GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Oct 30, 2017 13:19:12 GMT
I am invested in this loan and I am neither wanting to buy more nor sell any of what I've got.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,855
Likes: 1,856
|
Post by archie on Oct 30, 2017 14:38:15 GMT
Update on the Support pages.
|
|
applets
Member of DD Central
Posts: 125
Likes: 227
|
Post by applets on Oct 30, 2017 14:56:40 GMT
A useful update and much better communication from MT today. Well done Ed.
|
|
slush
Member of DD Central
Here to learn. Please be gentle.
Posts: 79
Likes: 38
|
Post by slush on Oct 30, 2017 15:00:24 GMT
Yes, very useful. Hopefully some level normality will resume. Thank you Ed.
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 630
Likes: 768
|
Post by m2btj on Oct 30, 2017 15:08:19 GMT
The statement raises more questions than it answers. I would like to know the relationship between the new company S**** + (formerly B***) & the borrower P********* R*********** C*******. The said director appears to have his finger in many pies.....too many for my liking.
<link naming borrower and principle redacted>
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Oct 30, 2017 16:18:02 GMT
The statement raises more questions than it answers. I would like to know the relationship between the new company S**** + (formerly B***) & the borrower P********* R*********** C*******. The said director appears to have his finger in many pies.....too many for my liking. Mod Hat Off/ Agreed, but the director and sole principle of the borrower doesn't seem to have any directorial relationship with new company S**** +, although using their letterhead. I am not sure the formerly B*** bit is correct as it seems to be a new company, but I don't know where the director of the new company figures in this at all, although as it's only been incorporated since 13 October, maybe they are just a 'temporary/holding' director?
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,461
|
Post by jlend on Oct 30, 2017 16:28:50 GMT
Interesting that communications are via the old and new architect company rather than the company that holds the security of the MT loan if only to keep things clean
|
|
toast
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 90
|
Post by toast on Oct 30, 2017 16:50:23 GMT
[...] I don't know where the director of the new company figures in this at all [...] The director of S**** was previously at B*** (non-director position)...
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Oct 30, 2017 16:57:55 GMT
I don't think it is derogatory or smug to use the term sheeples. There are a lot of SPIVs who panic easily. To be honest, if there were fewer investors, P2P sites would have to offer a higher rate of interest to more level headed investors.
I don't really get the mass panic that occurs at the mearest whiff of bad news. If you think the asset is reasonably likely to get most of your money back in a quick sale you should expect a fair amount of temporary paper losses as a normal part of the process.
The secondary market is there to provide the luxury of possible liquidity (although no discounts = no liquidity) not so that frightful investors can panic sell or implement some strategy where they think they might outsmart other investors.
And there is one poster, an administrator of this forum, you know who you are, who has several times posted comments in a fashion that is 100% guaranteed to spook the sheeple. In saying that, I am not sure if there is a way to impart a non positive update without spooking them.
To be honest, I find it a anxious investors dabbling in high risk investments irritating, but that's my problem and I'm trying to be more understanding.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 786
Likes: 787
|
Post by eeyore on Oct 30, 2017 18:01:25 GMT
The statement raises more questions than it answers. I share that opinion. I would have thought that the construction industry was well aware that when a construction/development company gets into difficulty, an associated architectural practice would not necessarily also have to be blamed (and vice versa) - surely, it happens so often that the industry will take it in its stride. Why therefore has the B*** architectural practice decided to go into liquidation? Quote: " [H]owever the brand has been unfairly tarnished by the negative issues surrounding ***; as a result to protect the reputation of the B*** team, the company was recently put into voluntary liquidation." It all seems a somewhat extreme measure to me. The worry I have (with a non-trivial investment in this loan but not listed for sale) is why the letter to MT made no mention of the borrower company (P***** R*****) which is or was a subsidiary of B***. Does the new architectural practice (S****+A*******) now own the borrower company or is it still an asset of the company now in liquidation? At the very least we need to know the current status of our borrower (P***** R*****). PS: If you're going to put a web-site address on your letterhead, at least make sure there's something that responds better than "server not found"!
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 30, 2017 18:22:56 GMT
The worry I have (with a non-trivial investment in this loan but not listed for sale) is why the letter to MT made no mention of the borrower company (P***** R*****) which is or was a subsidiary of B***. Does the new architectural practice (S****+A*******) now own the borrower company or is it still an asset of the company now in liquidation? At the very least we need to know the current status of our borrower (P***** R*****). P***** R***** has a single director who is the 100% shareholder of the company. It is not a subsidiary of any other company nor has it been. The ownership transfered to the current director in Feb 2016. The MT listing which states P***** R***** is the development arm of B*** unfortunately tended to imply a relationship between the two companies that doesn't exist apart from a common director/shareholder. (i.e. The liquidation of B*** has no direct impact on the corporate structure of P***** R***** ) He is also the sole director of B*** and a 50% shareholder in B*** via a separate company of which he is the 100% shareholder. The implication of today's letter is P***** R***** was a client of B*** and is now a client of the NewCo. Disclosure: I have held a stake in this loan since launch, have never listed it for sale on the SM, and have no intention of doing so in the short/medium term.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,461
|
Post by jlend on Oct 30, 2017 18:28:44 GMT
The statement raises more questions than it answers. I share that opinion. I would have thought that the construction industry was well aware that when a construction/development company gets into difficulty, an associated architectural practice would not necessarily also have to be blamed (and vice versa) - surely, it happens so often that the industry will take it in its stride. Why therefore has the B*** architectural practice decided to go into liquidation? Quote: " [H]owever the brand has been unfairly tarnished by the negative issues surrounding ***; as a result to protect the reputation of the B*** team, the company was recently put into voluntary liquidation." It all seems a somewhat extreme measure to me. The worry I have (with a non-trivial investment in this loan but not listed for sale) is why the letter to MT made no mention of the borrower company (P***** R*****) which is or was a subsidiary of B***. Does the new architectural practice (S****+A*******) now own the borrower company or is it still an asset of the company now in liquidation? At the very least we need to know the current status of our borrower (P***** R*****). PS: If you're going to put a web-site address on your letterhead, at least make sure there's something that responds better than "server not found"! I have a limited understanding of liquidations having put my own company through an mvl and negotiating on a potential bad debt where a company was close to having to pursue a cvl. So don't take this as gospel and I could be mistaken. It appears the code for the meeting is a cvl and it isn't a code that appeared in the Gazette for my mvl. My understanding is a cvl is where the directors think the company is insolvent. They may have taken advice and been told this. So it may not have been extreme to put the company into voluntary liquidation. Of course I may have misread the situation and more experienced posters than me may be able to correct my understanding.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 1,461
|
Post by jlend on Oct 30, 2017 18:35:50 GMT
The worry I have (with a non-trivial investment in this loan but not listed for sale) is why the letter to MT made no mention of the borrower company (P***** R*****) which is or was a subsidiary of B***. Does the new architectural practice (S****+A*******) now own the borrower company or is it still an asset of the company now in liquidation? At the very least we need to know the current status of our borrower (P***** R*****). P***** R***** has a single director who is the 100% shareholder of the company. It is not a subsidiary of any other company nor has it been. The ownership transfered to the current director in Feb 2016. The MT listing which states P***** R***** is the development arm of B*** unfortunately tended to imply a relationship between the two companies that doesn't exist apart from a common director/shareholder. (i.e. The liquidation of B*** has no direct impact on the corporate structure of P***** R***** ) He is also the sole director of B*** and a 50% shareholder in B*** via a separate company of which he is the 100% shareholder. The implication of today's letter is P***** R***** was a client of B*** and is now a client of the NewCo. Disclosure: I have held a stake in this loan since launch, have never listed it for sale on the SM, and have no intention of doing so in the short/medium term.Have we been given a list of the other developments other than the MT loan that this development arm is working on? Just curious to know to get a picture of the setup.
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 30, 2017 18:42:56 GMT
Have we been given a list of the other developments other than the MT loan that this development arm is working on? Just curious to know to get a picture of the setup. Again the MT terminolgy "development arm" is unfortunate. P***** R***** is a SPV (single purpose vehicle) specifically for this project. There are no charges registered other than to MT for this specific site. The director does not appear to have any other development SPV's active at present, and indeed is fairly conscientious in applying to companies house for the strike off of SPV companies when they are no longer required. Reading between the lines, the director bought this one site from the previous owner (who attracted all the bad press with regard to the other developments) to develop it for his own profit. This was my opinion at the time the loan launched, and hasn't changed since. The letter today simply confirmed my earlier views that B*** had been tarnished by association with the other projects, not by any action attributable to B***.
|
|
Carter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 250
Likes: 549
|
Post by Carter on Oct 30, 2017 18:45:20 GMT
I don't think it is derogatory or smug to use the term sheeples. There are a lot of SPIVs who panic easily. To be honest, if there were fewer investors, P2P sites would have to offer a higher rate of interest to more level headed investors. I have to say I don't care for this type of language when talking about fellow members of the forum or even guests who are utilising this resource. To me it does smack a little as a sense of superiority. People react to the information they have. Some people have more information and/or experience than others which may provide more context for particular events. There are also a multitude of reasons why a particular investment may move from hold to sell for any one investor. Some investors may solely focus on the value of the proposal and others may take into account the borrowers background, previous record and linked business associates. I've seen some comments on the forum whereby people shy away from investments when the background of the borrowing company or connected individuals just gets too complicated, in their view, regardless of whether the proposal still looks basically sound. Regardless if people want to sell for whatever reason then that's their prerogative, perhaps they are reacting to other peoples actions or perhaps they know something you don't, who knows. I think your other assertion is a little flawed, you're presuming that if there were fewer investors then there would be a greater % of level headed investors. To me this reads as, if there were less of them and more like me then it'd much better.
|
|