|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 8, 2015 18:54:09 GMT
Now down to the last £1/2 million available. Another big pledge of £25k just made, IIUC.
|
|
|
Rebuilding Society
Website
Mar 7, 2015 15:44:24 GMT
Post by solicitorious on Mar 7, 2015 15:44:24 GMT
Website too slow to catch cold. Having to examine each loan in turn for low markups is pants too. Should just have one sortable list of all loan parts with markup info shown
|
|
|
Funding Circle (FC)
RAG rating
Mar 7, 2015 2:18:34 GMT
Post by solicitorious on Mar 7, 2015 2:18:34 GMT
All unlucky 13 of my defaults are in:
R 6 A 2 G 5
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 6, 2015 20:17:11 GMT
Just on the subject of the EIS, I had a nice little chat with Hector (remember him?) about the interaction between IT relief and CGT relief.
If you are thinking of overfunding this (or other S/EIS), beyond the level of your maximum income tax relief (essentially 3.33 x your tax bill) make sure you do declare the value of the whole investment, else you will not benefit from the whole of the CGT relief.
E.g. Tax bill £3k, Max EIS £10k available for income tax relief. You decided to invest £20k nevertheless. Make sure you declare the £20k.
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 6, 2015 19:39:53 GMT
No, CL. My first is as in 'cube, my second as in land'...
Come to think of it, I think you become a director of a company holding the property, so the CGT treatment may differ from your personal treatment.
Alternatively you could put a big wedge (circa £100k) in a structured product. Worked out great when the FTSE was bumping along at 4500-5500. Not sure about now. My gains still never managed to exceed the CGT allowance in any case.
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 6, 2015 19:20:44 GMT
Gains in that are tax-free. So no luck there. There's some whacky new outfit where, as I understand it, you become a part-landlord. Presumably there could be some modest CGT implications in that when the property is sold.
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 6, 2015 19:08:04 GMT
I should forget about it till Monday, and not worry. My deposit recognition has varied from a few minutes to 2 days. I think it takes manual intervention from SS. It's always got there and they now have £**k of my lolly.
|
|
|
Funding Circle (FC)
RAG rating
Mar 6, 2015 16:03:49 GMT
Post by solicitorious on Mar 6, 2015 16:03:49 GMT
This is an interesting and potentially welcome development, as my default list mounts... But it's a bit unclear how these are to be interpreted consistently. For example I have a Red, where the expected recovery is quoted by FC at 55%. Other Reds are forecast as zero. For my own amusement, for the time being, I am applying average recovery rates of 16.66 : 50.00 : 83.33 to the three categories, giving me something like a ~54% overall forecast recovery rate. Is there any point to any of this, or is it just "PR"? I would hope that FC start keeping actual stats on these recovery ratings...
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 6, 2015 15:05:38 GMT
I was only vaguely familiar with the terms until someone on another thread explained them to me.
As I understand it, they essentially answer the question:
To what proportion of its initial value would the underlying security have to fall to, for you to be left with x% of your investment? Costs of administration and sale of the asset are factored in. LTV90, for example, is the figure to be left with 90% [i.e. to lose 10%]. LTV50 would equate to losing half, and LTV0 would equate to losing everything...
Sometimes the answers are not intuitively obvious, especially in the case of 2nd Charges, or a combination of different charges.
Example:
Suppose you saw two property loans of £700k both with the same headline LTVs of 70%...
However, after drilling down into the detail of the actual security, you discover that Loan A was secured by a £700k 1st Charge on a £1m property, while loan B was secured by a 2nd Charge of £1.3m on £2m property that had a prior (1st Charge) of £700k. Which is the safer bet?
Let's do the numbers.
Loan A LTV90: 63% LTV50: 35% LTV0: 0%
Loan B LTV90: 66.5% LTV50: 52.5% LTV0: 35%
So, which is the riskier? Pretty obviously Loan B, because the relevant thresholds for loss are higher than for Loan A. In other words the value of the security would not have to fall as much, for you to sustain the same loss. Note also that a total loss is impossible with Loan A, whereas it is possible (although perhaps unlikely) with Loan B.
One may decide that the differences between these particular loans are not terribly much to worry about. However... these are mild examples, and it is not until you perform the calculations that you can know for certain what the figures are. You may discover something much scarier, such as a LTV0 of 64%, or something...
Of course, these numbers are just one aspect of risk. Loan A, despite looking safer, might in fact be 100 times more likely to fail than Loan B, and its security more likely to fall through the various LTV thresholds. Such analysis is beyond the scope of this discussion.
But it would seem prudent to have these numbers at one's disposal when evaluating the overall risks of lending.
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 5, 2015 23:48:01 GMT
I don't think I've ever received an email from them on anything, and checking my account I can't even see where my email contact info is stored! Any ideas? Can't explain your problem here, but I've had 249 email messages form SS since I signed up on 6 March 2014. Plusnet is the answer (also the problem, alas). You learn something new every day... Otherwise a great ISP, I'm happy to add. [11 years with them]
|
|
|
Lendy (L) in Administration
Looking Ahead
Mar 5, 2015 23:44:32 GMT
Post by solicitorious on Mar 5, 2015 23:44:32 GMT
Hard Assets + PF + low LTV.
As copper-bottomed as their boats! [potentially]
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 5, 2015 22:18:35 GMT
@ramblin rose
That explains it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 5, 2015 20:52:08 GMT
"...All I'd really add to the deposit side of the discussion is that you MUST do the virtual deposit part of the money deposit process as it's needed by SS to marry up with your real transfer..."
What Rosie is getting at is: if you tell them you want to deposit £500, don't go and do a transfer of £672.19 because you just won the pools; the SS credit hamsters get their knickers in a twist. It must actually be £500
There are several loans (apparently) about to come on stream .... our fingers (or bananas!) are raised in anticipation. I don't think I've ever received an email from them on anything, and checking my account I can't even see where my email contact info is stored! Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 5, 2015 18:49:56 GMT
No, I have not done that, and don't really have the time. I'll calculate and post the analyses, someone else can do the running and fetching... I think it's called "division of labour". How is that unedifying tussle going on elsewhere, btw?
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Mar 5, 2015 15:05:34 GMT
LTV0: 43.9% LTV50: 51.6% LTV90: 57.7% Edit: I should add that the PF will improve these figures, and will get round to calculating that sometime... As promised, I have re-evaluated #6 in light of the provision fund, and am happy to report. LTV0: n/a (investment can't fall to zero, by virtue of the existence of the provision fund. Applies to all current SS loans) LTV50: 0% LTV90: 47.5% Of course, always bear in mind that there is only one provision fund - and there are 28 loans... I will shortly make available a spreadsheet detailing the figures for all loans.
|
|