bernard
Member of DD Central
Posts: 66 
Likes: 24
|
Post by bernard on Sept 14, 2016 8:40:07 GMT
We all know that assisted living schemes are like golden eggs IF the relevant planning gets approved (imho the goldenness of the egg will be reduced by the govt over future years but that is a different thread). However, as a potential lender what I am always interested in is some sort of base value for these schemes if the rosy planning scenario does not occur (as opposed to the valuation reports, which contain an unquantified reasonable expectation). So what do we have here? I make the following assumptions. Planning not obtained as desired, but the only planning obtained is to turn both floors into one bed flats (ie no third floor). Note there is still some element of optimism here as the ground floor is currently commercial. That would result in 6 1 beds and using 150pw rent (full occupation) and a 6% cap rate I get a GDV of 780k. Assuming conversion costs in the order of 200k (any developers like to comment on this figure???), and a small developer margin, that would give me a sale value of around 500k in the event of the building only having planning for both floors to be normal 1 bed resi (ie not assisted living, no third floor). Ie, some sort of base case of 500k versus loan amount of 760k .... you can see how you could be underwater quite quickly if planning is not forthcoming as expected. Anyone like to throw an alternate base valuation case into the pot? I am clearly not an expert property developer, but I know some of you out there have a pretty eagle eye on such things. Lastly, the valuation report seems to be blurred. Can fundingsecure upload a non blurred version? |
|
vmail
Open image in a new tab.
Posts: 457
Likes: 217
|
Post by vmail on Mar 15, 2017 17:55:13 GMT
Why wasn't the planning permission submitted sooner? Or does commercial planning permission takes longer than residential planning permission? Have they just been sitting on the money for the last 6 months? fundingsecure |
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Mar 15, 2017 22:32:54 GMT
And so this loan swings around for a 2nd pass...
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 4,830
|
Post by ozboy on Mar 16, 2017 0:14:43 GMT
We all know that assisted living schemes are like golden eggs IF the relevant planning gets approved (imho the goldenness of the egg will be reduced by the govt over future years but that is a different thread). However, as a potential lender what I am always interested in is some sort of base value for these schemes if the rosy planning scenario does not occur (as opposed to the valuation reports, which contain an unquantified reasonable expectation). So what do we have here? I make the following assumptions. Planning not obtained as desired, but the only planning obtained is to turn both floors into one bed flats (ie no third floor). Note there is still some element of optimism here as the ground floor is currently commercial. That would result in 6 1 beds and using 150pw rent (full occupation) and a 6% cap rate I get a GDV of 780k. Assuming conversion costs in the order of 200k (any developers like to comment on this figure???), and a small developer margin, that would give me a sale value of around 500k in the event of the building only having planning for both floors to be normal 1 bed resi (ie not assisted living, no third floor). Ie, some sort of base case of 500k versus loan amount of 760k .... you can see how you could be underwater quite quickly if planning is not forthcoming as expected. Anyone like to throw an alternate base valuation case into the pot? I am clearly not an expert property developer, but I know some of you out there have a pretty eagle eye on such things. Lastly, the valuation report seems to be blurred. Can fundingsecure upload a non blurred version? You may not be an Expert Property Developer bernard but you've made a decent fist of it. I've given this one a swerve, in fact I'm swerving so much these days that I'm getting giddy.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,872
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 19, 2017 13:23:06 GMT
Question I haven't been able to find an answer to: I have a small amount invested in the Goffs Oak renewal which has been sitting on the available investments page for 29 days now. I think I'm right in saying that loans only have 30 days to fill otherwise they are cancelled. Is that correct? Has anyone experienced this and can tell me what happens - are you just credited with your investment + 30 days interest (which I assume FS has to stump up???) and the loan goes away? With a renewal it must be particularly tricky as what happens to investors in the previous version of the loan? The renewal is surely bailing them out? Thanks in advance! Edit: To be clear - the 'Days Active' column says 29 days for me, but it could actually have been available for longer. I joined FS roughly four weeks ago so am not sure exactly when the loan was listed. I believe the loan is already filled as it was underwritten from the start but it remains avaliable for investment for the underwritters to be taken out so in this case I dont think the 30 days applies. There have been instances where a loan has failed to drawdown and FS have paid the 30days interest but that is different from a loan failing to fill. The introduction of underwritters mean that it is unlikely a loan wont fill now and FS also have the option of cashback or increased bonuses to get them over the line. Edit Loan has been listed for more than 30days I think, 15/3 is when non rolling investors were repaid.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 19, 2017 13:26:03 GMT
The previous loan ( 2107526206 ) was completed on 15th March with interest paid, and non-rolling over capital repaid to lenders. What you are seeing as availability in the renewal loan is actually held by underwriter(s) and the listing remains open until such point that the underwriter(s) are totally relieved of their involvement by normal lenders, or presumably if FS reaches agreement with the underwriter(s) that they must be issued with actual loan parts and trade them on the SM. I've been following the planning application on this one, and its far from clear what the eventual outcome will be. It appears that the site is not really appropriate for its proposed use as supported living appartments, however intense lobbying may eventually over rule the objections. There is still practically zero support for the proposal, even after one round of changes following feedback from the planning department. (Edit: crossed posted with ilmoro ) |
|
09dolphin
Member of DD Central
Posts: 630 
Likes: 856
|
Post by 09dolphin on Apr 19, 2017 22:03:28 GMT
As the loan is underwritten but not listed as "active" does this mean that the loan isn't for 6 months but for 7+ months?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 19, 2017 23:18:36 GMT
So are there any clues as to when FS bring the underwriters in, or is it just case by case? It's no big deal as I'm still earning interest, but obviously I'd rather have an active loan I can sell on the SM as and when I might want to. I expect FS make the decision on a case by case basis. In the case of a renewal, a lot will depend on how many of the old investors decide to roll their investments forward into the renewal loan. The more there are, the less the need for underwriters. (It's related to FS wanting to balance the amount of double interest they pay if they don't bring in underwriters against the cost of the underwriting.) If it's a renewal and the previous loan has been closed out -- as in the case of this loan -- then underwriters must have been brought in, because the borrower still has the money originally lent to them. With a new loan, underwriters will be brought in if everything is in place for drawdown except for the funding. In that case, there's usually an update saying the loan as been drawn down but will remain on the platform so that more people can invest. As the loan is underwritten but not listed as "active" does this mean that the loan isn't for 6 months but for 7+ months? ISTM that it depends on whether it's a renewal or a new loan. With a renewal, the 6-month term of the replacement loan ought to start when the old loan is repaid, because the borrower has had the money since then. With a new loan, I'd expect the 6-month term to start when the loan draws down, so if it takes a month to fund it completely then the investors who got in at the beginning effectively will have a 7-month loan. HTH
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Apr 20, 2017 6:01:07 GMT
Everton Brow took a while to draw down as a new loan, I believe if you look on the SM that you will find loan parts at over 200 days old, which confirms some of what Mike has said
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Apr 22, 2017 13:08:49 GMT
I've been following the planning application on this one, and its far from clear what the eventual outcome will be. It appears that the site is not really appropriate for its proposed use as supported living appartments, however intense lobbying may eventually over rule the objections. There is still practically zero support for the proposal, even after one round of changes following feedback from the planning department. Just spotted that the planning application that has been working its way through the system since October 2016 has been marked as "Withdrawn" on Broxbourne's planning website, but as yet no new planning application has been submitted. This could be a precursor to re-submitting for residential permission (not the supported living permission which wasn't appropriate for the site)
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Jul 27, 2017 20:23:44 GMT
I've been following the planning application on this one, and its far from clear what the eventual outcome will be. It appears that the site is not really appropriate for its proposed use as supported living appartments, however intense lobbying may eventually over rule the objections. There is still practically zero support for the proposal, even after one round of changes following feedback from the planning department. Just spotted that the planning application that has been working its way through the system since October 2016 has been marked as "Withdrawn" on Broxbourne's planning website, but as yet no new planning application has been submitted. This could be a precursor to re-submitting for residential permission (not the supported living permission which wasn't appropriate for the site) anyone have any idea on planning permission for this loan?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 27, 2017 20:34:39 GMT
Just spotted that the planning application that has been working its way through the system since October 2016 has been marked as "Withdrawn" on Broxbourne's planning website, but as yet no new planning application has been submitted. This could be a precursor to re-submitting for residential permission (not the supported living permission which wasn't appropriate for the site) anyone have any idea on planning permission for this loan? Still no obvious new application on Broxbourne's planning website.
|
|
rs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 254
|
Post by rs on Jul 29, 2017 8:52:35 GMT
I guess borrower is renewing then!
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Sept 21, 2017 10:00:42 GMT
This loan should have matured last week but no repayment, renewal notes or other update.
What's happening?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Sept 21, 2017 10:13:10 GMT
Similiar status and questions concerning Southampton and one of the Liverpool loans with the same borrower principal. See this post on the Southampton thread and the subsequent ones for additional background. [Admin note] I've merged three threads on Goffs Oak together. |
|
