seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 8, 2016 12:13:08 GMT
I can breathe a sigh of relief.
064 in Somerset must be OK.
Someone has just bought £10,000.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 8, 2016 11:22:08 GMT
I managed to get rid of all my 056. I am amazed by the SM. 056 is the last thing I would invest in at the moment; yet someone is still buying.
One (new?) investor is buying a straight £500 of almost everything - including 064 and various Gloucester loans such as 038. It's diversification of a sort I suppose...... I bought a bit of 064 six weeks ago - it looked almost OK then. I believed the updates. I guess I won't lose more than half of my investment?
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 8, 2016 10:25:09 GMT
There are two separate problems.
1. The lack of meaningful informative updates, telling us when problems arise and what is being done about them. "Working to a deadline" is not good enough. What deadline? When?
2. Too many 'no change' notifications = clutter.
This can be made into a useful system by insisting upon (encouraging) at least monthly if not weekly updates for all loans. It should become a discipline at SS. Then if anything nasty happens we would be assured of knowing within a week. = meaningful and timely updates when they are needed.
At the same time, all the loans where there was no update could have their 'no update' status renewed not by a repetitive 'no change' notice every week but by a 'no change for the last X weeks' update. So instead of 10 'no change' notices we just get one - "no change for the last 10 weeks."
Each update would itself be DATED so we would know exactly when it was issued.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 8, 2016 10:11:03 GMT
This is all very well - having two accounts (one company and one private?) and two PCs to enable sale and re-buying of loans within a second or so, but when does it become worthwhile to set up a company account as well as a private one? I have substantial investments in each of each of Z, FC, MT and SS and I am coming to terms (slowly) with the idea I may need to do an awful lot of creative accounting, not to mention a little bond-washing.
Can an ordinary retired individual set up a company for this sort of thing - that is transfers just to buy into ISAs using old cash-isa money and how is it done?
Most financial planners don't touch P2P because there is little in it for them and the platforms are geared to P2P - surprisingly.....
If only HMRC would allow old cash-isa money to be used to buy one's own existing loan parts........
Some enterprising 14 year old needs to set up an automated service or an app to launder old cash-isa money back into existing loan parts.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 8, 2016 9:55:33 GMT
Most of the farmland PBL136 was sold this morning inside a few minutes to one investor who took around 27,000 in four batches of 2x8500 and 2x5000. Maybe it's being used as a safe repository for short term cash. Safe as in 'reasonably safe'. I managed to get rid of all my 056.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 5, 2016 12:50:52 GMT
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 5, 2016 12:15:21 GMT
The important issue is not when (they will arrive when FCA authorises a batch of P2P platforms at the same time) and may be quite soon, but how to transfer existing loan parts into one's ISA.
The HMRC rules apparently do not allow transfer of non-isa loans, so you have in effect to sell and then rebuy them using isa cash. Z platform may offer a low fee system to enable this to be done.
If you transfer (for example) £100,000 of old cash-isa money into a P2P platform, and if you have already £100,000 of non-isa loan parts in that platform (many people have far more), how do you most easily and on which platform, enable the interest on £100,000 (say 7000pa) to become tax free, saving maybe 40% of £7000 pa.
As I have said, HMRC rules apparently prevent you simply sheltering your existing portfolio of loan parts inside the new F-ISA wrapper, and removing an equivalent quantity of cash.
The other issue is that P2P platforms expect a wall of cash to arrive when F-ISAs are authorised to major platforms, and there will not be the borrowers to soak it up - not good quality borrowers anyway. Limits or quotas may be set therefore?
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 4, 2016 17:43:50 GMT
If rates do decrease it is likely to be across all platforms that serve the same types of borrowers.
MT will not be immune from a sector wide reduction in rates.
If the gap narrows between the more 'hands off' platforms such as Z and FC and the platforms that need more active management, the marginal benefits will reduce - time spent at a computer juggling the SM on SS may become less worthwhile, for example. FC can easily yield between 7% after fees, and you can diversify across vastly more loans, and types of borrowers. If SS reduces to 9%, the extra risks (not to mention the time involved) may seem to many investors simply not worth it.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 4, 2016 16:26:58 GMT
OCTOBER 2015:"History tells us that bad borrowers play a large part in economic meltdowns. When bankers ploughed investors’ money into the mortgage market before the credit crisis in 2008, they took on more and more risky borrowers. A similar spiral could conceivably happen to P2P, warned Neil Faulkner of 4thWay, a risk rating agency. There is a shortage of borrowers. “As the P2P lending platforms grow they also, to an extent, have to accept worse borrowers. This imbalance could worsen causing some firms to lose their discipline and take on bad borrowers in a bid to stay attractive to lenders.” SEPTEMBER 2016:"To date investors have done too well, better than they deserve to, given the risks they have taken", said Mr Faulkner. "Rates are coming down......" Both quotes from Daily Telegraph money pages.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 4, 2016 9:14:05 GMT
Would that be a 3 metre disinfected bargepole or the more traditional imperial 10 foot self-sanitising model?
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 3, 2016 10:20:12 GMT
At least the 90 day valuation looks to be above the loan amount - at the moment.....
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 3, 2016 10:07:33 GMT
"Full and final offers by Thursday 3 November."
UPDATE a week ago:
Buyer pulled out; seeking other buyers. Offers being received between £1.2m and £1.5m. A tenant is looking to take over the site and will pay rent over the Xmas period with a view to purchase in the new year. All options are still on the table.
Original Valuation (Security Value) = £2,430,000
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 30, 2016 23:43:06 GMT
The valuation on this one bothers me - not that I have any reason (from past recent experience on SS) to question any valuation produced by professionals. I don't know the area at all, so cannot offer any local knowledge. I only have a few decades of experience in the property market to fall back on, and some seaweed.
If you look at the calculations of value /squ ft, for 21 *** Road (section 13.4 of the valuation report) the square foot value used is 6340. This exact same figure is used for 5 *** Road, maybe why the division sum for number 5 doesn't produce the stated result. It is probably just a typo. A few other figures don't quite add up (or divide) either.
For example, number 21 was marketed at 1.7 M but achieved 1.535M - yet the figure of £268/squ ft is calculated from 1.7M/6340 = 268 rather than from 1.535M/6340 = 242 / squ ft. This was in 2013, and with 8 bedrooms and in immaculate condition.
Looking at the proposed size of the subject new-build, it would appear to be rather extensive at 12,300 squ ft (gross)- with 8 bedrooms all ensuite.
As a general point, the value/squ foot of large properties located within 'lesser' properties can suffer owing to their being 'tainted' by close association with the 'lesser' people who occupy mere £2 or £3 million houses. Conversely it can be the case that the value/squ ft of modest properties situated amidst more expensive houses can be higher than you might expect, because they benefit from 'uplift by association'. Similarly, house prices can be influenced by proximity of a good school (one where they teach reading, writing and long division?).
This factor, together with the feeling that the value/squ ft may be optimistic given the larger than usual fraction of total area that may be devoted to bedrooms and particularly to ensuites, leads me to question the base figures of £375 to £400 per squ ft.
In the days when I used to do this sort of calculation I always used the total habitable area as a guide to value - this would include bedrooms but not ensuites or bathrooms, it would include living areas and kitchens but not hallways etc. It may be simplistic to base valuations for very dissimilar properties on gross area when a close fit for comparable properties can often achieved by using net (habitable) area.
In any case with 'one-off' houses they are always worth what anyone will pay for them.
If you ask rightmove for the area in which this property is located and properties between 2 and 5 million you get number 9 on the same road (10,000 squ ft for a mere 3 million and including fabulous period features) and the information that number 5 was sold in 2015 for 1,650,000 - not the 1,250,000 figure mentioned in the valuation report. I don't know which if either figure is wrong - maybe look up the land registry details? Number 9 looks in excellent condition - yet at a tad under 3 million divided by 10,000 = 300/squ ft - and if 10,000 is in any way a net rather than a gross figure then maybe we should be dividing 3 million by (say) 12500 to give £240/squ ft. Please compare this to the figure of 242 cited above (2013 values).
Given that a "house with period benefits" in the area is available for 240 to 300/squ ft, I'd think twice before paying up to 400. Unless maybe you like new-build and are overly concerned by the heating bills for older property?
There is a floorplan on rightmove if anyone fancies working out how the 10,000 figure is derived.
The serious point (once again.....) is that competent valuations are surely a cornerstone of the credibility of any P2P site.
Cornerstone: an important quality or feature on which a particular thing depends or is based (or) a stone that forms the base of a corner of a building, joining two walls.
I'm going to bed. I'll read this again in the morning and maybe correct all my errors.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 28, 2016 12:09:29 GMT
Moral obligations have nothing to do with most commercial transactions. Dog eat dog.
But the credibility of a platform in a competitive marketplace has much to do with platform behaviour, and that includes whether they treat their investors with the respect that arguably we deserve.
Copied from the 020 (in default) thread where valuations have been discussed in respect of loans to known decidedly dodgy (DD) borrowers.:
If Lendy/SS were negligent in obtaining and/or using valuations, does the question arise as to whether it is possible to contract out of negligence? The position on commercial contracts may be different to that in H&S legislation, for example. Do they owe lenders any duty of care?
I know even less about laws of agency.
At the moment.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Oct 28, 2016 11:52:15 GMT
If Lendy/SS were negligent in obtaining and/or using valuations, does the question arise as to whether it is possible to contract out of negligence? The position on commercial contracts may be different to that in H&S legislation, for example. Do they owe lenders any duty of care?
|
|