jnm21
Posts: 441 
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 5, 2017 12:34:48 GMT
Just a heads up for anyone not getting their mailings - seems to be filling quite fast (about 5% per hour).
Looks quite good to my amateur eye.
EDIT: Certainly filling quicker than SPV 84 - have to say I wasn't tempted by it at all (even after the cashback offer). Seems the crowd agrees with me on SPV 84 (which is a nice reassurance that I'm doing something right).
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Apr 5, 2017 13:38:23 GMT
A tenanted property is always more attractive - but will they stay? Sadly, my biggest disappointment with propertymoose has been seeing one of my largest investments in a newly listed tenanted property immediately become empty. Nor is this an isolated case - at least 2 others come to mind. I would like to see a clear statement regarding whether the tenants of such properties have been specifically asked if they have any plans to vacate during/soon after the change in ownership, and what the specific answer was, or if they declined to answer. This would not be legally binding of course, but it would offer some reassurance. |
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Apr 5, 2017 16:18:13 GMT
Kaya - a great suggestion! I will work this into the plan to try and give more information on the tenants as part of the listing.
Jnm21 - I'm actually pretty disappointed about SPV84 and the uptake. We saw this property as a great opportunity to grab a property in a high growth area with more professional tenants (less likely to skip out and worth chasing if they do!). I'm surprised to see the property wasn't popular considering one of our competitors push out similar yields in other cities that haven't seen the previous capital growth rates that Cambridgeshire have seen.
It would be good to hear what put people off on this investment for future if anyone can help?
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Apr 5, 2017 19:38:58 GMT
Kaya - a great suggestion! I will work this into the plan to try and give more information on the tenants as part of the listing. Jnm21 - I'm actually pretty disappointed about SPV84 and the uptake. We saw this property as a great opportunity to grab a property in a high growth area with more professional tenants (less likely to skip out and worth chasing if they do!). I'm surprised to see the property wasn't popular considering one of our competitors push out similar yields in other cities that haven't seen the previous capital growth rates that Cambridgeshire have seen. It would be good to hear what put people off on this investment for future if anyone can help? Hope this doesn't come across as too harsh as I'm genuinely trying to provide some constructive feedback. I assume the competitor you are referring to is PP. 1) They don't have "furniture costs" and their fee is 2% - this will have a big impact on future returns. 2) They have a track record of better than 100% of anticipated rent paid every time, on time, across a large portfolio. PM let months to years go buy with multiple rooms unrented without even a flicker of aknowledgement that their curated properties are duds. 3) PP do not take any cut of the profit made if there is a capital gain Some of my properties with PM are doing okay, but most are just extremely disappointing. I've invested a large sum in Daniel House because I liked the look of that one, plus cashback and lower fee, and guaranteed rental income so no more depressingly long voids. The biggest issue I have is the very long void periods. Even with a tenanted property, it seems if the tenant moves out it takes months and months if not much longer to refill. If your properties are curated by experts, I would have expected demand to have been relatively high instead of none existant. Your anticipated yields may be much higher than your competitor PP, but across my portfolio I have had a higher yield from PP despite the anticipated yield from PM being double the amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Apr 5, 2017 20:45:54 GMT
Thanks Hazel. Not harsh at all and very constructive. I can't compare against returns across various platforms and you are best placed to do this. All I can say is that our properties are managed by local experts and we push them very hard as it's not in our interests to have empty properties.
The returns we distribute represent the actual performance of the properties - we do not look to fund voids as a platform as we just don't think this is scalable as a business which isn't in the interest of anyone. There will be voids and, unfortunately, the nature of properties in the likes of the North East mean that the returns are higher when tenanted but there is naturally less rental demand due to the population size. We have previously focused on the North East due to the potential yields on offer and as result of member feedback (but please see below re. some changes).
We have made some significant changes to our property team over the last few months:
1) our old property director, Stuart, has left the business and we have expanded the team with a number of replacements with evidenced expertise in their local markets (North West, North East and the South East). We have also partnered with LSL PLC and Spicer Haart to provide initial due diligence services on properties.
2) we have recruited additional resource into our management team and implemented new, specialist software.
3) there have been policy changes such as (i) not acquiring HMO properties unless we can complete the conversion ourselves or there is an opportunity to convert to apartments or add value in some other way and (ii) to focus on higher value units or portfolios of units that will provide reduced risks of voids (please see all of the recent listings).
Hopefully, you can see by our emails, onsite messages and involvement in these discussions that we acknowledge and accept that improvements can be made and welcome feedback. The platform has been built for the benefit of its members - without them, we have no business so we simply want to make everyone as happy as we reasonably can do.
In terms of fees, we continue to believe that the 15% share of any net capital gain is the best way to align our interests with our members. Likewise, as a business, we simply could not run on a 2% fee as PP do. Perhaps once all of the technology is 100% built and there is significant scale then the fees can be reduced (which would be in our interest due to the 15% profit share).
We calculate that it costs c.3% of the value of a property to source a deal (visits, DD time, compliance costs etc). Merchant and FCA costs are c.1% leaving 1% for the business' day to day expenses (tech, marketing, staff costs etc). The 15% is our chance to share in any gains that are made and, if there are none, we loose too!
I shared the details of the performance of our whole portfolio and exits to date in another thread - the portfolio as a whole is performing at c.5% net dividend returns. This would apply if someone was in every deal equally which is why we encourage diversification rather than heavy investment in one deal. Appreciate this isn't always possible but many of our members do follow this strategy.
Again, thanks for the feedback. You have my details if you want to get in touch direct. Have a good evening.
Andrew
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Apr 5, 2017 23:35:25 GMT
Jnm21 - I'm actually pretty disappointed about SPV84 and the uptake. We saw this property as a great opportunity to grab a property in a high growth area with more professional tenants (less likely to skip out and worth chasing if they do!). I'm surprised to see the property wasn't popular considering one of our competitors push out similar yields in other cities that haven't seen the previous capital growth rates that Cambridgeshire have seen. It would be good to hear what put people off on this investment for future if anyone can help? I hope this comes across as helpful rather than harsh, as I think you generally have interesting properties and PM's receptiveness to feedback is good to see. My concern with this property was linked to the points you mention above - specifically the background information about the region. The information in the "About Cambridgeshire" section refers specifically to the city of Cambridge and isn't very applicable to the county as a whole or the St Neots region. As examples, Fig. 1 here makes clear that house price growth in Cambridge has massively outstripped that of surrounding Cambridgeshire (and text elsewhere states that Cambridgeshire is in line with national figures) whilst Tab. 3 in the same document states that the proportion of people living in the private rented sector as a whole in Cambridgeshire is 17.5%, which is completely in line with the national figure stated, rather than the 27.8% given for Cambridge. The whole thing is then made more confusing by the line at the end stating that the figures are for Cambridgeshire as a whole rather than St Neots, which isn't the case (they're figures for Cambridge!). I'm also a little concerned at the idea of using the Daily Mail as a source in this section. Since the figures given don't seem to have much relevance for the property and other factors that are mentioned, such as students, don't seem to apply, from my end it's hard to see whether or not this *is* a good opportunity (although it may well be, if you can see the correct figures). [To expand on my point about students - it's not clear to me that any significant numbers of students would choose to live in St Neots specifically given its distance and the number of other surrounding towns and villages, and University of Cambridge students are forbidden from living there anyway] That's pretty much the reason I haven't felt comfortable investing so far, but I'm certainly not ruling it out if this section is rewritten to accurately reflect St Neots or at least Cambridgeshire as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Apr 6, 2017 7:59:40 GMT
Thanks Carolus. Very helpful and will feed into our current work on the listing pages and information we display.
We have produced a guide on St Neots and I'll ask the guys to update the wording on the site to include some of this information in the short term.
Have a great day.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Apr 13, 2017 12:23:58 GMT
So what happened to this property? As it seems to have disappeared! It has vanished for me, also. What's going on propertymoose?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Apr 13, 2017 12:56:59 GMT
So what happened to this property? As it seems to have disappeared! It could have been a sinkhole.  Has your account been recredited with your investment?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Apr 13, 2017 13:12:55 GMT
Lets hope! I've really got my eyes on all three!  |
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Apr 13, 2017 13:35:30 GMT
Lets hope! I've really got my eyes on all three! It's being pulled. We can vote to transfer funds to the new spv or our e-wallet. I wonder if we transfer we get the chocolate?!
|
|
|
|
Post by vithca on Apr 13, 2017 13:50:19 GMT
It seems we get to vote on what happens to funds already in 89 but the link in the email goes to a non-secure page and asks for my password, although I'm already logged in.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Apr 13, 2017 13:58:51 GMT
It seems we get to vote on what happens to funds already in 89 but the link in the email goes to a non-secure page and asks for my password, although I'm already logged in. The password you need to enter is the one sent to you in the e-mail, not your own.
|
|
|
|
Post by vithca on Apr 13, 2017 14:07:21 GMT
It seems we get to vote on what happens to funds already in 89 but the link in the email goes to a non-secure page and asks for my password, although I'm already logged in. The password you need to enter is the one sent to you in the e-mail, not your own. I should probably start reading the whole email then  Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Apr 13, 2017 17:07:15 GMT
So what happened to this property? As it seems to have disappeared! It has vanished for me, also. What's going on propertymoose ? Hi all! You are quite right to see that SPV 89 has been removed. All investors have been notified. We always try to manage our properties in the most effective way for our members. As part of the due diligence that we have undertaken prior to exchanging on the property, we have decided that it would be in the best interests of investors to remove the property from the platform. Fortuitously, another property in Greater Manchester which operates as an HMO (House of Multiple Occupancy) has become available. We wish you all a great Easter break. Don't forget to earn your share of chocolatey returns!
|
|
