pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,174 
Likes: 1,525
|
Post by pikestaff on Aug 10, 2018 10:20:43 GMT
The vote has been re-issued, as AC apparently got some figures wrong the first time (see AC's Q&A for question by AMS). They have now answered the question in the Q&A as well, including an answer to the second part about the creditworthiness of HH.
The answer says it is "a recognised Shared Ownership Company with a Balance Sheet net worth in excess of £50,000,000."
Unfortunately HH's accounts are not on the Companies House website. I think this is because it is regulated by Homes England (formerly the Homes and Communities Agency) and has to file its accounts with them instead. AFAICS Homes England don't make the accounts publicly available and they are not on HH's website either. But, because HH is regulated and has such a large net worth, it's a pretty safe bet. It is able to borrow (secured) at 1.5% - 2.5% index-linked (see link to bond report on the news page of their website), and per DueDil it made an after-tax profit of £21.9m last year.
IMO the risk of default by HH is remote. The real risk (which HH are looking to cover themselves for) is that the developer doesn't finish the job. We've got that risk anyway.
I have voted yes (A). I can see no upside whatsoever in voting no.
|
|
rick24
Member of DD Central
Posts: 244
Likes: 138
|
Post by rick24 on Aug 10, 2018 10:28:09 GMT
The vote has been re-issued, as AC apparently got some figures wrong the first time (see AC's Q&A for question by AMS). They have now answered the question in the Q&A as well, including an answer to the second part about the creditworthiness of HH.
The answer says it is "a recognised Shared Ownership Company with a Balance Sheet net worth in excess of £50,000,000."
Unfortunately HH's accounts are not on the Companies House website. I think this is because it is regulated by Homes England (formerly the Homes and Communities Agency) and has to file its accounts with them instead. AFAICS Homes England don't make the accounts publicly available and they are not on HH's website either. But, because HH is regulated and has such a large net worth, it's a pretty safe bet. It is able to borrow (secured) at 1.5% - 2.5% index-linked (see link to bond report on the news page of their website), and per DueDil it made an after-tax profit of £21.9m last year.
IMO the risk of defaut by HH is remote. The real risk (which HH are looking to cover themselves for) is that the developer doesn't finish the job. We've got that risk anyway.
I have voted yes (A). I can see no upside whatsoever in voting no.
Just need to persuade them to buy the rest! 
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 725
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Aug 10, 2018 15:00:39 GMT
The vote has been re-issued, as AC apparently got some figures wrong the first time (see AC's Q&A for question by AMS). I saw that as well, I still voted to allow the discount. The fact the borrower is willing to accept a big discount is probably suggests that this is in the best interest of everyone concerned.
|
|
baldpate
Member of DD Central
Posts: 548
Likes: 406
|
Post by baldpate on Aug 10, 2018 19:36:03 GMT
In the light of the clarification provided by AC, and the useful comments above from Steerpike pikestaff on the creditworthiness of HH, I've changed my mind on the vote; I agree with Steerpike pikestaff that there is "no upside whatsoever in voting no". It's a pity AC didn't lay the matter out more clearly from the outset.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,231
Likes: 11,422
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 14, 2018 20:28:53 GMT
Both votes passed in favour of discount sale & deferred payment.
|
|
