|
|
Post by richardb67 on Jun 13, 2016 20:41:29 GMT
did quick search through the valuations for the word refurbished and got the following
PBL 107 refurb in progress
PBL 108 refurb in progress
PBL 109 refurb in progress
PBL 110 refurb in progress
PBL 111 newly refurbished
PBL 112 newly refurbished
PBL 113 newly refurbished
PBL 114 newly refurbished
PBL 115 newly refurbished
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 13, 2016 20:41:52 GMT
My exposure to SS amounts to a rounding error on a rounding error as a %age of my p2p, so I'm hardly in a position to make much commentary. However, what on earth is the justification given by SS for presenting LTV values based on assumptions of lease lengths which are (so it is being said) simply fiction ? Have lease extensions been agreed already with agreed costs ? Has the borrower/SS confirmed that the borrower has the resources to meet the agreed prices ? And as for those on sub 25 year.... I may be missing something here as I know that the situation is somewhat different when yoiu are an owner / occupier. Perhaps the money is being raised in order to fund the lease extensions and refurbishments.....or is that all a bit circular  SS state that... " the borrower is looking to release some equity from these properties in order to fund another project of theirs"So not to redevelop or extend the lease... No (indicated) secondary security on these loans either...
|
|
|
|
Post by brianac on Jun 13, 2016 20:45:04 GMT
My reading of the couple of reports I've read is that they are based on increasing the leases by 90 years, not to 90 years
i.e lease would become "approx 161 years" from "62 years 4 months unexpired" (Pebble 14)
HTH
Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 13, 2016 20:47:43 GMT
PBL114
The leasehold interest was sold last year for £925,000. ( i.e. the actual lease terms in existence). This figure is confirmed in the valuation report.
The loan against this asset is £962,500.
The lease has now got 1 year less to run than it had a year ago so that is a devaluing factor and against that there may have been a slight general increase in values in the area which may offset that. But the bottom line is, in my opinion, the LTV is around 100% if not slightly higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jun 13, 2016 20:54:15 GMT
PBL115 Is there a valuation for this? If so, where?
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jun 13, 2016 20:55:21 GMT
Not much time to decide on PF. Do any of these look like they have a genuine LTV of 70%?
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 13, 2016 20:59:49 GMT
Is it still the case that you don't have a legal right to extend your lease unless you have held it for more than 2 years? I note that at least two of the properties I have reviewed here were only acquired by the borrower last year which could mean he has no legal right to extend the leases until next year. If that is the case then the freeholders have the borrower by the short and curlys at the moment and can talk telephone numbers because they know the borrower cant go through the normal legal process in the event of disagreement about the lease extension valuation?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 13, 2016 21:03:40 GMT
Is it still the case that you don't have a legal right to extend your lease unless you have held it for more than 2 years? I note that at least two of the properties I have reviewed here were only acquired by the borrower last year which could mean he has no legal right to extend the leases until next year. If that is the case then the freeholders have the borrower by the short and curlys at the moment and can talk telephone numbers because they know the borrower cant go through the normal legal process in the event of disagreement about the lease extension valuation? You have to be a ‘qualifying leaseholder’. Which means: (i) You have to have owned the lease for a minimum period of 2 years; and(ii) The original lease was granted for a term of at least 21 years
|
|
peteuk
Member of DD Central
Posts: 120
Likes: 100
|
Post by peteuk on Jun 13, 2016 21:07:25 GMT
Is it still the case that you don't have a legal right to extend your lease unless you have held it for more than 2 years? I note that at least two of the properties I have reviewed here were only acquired by the borrower last year which could mean he has no legal right to extend the leases until next year. If that is the case then the freeholders have the borrower by the short and curlys at the moment and can talk telephone numbers because they know the borrower cant go through the normal legal process in the event of disagreement about the lease extension valuation? Is this a hedge against brexit and a possible market crash
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Jun 13, 2016 21:18:32 GMT
PBL115 Is there a valuation for this? If so, where? Accessible from the right hand column on the 'Pipeline Loans' page
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 13, 2016 21:24:42 GMT
PBL113 looks alright to me but my concern is the fact that it's the same borrower as all the others. If this borrower turns out to be a dud how ring-fenced are we in terms of only being invested in one or two of the loans to him. I suppose as long as saving stream have first charge over the assets then they would have to be treated separately in the event of a default and therefore due diligence is still very worthwhile here and we should not be put off investing in the loans we like because we don't like some of the others in the same batch?
|
|
moist
Member of DD Central
Posts: 240
Likes: 250
|
Post by moist on Jun 13, 2016 21:28:17 GMT
Is it still the case that you don't have a legal right to extend your lease unless you have held it for more than 2 years? I note that at least two of the properties I have reviewed here were only acquired by the borrower last year which could mean he has no legal right to extend the leases until next year. If that is the case then the freeholders have the borrower by the short and curlys at the moment and can talk telephone numbers because they know the borrower cant go through the normal legal process in the event of disagreement about the lease extension valuation? Is this a hedge against brexit and a possible market crash sure looks that way
|
|
|
|
Post by trevxe on Jun 13, 2016 21:30:59 GMT
Not much time to decide on PF. Do any of these look like they have a genuine LTV of 70%? I reckon the two Fulham houses are priced about right. I have some misgivings about the premium flats on short leases though.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 13, 2016 21:34:50 GMT
Not much time to decide on PF. Do any of these look like they have a genuine LTV of 70%? As far as I'm concerned, the LTV should be calculated against the 9-day market value, which is 82% - 84% on all of these loans. 7, 8, 9 & 14 are valued against a lease extension that has yet to happen, so are ones to avoid. The rest look better than the above... which isn't saying much 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 13, 2016 21:40:05 GMT
There is no saying, that the security within 7, 8, 9 & 14 haven't had a lease extension (since the valuation report). Maybe that is why SS asked for it to be valued as such; because they gave instruction to the borrower that the loans(s) will only be provided against the security if and when the lease extensions have been completed... and maybe that was completed today
I've dropped them an e-mail asking if 7, 8, 9 & 14 have had their leases extended or not.
|
|
