|
Post by bengilbert on Dec 22, 2016 9:39:33 GMT
The purchasers are not obliged to pay any additional sums until completion and there is no incentive at all to do so. If they were to pay extra for some reason then the money should be paid by the purchaser's solicitor to the borrower's solicitor, and we have an agreement from the borrower's solicitor that any sums received are to be paid to our solicitor and held there pending completion. Hi bengilbert , just to be clear, is the agreement a legally enforceable watertight agreement, or a verbal agreement. It is a formal, legally binding commitment.
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Dec 4, 2016 14:10:28 GMT
B******l Road, Sandbanks (BPF543) The planning department have come back with requests for two minor amendments (the size of the bin sheds and the bike storage). A final decision is expected in January 2017.
Residential Development - Streatham (BPF585) Marketing of the property continues.
Sutton Coldfield Bridging Loan (BPF479) The borrower has a bank lined up to refinance the loan but, due to bank procedures, the process can only begin 6 months after the property was purchased. The borrower is therefore likely to request a 3-6 month extension to give time for this process to be completed (original due end date = 13/01/2017). If the extension is granted, Broadoak will repurchase loan units from any lenders who wish to be repaid on the original end date.
M***** H*** Development Loan (BPF407, 501, 526, 553 & 584) Works continue to move forward. In the Annex, a pop-up bar has just opened for trading and will remain there until the space is handed over early in 2017 to the restaurant that is taking occupation. (Lenders can find press articles by searching for m*******er garage bar). On the development site next door which also forms part of our security, the planning consultants recommended obtaining a mechanical engineering report as the final document before submission. This is due to be received next week and submission of the planning application has been scheduled for 20 December.
W***n Hotel Development (BPF528, 571 & 587) Work is progressing very well. A drawdown of c. £250,000 will be made around the middle of December.
Lut** Bridging Loan (BPF534) The borrower is meeting with the planning department on 8 December (current valuation is based on the value without planning).
Residential development in Birk**** (BPF536, 537, 541, 542, 566, 567, 588 & 589) A further 2 units have been exchanged on. A further drawdown is likely around the middle of December.
Residential Development in The Ho******, Sandbanks (BPF562 & 574) Legals have commenced on the sale of the property for £4.9 million. Completion is expected by January 2017, at which point the loan will be repaid. Work proceeds on the development and a further drawdown for around £100,000 will be listed next week.
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 22, 2016 21:10:07 GMT
The purchasers are not obliged to pay any additional sums until completion and there is no incentive at all to do so.
If they were to pay extra for some reason then the money should be paid by the purchaser's solicitor to the borrower's solicitor, and we have an agreement from the borrower's solicitor that any sums received are to be paid to our solicitor and held there pending completion.
|
|
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
BPF585
Nov 16, 2016 16:46:22 GMT
Post by bengilbert on Nov 16, 2016 16:46:22 GMT
The revised valuation letter doesn't appear to make any sense. The original valuer measured the property at 1211 sq ft. Based on £625,000 this gives a value of £516/sq ft. The comparable properties in the letter range from £533/sq ft to £600/sq ft. The revised value for this property of £565,000 appears to be based on £466/sq ft. bengilbert is this correct or is the floor area given in the original report incorrect? We have no reason to think the floor area in the original valuation was incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 15, 2016 17:45:57 GMT
We've now received and uploaded the valuation.
The valuers don't go into detail on how they derive the value, though they include comparables. They refer to works outstanding on the property - these are works decided on by the borrowers whilst marketing the property, subsequent to the main works being completed. The valuers estimated to us that they would take 3 days to complete. Works remain outstanding due to delays in the delivery of the improved windows.
Given the late receipt of the valuation, we've extended the period for buying out any investors who wish be repaid to 17 November.
|
|
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
Defaults
Nov 15, 2016 14:56:00 GMT
jonboy73 and fp like this
Post by bengilbert on Nov 15, 2016 14:56:00 GMT
I've posted a response on BPF585 in the dedicated thread (http://p2pindependentforum.com/thread/7078/bpf585?page=2). Perhaps best to continue discussion there to prevent this going off-topic.
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 15, 2016 14:50:48 GMT
I respect mrclondon as one of the most useful contributors on this forum, so appreciate his engagement, and I'm also happy to hear comments about how we could have done things better which we can learn from. I do feel I have to take issue when words like 'sweep under the carpet', 'underhand' and 'mis-representation of security values' are used. These go so strongly against our core values as a business that I want to go into some detail here in response. We try to do multiple things driven by commitment to integrity, openness and lenders' interests - our first loss investments, LTVs using the higher of the latest formal valuation and the maximum LTV permitted, offering to buy out investors etc. So I take the question of integrity very seriously. I can see that there are other ways we could have handled the extension. However, I completely reject the idea that there was any intent to mislead or misrepresent. The loan in question was due to repay on 13 November 2016. Our initial plan was to repay lenders and fund the extension elsewhere (we have other investors who were happy to take the loan on). However, given that there seemed to be appetite for our loans on the platform and possibly a dearth of other loans, we decided to give lenders the choice of staying in the extension, despite this meaning leaving £75,000 of our own funds invested (first loss) which we could have freed up by placing the loan elsewhere. If I were a lender, I would have appreciated having the choice of staying in the loan, and I'm committed to developing our relationship with platform lenders. I saw keeping the extension on the platform as a positive for that relationship. At the same time, we committed to buying out anyone who wished to exit on the initial date. We had booked in a revaluation from the original valuer which we wanted to upload before the renewal. This valuer was ill, so we had to try to schedule at short notice a new valuation. This was carried out, but not in time to receive the report itself (which were still waiting for). Before the loan was listed and the extension email sent out, the valuer confirmed to us verbally that he was going to set a value in the range £565,000 - £595,000. This was sufficient for us to feel comfortable with allowing the renewal to go ahead. Late on Friday, after the loan was listed, he came back to say that he was most comfortable setting it at £565,000. We thought it best to wait until we had the report itself before posting an update, which is why we did not post the information straight away. However, when lenders asked about it and it became clear we would not receive the valuation early on Monday, we posted the update. I have no objections to anyone suggesting we should have posted this information on Friday, though I hope it's understandable that we preferred to wait until we had sight of an actual valuation report. I reject, though, the idea that we were trying to sweep anything under the carpet. This simply isn't true. My view at the time was that seeing an update of the valuation to £565,000, giving an LTV of 57.5% (down from 68.4% in the initial loan), along with confirmation from the valuer that the build quality was high, would be a positive in risk assessment of the loan, since up to that point (and in the headline details for the extension), we had only used a valuation of £475,000. I recognise now that some lenders may have seen it differently, since they believed the valuation would come in higher. As a result, we extended our commitment to buy out any lenders who wish to sell to 24 hours after uploading the valuation. We could indeed have bought out the loan in full, then released it onto the platform later, but this would have prevented anyone with a holding in the loan from rolling it, and left them in the same position as all other lenders. Given that we have committed to buying out anyone who wishes to sell, I'm not sure there would have been any advantage in doing this (apart perhaps from giving other lenders a better chance of getting a holding in the loan). To repeat, I now think it would probably have been better to post the verbal updates from the valuer as soon as we had them. I've taken action (extending the buyback period). There was no attempt to mislead. Any investor who wishes to be repaid now will be repaid. We continue to hold £75,000 of our own money in this loan, which we'll lose all of before any MT lenders lose a penny, even though we had the opportunity to be bought out in full by our other investors (who do not benefit from a first loss buffer).
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 19:25:47 GMT
bengilbert I think you are missing the point ... you've allowed MoneyThing to list a loan that implied the valuation should be in the region of £625k - £650k on the basis of the previous valuation and the updates on the previous loan regarding the marketing at this level when you knew the valuation was actually only £565k. The mis-representation of security values was one of the major topics of discussion when I met with the FCA a couple of months back. This loan should not have been listed without a clear warning that the valuation was £60k (10%) below that expected for reasons as yet unknown. I've now sold the small holding I had that rolled over from the previous loan, and the extra £100 I put in yesterday. I take the point that the valuation is something lenders would like to be able to refer to in deciding whether to invest in or hold this loan. Accordingly, we'll extend our commitment to buy out anyone who wishes to exit the loan to 24 hours after the valuation is posted (the valuer has told us it will be with us tomorrow).
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 16:55:32 GMT
Yes, and we will do this, but only once we've seen the valuation. The initial valuer, who'd been booked to do the updated valuation, was ill, so we had to wait to get one of his colleagues to do it. This has led to the delay in receiving the new valuation. We prefer to be conservative and stay with the initial valuation until we've actually received the new one. This has not been handled very well, I think BO has let down MT on this occasion I clear re-valuation should have been presented when the loan email was sent, not almost 24hrs after bidding Acknowledged. I'm also frustrated by the delays. However, the loan was due to expire on Sunday and, due to the circumstances I've explained, the new valuation was not yet ready at that point. We will always strive to allow lenders to be repaid on the due date when they wish, using our own funds to repay lenders where required, and that's why the extension was launched before receipt of the valuation. We could have delayed things but I would have felt that we were letting down lenders who were expecting repayment on the original due date.
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 15:09:03 GMT
Bengilbert, wouldn't it be clearer if the original details ... Loan Value 400,000, Asset Value 475,000, LTV = (400,000 - 75,000 (1st loss)) / 475,000 = 68.42% were updated for the purposes of the extension to Loan Value 400,000, Asset Value 565,000, LTV = ( 400,000 - 75,000 (1st loss)) / 565,000 = 57.52% ? Then bobo might feel happier about his £16 Yes, and we will do this, but only once we've seen the valuation. The initial valuer, who'd been booked to do the updated valuation, was ill, so we had to wait to get one of his colleagues to do it. This has led to the delay in receiving the new valuation. We prefer to be conservative and stay with the initial valuation until we've actually received the new one.
|
|
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
BPF585
Nov 14, 2016 13:40:28 GMT
cooling_dude likes this
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 13:40:28 GMT
MoneyThing I'm surprised you took the decision to list the extension without sight of the valuation report that might shed some light on what has gone wrong with this development (build quality issues for example). Any buyer will only be able to get a mortgage for (say) 80% of the actual value as evidenced by the valuation, so marketting at £625k/£650k is an exercise in futility. Now the story of needing time to maximise sale vaule makes sense ... the property isn't worth what the borrower thinks it is (for whatever reason) I had transferred funds in for the release of the limit at 4pm but I'm no longer convinced that 10% is adequate yield. The valuer confirmed to us that build quality is high, and there is no reason at all to think anything has 'gone wrong' with the project. I suggest we wait until the full report is received to see how his value was derived.
|
|
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
BPF585
Nov 14, 2016 12:41:12 GMT
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 12:41:12 GMT
We have had verbal confirmation of the value but not yet received the written report (due today). The valuation does show an increase in value but I feel it should be posted first on the loan details (where all investors would see it) rather than the forum (where some investors may not see it). Let me speak to Ed and see if this info can be added, then I'll report back here. New valuation of £565k has now been added to the loan listing. That is a REDUCTION of £60k on the GDV of the previous valuation report (£625k). Any explanation, given prices in the area have risen over the last 12 months ? We believe the valuer continues to be highly conservative. We will have more details once the report itself is received. At the given value, LTV on the loan is 57.5% (after our first loss holding).
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 12:34:42 GMT
We have been told by the valuer that the updated valuation is £565,000. The report will be uploaded as soon as we have it (should be today).
|
|
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
BPF585
Nov 14, 2016 12:11:01 GMT
elliotn likes this
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 12:11:01 GMT
Another question bengilbert - the last update on the previous loan stated that the extension would be granted upon receipt of an updated valuation which had been instructed. The new loan listing has attached the original valuation report of April 16. Can you share with us the extent of the re-valuation undertaken, and the bottom line conclusion as to value ? We have had verbal confirmation of the value but not yet received the written report (due today). The valuation does show an increase in value but I feel it should be posted first on the loan details (where all investors would see it) rather than the forum (where some investors may not see it). Let me speak to Ed and see if this info can be added, then I'll report back here.
|
|
|
Post by bengilbert on Nov 14, 2016 11:43:02 GMT
Frankly, we agree that the difference between the costs and any potential increase in the sales price is likely to be small, and the costs might even be greater. On the other hand, assuming a sale goes through within the next 3-4 months, which is what we expect, the costs for them will be under 5%, so it's quite possible that it will be worth it for them.
We did ask the borrower the same question, and they felt that possibly paying a few months more interest was worth it in order to feel confident they had maximised the sale price.
|
|