carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jun 6, 2018 8:59:43 GMT
Tell me about it - I only joined PM around March 17, potentially bought some of these at close to or over par early on & then bought more when we are talking 14 or 15 months into the issue. I found myself playing 2 games of bingo - comparing the list to my dashboard & then the list of my wife's investments. I can now see why they closed the SM - issues with comms like this plus a SM is not a pretty picture. Why didn't they close it 1 year earlier? Wow, somehow despite your clear mention of it, I completely missed that the issues went back to 2016, not 2017. All I can say is "!!!". Not at all good that they were tradeable on the SM for such a long time then. Although it does make me wonder whether that's why some (all?) of them were removed from the SM last autumn and not put back before the SM closed.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,857
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Jun 6, 2018 10:52:43 GMT
Nothing posted on it's TWITTER Account since 01/03/18. Nothing on the website blog since 18/04/18. Live chat removed from the site. No new investment opportunities. I am starting to get Quite worried about my investments now! I can assure you that propertymoose are still there (though maybe not here - go on prove me wrong). I have been trading emails & have some info off the back of my SPV 33 query about the first missed payment being as far back as February (the February payment being from January with payments being a month in arrears being my logic). The information I am about to post (I do have their permission) may shock some - please sit down...
There are as carolus suggested a number of SPVs affected by guaranteed rent not being paid; SPV 32 SPV 33 SPV 34 SPV 36 SPV 38 SPV 41 SPV 48 Rent was last received November 2016 (that is over a year, not a typo). Through what I genuinely believe was significant generosity PM paid out the rent while hoping to recover the relationship with the guarantor. When I read that last night I was shocked - that is an understatement - I have taken 24 hours to digest, query the year, ask permission to post this & would ask that everyone please appreciate their good intentions, that this has cost them thousands & they are working to pursue the guarantor - above all, please remember that they did not have to tell us this & further we want to keep communications open & honest - heck we might even see some answers on here! All that said, before someone accuses me of all sorts, I have made my feelings clear to them - I am now into a number of the affected SPV for a large sum to me (lowish 4 figures) where I probably would not be had this been made available in reasonable time. It is ironic that I just gave advice to another platform in the last few weeks; "with the knowledge that you pay out even if not paid by the borrower, it is a good thing. You do need to watch though, doing so without telling folk you risk being accused of misleading investors (more so if/when you have a SM)!" p2pindependentforum.com/post/267999/threadI haven't read your email to PM, but if I understood correctly, I find it is unacceptable to withhold such information for such a long period of time if that is the case. I do have a stake in SPV 34, according to the quarterly update dated 31 May 2018, it was tenanted and expect vacant possession on 4th June. Rents were collected for March and April 18. In the project description of SPV 34, it quotes:- "Furthermore, the management partner has agreed to underwrite the tenancy agreement. ... this property has a two year contract with the partners who have taken responsibility for the property including: ... The agreement is signed for a monthly sum of £425 and means that whether the property is vacant, or if the tenant is late with rent, investors will still continue to earn the rental income every month."Property Moose tells investors " When a property is tenanted, the realised net rent is paid back to investors" on its knowledge centre. I find it is unacceptable to withhold net profit before the completion of the exit process or for any other reasons like holidays. I think I can assume why PM cannot pay some dividend on time for some SPVs, and PM needs time before making things right. At the same time I find it hard to believe PM could do it without any apologies. These so-called quarterly updates becoming meaningless, "We are pleased to confirm that the new quarterly reporting update is now available for PM SPV xx.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Jun 6, 2018 12:51:17 GMT
benaj, there are two issues there. Personally I have little issue with them building up a provision fund - may be too little too suddenly, but small in comparison to the other issues! As for the guaranteed rent/apparently kind act/major accidental deception, we will not hear the last of this for a long time! propertymoose I think this info is worthy of an email to all affected investors.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2018 16:43:02 GMT
Am I really understanding this right? PM allowed an SPV to be traded on the SM while knowing that the rent wouldn't be paid, and while not telling us that?
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Jun 7, 2018 0:22:05 GMT
@yescautious, more ore less, except that they did expect to recover the money eventually - it seems it was only in February this year that they expected to have to go to court for the money.
|
|
crapo
Posts: 40
Likes: 26
|
Post by crapo on Jun 7, 2018 9:33:12 GMT
Am I really understanding this right? PM allowed an SPV to be traded on the SM while knowing that the rent wouldn't be paid, and while not telling us that? What shocks me more is they held Exit Votes (SPV 33 in particular) and withheld this particular information, which I have no doubt would have very much changed the outcome on an already narrow margin outcome! I'm furious... If the property had been sold, would it mean they were less likely to recover the losses? I shouldn't see why because it should be locked up contractually but this does have me wondering!
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,857
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Jun 7, 2018 9:44:27 GMT
What shocks me more is they held Exit Votes (SPV 33 in particular) and withheld this particular information, which I have no doubt would have very much changed the outcome on an already narrow margin outcome! I'm furious... If the property had been sold, would it mean they were less likely to recover the losses? I shouldn't see why because it should be locked up contractually but this does have me wondering! I don't have any stake in SPV 33, but judging from the voting results, 30.98% of 86 investors voted option 2. If no one voted, by default, it would have been option 1 which PM would have wanted. However, I found it is not helpful PM is unwilling to release more info, such as when the property SPV 33 became vaccant. Anyway, it's already jun 18, 6 more months the initial term would be expired by dec 18. Or may be, since SPV 33 is currently vacant, ask for a second vote for quicker exit.
|
|
crapo
Posts: 40
Likes: 26
|
Post by crapo on Jun 7, 2018 9:55:59 GMT
I don't have any stake in SPV 33, but judging from the voting results, 30.98% of 86 investors voted option 2. If no one voted, by default, it would have been option 1 which PM would have wanted. My point is that if people had known before the vote less people would have voted option 2. What's your point? The vote was held in March/April, which was 9 months before the initial term expires. I doubt the market it going to improve by then. Although in the "Investment Summary" it does say, "we will also be giving investors the opportunity to vote on a potential exit of the investment in due course" which given the glacial speeds these things move at, does seem slightly pointless, which brings me back to the vote....they should have told investors about the situation with the guaranteed rent! Of which the investment summary says, "has since been breached by the guarantor." which is very glib and opaque.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,857
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Jun 7, 2018 10:04:48 GMT
I don't have any stake in SPV 33, but judging from the voting results, 30.98% of 86 investors voted option 2. If no one voted, by default, it would have been option 1 which PM would have wanted. My point is that if people had known before the vote less people would have voted option 2. What's your point? The vote was held in March/April, which was 9 months before the initial term expires. I doubt the market it going to improve by then. Although in the "Investment Summary" it does say, "we will also be giving investors the opportunity to vote on a potential exit of the investment in due course" which given the glacial speeds these things move at, does seem slightly pointless, which brings me back to the vote....they should have told investors about the situation with the guaranteed rent! Of which the investment summary says, "has since been breached by the guarantor." which is very glib and opaque. It's hard to tell if investors would have voted differently at that time, when PM managed to paid dividend for SPV 33 consistently until Feb 18. Now it is a different scenario because the breach was reported in May. I would ask for quick second vote rather waiting another 6 months. To me, it sounds like the guarantor signed a 3 year high yield agreement but unable to deliver and breached the contract, may be the actual market rent is much lower.
|
|
crapo
Posts: 40
Likes: 26
|
Post by crapo on Jun 7, 2018 10:13:12 GMT
It's hard to tell if investors would have voted differently at that time, when PM managed to paid dividend for SPV 33 consistently until Feb 18. Now it is a different scenario because the breach was reported in May. But the full story is that rent hadn't been paid since November 2016 and if the situation couldn't be sorted, which I suspect would have been very likely given how long it had been going on, then the rent would stop. It is very unlikely that more people would have voted for Option 2 in that situation and it is very likely that some would have not voted Option 2 in that situation and given the margin it could have very well changed the outcome. 5 votes would've swayed it. Agreed.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Jun 7, 2018 15:21:10 GMT
I don't have any stake in SPV 33, but judging from the voting results, 30.98% of 86 investors voted option 2. and it is very likely that some would have not voted Option 2 in that situation and given the margin it could have very well changed the outcome. 5 votes would've swayed it. Ignoring the specific details of this property for the moment I think you're both misunderstanding how voting works with shares. The number of investors is pretty irrelevant as each shareholders vote will be weighted proportionate to their shareholding. That 30.98% might only be a two or three investors, in which case if they didn't change their mind it wouldn't matter how many others changed their minds. And you certainly can't make any assumptions as to how many people changing their vote might be required - just one person might change the result or 50 might try and not have enough impact. Edit - when I was writing this I forgot that this was one of the older properties with £500 shares so the imbalance isn't likely to be anywhere near as great, but then I did say I was ignoring specific details and still quite feasible that a few investors might have 5fig sums
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,857
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Jun 7, 2018 15:36:29 GMT
I don't have any stake in SPV 33, but judging from the voting results, 30.98% of 86 investors voted option 2. and it is very likely that some would have not voted Option 2 in that situation and given the margin it could have very well changed the outcome. 5 votes would've swayed it. Ignoring the specific details of this property for the moment I think you're both misunderstanding how voting works with shares. The number of investors is pretty irrelevant as each shareholders vote will be weighted proportionate to their shareholding. That 30.98% might only be a two or three investors, in which case if they didn't change their mind it wouldn't matter how many others changed their minds. And you certainly can't make any assumptions as to how many people changing their vote might be required - just one person might change the result or 50 might try and not have enough impact. You do have a point pom, but there are only 251 shares in SPV 33. Although average shares / investor is 2.91, it's possible a large stake holder hold 60% of the SPV, and the rest of investors owns 40% voted, resulted 30.89% option 2 based on assumption dividend being paid for another 11 months or so.
|
|
crapo
Posts: 40
Likes: 26
|
Post by crapo on Jun 7, 2018 15:56:35 GMT
Response from PM,
I call bullshit. As I said before, the writing was probably on the wall and it is pertinent to the vote, either way. Not happy.
|
|
crapo
Posts: 40
Likes: 26
|
Post by crapo on Jun 7, 2018 16:00:22 GMT
Ignoring the specific details of this property for the moment I think you're both misunderstanding how voting works with shares. The number of investors is pretty irrelevant as each shareholders vote will be weighted proportionate to their shareholding. That 30.98% might only be a two or three investors, in which case if they didn't change their mind it wouldn't matter how many others changed their minds. And you certainly can't make any assumptions as to how many people changing their vote might be required - just one person might change the result or 50 might try and not have enough impact Fair one, and you have mentioned that to me before. I still think hiding the information changed the outcome of the vote and a further vote is likely to verify that. I'm sure someone will then argue that that is obvious if there are no tenants and no guaranteed rent but that's the position they were in before but they were just hoping (in vain) to resolve it. It stinks.
|
|
jnm21
Posts: 441
Likes: 166
|
Post by jnm21 on Jun 7, 2018 16:30:16 GMT
Am I really understanding this right? PM allowed an SPV to be traded on the SM while knowing that the rent wouldn't be paid, and while not telling us that? What shocks me more is they held Exit Votes (SPV 33 in particular) and withheld this particular information, which I have no doubt would have very much changed the outcome on an already narrow margin outcome! I'm furious... If the property had been sold, would it mean they were less likely to recover the losses? I shouldn't see why because it should be locked up contractually but this does have me wondering! I appreciate your point crapo & agree that it could have changed votes (I am in 33 and think I voted keep when it would have been sell), but more significant for me and others is the fact that it was sold, without the proper disclosure of the information, on the SM - I may not have been in it at all or may have paid significantly less to be. That to me (even if it wasn't me being affected financially) is a much bigger issue & I suspect (I have *not* discussed this with PM) may be a colourful illustration of why the SM couldn't continue.
|
|