|
Post by Ace on Apr 2, 2018 16:16:09 GMT
I have recently been seduced by Kuflink's £100 bonus for a £200 investment. I had a quick scan through their website and was impressed by their 20% first loss skin. I was also impressed by the positive sentiments on p2pif, and by Kuflink's responses to comments and questions on here. This persuaded me to dip my toe to see how things went before investing substantial funds. So, having committed my massive investment of £200 I set about examining the available loans to invest in. There were 3 available for investment at the time (W*****k C*****t, G***n L**e and A***a R**d). Looking at each of these in detail I quickly realised that each had valuation issues that would have lead me to reject them on any other platform, even at substantially higher rates. I'll deal with my observations on W*****k C*****t here, but may start threads for the others later.
Sticking to an LTV of 70%, and allowing for Kuflink's first loss investment of 20% of the loan should mean that investors are exposed to maximum LTV of 56%. But, the problem here is in the definition of 'V'. Kuflink use the LTGDV figure, but this does not seem relevant here since investors are being asked to lend £814k against a current market value of £950k, which gives an LTV of 85.7%!
Further, as is started on other Kuflink loans, the more sensible figure to use is the restricted 90 Day sale value, as this is the best guess of what the asset is likely to fetch in a default situation. The restricted 90 Day sale valuation is £850k, which gives an LTV of 95.8%! Hence the conclusion that this is a very risky investment for a 7% return.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 167
|
Post by jnm21 on Apr 2, 2018 20:59:32 GMT
I agree that LTV or LT(90 Day)V would be better/more indicative of the current position. Perhaps also an 80% of loan version.
I did suggest that they separate out the facts from the predictions.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Dec 19, 2018 11:31:33 GMT
I noticed that the Kern reports for tranches 8 and 9 of this loan are neither signed nor dated.
I also noticed that the valuation date shown in the "Security section on tranche 8 is "26-10-2018" and that shown on tranche 9 is "14-12-2018".
The two reports are identical, in fact the link is to the same file, this could be a straightforward mistake but the lack of date and signature on the report may suggest otherwise. Perhaps no work has been done in the intervening period and so another report was not required but that in itself would be a concern.
Anyway, this seems a bit misleading, I haven't used Kuflink much, is this typical?
|
|
|
Post by kuflink on Dec 19, 2018 17:18:40 GMT
Hi Steerpike, Thank you for pointing this out, we’ve just double checked and the attached reports were indeed out of date. Our team has corrected this now and made the right information available for download. Sorry for any inconvenience and well done on spotting this!
|
|