ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 16, 2014 10:45:31 GMT
So thats it, all gone. Question is what next? Apart from the inevitable  if & when the next boaty loans renew, theres nothing in the pipeline!   ?  Oops, unfortunate typo pun there. Thanks. For some reason I cant stop giggling every time I read it. 
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Sept 16, 2014 10:47:53 GMT
If you've ever played tight-head prop, you'll know you were right first time!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Sept 16, 2014 13:19:30 GMT
Looking at the PBL's offered to us by SS, it seems to me that there is an element of us becoming lender of last resort with some of these. There is nothing wrong with that per se, it clearly fills a gap in the market. But to mitigate the risk (for us and Lendy) it is vital that the legal work is first class.
As I indicated in my earlier post, for this loan to work it presumably needs the land registry title splitting, and appropriate access rights etc building into the new title (be it one for 4 cotages or 4, one per cottage). Not impossible, but time consuming to get watertight. I wonder whether there is a conflict here between SS's model of paying us interest prior to drawdown and the need to take time to get the legal paperwork relating to the security right.
Splitting title is, unfortunately, easy to get wrong as a recent TC loan request demonstrated. In that case a narrow strip of land was omitted from the split titles some years ago, meaning that none of the flats in the building had legal right of access. The result is the building is unsaleable until this is resolved, and the TC funding was withdrawn.
I have no objection to SS presenting proposals such as this to us, but I do wish they were accompanied by a much clearer statement as to the legal position of the security. A formal Q&A ability on the loan webpage would assist, but with the current lemming like investor mentality (and I'm as guilty here as the rest) it is hard to see SS adopting this approach.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 16, 2014 14:17:56 GMT
ISTM that when savingstream have offered upfront interest in the past, it has been for a loan where all interest was retained from the beginning and the minimum term and the maximum term were the same. In this case, the maximum term is nine months but the minimum term is six months and only six months' interest is being retained. If they wanted to offer upfront interest here, they'd have to offer just six months' worth, and then pay interest monthly if the loan extended beyond that. No doubt that could be done, but it does sound rather complicated. Well, it may have STM, but it shouldn't have. PBL005 has a minimum term of 12 months and a maximum term of 18 months. 12 months' worth of interest was retained at drawdown, and there was an upfront interest option. So it's not only possible, it's been done before. Which brings up some interesting questions for savingstream... - Why does PBL005 show as having a Remaining Term of 9 months when the borrower has no obligation to repay until 15 months from now?
- If the loan does go beyond 12 months, will lenders who opted for upfront interest start getting monthly interest from the end of month 13?
- One of the conditions of the upfront interest option is no access to the secondary market. Does that lapse if the loan goes beyond 12 months?
- When interest is retained at drawdown for a loan, how do SS decide whether or not to offer the upfront interest option to lenders?
|
|
if & when the next boaty loans renew, theres nothing in the pipeline! 
?
