TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jul 21, 2018 13:05:01 GMT
Totally newbie question (first manual investment attempt): A loan shows six figure availability however my BUY instruction is still showing as "Buying £xxx". The total availability shows "0.0% discount". My instruction is to buy at par. Why is the investment not going through? I suspect there is a simple explanation.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jul 19, 2018 20:30:14 GMT
From MT loan summary:
"The property was valued at the start of this project at £4 million, giving an initial lender LTV (after Broadoak's first loss holding) of 61.8%. Further drawdowns may be granted, but the combined LTV for MoneyThing lenders will be capped at 69% throughout the course of the loan. The gross development value of the project is £6 million, giving an expected final LTV of 50.7% (after Broadoak's first loss holding)".
"The development is well advanced, with all the works due to be complete by the end of January 2017, and will consist of 62 apartments plus 2 ground floor commercial units. 42 of the apartments have already been sold, with the purchasers having already exchanged contracts and paid deposits of 25% of the purchase price".
From November 2016 valuation report by a RICS registered valuer:
"[...] the subject property has a current market value in the order of: £4,850,000 (Four Million Eight Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds)"
DISMALAND.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jul 19, 2018 20:08:18 GMT
There is no formal update from the platform we lent through. However, if the third party information ends up to be true, i t will be a shameful act from MT. It is unacceptable to have an overall 40% capital loss. It would show that MT are totally clueless and their business is just hit and miss. Let’s wait for their official communication. Hopefully they will be able to refute all this. Heck of a lot of keyboard bashing there...shameful act..unacceptable..clueless. Questions do need to be asked ..but I'm not to sure you can draw all those conclusions from this single loan...still if it makes you feel better. This is secured lending. You can expect multiple defaults. You can expect long recovery processes. But 40% loss is incompatible with “secured”. It is lending 101. I guess you are not so sure of many things.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jul 19, 2018 19:09:47 GMT
There is no formal update from the platform we lent through. However, if the third party information ends up to be true, it will be a shameful act from MT. It is unacceptable to have an overall 40% capital loss. It would show that MT are totally clueless and their business is just hit and miss. Let’s wait for their official communication. Hopefully they will be able to refute all this.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jul 18, 2018 20:31:18 GMT
Crappy system. This highlights the fact that we are dealing with underinvested micro companies trading out of a garage. Amazon was like that in 1994 but there is one Amazon.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jul 18, 2018 10:53:07 GMT
Pragmatic view: Perhaps we could be more tolerant given that they are potentially taking us out of a few loans?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jul 6, 2018 12:07:41 GMT
The containers @ 0% recovery should not be forgotten.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jun 16, 2018 10:59:32 GMT
In my opinion trying to apply any quantitative KPI to an extremely small, shallow and illiquid market (essentially not much of a market) will be difficult. Some have tried to naively apply, for example, sharpe ratios using the formula by the book, with laughable results, of course.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jun 15, 2018 6:54:00 GMT
thegrumbler Of the administration costs, by far the biggest part of the 200k you mention was to pay for a specialist management team to go in and run the business as a going concern while it was under administration. That isn't money going to the administrator - it is an external cost. Whatever funds were needed to run the hotel business had to come from the hotel business cash flow and not from lender's money. If the business was not profitable what was the reason to add even more cost to running it? Was the "specialist management team" able to turnaround the business and make it profitable? If not, what was the value they added?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jun 11, 2018 18:49:10 GMT
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jun 6, 2018 20:24:16 GMT
This is just my personal experience with the sites I've used. I've tried P2P since about 2014 across I think 6 different sites. Overall I'll probably have lost money, especially compared to inflation. Some of them which promised a lot ended up being bad. No surprises there. Some are outright shocking. Only really two have made me a profit and I don't want to name them since I have no idea where they're going either.
I was diversified and checked on sites before I put money in.
Overall I would say P2P has been a failure for me, and I would have been better off putting the money in a 1% a year bank account.
Sorry but useless post (and thread) unless you provide data. Mos people here have had bad days but have overall been fairly successful. Trashing P2P generically without providing enough input for folks to analyse can be understood as either too simple minded or hiding an agenda.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on May 23, 2018 21:54:47 GMT
It appears that the charged assets were illegally sold? If this is the case then there is scope for criminal prosecution. From the loan details "He is looking to finance the import of 50 x 20’ containers into the UK. Purchase of such containers is normally done at 28 days notice and so peak value will be achieved when they are in transit. Due to his experience and large customer base, the borrower anticipates no problem in re-selling the containers whilst they are en route or upon arrival and before maturity of the loan." Therefore, selling the containers was not a problem - forgetting to repay the loan was. No sale should have completed before loan repayment. Otherwise what’s the point of asset security if it can be freely disposed before the loan is repaid?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on May 23, 2018 21:50:28 GMT
Administration should have “started” at the end of February. We are at the end of May. FCA incompetence? Probably to early to call. Maybe we can review this every 6 months.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on May 21, 2018 20:12:36 GMT
It appears that the charged assets were illegally sold? If this is the case then there is scope for criminal prosecution.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on May 11, 2018 6:46:01 GMT
15/03/2018 "The borrower has confirmed that it is likely that their planning application will be decided on the 10th May. The will not receive confirmation until they are listed 10 days prior, but they have been told that is the target date".
Any update?
|
|