Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186 
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Oct 16, 2019 1:02:53 GMT
Update on site. Can someone with greater insight than I explain the part of the comment about shared security? If I've lent against a supercar or a truck or a boat, - where that asset has been sold, why can't (shouldn't) those funds be disporsed to holders of that particular loan? The "shared security element" is a debenture.
However, my guess is this is about the unknown quantum of the administrators costs vs the massive uncertainty in expected realisations across the multiple loans. If your supercar has been sold, how much should MT withhold as that loans contribution to the overall costs of the administration ? If I was MT, I would withhold 100% at this point, I don't think they have any alternative (the costs of recovery rank above everything else).
We may not want to think about it, but we we need to face the very real possibility that total costs may exceed total realisations unless the missing assets are found. (The hint is in the 'until the recovery actions are complete' )
I mooted the possibility that the recovery for the super car might end up being used to pay for the whole administration if no other assets are recovered when these loans first defaulted but nobody commented at the time. Is that what you’re suggesting here?
Surely the administration costs should be apportioned on some sort of weighted time/cost basis, similar to what BDO are doing with Collateral (although preferably faster than the overweight snail’s pace they’re currently working at). So as awful as it might be for those in the other RCC loans, if the administrators/MT conclude that it isn’t cost effective to pursue those recoveries then they should crystallise the losses (just like any other administration), rather than the super car loan effectively subsidising other recovery efforts.
To do otherwise would surely render the individual security for each loan effectively meaningless, it’ll all effectively have been just one big loan to RCC with only a debenture as security.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Oct 8, 2019 13:49:33 GMT
Letter on CH website dated 1st October: Companies Act 2006 (Section 1000(3)) The Registrar of Companies gives notice that, unless cause is shown to the contrary, at the expiration of 2 months from the above date the name of xxx LIMITED will be struck off the register and the company will be dissolved. Upon dissolution all property and rights vested in, or held in trust for, the company are deemed to be bona vacantia, and
accordingly will belong to the crown.I would imagine the necessary steps will be taken to remedy this issue by the end of November but in the event not, does anyone know where FS stands with their charge in light of the claim above? There was a situation along these lines on a MT loan last year, see here.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Aug 9, 2019 13:53:30 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that if the other cars prove irrecoverable then any recovery from the Ferrari will be swallowed by the administrators? I don't see how they'd get paid any other way.
I mean it's a grim situation for everyone but it would be particularly galling to have the one loan I'm in see a (hopefully) decent recovery and still end up with zilch.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Aug 4, 2019 18:32:46 GMT
There's perhaps an indication of where we are now from two statements made by BondMason. The first made at the time they went into wind-down, the latter made just last week:
"We had 2-2.5% in COL (depending on whether you take it as a fraction of the current loan book, or the time it went into administration)."
"Estimated write-down for Collateral positions of 1.5%."
So by my maths, and depending on which of the two initial percentages to take, BM are currently estimating a capital loss of either 60% or 75% on their Collateral loans.
They are only in property loans, and if they did their job properly are only in the safest of the property loans. They also have a staff member on the Collateral CC, so have a much better idea of the state of the administration than most.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 25, 2019 15:03:11 GMT
It makes perfect sense - min is to follow the new policy (exclude the unwanted) and max is to make sure that every worthy one can get a slice. It's a great offer - very attractive 9% rate, no nonsense like instant return or monthly repayments. There's no need for VR, it says that LTV is 64.66% and the borrower has 6.5m of assets, that already tell the volumes. Five investors have already took an advantage of this 12 months bond. It shouldn't take too long to fill - only £2,247,500 to go. Sorry for this sarcasm, but I really don't understand where exactly FS is going atm. Me neither.
If this is the work of the new management then they clearly don’t understand the P2P marketplace at the moment. Or perhaps even worse, if it’s the work of the remaining old management then they clearly don’t understand the P2P marketplace at the moment.
I’d put the chance of this filling in the current P2P climate, with FS’ current reputation, at 9%, with no VR, min £500, no interest until activation and no underwriters, as precisely zero.
Or maybe they’re not that bothered. We have enough evidence to suggest they do very little DD and now with no interest until activation they can just chuck loans up and if they don’t fill then they’ve lost very little by giving it a try.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 20, 2019 1:26:42 GMT
The rather crucial word above WAS "not" in the sentence "....Borrower will not be making payments to the Client Account...". Above text was a direct copy and paste from the website, not my typing.
HOWEVER that important "not" has now disappeared from the "Loan Update" on the FS website so it now reads "....Borrower will be making payments to the Client Account..."
So yes I think you're right, that is a slight improvement in the terms, and they've amended the text that I had originally copied which had the opposite meaning!
LOL..... Just the usual level of FS attention to detail then 
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 19, 2019 14:13:57 GMT
Haven't looked into this properly so may have it wrong but my reading of that update is that the £3k p/m was going to an escrow account but is now going into the Funding Secure client account instead, which sounds better to me.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 18, 2019 14:03:36 GMT
Just done a sell order for the dregs of a couple accounts. Upon adding myself to the list on page 1, there is a 24 day gap between 24/6/19 & today. Would appreciate knowing if anyone has a sell order set up between those dates. That's the longest 'in the dark' period since the list started. 28/06/19 here.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 11, 2019 22:56:22 GMT
I don't like cricket..... You love it?
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 10, 2019 15:44:47 GMT
I’ve NEVER been able to deposit cash into Ablrate with my debit card. It always crashes the “verified by visa” security & I still don’t know why. I just keep using bank transfer which, once set up, is easier anyway Their system doesn't like debit card payments from Nationwide, if that's where you bank.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 30, 2019 19:56:35 GMT
Same scenario here, several months of cash drag then 24 'new' loans since May 21.
Looking at the loan reference numbers, 15 of these likely weren't genuinely new loans but rather purchases of other investors' loans, which suggests to me some people got advanced warning of the wind-down and were given time to liquidate their portfolios? stevefindlay _ There were a number of loans that we had committed to over the past few weeks, which we requested that the lending partners involved to complete with their borrowers prior to ceasing investments as of 23 May 2019. Which is why there we are few new loans put on the system on the 22nd and 23rd (as the lending partners met this deadline). There were a few loans that missed the deadline, which we withdrew from. Those clients that were fully invested at the time of the new loans going live, were still able to benefit from the diversification optimisation algorithm; which means that some of their positions were partially sold down (to be purchased by other clients - hence what you may have seen) to enable new positions to be taken (for both the selling and buying client). Thereby increasing the number of positions held for both clients, and decreasing the average investment amount per position. No clients were given advance notice, and no clients have been able to liquidate positions in advance of the wind down. For the avoidance of doubt: the Directors on the board who were aware of the decision from May 15th, and the team here, also did not liquidate any positions over that time. Thanks, Steve. Perfectly plausible.
Unrelatedly, now there is not a competitive disadvantage in doing so, would you be willing to reveal which platforms you used? And potentially which loans within those platforms? It might be interesting/insightful to get an idea of what loans I'm in, especially those in recovery. For instance, I'm fairly sure I'm in the Prestbury loan on MoneyThing, for which further recovery looks unlikely at this stage so I can discount the residual balance and accrued interest from my projected return.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 30, 2019 15:16:43 GMT
just checked account after seeing cash drag of 8-10% for a long time 23 May had 8 new loans clearing out the cash i see the chart is now gone well BM made up my mind for me about withdrawing Same scenario here, several months of cash drag then 24 'new' loans since May 21.
Looking at the loan reference numbers, 15 of these likely weren't genuinely new loans but rather purchases of other investors' loans, which suggests to me some people got advanced warning of the wind-down and were given time to liquidate their portfolios? stevefindlay
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 13, 2019 18:39:24 GMT
I'm going to stop investing in kuflink. The information they are giving to investors is dodgy. I find it amazing tho that they state no one has lost a penny yet. The valuation is on the correct security, so as far as Kuflink are concerned they’ve got a professional valuation report saying it’s worth £2.2m.
It might be the borrower got a good price when he bought the whole site or that our part of the site is much more valuable than the other half, but as we keep seeing in p2p, valuations and actual sale prices are two different things.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 13, 2019 18:33:55 GMT
It appears the borrower paid £2.025m for the entire site including #34, our security is just #36-38. By area #36-38 is about half the entire site, so while we don’t know the circumstances of the sale to the borrower it seems unlikely that half the site is now worth more than he paid for the whole site.
Also, reading the Design & Access Statement on the Redbridge planning portal it sounds like the borrower hasn't received much interest when marketing it for its current use, although you might question how well it has been advertised if his plan was always to try to convert it into flats.
Not having your skills I can't see the record of 2.025M. Where did you find it and when was it please? Page 9 (numbered by the actual document) of the VR, 31st March 2017.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on May 13, 2019 15:35:20 GMT
Valuation 2.2M in existing condition, 90 day 1.95M Loan 639K. What's not to like? It appears the borrower paid £2.025m for the entire site including #34, our security is just #36-38. By area #36-38 is about half the entire site, so while we don’t know the circumstances of the sale to the borrower it seems unlikely that half the site is now worth more than he paid for the whole site.
Also, reading the Design & Access Statement on the Redbridge planning portal it sounds like the borrower hasn't received much interest when marketing it for its current use, although you might question how well it has been advertised if his plan was always to try to convert it into flats.
|
|
