hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Feb 15, 2018 15:06:49 GMT
I don't understand this borrower's tactics.
What has he to gain from poor communication with his lenders. He has now destroyed his reputation in the P2P world and is unlikely to ever get anybody to lend to him again, as well as losing all his current projects he has borrowed against.
Amongst all this, he recently tried to borrow for another project on Col but failed due to his current poor standing in the P2P world.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,461
|
Post by jlend on Feb 15, 2018 16:00:03 GMT
I don't understand this borrower's tactics.
What has he to gain from poor communication with his lenders. He has now destroyed his reputation in the P2P world and is unlikely to ever get anybody to lend to him again, as well as losing all his current projects he has borrowed against.
Amongst all this, he recently tried to borrow for another project on Col but failed due to his current poor standing in the P2P world.
Agreed. It does feel like there are a small number of borrowers with multiple loans that overstretch themselves, run into issues and then have trouble communicating.... The wind turbine borrower on AC also springs to mind... I do think platforms need to be mindful of this. Easy for me to say in hindsight...
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 15, 2018 16:21:24 GMT
Easy for me to say in hindsight... Not just hindsight, at the time our borrower had downed tools on Bolly in a dispute with the previous lender and lost the initial sales and the valuation flip on P1 purchase to MV was, shall we say, unseemly. For prudence I also worked on assumption he may have had some kind of connection to P1 part-build bought out of receivership (note - I believe this was rebutted by MT at the time). So from the off I've limited my exposure to this borrower especially after costing Ed all that chocolate back in August 2017 (although I was suckered in a bit more by the retained interest of P2).
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 15, 2018 19:47:42 GMT
Agreed. There were any number of question marks about this borrower even before we knew about the mysterious arson attack on a previous development. The borrower paid well below the value of the loan for the site and we were told he had acquired the site "at substantial discount from the site’s true value" due to "contacts". (Which prompted me to ask at the beginning of this thread whether the borrower had any connection with the previous distressed owners. We were told he hadn't.) Whatever the position, doubts on that, the reluctance of his previous lender, and the prodigious number of new companies set up within a very short period, was enough to ring bells that kept me well away from all of his loans. Collateral likely had a near miss with his fourth attempted loan - which had to be pulled when lenders didn't like the story. The immediate question is how can the maximum be recovered from the mess of these sites apparently all bought below their "true value" due to his fortunate contacts. Particular shame for those who have bought parts of these loans in the past few days. We then need to ask how something that wasn't entirely unpredictable can be prevented from happening again. There needs to be better DD by the platform, more effort in selecting valuers likely to give realist valuations, and a lot more detailed information given well in advance so that lenders can do their own DD. Otherwise the prospects don't look good. Risk we understand but accidents waiting to happen are something else.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,461
|
Post by jlend on Feb 15, 2018 20:32:24 GMT
Easy for me to say in hindsight... Not just hindsight, at the time our borrower had downed tools on Bolly in a dispute with the previous lender and lost the initial sales and the valuation flip on P1 purchase to MV was, shall we say, unseemly. For prudence I also worked on assumption he may have had some kind of connection to P1 part-build bought out of receivership (note - I believe this was rebutted by MT at the time). So from the off I've limited my exposure to this borrower especially after costing Ed all that chocolate back in August 2017 (although I was suckered in a bit more by the retained interest of P2). Agreed. My post was a bit of dry humour as with quite a few of my posts😀 I find it helps me stay chilled when I read some of the updates we get from platforms in general not MT specifically. I find p2p a very strange industry a lot of the time....
|
|
mikeymike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 76
Likes: 77
|
Post by mikeymike on Feb 16, 2018 2:13:20 GMT
A second (?) charge was registered at companies house in December 17 by a non p2p finance house. Link to CH is on DD Central. It would seem the borrower is a bit short of funds at present with this and the COL loan currently being funded. So three loans on MT and one on Coll (and any others??)! This is getting really hard to keep diversification level high enough. At least with FC there was identification of borrowers which allowed the possibility of dd on them. I get the concept of the asset is everything but only when the valuations are realistic and based on fire-sale and the veracity of information given is checked and not assumed. Without this we are back to the FC casino model. But compare the old FC loss model: Across the platform the average risk of default for each risk band is 0.6% for A+ loans, 1.5% for A loans, 2.3% for B loans, 3.3% for C loans, 5.0% for D loans, and 8.0% for E loans and average recoveries are 42% of the defaulted amount with the default rates here and on Ldy one wonders why we aren't getting the 17% – 22% interest rates. Until recently I was very happy with MT even though it was incredibly slow to invest in but the MTAS loans have knocked that back esp as they were the only ones which I broke my own diversification rules on due to the MT sales pitch and the illusion of secured borrowing. Still learning how to make the most of this board and avoid falling prey to the fear traps
|
|
|
Post by notascooby on Feb 21, 2018 20:49:41 GMT
Like others on this forum I am unsettled by the brief comments in the updates by MT. Setting aside the need to protect their legal position, mentioning that they have spoken weekly with the Quantity Surveyor but had not had a satisfactory report from them since early January seems just silly. Who works for who?
|
|
johni
Member of DD Central
Posts: 368
Likes: 329
|
Post by johni on Feb 21, 2018 21:03:20 GMT
I have read this differently the borrower has not provided required info to QS or MT. As such QS has been unable to complete there work so now MT are taking the appropriate action.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Feb 21, 2018 22:15:14 GMT
Here and on the Boll****** loan the principal fault seems to lie with the borrower, and perhaps also with MT for not acting sooner, before the sites ran into LTV issues?
Some borrowers do have a history of not finishing off projects - maybe thinking they can force a low fire-sale price and buy back at less than the loan cost via some thinly disguised distant company? Who knows. Has this borrower given personal guarantees? Has he any net wealth or does he owe many creditors?
P2P works via the internet. His dealings will surely now become more widely assessed. MT seem to have cut him some slack (maybe too much) to give every opportunity for project advancement.
Investors have sources of information. They have memories. If a project runs into genuine problems - these risks we have to accept. When multiple projects stall we are entitled to ask if there is a whiff of deliberation.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 1,474
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 21, 2018 22:41:40 GMT
<snip> P2P works via the internet. His dealings will surely now become more widely assessed. <snip> Oh surely not - the borrower's background has nothing to do with it. It's all to do with the conveniently inflated to 70% LTV surely.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Mar 24, 2018 20:31:39 GMT
Hi MoneyThing, when this loan was defaulted on 26/2 we were told "The Administrator will put together a revised completion plan within the next three weeks for consideration". On Monday it'll be four weeks since that update. Please can you advise if the completion plan has been received? Some insight in to the plan going forward would be appreciated.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Mar 28, 2018 7:55:26 GMT
Although no comment on this thread from the things, the following update has just been posted:
The administrator’s report that was expected this week has been delayed due to the weather conditions earlier this month, which delayed the teams from making their on-site assessments. The report is now expected next week.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 8, 2018 13:22:22 GMT
Although no comment on this thread from the things, the following update has just been posted: The administrator’s report that was expected this week has been delayed due to the weather conditions earlier this month, which delayed the teams from making their on-site assessments. The report is now expected next week. Promise not honoured. Sorry, I see it was just an expectation.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Apr 10, 2018 16:04:52 GMT
Hi MoneyThing , you know the administrator’s report that was due last week? It is now this week. Has it been received? It would give some confidence to have sight of it, together with the completion report.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Apr 13, 2018 9:33:05 GMT
Update on site now
|
|