boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 367
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Nov 11, 2020 12:34:21 GMT
If boundah is happy with MT as his post suggests, it's an interesting position. I'm not sure you should look for employment as a clinical psychologist, m8. The choice is binary: status quo, or change. Neither is perfect, but one is likely to be preferable to the other. The only change available is administration - see earlier posts for the likely outcome of that.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 11, 2020 17:42:27 GMT
My experience is to always remove the Perpetrators (in this case, the Platform - MT) from the equation.
They have shown their colours by their disdain - a total lack of even half reasonable communication, whilst rakeing in ££££s of our money, for little effort.
This is not honourable and all things considered I would definitely vote for taking them out of the situation and running with independent Administrators.
Just MHO.
|
|
averageguy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,165
Likes: 841
|
Post by averageguy on Nov 12, 2020 0:12:20 GMT
My experience is to always remove the Perpetrators (in this case, the Platform - MT) from the equation. They have shown their colours by their disdain - a total lack of even half reasonable communication, whilst rakeing in ££££s of our money, for little effort. This is not honourable and all things considered I would definitely vote for taking them out of the situation and running with independent Administrators. Just MHO. I wouldn’t ....just my MHO
|
|
brush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 171
Likes: 148
|
Post by brush on Nov 12, 2020 10:46:44 GMT
Collateral Admin 0 in two and a half years. Moneything some interest in a year.
Where does my vote go hmmmm.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Nov 12, 2020 16:49:00 GMT
It's not anywhere near comparing apples with apples though, is it?
The Collateral situation is very different, VASTLY worse than any of the other Platform failures.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 325
Likes: 363
|
Post by mah on Nov 16, 2020 0:21:14 GMT
My experience is to always remove the Perpetrators (in this case, the Platform - MT) from the equation. They have shown their colours by their disdain - a total lack of even half reasonable communication, whilst rakeing in ££££s of our money, for little effort. This is not honourable and all things considered I would definitely vote for taking them out of the situation and running with independent Administrators. Just MHO. Agreed- remove the conflict of Interest. How can we be sure that all their Loans/Borrowers were Not known to them and they are not going soft on some ?
Moreover, there is absolutely no incentive for them to actually do something or enforce a recovery (while they can earn 2% pa sitting doing nothing - from the day they think they should charge - while they themselves had not declared those loans as defaults from that date).
Re additional costs of Admin, I guess MT's 2% pa charge can be challenged (as has been the case with FS 5%) if it goes into Admin. So, MT's 2% pa would simply be replaced by Admin's (say 2.5 or 3%), but with some results.
Comms wise, I don't think that CG were any worse than MT (at least until recently).
Recovery wise, I have had far greater amount returned by FS Admin so far (6.5 - 7 K) compared to a few quids by MT (around £30) so far and have had similar amounts stuck on both the platforms when they went into Admin (others might have a different experience though).
Yes, there are cons in going down the Admin Route too, like firesales achieving less value, just to mention one. So, I'm not saying Admins are great and would always be better, but in this particular case, I believe Admin is a better Route (just my view though, others are entitled to theirs).
Collateral is a totally different case, of deliberate sabotage and destruction of DB, etc. - so can't really compare. Moreover, it's a bit pre-mature to compare with Collateral too.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Nov 18, 2020 12:48:13 GMT
Recovery wise, I have had far greater amount returned by FS Admin so far (6.5 - 7 K) compared to a few quids by MT (around £30) so far and have had similar amounts stuck on both the platforms when they went into Admin (others might have a different experience though).
Yes, there are cons in going down the Admin Route too, like firesales achieving less value, just to mention one. So, I'm not saying Admins are great and would always be better, but in this particular case, I believe Admin is a better Route (just my view though, others are entitled to theirs). Have you missed the recent change where FS' administrators are now taking upwards of 15% fees for FS (on top of the 3% for themselves) on some loans seemingly because of a technicality in the T&Cs?
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Nov 18, 2020 13:02:01 GMT
My experience is to always remove the Perpetrators (in this case, the Platform - MT) from the equation. They have shown their colours by their disdain - a total lack of even half reasonable communication, whilst rakeing in ££££s of our money, for little effort. This is not honourable and all things considered I would definitely vote for taking them out of the situation and running with independent Administrators. Just MHO. Agreed- remove the conflict of Interest. How can we be sure that all their Loans/Borrowers were Not known to them and they are not going soft on some ?
Moreover, there is absolutely no incentive for them to actually do something or enforce a recovery (while they can earn 2% pa sitting doing nothing - from the day they think they should charge - while they themselves had not declared those loans as defaults from that date).
Re additional costs of Admin, I guess MT's 2% pa charge can be challenged (as has been the case with FS 5%) if it goes into Admin. So, MT's 2% pa would simply be replaced by Admin's (say 2.5 or 3%), but with some results.
Comms wise, I don't think that CG were any worse than MT (at least until recently).
Recovery wise, I have had far greater amount returned by FS Admin so far (6.5 - 7 K) compared to a few quids by MT (around £30) so far and have had similar amounts stuck on both the platforms when they went into Admin (others might have a different experience though).
Yes, there are cons in going down the Admin Route too, like firesales achieving less value, just to mention one. So, I'm not saying Admins are great and would always be better, but in this particular case, I believe Admin is a better Route (just my view though, others are entitled to theirs).
Collateral is a totally different case, of deliberate sabotage and destruction of DB, etc. - so can't really compare. Moreover, it's a bit pre-mature to compare with Collateral too. The bit in red.... I think Moneything are in a winding down state not administration, big difference. There are still active loans on the platform, some occasionally paying interest. Some with a reasonable chance of a successful outcome (eventually). I guess if all you hold are defaulted loans puncturing the lifeboat is less relevant than if you have some desire to survive?
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 325
Likes: 363
|
Post by mah on Nov 18, 2020 17:33:28 GMT
Agreed- remove the conflict of Interest. How can we be sure that all their Loans/Borrowers were Not known to them and they are not going soft on some ?
Moreover, there is absolutely no incentive for them to actually do something or enforce a recovery (while they can earn 2% pa sitting doing nothing - from the day they think they should charge - while they themselves had not declared those loans as defaults from that date).
Re additional costs of Admin, I guess MT's 2% pa charge can be challenged (as has been the case with FS 5%) if it goes into Admin. So, MT's 2% pa would simply be replaced by Admin's (say 2.5 or 3%), but with some results.
Comms wise, I don't think that CG were any worse than MT (at least until recently).
Recovery wise, I have had far greater amount returned by FS Admin so far (6.5 - 7 K) compared to a few quids by MT (around £30) so far and have had similar amounts stuck on both the platforms when they went into Admin (others might have a different experience though).
Yes, there are cons in going down the Admin Route too, like firesales achieving less value, just to mention one. So, I'm not saying Admins are great and would always be better, but in this particular case, I believe Admin is a better Route (just my view though, others are entitled to theirs).
Collateral is a totally different case, of deliberate sabotage and destruction of DB, etc. - so can't really compare. Moreover, it's a bit pre-mature to compare with Collateral too. The bit in red.... I think Moneything are in a winding down state not administration, big difference. There are still active loans on the platform, some occasionally paying interest. Some with a reasonable chance of a successful outcome (eventually). I guess if all you hold are defaulted loans puncturing the lifeboat is less relevant than if you have some desire to survive? Yes, that's the debate we are having - Admin Vs Winddown - which one is better - so obvious difference. MT has been in the same situation since Dec 2019 now - so 1 year and what results (incl Interest) ?
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Nov 18, 2020 18:00:34 GMT
The bit in red.... I think Moneything are in a winding down state not administration, big difference. There are still active loans on the platform, some occasionally paying interest. Some with a reasonable chance of a successful outcome (eventually). I guess if all you hold are defaulted loans puncturing the lifeboat is less relevant than if you have some desire to survive? Yes, that's the debate we are having - Admin Vs Winddown - which one is better - so obvious difference. MT has been in the same situation since Dec 2019 now - so 1 year and what results (incl Interest) ?
Ah so you do know, its just with you saying 'when they both went into admin' I thought you were confused. No debate here, I am sure I know what is best for me.
|
|
mah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 325
Likes: 363
|
Post by mah on Nov 18, 2020 18:16:23 GMT
Another FS one returned yesterday - 88.6%. Not Ideal I know (Some Capital Loss with with no Interest & they charged 5% on the Total Recovery, which in this case was more than the Loan Amount ; but hopefully Court would rule in our favour).
But under current situation, I'd be happy with 80+% return of my Capital with any Platform. At least I have been getting something back.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Dec 19, 2020 22:19:10 GMT
Hello Things.
In the past I have been a supporter of your platform. I felt that you were handling the loans and investers fairly. You were capable of good communications.
Why have you changed so much towards your long term,loyal investers from whom you are benifiting by way of numerous fees ?
This loan is long overdue an update; you told us that several of the units had been sold. If so, then there should be a % of Capital repayment possible at this stage.
Your failure to give us any up to date information is simply inexcusable and some might view it as cowardly. Keep quiet and perhaps no one will notice?
Your silence on this, and other loans, will follow you in any new finaancial venture you might think of pushing on the public.
You clearly do not deserve to be regarded as trustworthy with any investors money.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Dec 20, 2020 13:22:29 GMT
This loan is long overdue an update; you told us that several of the units had been sold. If so, then there should be a % of Capital repayment possible at this stage. Where did MT say several (or any) of the units had been sold? I can't see anything in the MT updates or the last administrator's report to support your statement. There's mention of an offer being accepted, but presumably the sale has been delayed or fallen through. It's in the hands of the administrator, not a lot if anything that MT can do about it. Pretty sure once a sale does complete and administrator informs MT, then MT will let us know. Administrator due to report again in Feb/Mar21; hopefully they'll be able to report some positive progress. I don't see much value in agitating for updates from MT in the interim.
|
|
|
Post by badgergate on Dec 20, 2020 19:52:32 GMT
According to Rightmove, 2 plots sold. The photos on that site don’t look particularly inviting.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Dec 20, 2020 20:52:55 GMT
According to Rightmove, 2 plots sold. The photos on that site don’t look particularly inviting. Yes, although one of those [Plot 6] is also listed separately as Sold STC. Hopefully, the sale of the other one [Plot 1, not listed separately] has completed. Edit: Based on data in the last administrator's report, it seems unlikely that lenders will receive anything back on this loan until at least five of the six plots have sold due to the large build-out costs for the development that need to be covered first. The completed sale of the undeveloped land should roughly cover the administrator's other costs. I'm anticipating a total net return of 0-15% of capital. I'm hoping MT have better success pursuing the borrower's PG.
|
|