TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 27, 2020 12:10:19 GMT
1) That's not a change in the t&cs that's a change in the operation of the account as permitted by the t&cs. 2) Furthermore, is there any statement that says how the queue should be processed? The change is in what has been practiced previously but I am unaware of anything that specifically defines a FIFO system. 1) The Terms and Conditions, Key Account Info along with other statements and representations on the Assetz website are just a few of the ingredients that collectively form the contractual terms. Ie the offer and the acceptance.
2) Yes, that's the use of the word queue. 2) Actually, a the concept of "queue" is a lot broader than what people here seem to be convinced it should be. I suggest you search for "queueing theory". You will discover that queues are the subject of one of the most interesting areas of operational research. A queue can be defined in multiple ways and calling something a queue is not sufficient to infer its operating model.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 25, 2020 11:23:00 GMT
ablrate #65 Disappointing that they have been granted interest only terms (and presumably agreed to them?) and yet can't make the reduced payment on time #113 I can't really see why this business should be financially affected by the current (no pun!) situation. LW #142 raise will be affected if #113 does not pay.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 25, 2020 8:55:29 GMT
As discussed in the main section of these forums, B*******e Bond has gone into administration. There's countless articles about it online, such as this one as they apparently borrowed £45m from minibond lenders. I understand they had loans on AC such as #1116. That one shows as having borrowed a humongous £3,416,686 so far. Worryingly, the AC update today for the loan states that they've discovered another entity had been given a charge on the business/building site AC lenders had lent money to. I've just investigated and that new charge was registered recently, on 1 April 2020. I wonder if it was in accordance with the lending terms to AC; it appears not and that they have made an April Fool's of AC lenders indeed. How disastrous do you imagine this could be for AC lenders and AC? Would you mind changing the title of this thread to reflect the accurate situation that has been explained to you? Thanks!
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 22, 2020 14:52:00 GMT
I know of two accounts that have more than £150k in them... Common guys, don't be too particular, you know what I meant. You might think with £150k you are a big investor but in AC eyes, you are not. I still want to know, are the institutional investors treated the same way as us or we, the retail investors are bailing them out? AFAIK tutes fund parts and whole loans in the marketplace (i.e. MLA). The access accounts are for retail investors only. As you know, MLAs are functioning as normal.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 22, 2020 7:24:33 GMT
I don't see how that follows. Capital repayments to the institutions will depend on the loans they are invested in repaying but as retail arent invested in those loans it isn't relevant. The exception is the Luxembourg fund and I don't think they invest via the access accounts so they will get capital repayments at the same time as retail investors as they invest pari passu. I can only give you a small insight into my dealings with private equity & banks. Usually there are a number of covenants. For example the loan £200m might be based on the whole portfolio having an aggregate LTV of say 33% - which would be 66% when supported by retail investors. That would mean the total portfolio would have a value of £600m. If it is deemed property prices have dropped by 10% to £540m they would contractually allowed to claw back loan capital £20m. There could be covenants limiting the exposure to being 33% based on say 2.5% loan defaults - should the level of defaults increase the capital might be reduced. The loan will also be secured on a multiple of ACs earnings let’s call it 8x (£25m in this example) as these reduce to say 16.25m (as a result of 3month interest holiday) 25% / £50m might have to be contractually repaid. Clearly this is speculation on my part however I’m pretty sure there will be clauses similar to this in the agreements - Hopefully less onerous, however the banks & PE boys are ruthless and wouldn’t give a monkeys about anybody bar their £200m plus interest. If this is the case retail investors could be royally screwed! Just one final thought if there was £90m to be repaid, possibly the borrowers might have access to government funding to support those repayments vis AC as technically they are repayments to retail investors. The reason AC might not repay those to US as investors is they need the capital to pay down the institutional investors - lord knows ! The institutional funders are not lending to AC as a company, they are lending to the borrowers in the same way the retail investors are. The Net Debt to EBITDA covenant you mention (which is not "secured" against earnings, it's just a covenant) would only exist for a loan to AC limited, not to borrowers.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 9:55:33 GMT
Nope. A company goes into administration when it cannot reach an agreement with their creditors. A company can function with low cash, no cash or negative cash if their creditors are ok with it. In the case of AC, who are, in your expert view, the unhappy creditors? Nope. An FCA registered company can also be placed into administration when it fails to meet the so-called "Threshold Conditions". You appear to be ignorant to these so to assist you the FCA states:
"2.4.4 (2) Relevant matters to which the FCA may have regard when assessing whether a firm will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, this threshold condition may include but are not limited to: b) whether there are any indications that the firm will not be able to meet its debts as they fall due;
2.7.8 In deciding how they will satisfy and continue to satisfy the threshold conditions set out in paragraphs 2F and 3E of Schedule 6 to the Act, firms should consider matters including (but not limited to) the following:
(2) the rationale for the business the firm proposes to do or continues to do, its competitive advantage, viability and the longer-term profitability of the business;"
Nope. You appear to be ignorant of the claims I was responding too. All what you point out is clear but irrelevant to the alleged insolvency of AC and the mix up between the concept of investor and creditor that some individuals are showing.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 9:47:38 GMT
Makes you wonder if some of the of nastier minded negative posters aren't trying to engineer platform failure in order to snap up bargain properties in the follow up sell off by the Administrators. Perhaps though it is simply a mixture of greed and fear that is driving some to ignore the reality that we are all in the middle of a global financial meltdown that will leave the poorest in communities facing starvation and the wealthy just a little poorer. It appears to be more simple minded than nastier minded. They are unable to grasp even the most commonplace irony, so go figure how that are going to understand anything else.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 8:33:32 GMT
Nope. A company goes into administration when it cannot reach an agreement with their creditors. A company can function with low cash, no cash or negative cash if their creditors are ok with it. In the case of AC, who are, in your expert view, the unhappy creditors? They need to reach an agreement with creditors when they get to the point of not being able to pay creditors. At the moment the only reason they are able to keep the business going is by raiding investors funds via the introduction of the lender fee. If they are not using this to pay creditors then maybe they are just using it to line their own pockets. Whatever way you look at it, the business is running out of cash. So I moved you from an assertive diatribe to a hesitant speculation. I rest my case.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 8:03:13 GMT
Perhaps you should try to understand what is an administration and what are the conditions for that to happen? It happens when they can no longer continue to run a viable business. The fact that they are running low on cash (hence introduction of lender fees) is a worrying sign in this respect. They may also run out of cash to fund future loan commitments - would that also result in administration? I'm not sure, maybe it would depend on the loan contract specifics. Nope. A company goes into administration when it cannot reach an agreement with their creditors. A company can function with low cash, no cash or negative cash if their creditors are ok with it. In the case of AC, who are, in your expert view, the unhappy creditors?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 7:36:31 GMT
If you are a small investor the answer is YES If you are a large investor the answer is NO. The current cash distribution system used by AC is hugely detrimental to any large investor. Large investors would be better off with an administrator running the platform down - that is the only way that large investors are ever likely to get any decent proportion of their investment back. Perhaps you should try to understand what is an administration and what are the conditions for that to happen?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 18, 2020 9:03:41 GMT
In today's video update DB-W said he hopes to complete this soon with the help of underwriters. Best to hold off and buy from underwriters at discount on secondary market then? Assuming it takes two months to draw down, the discount would need to be at least 2.17% to compensate (Offer @97.8%). If it gets an extension the required discount widens. Have underwriters historically discounted more than this?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 17, 2020 11:48:01 GMT
this does seem to be a similar business model to Brighthouse high street chain. That did not end well. As has been noted a bit higher up in this thread, there is a small reference in the borrowing proposal that addresses the differences. Of course this is the company's own take, but shows that they are aware of the comparison.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 16, 2020 19:35:12 GMT
Article in the FT this morning 'The UK accounting industry was plunged into its worst crisis in over a decade as the “Big Four” firms cut partners’ pay while their smaller rivals furloughed junior staff.'. Perfect opportunity to 'hang out' any ongoing administrations, especially as the FCA with do sweet felicity arkwright about chasing them!! Fairly larger companies are using the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (aka furlough scheme) to cover previous cockups. I have anecdotal first hand evidence of a large client shutting down their engagement and my employer, a large professional services firm, using the CJRS opportunistically. Our administrator friends will not miss an opportunity to milk someone, being these their usual target victims or the naive and unaware government. Staff will be furloughed and administration processes will be extended in aeternum.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 16, 2020 19:05:32 GMT
The update from MT on 19/07/19 said the report from the bankruptcy trustee determined there would be no further recoveries and so the shortfall was crystallised. The platform was updated accordingly. Yep. That's what we all already knew. As pointed out by SteveT, there needs to be a proper entry in the ledgers.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 16, 2020 7:38:15 GMT
Perhaps this is old news, but I just noticed that this loan was finally written down from my total principal. It has also been labeled as crystallised loss.
|
|