SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 22, 2015 9:39:38 GMT
Fast and furious FCPF clicking now underway
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 22, 2015 10:37:22 GMT
£137k of their £1M balance-sheet fund used on just one tranche. That will make Funding Crisis's eyes water. I have £20 in it - now up for sale.
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Jun 22, 2015 11:16:00 GMT
£137k of their £1M balance-sheet fund used on just one tranche. That will make Funding Crisis's eyes water. I have £20 in it - now up for sale. Presumably though it would be a simple accounting exercise to bolster that position or was the £1m a hard limit which must remain sacrosanct? If the former applies then they would not necessarily need to free up (i.e. sell in the secondary market) capital already invested in loan parts in order to be able to fund additional tranches.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 22, 2015 12:46:23 GMT
It looks like a limit established by FC policy aimed at limiting their exposure to loans on the balance sheet. It has been stated a number of times - sometimes on 'investor' reports. I assume they have to consider within the £1M the likely forward liability on later tranches not yet placed. What they are doing about trading the existing parts I do not know - the fact that they now buy in £100 parts rather than £20 suggests they have recognised that dumping unsold loan parts on the SM without the cash back is highly questionable. Maybe they can shuffle the parts off quietly to some institution, to make space in the £1M reservoir.
|
|
markr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 766
Likes: 426
|
Post by markr on Jun 22, 2015 13:19:32 GMT
It looks like a limit established by FC policy aimed at limiting their exposure to loans on the balance sheet. It has been stated a number of times - sometimes on 'investor' reports. I assume they have to consider within the £1M the likely forward liability on later tranches not yet placed. What they are doing about trading the existing parts I do not know - the fact that they now buy in £100 parts rather than £20 suggests they have recognised that dumping unsold loan parts on the SM without the cash back is highly questionable. Maybe they can shuffle the parts off quietly to some institution, to make space in the £1M reservoir. Presumably, since they don't need to pay themselves the cashback, or charge themselves the 0.25% selling fee, they could sell them on the SM with a -2% markup. This would be no different from their point of view to giving 2% cashback on the PM, but allows them to effectively spread the "auction" term over many weeks and makes their parts more attractive than any flipper parts.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 22, 2015 13:47:33 GMT
They managed to work out that such a procedure would be improper; the operator competing unfairly with the lenders who wished to sell their loan parts - for whatever reason. They did try to suggest originally that when purchasing parts in this way they were acting as a lender, but soon realised that this was not a sustainable argument, especially when they went on to sell the parts on the SM. Effectively they were acting as the operator in support of the borrower, by buying the parts which lenders did not. Therefore when they dispose of the parts they are doing so as the operator, and have to be very careful of their relationship with the lenders when intervening in the SM, by effectively using it as a PM for unsold parts. The current general stated policy looks clean to me, except when they fiddle with Autobid to favour the PM.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jun 22, 2015 13:57:09 GMT
It looks like a limit established by FC policy aimed at limiting their exposure to loans on the balance sheet. It has been stated a number of times - sometimes on 'investor' reports. I assume they have to consider within the £1M the likely forward liability on later tranches not yet placed. What they are doing about trading the existing parts I do not know - the fact that they now buy in £100 parts rather than £20 suggests they have recognised that dumping unsold loan parts on the SM without the cash back is highly questionable. Maybe they can shuffle the parts off quietly to some institution, to make space in the £1M reservoir. My prediction is that the later tranches on the project will be smaller - if they split the construction cost over 4 tranches they'll come in in the £250,000 to £300,000 ballpark.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 22, 2015 14:15:56 GMT
The 3rd tranche of Huddersfield (13687) has had 1%CB added to its 9% starting rate (the first 2 tranches filled despite no CB). 10 months, A+, £216k
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Jun 23, 2015 7:18:26 GMT
Would I be right in thinking that 13686 is being offered with less CB than a previous tranche offering ?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 23, 2015 7:31:59 GMT
Would I be right in thinking that 13686 is being offered with less CB than a previous tranche offering ? Yes. There are links to the previous tranches via the Financial Summary page. The first 2 (for £230k and £300k) had 2%CB added. The 3rd (£50k) was given just 0.5%CB and the 4th (also £50k) none at all. It will be interesting to see whether 1%CB is enough to get this larger tranche of £400k filled but the term is now down to 11 months (versus 18 months on the first) so there's a chance.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Jun 23, 2015 7:36:05 GMT
Interesting , I think that 13695 is the same , as the term is still 18 months I guess that its a marginally worse offer ?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 23, 2015 7:51:44 GMT
Interesting , I think that 13695 is the same , as the term is still 18 months I guess that its a marginally worse offer ? That tranche is £285k, versus £500k on the first, so Fretting Cheetahs will be thinking 1% is enough to fill it, especially as it's only the second tranche. The ones that hit problems tend to be £500k+ with multiple large previous tranches, or else listing several tranches in succession over a very short period.
|
|
|
Post by mostlywrong on Jun 23, 2015 12:28:56 GMT
1041hrs, Tue 23 Jun
FC Comments: This loan is being delisted and will be listed again broken down into smaller amounts. Thanks FC.
The Work Experience lass obviously didn't turn up for work today...
MW
|
|
|
Post by mostlywrong on Jun 23, 2015 13:00:02 GMT
1041hrs, Tue 23 Jun FC Comments: This loan is being delisted and will be listed again broken down into smaller amounts. Thanks FC. The Work Experience lass obviously didn't turn up for work today... MW Many thanks, mostlywrong. I guess the FC comment was only available to those who'd bid. I bid on the loan and it was in my Watchlist - so I could check on the outcome. I don't know how you can view the outcome of the loan application if it isn't in your Watchlist. MW
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Jun 23, 2015 14:52:19 GMT
Regarding visibility of the result of 13528, I had it in my watchlist but did not bid on it. I can see the comment, but I think this is because I participated in the linked loan (i.e. the first tranche). Had I not done so, I suspect I would not have been able to view the13528 auction result, despite it being in my watchlist.
|
|