E Mids Prop Loan

Oh dear.

Sorry, is this a pink pear now then?

In this case there was no 'deal' and nothing was lent - I've asked about that in the pink pages though, and had no response ........ 

Actually I guess they might if they signed anything about accruing interest and leave AC whistling in the wind. That'd be a long way down a road though.


My AC toes are beginning to turn black n blue with frostbite though!

In case anyone reading this thread is wondering what today's messages (above) are all about... 

After stringing AC and its lenders along for three months after Auction 105 ended, the borrowers have arranged financing elsewhere and no longer need/want the AC loan.  Lenders' money tied up for this loan has been released back to the lenders' accounts, and the loan no longer appears in the AC loan archive.  There could have been an an addition to the loan's Drawdown Updates, but that's not a lot of use if nobody can reach that page any more.

I don't like it, but I can almost understand/accept the removal of this loan from the archive. 

What I have more trouble with is the removal of the related transactions from my statement.  Looking at my statement today, and knowing that there was virtually no free cash in the account last night, there's no sign of any money coming in today and yet AI has bought some loan units for me.  I also see on my Dashboard that I have a positive cash balance now, but there is no evidence in my statement indicating where that might have come from.  I find that to be quite inadequate and misleading.

Thanks, Come_on_Grandad, for doing the digging to find that old thread.  I do vaguely remember that discussion, and I didn't like the system in use any more then than I do now.  I still believe that when an earlier transaction is cancelled, it should be done by inserting a later balancing transaction rather than by making the initial transaction disappear completely.  I understand the situation chris used to illustrate the reason the current method is useful, but feel it would be better to handle that situation differently to solve the problem.  In the simplest terms, why not wait until an auction is about to end before entering the underwriters' bids rather than entering them early and withdrawing them bit by bit as other lenders' bids come in?  Underwriters' bids could be handled differently and kept separate but accounted for, so that underwriters would know what they had committed to, and everyone could see whether or not a particular loan had underwriting and to what extent.

I'm afraid I view the East Midlands loan as another nail in the coffin of AC auctions, and another powerful argument for the direction that they are rumoured to be heading with their new system -- all loans fully underwritten from the start, with retail lenders waiting until a loan is drawn down before they invest via the Aftermarket.  I know there's a cost to all that underwriting, but it won't be much different from what they've been doing for weeks.  When I looked at the most recent 15 new loans, underwriters had provided 75% of the total funding when those auctions closed, and at the moment it looks as if including the current four active auctions in that analysis would increase the underwriters' proportion even higher.

I'm in no way condoning what the borrower did but it would appear to demonstrate what their business ethics may be. Whilst an apparent deliberate 3 month delay does not reflect well on AC, it may be a hidden godsend to the potential lenders that participated. Who knows how the future repayments may have played out.

It does though reinforce the argument for there to be a drawdown cut-off after auction until penalties kick in. Plus of course it's another vote for dealing in the AM.