adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,595
Likes: 5,017
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 6, 2018 8:51:35 GMT
I also did not receive a copy, i have now emailed to fix this. This is not looking good that so many people appear to have fallen off the mailing list.... Ah, but they assure us that we absolutely didn't fall off the mailing list, they really did send it, and it must simply have got eaten by a squirrel somewhere down the internetz.
|
|
|
Post by steve11 on Dec 6, 2018 20:29:21 GMT
Here we go then. Back of fag packet calculation coming up for how much we will get back assuming a pessimistic view!
Outstanding loans £17m
Assume distressed auction sales @60% of face value (taking all fees into consideration) = £10.2m
Add cash in hand = £1.4m = £11.4m Deduct BDO costs (say £800k) = £10.6m Deduct secured creditors (say £800k) = £9.2m
So 9.2/17 = 54% will be returned.
Anybody care to improvise?
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,846
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 6, 2018 23:19:24 GMT
Here we go then. Back of fag packet calculation coming up for how much we will get back assuming a pessimistic view! Outstanding loans £17m Assume distressed auction sales @60% of face value (taking all fees into consideration) = £10.2m Add cash in hand = £1.4m = £11.4m Deduct BDO costs (say £800k) = £10.6m Deduct secured creditors (say £800k) = £9.2m
So 9.2/17 = 54% will be returned. Anybody care to improvise? I don't think I understand how this works. How do "Secured Creditors" get their hooks into our money? Secured Creditors are owed money by Collateral the company, our money is separate and ring fenced? EDIT / PS - And again, I repeat, this sort of speculation only encourages those with the motivation to gut us like a fish. Again, I repeat, I expect full return of capital and some interest. The FCA are definitely at fault here and will be paying out. Think positive F F S.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Dec 7, 2018 1:13:27 GMT
Here we go then. Back of fag packet calculation coming up for how much we will get back assuming a pessimistic view! Outstanding loans £17m Assume distressed auction sales @60% of face value (taking all fees into consideration) = £10.2m Add cash in hand = £1.4m = £11.4m Deduct BDO costs (say £800k) = £10.6m Deduct secured creditors (say £800k) = £9.2m
So 9.2/17 = 54% will be returned. Anybody care to improvise? I don't think I understand how this works. How do "Secured Creditors" get their hooks into our money? Secured Creditors are owed money by Collateral the company, our money is separate and ring fenced? EDIT / PS - And again, I repeat, this sort of speculation only encourages those with the motivation to gut us like a fish. Again, I repeat, I expect full return of capital and some interest. The FCA are definitely at fault here and will be paying out. Think positive F F S. This requires a “Good for you ”Ozboy” rather than just a like tick. The loans are between us and the borrowers. We are the secured creditors
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 7, 2018 2:07:35 GMT
Here we go then. Back of fag packet calculation coming up for how much we will get back assuming a pessimistic view! Outstanding loans £17m Assume distressed auction sales @60% of face value (taking all fees into consideration) = £10.2m Add cash in hand = £1.4m = £11.4m Deduct BDO costs (say £800k) = £10.6m Deduct secured creditors (say £800k) = £9.2m So 9.2/17 = 54% will be returned. Anybody care to improvise? Reasonable enough stab although at best we’d be torturing ourselves with the unknowable - as oz & god said, 800k were new unsecured creditors, any shortfall in distressed sales leaves them with nothing (& us with 62% in this eg). One adjustment required is that 17M is not the total of our claim. There were million(s?) undrawn and cash balances outside of the loan book that you would need to gross up rather than just added as a loan recovery (complicated by the fact these may have been partially invested in the 17M loan book). Come to think of it, cash on the business (only) account might be equally claimable by the mystery unsecured creditor along with any of our shortfall as secured creditors (our ‘2nd bite’ once trust assets have been disposed of leaving any deficit). Just the known unknowns make a guesstimate tricky, if not futile.
|
|
|
Post by steve11 on Dec 7, 2018 16:13:16 GMT
Guys I've just had an afterthought. As the majority of the loans had a LTV of 70% (worst case), it means if assets are disposed of at 60%, we only lose 10% = £1.7m and not the £6.8m I had factored into my initial calculation. That means I miscalculated and we will have an extra £5.1m than I had previously thought, meaning the expected return should be £14.3m. So 14.3/17 = 84% which sounds a lot better! Am I missing something? Which one of my two calculations are more flawed?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 7, 2018 16:24:34 GMT
Guys I've just had an afterthought. As the majority of the loans had a LTV of 70% (worst case), it means if assets are disposed of at 60%, we only lose 10% = £1.7m and not the £6.8m I had factored into my initial calculation. That means I miscalculated and we will have an extra £5.1m than I had previously thought, meaning the expected return should be £14.3m. So 14.3/17 = 84% which sounds a lot better! Am I missing something? Which one of my two calculations are more flawed?" 70% LTV would be the very best case, not the worst. Just 2 examples as to why not: 1) None of the bling borrowers want to repay their loan and instead are going to give back their items. Does this fill with you confidence that the loan is actually worth 70% of the asset? 2) Collateral's largest loan by far was mid-development and has now been abandoned. To give you an idea to compare against, a project of similar scale and ambition, Lendy's PBL120 was defaulted and was I believe further along in being completed. That facility was something like 18% LTV, and Lendy's initial view was that only capital and no interest would be returned to investors on even that tiny exposure.Only after a massive backlash did they source interest. Given that Collateral were working against a purported 70% (i think?) LTV on their loan, I can tell you right now that there will not only not be a surplus returned on the Collateral facility, but much of the lower facilities will be utterly decimated* God, I'm cheery today aren't I? :-) * I shouldn't use the word decimated as that suggests there will be something remaining. For clarity, some facilities will not have anything at all remaining IMV.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 4,846
|
Post by ozboy on Dec 7, 2018 16:27:50 GMT
Guys I've just had an afterthought. As the majority of the loans had a LTV of 70% (worst case), it means if assets are disposed of at 60%, we only lose 10% = £1.7m and not the £6.8m I had factored into my initial calculation. That means I miscalculated and we will have an extra £5.1m than I had previously thought, meaning the expected return should be £14.3m. So 14.3/17 = 84% which sounds a lot better! Am I missing something? Which one of my two calculations are more flawed?All of them. Negative speculation on expected potential losses assists no-one. Oh wait a minute, BDO and The FCA love to read postings like yours, gives them confidence.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Dec 7, 2018 16:41:18 GMT
Guys I've just had an afterthought. As the majority of the loans had a LTV of 70% (worst case), it means if assets are disposed of at 60%, we only lose 10% = £1.7m and not the £6.8m I had factored into my initial calculation. That means I miscalculated and we will have an extra £5.1m than I had previously thought, meaning the expected return should be £14.3m. So 14.3/17 = 84% which sounds a lot better! Am I missing something? Which one of my two calculations are more flawed?All of them. Negative speculation on expected potential losses assists no-one. Oh wait a minute, BDO and The FCA love to read postings like yours, gives them confidence. I'm sure you won't be a fan of my previous post in that case ozboy I'm happy to be optimistic where it's warranted, but bear in mind there's the danger of just being seen as ridiculous in expectations if you go too far the other way. Further to my 2 examples, we also have a large raft of landbank 'get PP and sell on for a fortune' type loans, nearly all now long since overdue. There are many of these types loitering on Fundingsecure and Lendy too, littering up the place for years - would it be reasonable to expect capital and interest back on all of those too? Some might work out, others won't.
|
|
11025
Member of DD Central
Posts: 731
Likes: 849
|
Post by 11025 on Dec 7, 2018 16:54:05 GMT
I see your point on that and concur ...
I entered into secured P2P with a realistic approach , over inflated LTVs , defaults , difficult recoveries etc .
But one thing I wasn't expecting was a company to state FCA regs with a number , then that number to be mirrored on the FCA website and then to find out the company and the FCA were both leading me down the garden path .
|
|
|
Post by Proptechfish on Dec 7, 2018 17:29:44 GMT
2) Collateral's largest loan by far was mid-development and has now been abandoned. To give you an idea to compare against, a project of similar scale and ambition, Lendy's PBL120 was defaulted and was I believe further along in being completed. That facility was something like 18% LTV, and Lendy's initial view was that only capital and no interest would be returned to investors on even that tiny exposure.Only after a massive backlash did they source interest. This is a very good point and not something I really considered. Is it not reasonable to think the developer behind this loan could be considering a legal action themselves for the value of the intended completed development (plus damages), that has been abandoned due to the collapse of platform and consequently the loss of promised funds ? If this is the case and Collateral are found liable would that not come from the administration process i.e our funds, which given the size of development could be very damaging for any significant recovery amount ?
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Dec 7, 2018 18:26:36 GMT
2) Collateral's largest loan by far was mid-development and has now been abandoned. To give you an idea to compare against, a project of similar scale and ambition, Lendy's PBL120 was defaulted and was I believe further along in being completed. That facility was something like 18% LTV, and Lendy's initial view was that only capital and no interest would be returned to investors on even that tiny exposure.Only after a massive backlash did they source interest. This is a very good point and not something I really considered. Is it not reasonable to think the developer behind this loan could be considering a legal action themselves for the value of the intended completed development (plus damages), that has been abandoned due to the collapse of platform and consequently the loss of promised funds ? If this is the case and Collateral are found liable would that not come from the administration process i.e our funds, which given the size of development could be very damaging for any significant recovery amount ? It would be an unsecured creditor claim, so unlikely to make any significant difference based on the current view that lenders have secured claims against trust assets. There's likely to be very little in the pot for unsecured creditors, if anything.
|
|
7d7
Member of DD Central
Posts: 134
Likes: 205
|
Post by 7d7 on Dec 8, 2018 8:41:24 GMT
It is ironic that sufficient detail is presented on their compensation when limited progress has been made on the administration.
The good news is the deadline. We would know where we stand by April next year. The countdown is on!
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Dec 8, 2018 10:18:37 GMT
This is a very good point and not something I really considered. Is it not reasonable to think the developer behind this loan could be considering a legal action themselves for the value of the intended completed development (plus damages), that has been abandoned due to the collapse of platform and consequently the loss of promised funds ? If this is the case and Collateral are found liable would that not come from the administration process i.e our funds, which given the size of development could be very damaging for any significant recovery amount ? It would be an unsecured creditor claim, so unlikely to make any significant difference based on the current view that lenders have secured claims against trust assets. There's likely to be very little in the pot for unsecured creditors, if anything. Wonder if it’s linked to the 0.8M unsecured that popped up.
|
|
tommytaylor
P2P - The new wild west
Posts: 234
Likes: 375
|
Post by tommytaylor on Dec 8, 2018 10:32:07 GMT
Here we go then. Back of fag packet calculation coming up for how much we will get back assuming a pessimistic view! Outstanding loans £17m Assume distressed auction sales @60% of face value (taking all fees into consideration) = £10.2m Add cash in hand = £1.4m = £11.4m Deduct BDO costs (say £800k) = £10.6m Deduct secured creditors (say £800k) = £9.2m So 9.2/17 = 54% will be returned. Anybody care to improvise? 54%. I think that way off the mark Steve. Have a bit more faith. Its the length of time this is all going to be dragged over. I could really do with my cash pretty soon. Thats whats getting my goat. If those city slickers are charging whatever they want they should be bustin their balls to get this over the line. I hope the committee gets well stuck into them this time around. I wish i was on it now.
|
|