 90% LTV in a forced sale? Forced sale valuations are rarely stated. With the quality of many of the valuations we see, 90% LTV for a forced sale is one of the better valuations.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Oct 4, 2017 5:57:51 GMT
Looking at this loan again, it looks to be around 70% LTV using retail value of car stock (that assumes the 2nd loan is used exclusively to buy stock, it doesn't seem the first loan has been) Loan details state a 20% mark up of wholesale value to arrive at retail value. Assuming wholesale price is similar to forced auction value, then this would put this at around 90% LTV in default and forced sale ... and? Can you find me a 12% loan that is better than 90% LTV in a forced sale? Forced sale valuations are rarely stated. With the quality of many of the valuations we see, 90% LTV for a forced sale is one of the better valuations. Im not finding your loans for you! but for example, there is a loan on AB paying 12%, was around 25% LTV on draw down based on a 1CH on existing property and is amortising, so likely much lower LTV now. In a forced sale, even if only half the valuation was reached, your still at 50% LTV, thats before factoring in amortisation. There are several other 12%+ loans on AB that are similar My point is in the sale price is I was being kind in assuming a wholesale price could be achieved for these car assets if in default. Particularly if you believe the credit bubble, a big percentage of this on cars. There is not much headroom here in the assets, if any. If you must invest in car loans, there are some other better structured loans available.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 4, 2017 7:43:58 GMT
I think this discussion misses the point, in that the assets should be valued for security at book value, or purchase price, rather than retail price. Firstly, I always thought that was normal practice. The trade buys cars at auction, and the retail price is the expected consequence of a successful business, not a failed one. Even then, the retail price has to cover the cost of sales, and cannot be the value of the car as an asset. In the event of failure, the trade is not going to buy cars at the retail price which the failed retailer was asking. They will buy max at auction price. This is not really a forced sale, but the normal method of sales in the trade. Dumping a large number of cars will depress the normal action price. What is really wrong here is using the retail price (not even the retail value) to calculate LTV. Use purchase price, please - nobody is fooled.
|
|
|
Post by investorman on Nov 11, 2017 19:29:30 GMT
Was the second loan interest due to be paid yesterday or today?
It is showing as due on the 11th on the dashboard, but on the repayments screen it is showing as due today.
I know there was an issue last month with the standing order apparently. Maybe they are going for 3 out of 3 late payments to start as they mean to go on! Every payment for the first tranche has been on time.
|
|