"Due Diligence"......how is this done on this platform?

Simple app development rule, don't show functionality that doesn't work.

I've said it before regarding this particular piece of SS's offering. If you're not going to use it don't show it to anybody.

I guess part of the problem for SS is the issue of who actually provides the answers to lenders' questions, and what are the vested interests of those supplying the answers.

Part of the TC model is the use of sponsors who act on behalf of the borrower and provide answers to questions based on their own research and information provided by the borrower. They therefore, of course, have a vested interest in seeing a loan they've sponsored succeed in attracting sufficient funds, but they also have a vested interest in winning the trust of potential investors so as to build up a good reputation for any future deals they bring to the platform. It's clear that some sponsors on TC have built a very good reputation and others less so.

However, to be fair, it must also be said that the quality of the security on offer on TC loans is sometimes/often very dubious........it can be a mish-mash of first charge over property, second charge, charge over chattels, personal guarantees, and also, most dubious of all, charges over loan books whose value can evaporate in the blink of an eye.

So I can see that with the SS model there is always a very clearly defined security on offer and a fairly reliable LTV figure based on professional valuations, based, presumably, on 'worst case scenarios'.......is this approximately correct? I'm new here, so am still trying to understand the set-up.

And that's the reason I spend a lot more time on due diligence for a Thin Cats loan than I do here. I agree there are a few dubious ones on Thin Cats but they are fairly easy to spot and they struggle to get the funding, the hard part is sifting through the others working out the levels of security, and the cash flow backing based on the financial/commercial strength of the business, and assessing the risks compared with the rate. But then the rate is often higher than the standard 12% here to compensate for that extra risk.

I guess the key here is later in the valuation, where they state that there is "good demand for this site" which I guess gives SS the opinion that the site would sale at Market Value.

If there really is good demand, why is there such a huge difference between the 'value' and the '90-day value'?  (Using the 'value' results in a 65% LTV.  Using the '90-day value' results in a 92% LTV.)  Perhaps it simply means that the market is rather thin, and if you need to sell the property in a hurry you'd need to offer a significant discount, whereas if you could wait for the right buyer to come along you'd get a lot more for it.  But wouldn't any buyer would know that as well, and not be willing to offer the full 'value' because they know they have minimal competition?  If the property has been repossessed by SS and has been on the market for a number of months waiting for the right buyer to come along, I would expect someone interested in the property would think they could get it cheaply.

I suppose it depends a lot on how much pressure to sell SS would be under.  Under the new SS Ts&Cs, interest will stop being paid when the loan matures, and there'd be no incentive for investors to stay in this loan hoping the accruing interest will be paid if there were SS investments that still were paying monthly interest.  So I'd expect there'd be a massive run for the exit as maturity approaches, and investors will find the SM very different than it is today with 'overdue' loans.  Investors still holding parts in such a situation will want SS to get them out as soon as they can recover all capital and accrued interest, so it could be a difficult balancing act between a potentially higher price achieved if they don't rush the sale and the ever-increasing accrued interest.  At the same time, SS could be under some pressure not to just dump the property because of their obligation to treat the borrower fairly, though perhaps that's not a big concern.

In short, it would be a lot better for all concerned if the borrower repaid the loan on time! 

Surveyors provide market valuations restricted to shorter hypothetical 90 or 180 day marketing period which assume similar transaction conditions. This hypothetical timeframe is to market the property and complete the resale.

It's worth pointing out that in the “bridging loan world” bridging loan lenders normally use a 180 day for their LTV. If a surveyor is happy that the property will sell easily in the current market, they would normally indicate that the 180 day marketing period value is the same or very close to the market value.

I realise these companies exist, and they could be useful if an owner needs to dispose of a property quickly.  The owner's equity, of course, would take a very large hit in such a circumstance.  That's no problem if it was the owner that decided to do this.  A lender, such a P2P platform, using that sort of service after a borrower defaults is, unfortunately, a very different situation and, IMHO, would expose them to accusations of 'dumping' the property just to get out of it.  For better or worse, lenders have a legal obligation to treat their borrowers fairly, so they easily could find themselves in court defending their actions if they are too quick to sell.  That's part of the reason specialised LPA receivers exist, and why it's necessary to wait for those receivers to do marketing research and make recommendations as to the best way forward.  The process of disposing of foreclosed property is not a quick one.

Disclaimer:  I'm no expert in this area.  I'm basing the above on what I've seen at other P2P platforms I've invested in when they've had to deal with defaults.  And it's all JMHO.