TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 23, 2019 11:15:35 GMT
Hi MoneyThing Could you provide an update on this when you next post about the loan on the MT website "The borrower is currently in talks with another lender to refinance their loan with MoneyThing and provide them with additional development finance for the full build programme. It is envisaged that the new facility will be in place by the end of February 2019" MoneyThing an update on the refinancing progress would be much appreciated.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 27, 2019 13:34:58 GMT
Needed: Update on financing, unit sales, and expectations on interest payments.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 26, 2019 10:26:45 GMT
Still standing at 0% The legal case is progressing though.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 9, 2019 21:43:16 GMT
Does it really matter which platform a company chooses for fundraising? I'm a novice in off-exchange sharedealing but would have thought the quality of the underlying business is what counts. Of course there will be quite a few losses/failures but isn't that the nature of start-up investing? I guess the argument being made is how the platform handles due diligence on the information presented to investors that enables to assess risk. The charge being made by FECF is that CC in particular aren't very good at policing the info companies provide leading to exaggerated claims being made. At the risk of getting Ozboy excited, it's on a par to allegations being made against RICS valuations on lending platforms ... some platforms allow borrower friendly valuations to be presented. Otherwise you are right ... investing in early stage businesses is high risk but it shouldn't matter which platform quality companies raise on. One big difference is Seedrs have an SM and shares have to have pre-emotion rights ... though I note that ABL shares do have that on CC. CC also has upfront fees now. CC's record applying their DD charter is appalling and they will potentially end up in the courts being sued for misrepresentation, gross negligence and fraud (who knows). However, the issue IMHO is that Ablrate should pride themselves for their due diligence capabilities but they have chosen an ECF vehicle that fails all due diligence best practices.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Ablrate (ABL) in Administration
ABL Funding Round
Jan 9, 2019 17:22:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 9, 2019 17:22:38 GMT
Disappointing that they chose CC. It’s a red flag that shows poor judgment IMHO. What make you say that ? I've got one tiny position on CC, a lot less than Seeders. But Seeders charge 7.5% on profit whereas CC don't. I'm not yet long enough in to my positions to really measure performance. Have you had a bad experience with CC, interested to know ? Search for emoov Crowdcube serious fraud.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 9, 2019 16:47:37 GMT
Disappointing that they chose CC. It’s a red flag that shows poor judgment IMHO.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 27, 2018 14:51:44 GMT
Scope here for a New Year Resolution ablrate ? Hi we did post a doc called 'Nov 2018 Capital Market Change Commentary' in the S** C***** loan. What about 111 and 113?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 21, 2018 15:07:29 GMT
I prefer to believe that this sudden request for some sort of support from investors is just to cover their asses. I find it hard to believe that this is absolutely necessary and they have had their hands tied since April. If that was the case then the Court should have grounds to remove them and charge them with gross negligence.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 12, 2018 8:24:51 GMT
I share the opinion that the restructuring has been overly benevolent, but I can live with that if capital is recovered. This loan should be followed closely and should be exited as soon as there is an opportunity, but the lower rate is probably an incentive for the borrower to delay such exit. Having said that, I find Ablrate's total confusion about interest rates disturbing. Stating that a 14% amortising loan is the same as an 8% bullet is utter nonsense. Even when the amount of interest received is the same, the second loan does not release capital to be redeployed. I wonder if this confusion is due to lack of knowledge or intention to mislead. Both options are bad.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 9, 2018 13:09:17 GMT
Nothing on 111 and 113 that depend on Capacity Market payments (Both 101 and 109 are reportedly viable without the Capacity Market payments). According to the below 6 December update, National Grid is NOT making Capacity Market payments. www.gov.uk/government/collections/electricity-market-reform-capacity-marketWas the "detailed response from the borrower" related to 111 and 113 or the other two? This needs clarification.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 8, 2018 12:56:09 GMT
We are not anticipating any issues.n We have received a detailed response from the borrowers and will be sharing that soon. How difficult is to post a brief reassuring update? Unless the update is not reassuring.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 6, 2018 20:19:24 GMT
It is interesting that after I posted yesterday that a sale not a refinance was underway, there were only 2 purchases of loan parts to take advantage of the accrued bonus (mine is the £307, which was all the cash I had in the account at the time; the other is for just £2), and probably around £500 of cancelled sales requests. The land registry details of the purchaser were clear enough that it was a UHNW cash purchaser.
Has trust in Lendy fallen so far that an investment that is 99% risk free is shunned ?
Was the price paid published? I wouldn’t have invested without knowing that the price paid would be sufficient to cover principal and interest plus bonus.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 3, 2018 21:37:03 GMT
Why is Lendy not appointing receivers immediately and selling the property? What is the issue? Why do you suppose that appointing receivers immediately, with their costs outranking us on the eventual / discounted sale of the property would provide a better result for investors than allowing another lender to advance more funds that rank behind us on any eventual sale/refinance of the property?
Indeed, if receivers are appointed in a manner that seems "premature", without making all reasonable effort to allow the loan to be repaid by other means, it increases the chance of a borrower challenging the decision through other channels, potentially leading to far longer delays and far worse recovery prospects than working with the borrower. The value hardly seems likely to evaporate overnight if we wait a little before initiating the "nuclear option".
Why? Because you omitted the key part of the quote! "According to Lendy the leasehold was valued at £16,150,000 a few months ago. As far as I understand the development is complete and there was no property cataclysm that could have wiped 50% of the value in the last few weeks. The total loan is £7,846,884" That's why.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 3, 2018 21:15:10 GMT
Another Well Done from me too - i'm not in this loan but it is still very nice to see platforms taking decisive action. Take no prisoners! yes it is and is a sign of a platform that is taking no nonsense in looking out for its investors, but the growing number of defaults and non performing loans (and I have some!! which I did a lot of DD on) is making me think very warily at the moment re new loans Cheers P I disagree. This is asset based secured lending. I expect 40-50% of defaults and I expect 100% recovery always. That is why this is SECURED lending. A default is a perfectly possible scenario and its cost is a significant delay in having the capital back. A capital loss is due to negligence from the parties structuring the deal.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Nov 28, 2018 10:35:44 GMT
Headline LTV of 43%. An auction should recover that plus interest. Time to flex the muscles on this one.
|
|