cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 17, 2016 16:28:42 GMT
This Loan is currently LIVE
| Loan Amount | : | £ 3,080,000
| | Security Value | : | £ 4,400,000
| | SS Indicated LTV | : | 70% | | Market Valueation with "restrictive covenant" in place | : | £ 3,275,000*
| | LTV Based on Market Valueation with "restrictive covenant" in place | : | 94%* |
PLEASE NOTE : This post (and all my DD posts) are no longer being updated by myself (besides the basic loan status)
Observations from the valuation report & other remarks> There is a restrictive covenant in place preventing the change of use. The borrower is agreeing "Deeds of Variation" to remove this; saving stream think this should take place within 2 months. > *Savingstream themselves have said that the restrictive covenant reduces the value of the security by 20%, and as such amended the loan offer to reflect this. However, I can't see how they have done this; the valuation report indicates that the market value is with the assumption that the restrictive covenant has been removed, and provide "CONTINUING OFFICE USE" value of £3,275,000. As such, it seems to me that the value of the security is currently £3,275,000 with a current LTV 94%.Savingstream has acknowledged the above with the following statement on the loan overview > It has been commented by investors ( here & here) who know the region well, that this area is predominantly commercial based and it seems unlikely that replacing these units with residential properties (which is the borrowers plan) would be viable. This is also backed up in the valuation report as a weak point; "Not an established residential location at a micro level". >The value reported takes into consideration the expected legislation proposed by the national government to permanently allow conversion from office to residential use under Permitted Development Rights. The current temporary permission expires in May 2016. If for any reason that legislation is not completed there may be a detrimental effect on the value of the property.> After some (fantastic  ) investigation by Please turn me over it looks like the loan PBL33 is related to the borrower of this loan Note : If anybody wants me to add to this, please just add a comment in this thread......
| Code Number Assigned | : | 17/03/2016 | | Loan went live @ | : | 19/03/2016 | | Allocation | : | 100% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Mar 17, 2016 17:16:53 GMT
> As mentioned above, the valuation document does not take into account the Restrictive Covenants in place, which reduces the value of the security by 20% Although SS are confident that these Restrictive Covenants will be removed in a matter of months, it will make the current LTV 87.5%.
Cooling Dude - Please see our comments on the other similar thread. These numbers are entirely incorrect.
You also showing the LTV as 87.5%? It is 70%. Slightly (cough) misleading don't you think.
Kindly remove this post or amend at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely
SS
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,020
Likes: 4,829
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 17, 2016 18:44:15 GMT
You also showing the LTV as 87.5%? It is 70%. Slightly (cough) misleading don't you think. Loan : £3,080,000 Market value (no special assumptions) :- £4,200,000 - 73.3% Market value (vacant possession) : £4,400,000 - 70% Market value (6mo marketing) - £4,200,000 - 73.3% Market value (pp rejected, continuing office use) - £3,275,000 - 94% (Figures from doc dated 16 March 2016 in page headers, valuation date 1 Feb 2016)
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 17, 2016 18:52:00 GMT
AH, but depending on which valuation report we are looking at (anything dated within the last month or two would be best). (Providing it doesn't say we are not allowed to read it).
@cooling_Dude may well have arrived at the wrong answers but IMO he has had a lot of help from SS, by way of providing the option of confusing, wrong or outdated valuation reports to start from.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Mar 17, 2016 18:59:16 GMT
AH, but depending on which valuation report we are looking at (anything dated within the last month or two would be best). (Providing it doesn't say we are not allowed to read it). @cooling_Dude may well have arrived at the wrong answers but IMO he has had a lot of help from SS, by way of providing the option of confusing, wrong or outdated valuation reports to start from. That would appear to be the case this time. Both Cooling_Dude and Saving Stream are doing their best, I am sure.  The cooling_Dude simulation test/reports are always helpful, in evaluating the robustness of the investment. 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 17, 2016 18:59:58 GMT
AH, but depending on which valuation report we are looking at (anything dated within the last month or two would be best). (Providing it doesn't say we are not allowed to read it). @cooling_Dude may well have arrived at the wrong answers but IMO he has had a lot of help from SS, by way of providing the option of confusing, wrong or outdated valuation reports to start from. I just can't get my head around it. Sticking with unit 4 for one sec..... The draft valuation report, which was uploaded shortly after the loan appeared, is the same as the indicated valuation on the SS pipeline page. But since that valuation report, SS have said there is a "Restrictive Covenant" in place that reduced the value of the security by 20%. I indicated that in my OP valuation observation, but SS say I'm wrong; that the updated valuation takes into account the Restrictive Covenants. So are we're missing the updated valuation; and how will this make any difference..... the original valuation matches the one indicated on the pipeline page, so surely the new valuation will be less 
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 19:35:09 GMT
AH, but depending on which valuation report we are looking at (anything dated within the last month or two would be best). (Providing it doesn't say we are not allowed to read it). @cooling_Dude may well have arrived at the wrong answers but IMO he has had a lot of help from SS, by way of providing the option of confusing, wrong or outdated valuation reports to start from. I just can't get my head around it. Sticking with unit 4 for one sec..... The draft valuation report, which was uploaded shortly after the loan appeared, is the same as the indicated valuation on the SS pipeline page. But since that valuation report, SS have said there is a "Restrictive Covenant" in place that reduced the value of the security by 20%. I indicated that in my OP valuation observation, but SS say I'm wrong; that the updated valuation takes into account the Restrictive Covenants. So are we're missing the updated valuation; and how will this make any difference..... the original valuation matches the one indicated on the pipeline page, so surely the new valuation will be less Agree with you Cooling_Dude - It's all as clear as mud.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,632
Likes: 4,199
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 17, 2016 19:47:47 GMT
It's all as clear as mud. Ah, that was quality music 
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,887
Likes: 11,110
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 17, 2016 19:56:57 GMT
I havent changed the figures on the updates list since the valuations first appeared and they are identical to the ones currently shown on site. The loans have increased, the LTV has increased as a result but the valautions are the same so I just cant see where this 20% reduction has appeared from unless there were earlier valuations which we never saw. The original value in 1/2 update for unit 4 was 5m so there has been a 12% decrease in that one but the valuation for unit 3 was 8m so thats increased by 10%
Going to just have to trust SS on this one, which hasnt worked out too badly so far
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 17, 2016 20:08:17 GMT
I havent changed the figures on the updates list since the valuations first appeared and they are identical to the ones currently shown on site. The loans have increased, the LTV has increased as a result but the valautions are the same so I just cant see where this 20% reduction has appeared from unless there were earlier valuations which we never saw. The original value in 1/2 update for unit 4 was 5m so there has been a 12% decrease in that one but the valuation for unit 3 was 8m so thats increased by 10% Going to just have to trust SS on this one, which hasnt worked out too badly so far I do trust SS, but it doesn't hurt keeping an eye on them considering they are looking after £87,070,250 of other peoples (including our) money....... I just want to see some honesty from SS here. Something along the line of; "this loan is 87.5% LTV, but we are of the opinion that the LTV will reduce to 70%, so we're happy to make it available to investors"
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,224
Likes: 6,029
|
Post by registerme on Mar 17, 2016 20:10:29 GMT
I wonder is transparency a less emotive word than honesty?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 20:17:18 GMT
I wonder is transparency a less emotive word than honesty? Good edit. PS CD you've got mail.
|
|
brin
I am trying to stay calm.
Posts: 379
Likes: 69
|
Post by brin on Mar 17, 2016 20:30:31 GMT
It's all as clear as mud. Ah, that was quality music it certainly was, but dangerous on occasions 
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 17, 2016 20:41:27 GMT
Looking at the (currently linked, 01 Feb?) valuation report, I see:
MARKET VALUE – CONTIUING (sic) OFFICE USE
Our opinion of the Market Value of the interest in the
property subject to, and with the benefit of the various
occupational interests, and on the special as
sumption of continuing office use, is:
£3,275,000
(Seven million four hundred
and fifty thousand pounds)
Since when does 3275 read as 7450 ??
Moi? Dyslexic??
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 17, 2016 20:56:59 GMT
Looking at the (currently linked, 01 Feb?) valuation report, I see: MARKET VALUE – CONTIUING (sic) OFFICE USE Our opinion of the Market Value of the interest in the property subject to, and with the benefit of the various occupational interests, and on the special as sumption of continuing office use, is: £3,275,000 (Seven million four hundred and fifty thousand pounds) Since when does 3275 read as 7450 ?? Moi? Dyslexic?? Yes..... I've read most of the valuation reports on the SS loans, and proof-reading doesn't seem to be a surveyors strong point 
|
|
) investigation by Please turn me over it looks like the loan PBL33 is related to the borrower of this loan
