markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Jun 15, 2016 17:44:38 GMT
What is the significance of "in principle", as in the valuation's comment:
Planning permission in principle for residential, commercial ..., care home and public house development, including road accesses and engineering works.
on page 1?
I cannot find anywhere where the valuation takes "in principle" into account.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Jun 13, 2016 18:56:00 GMT
I wonder if this is the same borrower as "PBL104 3 bedroom flat, Duke Street, London"? (Because if so then I am already exposed to this borrower.)
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Jun 2, 2016 16:37:26 GMT
...from the valuation report (my bold): We noted at the date of our inspection that there are other large-scale derelict buildings along the cliff-top apparently awaiting development, with or without planning permission. Coupled with the fact that this site has remained undeveloped through three national housing booms, it is clear that the economics of development in this location remain precarious. And another concerning quote, from page 15: "We have prepared a sensitivity analysis, which demonstrates that there is cover for any unexpected additional costs in this project. We have applied allowances of 5% and 10% up and down for build cost and sales values over- and under-shoots, and there are several scenarios under which the project fails to show a positive land value" I further note that in several paragraphs the valuer seems to be struggling in the absence of the information necessary to do a thorough job.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on May 27, 2016 16:52:13 GMT
A tip - I use Evernote for this. I find it works really well for recording notes about my loans. There is a rudimentary "table/chart" capability - and we all know how much we folks like tables? And if I am away, all the information is automatically also available on my phone and tablet. And it's free, without adverts. And Evernote seem to be a nice company - in several years they have hardly nagged me to upgrade at all.
I would prefer to have all my notes for all my P2P agencies together in one place, and certainly not being looked after by the agencies themselves, much as I trust SS's IT.
(Although I guess, when they are bought by Microsoft or Facebook in 5 years' time, I'll be wishing that I had not sold my soul.)
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on May 27, 2016 15:48:58 GMT
I wonder why it is that SS reckon it is better for them to incur fees with administrator, and lawyers, and estate agents etc. in order to sell the property themselves; rather than to leave the borrower to find a buyer themselves. I guess the only reason that the borrower cannot find a buyer is that the property is not now, for whatever reason, worth enough to cover the debt? That is, the valuation and LTV have proved to be overly generous?
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on May 19, 2016 12:03:08 GMT
... Savingstream please show the real LTV, including the 1st charge, 19% is misleading and could get you into hot water with the FCA. Yes, Isn't the real LTV more like 32% after the first charge is taken ? I would expect that if the 1st charge holder called in their security, that they would sell fast (why wouldn't they?) and so the 90-day valuation would be more appropriate than the valuation of £2.9M quoted on the SS "particulars" tab. The 90-day value is £2,175k. In fact, the bank may very well just let it go for say £2,000. (Am I right in thinking that the 1st charge holder has the right to sell for whatever they choose with no responsibility to the borrower or to the 2nd charge holder to maximise funds raised?). In this case, LTV = 68%.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on May 16, 2016 10:07:01 GMT
An interesting development at Rebuilding Society - possibly plagiarising Saving Stream's solution to avoiding having funds tied up earning nothing during an auction and whilst awaiting draw down. Until the end of June Rebuilding Society will pay interest from the day at which a bid is made. The rate of interest paid equals the average across all bids - typically 14% to 19%.
Rebuilding Society pays the interest up to the point of draw down, and then the borrower pays if thereafter (as one would expect). If the loan is cancelled and the funds not drawn down, then no pre-interest is paid.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Apr 20, 2016 21:44:50 GMT
Normal cool, try a google search on 'Off Plan' It may be typical, but using deposit money toward the development costs rather than putting it into a client account would appear to put buyers' money at a significant risk. If the project/developer collapses for some reason, where do the buyers come in the creditors' ranking? Is it fair to presume they'd be behind us in the payout queue because we have a registered charge against the property? I do hope so. Perhaps savingstream would care to clarify the situation. Normal cool or not, I wouldn't lend say £100k to a property developer unsecured at 0% for an ill-defined term? Is there really no security for these people? Two details I cannot get my head around at this late (for me) hour: - All these 50% 's represent a significant liability for the developer. I feel this should affect our LTV, but I guess it doesn't 'cos the security against which we are calculating LTV is the first charge, and not the debenture. - If you can convince the sales woman in the shop the hostess in the marketing suite that you are paying with a mortgage, then you don't need to lend the 50% up front (according to our provided info somewhere). So some of our calculations of x * 50% are not quite accurate.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Apr 20, 2016 21:28:52 GMT
Are they separate projects? Co-incidences are unavoidable: - same day - same valuer - same solicitors - same term - same city - same part of city - same purpose (ish - block of flats, scraping bottom of barrel here)
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Apr 20, 2016 20:48:06 GMT
But it is not even unambiguously certain that there is planning permission for the first phase of the development, which is now underway. Excuse from the valuer:
Liverpool City Council will no longer accept verbal planning enquiries with all enquiries required to be made in writing. Due to the time constraints composed upon us in providing our report this has not been possible. We have therefore assumed, for the purpose of the valuation, that the Subject Property has the necessary planning consent for its existing use. No formal search has been instigated ...
and then goes on to say that, regarding the existing development:
Prior Approval Given 16-12-2015.
What does "Prior" mean? Is approval granted or not?
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Apr 20, 2016 16:14:11 GMT
"Buyers for the further units will pay a 50% deposit on reservation which will be used to build the remaining project to completion."
So - this development is being crowdfunded by the property purchasers. How cool is that?
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Apr 11, 2016 17:27:56 GMT
never get my go live email as same time as others always find out on here first them mine arrive a few hours later I am wondering if sometimes I do not get Go Live emails at all. What/when was the last loan before this Emsworth one? Has there been one since the Derbyshire care village?
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Mar 10, 2016 18:54:21 GMT
I wonder if anyone would like to comment upon the security for this current loan? I have diddly-squat invested in FK, 'cos their rates are so low. But I decided to take a look at this loan. However, the security seems (to me) to be just too ambiguous:
2nd debenture - who has the first debenture and what is it worth? (Probably Danske, for £475k, but not unambiguously so.)
- when a business hits trouble, the process of their assets evaporating begins there and then. Do FK regularly check on the value of assets, as do AC? Are there covenants that fixed assets must be maintained above a certain level, as with AC and perhaps TC? And what comprises the fixed assets here? In summary, can I be confident that the 2nd debenture has enough value to cover the loan + some, and that the fixed assets are sufficiently fixed that they cannot evaporate too quickly?
cross guarantee - What is this worth? I could go and check out W******l H******s at Company Check, but I would have expected some information on FK's web pages about this guarantor.
- Is it a one-way guarantee? Or is our loan going to support the credibility of W******l H******s instead, as happened with a loan pulled from ReBS some months ago?
So, to me, the security is ambiguous and I am disappointed once again not to be diversifying intto FK. Am I missing anything please?
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Feb 25, 2016 18:48:47 GMT
... it will be interesting to see how many people actually invest in the loan, as an indication how may people actually do any DD. Last time around we had 1600; surely that has to fall quite considerably on this loan considering the indicated risks? We do DD 'cos that's what one does on P2P, and what one has always done. But ... at SS, there's very little information on which to execute DD. And anyway, there's always the provision fund. So I'm not sure that SS intend or expect lenders to do any DD at all. And I always wonder why I am bothering with DD, at SS. I wonder why SS bother to provide any information about the loans at all, given that what they provide is inadequate, and given their provision fund.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Feb 10, 2016 10:20:40 GMT
The quoting choice by the BBC seems to have radically altered the meaning of what he said. The BCC repeatedly claim that the interview was conducted on Radio 5's Wake Up To Money. And so does this presentation of, I guess, a BBC press release: uk.businessinsider.com/ex-fsa-chief-adair-turner-fintech-p2p-lending-interest-rates-2016-2?r=DE&IR=TYet I have listened to the entire edition of Wake Up To Money (groan) from this morning (on the iPlayer Radio app) and Turner never once mentions P2P! Has anyone heard the interview, other than the snippet repeated on Radio 4's Today programme?
|
|