TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Mar 11, 2021 8:34:08 GMT
I'm so confused with what's happened to these loans. There is an addendum that contains a fairly clear explanation.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Mar 2, 2021 10:27:43 GMT
If it brings us more back than driving them away and then eventually flogging the security off at a bigger loss, with heftier fees, I'm all for it. Principles are all very well and good, but given the choice between sticking to them or getting my money back... It's even worse than that. Usually the only way to dispose of a half finished development is by auction and then there is nothing to prevent the borrower from bidding and in my experience he always wins the auction, so you don't succeed in "sticking it" to them, probably quite the reverse. The existing developer has the advantage over prospective buyers because he knows the exact state of play whereas they will be buying a pig in a poke. This isn't a half finished development! This is currently a cleared plot after the demolition of the original building noted in the valuation report from May 2017. If any, the value of the land has gone up because the cost of the demolition has been incurred. This should be a relatively easy new valuation and a straightforward disposal unless the property prices have collapsed in the area.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 22, 2021 20:31:33 GMT
Ah someone has finally poked the hornets nest Everyone is so busy buzzing they don't seem to have read the document MT are entitled to recover costs & fees from the recovery of loans under the t&cs in priority to lenders. MT also receive a margin on performing loans. The administration costs will be paid from this income. MT would have been entitled to these fees if they had continued to wind down the loan book themselves. There is no additional cost to lenders as a result of administration contained in the proposals ... no FS 2.5%, no Lendy new waterfall, no expensive Collateral loan book reconstruction. Aren't the T&Cs time dependent? M*fields will make sure things are stretched enough to extract all the milk. They have a track record of doig so.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Forum Feedback
Search
Feb 20, 2021 9:35:07 GMT
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 20, 2021 9:35:07 GMT
Perhaps this was already reported. It is very frustrating that the search function does not include the thread titles! This is crippling as many discussions are indexed by the loan number in the title. Can this issue be addressed? Thats odd. If I type in a loan number into search it brings up thread titles. DFL017, mtah987 for instance. There is also a search thread title option. Remember you need 4 characters for a search to work, so 336 will get nothing, #336 will get the AC loan thread I did not know there was a minimum of 4 characters for a seach to work. Is that a Pro-boards feature? My comment is from 2018 but the issue is still there. Right now if you go to the MT section and enter 844 in the seach box it will show 4 threads but will fail to show the specific one that is half way in the first page. It will also not tell you that the seach is failing because of the minimum characters. Perhaps the minimum can be reduced to 3 characters? 844 is perhaps easier to remember than MTAH844. I did not [easily] find the search title option (Will look for it). Edit: Found the seach by title. Entering 844 in the search by title box finds nothing. I am assuming it's the 4 character rule.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 19, 2021 8:53:36 GMT
The statement of administrators proposals has just been uploaded at CH so should be available in the next few days. I wonder what gems or undeclared legal disputes we will discover? The report has been available in the purple site for several days now (posted by Timmy's alter ego). Nothing notable beyond the usual. No detailed comments on the loan book beyond a customary categorisation. Expected Administration duration 2 years. Lenders are not considered creditors. Fees look abusive as in all other Administration cases. All set for another sh**e show.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 16, 2021 19:42:34 GMT
Well, at this point it is starting to feel that these guys are just chancers and took a big risk trying to roll up all these engineering businesses. This may go well but can also crash to the ground (Erinaceous Group plc comes to mind). The issue is that they are taking us for a ride as if we were equity partners, which we are not. A full repayment needs to be politely demanded sooner than later given that they have been in default for a long time by now.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 11, 2021 11:32:21 GMT
Last admin note 2 months ago gave the idea that things were progressing. An update would be appreciated ablrate
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 9, 2021 20:32:08 GMT
I cannot wait for ozboy to chip in! My personal opinion is that RICS is an extremely corrupt organisation that needs to disappear and be replaced with something else.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 9, 2021 14:39:13 GMT
Just logon to your II account and select the ISA transfer in option. Treat the AC account as a cash ISA transfer. But I'm not able to select my current ISA share account it's greyed out - I have maxed it out this year with 20k - I'm assuming that is the reason. At least you have confirmed that there isn't a special form to fill out and send or anything, so thanks for that, I will try ringing them again.
Cash and transfers >> Transfer in >> ISA
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 9, 2021 14:33:12 GMT
Isn't it just part repayment? According to the last admin report from September 2020 the incomplete development was about to be sold for £1.7m (versus a £15.1m loan). When the security is sold any further recovery depends on legal claims (PG and PI). So, yes, as part repayment as it can get...
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 9, 2021 14:10:25 GMT
Minuscule repayment on this one today. Recovery of 3.5% and security reduced to zero.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 7, 2021 19:32:34 GMT
A few months, but still no updates for 1000105 ? Watch the video updates.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 6, 2021 10:07:02 GMT
Any experts please? Earlier this financial year I withdrew all the money from my Assetz ISA (not a transfer). That money was 1st deposited in FY 2018/19. I have used my ISA allowance for this FY elsewhere. When I look as my Assetz account it says I have £40,952 remaining ISA allowance. I understand that £20,000 is this years allowance as ASSETZ do not know I have used it elsewhere. The remaining allowance must have been created by my withdrawal earlier this FY. Does this mean I can still invest in my Assetz ISA this FY even though I have used this years allowance elsewhere? Thanks. According to your numbers, you need to return £20,952 to your AC ISA before the end of this FY in order not to lose the ISA wrapper for those funds. You can then transfer this AC ISA elswhere should you decide. You cannot add the other £20,000 of fresh funds this FY because you have used the allowance somewhere else.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 2, 2021 9:21:54 GMT
There is a piece in the FT about this. It ends with: "Following the report, the Treasury said it would set up a compensation scheme to consider one-off payouts to former LCF investors — most of whom are not covered by the main Financial Services Compensation Scheme as they bought unregulated products without advice".
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 29, 2021 13:36:46 GMT
When this went into administration, our good friends from Moo***ds "advised" that selling the asset in an unfinished condition would result in a significant loss vs. finishing the build out and achieving a full price. Then the infamous pipe sabotage was uncovered and all went downhill from there. It would have been better to sell the asset immediately and suffer a 50% loss than the current picture which seems to indicate a more than 50% loss and two years opportunity cost. The lesson is never follow the advice from a advisor with a vested interest and perverse incentives.
In any case, the reason given for the administration to be extended is the 3-year "rent guarantee" that is offered with the unit sales. It was never explained why units are still being sold with a rent guarantee which is expensive and keeps the administrator in the asset.
|
|