amphoria
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156
Likes: 124
|
Post by amphoria on Oct 31, 2016 12:04:36 GMT
I have been reading through some of the older valuation reports in case any units become available on the SM or there are further tranches offered.
In the case of MTAH367 the valuer appears to have made a possibly significant error in the Valuation Report. He assumed that the 119 en-suite rooms are larger than the 21 studio rooms. I made the same mistake until I looked at the glossy brochure where the studio rooms are clearly larger and are being offered to investors at a higher price. Assuming that the weekly rental remains £75 for the smaller rooms (ie. en-suite) and £90 for the larger studio rooms, this reduces the GDV to £5,650,000 using the spreadsheet in Appendix C. As the construction costs of £4,000,000 are fixed, the Site Value reduces considerably, although the Ground Rents are unchanged so the overall value is not impacted as much.
Can anyone spot an error in my logic?
|
|
mikeh
Member of DD Central
Posts: 499
Likes: 370
|
Post by mikeh on Oct 31, 2016 13:51:39 GMT
I have to agree something is not right here. In the glossy the en suites are smaller than the studios. MoneyThing I think someone needs to review this valuation.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 15:13:53 GMT
Looking at the pictures and floorplans, it looks like the 'en suites' have beds/toilets, and the studios have kitchens, sofas etc
So maybe the studios are just fancy daytime-only accomodation for the rich students?
|
|
amphoria
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156
Likes: 124
|
Post by amphoria on Oct 31, 2016 20:44:56 GMT
Looking at the pictures and floorplans, it looks like the 'en suites' have beds/toilets, and the studios have kitchens, sofas etc So maybe the studios are just fancy daytime-only accomodation for the rich students? The studios are coloured beige in the floor plan in the brochure and have beds. The rooms coloured red that you seem to be referring to are separate shared kitchens.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 21:49:04 GMT
Yes, that makes more sense...
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Nov 1, 2016 11:10:01 GMT
To look on the bright side, if the valuer has made such a mistake, there's a better than usual chance of being able to collect on his professional indemnity insurance.
I note that the average MV per unit on the valuation is less that the sale prices on the brochure (and less than the advanced sale prices documented in the VR as having been achieved).
The brochure is offering a guaranteed yield of 9%. The VR estimates market values based on a yield of 7.5%. From this I infer that the developer expects to achieve higher rentals than those assumed in the VR. On the basis of the comparable (an inferior development with comparable rates (£70-£100 vs £75-£90) the valuer may have lowballed the rates.
|
|
amphoria
Member of DD Central
Posts: 156
Likes: 124
|
Post by amphoria on Nov 1, 2016 22:35:53 GMT
I note that the average MV per unit on the valuation is less that the sale prices on the brochure (and less than the advanced sale prices documented in the VR as having been achieved). The brochure is offering a guaranteed yield of 9%. The VR estimates market values based on a yield of 7.5%. From this I infer that the developer expects to achieve higher rentals than those assumed in the VR. On the basis of the comparable (an inferior development with comparable rates (£70-£100 vs £75-£90) the valuer may have lowballed the rates. I ran 2 more scenarios. The first was assuming weekly rents of £85 for the en-suites and £100 for the studios which is roughly what the 9% assured yields amount to. This gives a GDV of £6.35m which is pretty close to the GDV in the valuation report. The second more optimistic scenario was to assume that the developer can sell all of the rooms at the brochure list prices. This gives a GDV of £7.04m.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 5, 2017 18:05:56 GMT
The pics are nice, but could we maybe have them reduced somewhat .. at 2MBytes apiece they are slow to load, and not many of us have a large enough screen to actually see all the pixels.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 18:29:30 GMT
I don't know what you are using but the pics are formatted and sized by imgur to load directly onto message boards and forums. They loaded instantly and I'm viewing them on a laptop with about 3" of white space around them. Yeah thanks a lot mate for going to the trouble to visit the site and take your massive photos, honestly ... just stay at home the next time 😂
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Mar 5, 2017 18:29:49 GMT
Hello Hoy
Thanks for the helpful update and photos that load fine using Window 10.
Regards, SXLR
|
|
mickj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 433
Likes: 191
|
Post by mickj on Mar 5, 2017 18:33:12 GMT
Great to see the pictures, many thanks.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Mar 5, 2017 20:25:41 GMT
Pictures load fine for me. Thanks for taking the trouble to take them.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 5, 2017 20:33:12 GMT
No delay at all in seeing the pics load up, thanks. Nicely set up on the laptop screen, Windows 7 Firefox, and I can see the full size by clicking.
Edit should've said "by right clicking, then clicking view image, then click on that to go full size".
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Mar 5, 2017 20:36:57 GMT
Thanks for the update hoy
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 5, 2017 21:01:46 GMT
No delay at all in seeing the pics load up, thanks. Nicely set up on the laptop screen, Windows 7 Firefox, and I can see the full size by clicking. Hmm, must be hippos on the line then, or else my firefox install is downloading the full-size picture 'just in case' I should want it.
|
|