JLs 9.1.2012 Progress Report
Hi Folks,
Just on to say that I see the JLs 9.1.2012 Progress Report is now on -line. Will get back to you in due course on my thoughts on what the Report contains and will then update my Table 12 accordingly and let you all know what I get.
Two things - I see the estimated returns are now up to between 95.5p and 98.6p/£ - brilliant news. It had to happen based on all the recent figures.
Secondly, had one glance at the remaining loans pie chart on page 13. The only area that can hold the largest loan is Residential Property. The Yachts unless it has gone down from 3 of, cannot contain the large loan. And if you go to the pie-chart on Page 15 showing the Residential loans you will see the following - London £23.72m, Other UK £3.84m and Overseas £17.59m. the large loan is in London and might be nearer my thoughts, way back, of £17m rather than others who thought £25m - £40m.
But time will tell.
Main thing is brilliant news for us,
All the best,
Gordon 45
@Gordon45 - JLs Progress Report
Actually Gordon, the JLs have discontinued their 'top ten' loans wherein they indicated that only one large loan remained above £10m -- now they have become a little more transparent and show TWO loans above £10m, indeed, two loans above £15m with a total value of £31.51m.(See page 11). So, those of us who calculated a figure of around £30m were not wrong about the value, we'd just been led to believe there was just one and not two loans above £10m. I see the JLs are still 'fudging' the issue though, as they label their new table based on 'relationships' and not facilities. Not sure how they squeeze 48 'facilities' at £82.052m into 42 'relationships' at £82.56m but I hope it doesn't matter -- providing there really are two independent entities owing the £31.51m and not just one improves our chances of recovering more money. If you can venture any logical reason (other than obscuration) as to why the JLs have come up with this 'relationship' term and not just continued with the number of entities owing money I would be pleased to hear it! Cynical as ever, I'm afraid I'd guess at some relational splitting of the £30.51m owed by one entity into two parts -- perhaps a shared company or something similar... Sorry, I just can't help it where those JLs are concerned!
Since writing my piece based on November figures a number of loans have been repaid, but the figures tie-up except where the JLs have somehow taken in roll-over and the £2.6m write-off from their expected returns. The old 'top ten' loans have since reduced to around £57m come January 9th. These are good tidings for us -- I'm especially pleased to see that the JLs have indeed raised their lower estimate of returns right up to 95.4% -- a huge increase over their previous guesstimate. The flood of money coming back though is slowing considerably and I note that the JLs make no larger claim than for 6p/£ for the whole of 2012, however, as long as it does keep coming back we have the mortgagors to thank for continuing to repay their debts in these strained economic climes.
More later....
Ice
To Icecrusher
Hi There Ice,
Re the top 10 loans, please refer to the Progress Report page 13 of the report.
Not arguing that they are playing semantics, but the 10 are still there with figures,
Gordon 45
Does anybody have any info re
Does anybody have any info re future dividend payments by KSF UK as this will have a major bearing on future dividend payments to us. KSFUK owes KSFIOM a balance of £165.6m. The outstanding balance on the loan book (on 9th Jan) was £85.7m. I therefore believe that getting money back from KSFUK is becoming more and more important.
I realise that Simpson is constrained on commenting on this issue, except for giving a range of likely recoveries (but no dates).
It is highly likely that more information must be "floating around".
I have detected a deafening and worrying silence regarding this subject since the last dividend payment on 3 Oct 11 (almost 5 months ago). KSF UK has in the past made dividend payments every 5/6 months.
I am sure other depositors would also welcome information regarding this.
Thanks
Brabander
@Brabander - re KSF UK
According to E&Y's October Progess Report to Creditors (table on page 2, page 6 of the pdf), the next (8th) KSF-UK dividend, of amount "not yet known is/was expected to be paid in March/April 2012:
http://www.kaupthingsingers.co.uk/media/1057/ksf_progress_report_october...
I doubt whether any further information is "floating around" in any place any of us could find it. But if the April/May date is to be respected, the official notification (but still not the amount) should be published any day now.
Thanks. Every 5% (I believe
Thanks.
Every 5% (I believe the minimum quantum) is worth around 1.8% to us!
To Brabander
Hi There,
Just on re the KSFUK situation. As Anrigaut says they expect to payout another dividend in March/April this year and it has to be at least 5% = £12.305m to us.
In my ongoing estimates on returns I have always allowed for a 6 monthly dividend back from KSFUK to our JLs until their 79% runs out. If I am correct and they can maintain that kind of dividend twice a year we would be due another one in June12 (5%) - (now March/April12), one in Dec 12 (5%) , one in June 13 (5%) and one in Dec 13 (1%). I also allow for two dividends per year from our JLs to us, again June & Dec. and if you look at dividends given out so far from both banks I think you will see 'roughly that the timing is correct.
Don't quite understand the JLs 6p/£ this year, because if they are anywhere near correct on the new 89.08% lower return on the KSFIOM loan book it should not be a problem us getting 10p/£ back this year. Once I get my Table 12 updated based on the 9.1.2012 Progress Report I will update everyone on how I see it.
Just about to post my thoughts on the JLs 9.1.2012 Progress Report tonight.
Take care,
Gordon 45
Hi Ice, I too noted the
Hi Ice,
I too noted the subtle distinction between 'relationships' and 'facilities', which I take to mean that 42 different entities (individuals/companies etc) have betwen them a total of 48 loans. This should mean that the £31.51m you refer to is owed by two different entities as 2 or more loans? In terms of possible default, knowing the number of entities involved is probably more relevant than the number of loans. I note also that the JLs have given a more detailed breakdown than before, with 7 tiers instead of 4 and have also added an upper limit of £17.5m to the top tier. As a result of all that, we now see that there are two entities owing amounts between £15m and £17.5m; in fact, since the total is £31.51m, the larger amount cannot be more than £16.5m.
My reading of page 11 is that these 42 entities with 48 loans owe a total of £82.56m (rounded to £82.6m in the text and in the table on page 12). Where does your figure of £82.052m come from?
As to why these changes in presentation, I can only guess. But a generous explanation would be that this is their best attempt to answer Gordon's requests for more detailed information, without giving details of individual loans. Knowing that there are two entities (assuming that's what is meant by relationships) each owing around £16m (+/- £1m) is more informative than saying there are (or were, in July) two outstanding loans over £10m.
A final thought is that maybe these "strained economic climes" are not necessarily to our disadvantage? Obviously they increase the possibility of default. On the other hand, borrowers with available funds might be more inclined to decide to use them to pay off their loans ssooner rather than later and thus convert their wealth into bricks and mortar rather than leave it in increasingly risky investments? But no doubt I dream!
All the best,
Angela
@Anrigaut: Two are better than one...
Hi Angela,
Yes, we can guess all we might, but we don't know because the JLs choose not for us to know. I would say that logically, 42 entities would share 48 loans and therefore two or three of these entities have more than one loan. The JLs now advise us that there are two loans in excess of £15m - that is better than one of ~£30m and if those two loans are owed by entirely different entities then so much the better; nothing more than that. The JLs do things for their own reasons and I'm not convinced that they do anything to enlighten us any more than they consider absolutely necessary. I honestly believe that they presented the 'top ten' loan saga to hide the value of a loan by averaging its value with nine much lesser loans; I now think they've come up with another means of clouding the value of loans owed by a single entity, but that's just my way of thinking, we're each entitled to our own ideas. At this juncture it hardly makes much difference anyway, if the odds are that those of us still awaiting returns might get circa 95% back, that is an awful lot more than I expected at the outset. We would like to get everything with interest too, but we don't always get what we want, so I'm not going to waste any more of my life fretting and crying into my beer over the last couple of grand.
Best wishes,
Lou