mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 22, 2021 19:30:22 GMT
he probably has the Monopoly option.......... you mean Daddy? I presumed she meant 'Get out of jail free'!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 16, 2021 18:13:03 GMT
Update 29/10/2021
"The application to set aside the statutory demand was not successful, although the guarantor has now taken steps to appeal this decision. Further, the Borrower Company has been wound up, and FundingSecure's preferred Liquidators have been appointed."This is pretty good news, right? I have no idea if this is good news or not, the only news that I will consider good is when my money is released to me and it seems there is a small army out there trying to make sure that is the last thing that happens and only as the very last resort. What are we waiting for, are we wasting our time waiting for our money to be released to us while the vultures come up with ever more obscure ways to make sure this money never gets to its rightful owners? "Quistclose trust", really? I wonder how much the administrators are "reluctantly" spending on dealing with this? The thing that is really interesting about this one, I think, is caused by the nature of the multiple FS loans with their individual priorities. AIUI, the lenders losing out most right now are those at the back of the repayment queue, with any delay in the distribution hitting them hard. If the proceeds are sufficient to cover the first priority loan, then the investors in that loan still are accruing interest during the delay -- to the detriment of the FS investors behind them in the queue.
Or am I misunderstanding the situation?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 16, 2021 17:45:12 GMT
FundingSecure Update
The Joint Administrators’ solicitor continues to liaise with the claimant’s solicitors and in the meantime the Joint Administrators are meeting with a number of key investors to discuss the next steps.
FundingSecure Limited - in AdministrationWho are these 'key investors' that the administrators are meeting with? Surely we should all be party to this discussion as we are all affected? I also wonder who these 'key investors' are. I might even have thought that I might be one inasmuch as I have a five-figure withdrawal that's been in limbo since May.
Mucho P2P Does anyone in FSAG or the CC have any indication who these people are, or what it took/takes to be in that select group?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 16, 2021 17:34:47 GMT
I don't understand 3.10 ("There remains three loans that have completed, whereby funds cannot be released to investors...") 3. Does anyone know which loans are the ones where funds are now pending release? Your point 3: I'm assuming these are: a) Land at W***on R**n, Shropshire. The latest update (29/10/21) said, "The Joint Administrators' solicitors are dealing with the Official Receiver in order to obtain comfort to release the funds held." 'Obtaining comfort' is presumably a legal expression, and nothing to do with easement in the lavatory. b) P**********ld Av****e. Latest update (30/07/21) said, "As per the previous update, the property has sold and a breakdown of the costs, to include the return to investors will be provided in due course." c) Residential conversion at Ch**** C**be Q****y. Latest update (29/10/21) said, "On 24 September 2021, the site was sold to an unrelated third party for the sum of £1,000,000. Funds have been received and the usual breakdown to investors will be provided in due course." I'm not getting too excited about this. It's a discussion about getting sale proceeds from the receivers into the FS accounts. Yes, that's a positive thing, but none of that money is going to be passed along the FS investors until the Quitclose Trust issue is resolved, and I've seen no suggestion/guesstimate to date regarding how long that might take.
I made a big mistake earlier this year when I wasn't requesting withdrawals every time any funds appeared in my account. I let it build up to a significant amount before submitting a withdrawal request. The last request I made was in May, and I'm still waiting for my money seven months later.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 24, 2021 21:19:39 GMT
I know this is a dumb question, but there's obviously something I don't understand here... Where exactly do I put my orders in for newly released loans? Maybe it's just bad timing on my part, but I don't think I've ever seen a loan in the Upcoming list. Is that where I'm supposed to put my orders in? Or am I supposed to wait until the new loan appears on the Live list and put a buying order in there? Potentially either. The loan will appear in the upcoming list with the invest tab enabled until the funds are provided to the borrower by the AA Once drawndown the loan will appear in the live loan list and funds will subsequently be released by the AA to the MLA - there is generally a window between it appearing as live and funds being released to the MLA when orders can be placed that will receive an allocation. The problem is that there is no way of knowing whether funds have been released to MLA other than receiving an allocation. Therefore to guarantee an allocation orders need to be placed on upcoming ilmoro: Thanks for the input, which probably means it's my timing that's contributing to my situation.
I'm getting the email notifications of new loans, but when I click on the links therein, if they work at all -- and some don't -- I find the loan says it has been fully funded since before the notification was sent. And, as noted, there's no way to tell whether I'm too late to get in on the MLA allocation. I guess I need to keep watching the Upcoming loans list in the hope of spotting a loan after release but before the MLA allocation.
For the most recent notification (Loan #1491), I found the loan fully funded but it still was in the Upcoming list. I put in a buying instruction and later found I was holding £62 worth of the loan, so it does look like I did get my instruction in before the release to MLA investors happened. That's clearly what I need to be doing in future.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 23, 2021 16:00:00 GMT
Much more importantly, there is no mention, let alone discussion, of the fact that all of the sales were at a discount to the latest share price of up to 25%. I read somewhere that AC were going to do a further share offering. If that would qualify for EIS -- Does anyone know if they still have capacity for more EIS shares? -- then potential investors at Seedrs could be waiting for that, and that might explain why discounts are necessary to sell shares on the Seedrs SM because those obviously don't come with EIS share benefits.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Oct 20, 2021 22:04:42 GMT
I received an email timed at 18:23 saying that there was a new loan to invest in. I read the email 3 minutes later at 18:26 and clicked on the link. It says that the loan was fully funded 11 minutes earlier (ie before I was sent an email saying that the loan even existed) . This is ridiculous. The loans are funded by AA's first and then a proportion of it is distributed to MLA. I understand AA's have the priority because these accounts are not sustainable without new loans. Put your orders in and you should get something sooner or later (usually on the same or next day). I know this is a dumb question, but there's obviously something I don't understand here... Where exactly do I put my orders in for newly released loans? Maybe it's just bad timing on my part, but I don't think I've ever seen a loan in the Upcoming list. Is that where I'm supposed to put my orders in? Or am I supposed to wait until the new loan appears on the Live list and put a buying order in there?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 6, 2021 15:31:41 GMT
I don't understand how people can be so optimistic.
If the loan is for £1328k, then there would have to be net proceeds of £797k for lenders to get 60% of their capital back.
How could that be possible after the costs of sale and FS, the administrators and the receivers take their shares. Not to mention that that are bound to have been expenses insuring and securing the property while waiting for a resolution. My own view is that lenders will be lucky if they get half their investments back.
Or have I forgotten something significant?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jun 5, 2021 20:56:06 GMT
When i try to make a withdrawal I get "You have no bank account to withdraw to." I guess that's because I haven't gone through the kyc/aml process yet because I've not had anything to withdraw until now. I also guess that the "... and the Lendy support team will contact investors for any outstanding Know Your Customer/ Anti-Money Laundering requirements." part of the email applies to me and that I should wait to be contacted. I wouldn't wait for them to contact me. I'd contact them ASAP.
If you are one of a number of people who haven't been through the KYC/AML process, surely you want to be as far forward as you can be in the queue to be dealt with.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 11, 2020 20:22:37 GMT
As such, the fee will be taken ahead of any additional interest earned throughout the month."
I think that's what I said. It's shite but it's not rocket science. Perhaps. But it's better than one possible alternative, which would have been to debit our accounts for the fee immediately without waiting for any interest to be received.
And I'm no expert -- or even close -- but I think we'll be better off when the time comes to pay our taxes as well. If it means we'll see less interest credited to our accounts then we'll have less income reported to be paying tax on. If they paid all of our interest and then debited the fee AIUI we'd end up paying tax on all of the interest and not be able to offset any of the fee against the interest.
This probably has been discussed in another thread and I just haven't found that yet.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 11, 2020 20:00:45 GMT
Also Im not sure if there was a capital loss on this, shocking if there was as it had less than 50% LTV when launched. There was definitely a loss or interest, but AC still managed to take a lot of monitoring fee's.. leaving lenders out of pocket. Regarding the recovery from these five loans, all outstanding capital was recovered along with 24.5% of the outstanding interest, so no need to be shocked. For context, I think it’s worth looking at the performance of these loans since their tranched drawdown between July 2016 and March 2017. A total of £1.80M was borrowed and returned along with £286K interest out of £416K interest billed. So overall 69% of billed interest was received, representing a total return of 15.9% on capital invested. AC received total fees of £39.5K over the lifetime of the loans, 14% of what lenders received in interest. The individual performance across all five loans was fairly similar but looking at the OP’s loan #436 specifically the total interest received was 12.6% of capital borrowed, received at an IRR of 7.2%. This seems like a good result to me. I’ll be more than happy if my other defaulted (and non-defaulted) AC loans have a similar outcome. The info above shows the result for investors who invested at the time the loan was written, but masks the significant performance variation between those investors who got out just before SM trading was suspended and those who bought in at that time and were invested until the final distribution.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 11, 2020 19:43:39 GMT
Agree that the unknown size of the committment to future tranches is an annoyance, although it's always been clear that Access account / underwriters fund new tranches and MLA only gets the secondary market access. From my own experience I would say that in the last year or so AC have generally stopped using underwriters to fund new development tranches. There was a time when those regularly were offered to UWs, but that appears to have decreased considerably of late. There's always a possibility, of course, that I've been dropped off their potential UW list so I just haven't been informed of such funding opportunities. I haven't a clue how much funding AC are getting from other non-retail sources, and I'm a bit surprised that I haven't heard from AC in the past month or so offering incentives to put more funds into the platform so that they could do a better job of meeting their retail investors' withdrawal requests. Perhaps I'm just no longer 'in the loop'.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 11, 2020 19:17:49 GMT
Yes, indeed. All it would have taken was a quick look at Lendy and/or Funding Secure. I will repeat this to avoid confusion as being selectively quoted can easily be misunderstood..
"I did not say that I never noticed "these loan facilities that require future commitments, I did, the issue is I did not know how large these commitments are, as I have said I have no idea they would swamp the capital repayments and to make it worse these loans are in the MLA but it is the AAs which pick up these tranches.
If this is as significant as it proved to be why have AC never published a figure for the commitments and explained the bulk (if not all) will be funded from capital repayments from the AAs. AC are meant to be a professional organisation and this should have been so obvious so I was not expecting to be on the hook for anything of this magnitude. If they had done any stress testing this would be spotted, however if you have access to all the figures, which AC do and we don't, it would have been obvious that this would be an serious issue in a financial crisis even without stress testing. I have worked on the technical and to some extent the business side of investment banking and can assure you this would have stuck out like a sore thumb, I was in charge of decent size project lasting over a year to project all gaps in all asset classes up to 30 years in the future, these accounts would have fallen at the first hurdle." Apologies if my selective quotation created possible a misunderstanding. What I was trying to say was that building up a long list of commitments to fund future drawdown tranches involves considerable risks if a platform cannot continue to bring in new funds at a good rate. IMHO that contributed significantly to the L and FS failures. (And I'll be the first to admit that I didn't see that soon enough, so my losses at L and FS are considerable.)
AC seem to have increased the risk by using supposedly 'accessible' funds to cover those future obligations. And while it would have been a bit more transparent if they had reported regularly just how much future lending they were committed to, they weren't exactly hiding that info from investors -- all the AC development loans show what the total agreed facility is and what has been lent so far, with the difference being a pretty good approximation of the future funding requirement.
But, of course, we don't know how much of that future funding requirement AC were expecting to come from sources other than retail investors, and we haven't a clue whether some of those alternative funding sources have dried up in the current situation.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 11, 2020 16:14:21 GMT
The fact that you never even noticed that the future tranches were being funded by the QAA (despite it being discussed here previously IIRC) suggests that it isn't really an issue in normal times. ...it would have been obvious that this would be an serious issue in a financial crisis even without stress testing.
Yes, indeed. All it would have taken was a quick look at Lendy and/or Funding Secure.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 28, 2020 17:52:24 GMT
"It has transpired that the borrower did not have title to the Micro Sculptures and had fraudulently used them as collateral for the loan." In my mind this is far worse than a dodgy valuation. Asset-backed lending 101: make sure the borrower owns the asset! Surely criminal charges should be pressed against someone in this situation. ISTM that the obvious target for criminal charges would be the borrower, and it would seem that they deserve a considerable sentence for fraud. But unless they are extremely wealthy and have lots of available assets to seize, their prosecution and conviction wouldn't accomplish anything for FS's investors in this loan.
Except, perhaps, a tiny bit of satisfaction that the borrower didn't get away scot free.
|
|