PBL011, PBL012, & PBL013

Don't think you missed it

I looked at the plans attached to the reports and in the one I remember, instead of the site outlined in red it was just indicated roughly by an arrow. This is unusual and suggests to me the valuer was not provided with copies of the title plans. I could be wrong.

That said, I would have expected a visual inspection may have indicated the likely extent of the boundaries and these could have been marked out - albeit with a caveat saying they are a best/likely guess rather than definitive.

As a (non practising) Surveyor I read the reports obtained by SS with interest and some of them impress me while others seem skimpier on detail.

My concern is that the early PBLs seemed quite thoroughly researched and were accompanied by detailed and solid valuation reports which displayed real expertise and dependability. I felt quite confident in the proposals and loans, Some of the more recent paperwork I have seen has been less impressive and a bit less fit for purpose in my opinion. These newest 3 and the recent Dover Hotel one are examples of that.

The latest reports did not seem to deal with any possible alternative uses - the planning enquiries were brief and merely confirmed the existing uses. Noting some are in largely residential areas and the site areas are not stated, is there any potential for residential redevelopment, for example. Or expansion? What we have are existing use valuations but might the market view these premises as redevelopment opportunities, subject to planning consents? They are part residential, part restaurant. How profitable are the restaurants? Are they trading? Have the accounts/profits  been taken into account? Might there be some 'hope value' here in terms of possible redvelopment and a more profitable use, especially as some updating/maintenance is required.

To be fair I have not seen the extent of the Valuer's instructions so it would be wrong to criticise the valuers when I do not know their terms of reference. The valuations are prepared by suitably qualified Chartered Surveyors - although the Dover one appeared to have been prepared by a Chartered Quantity Surveyor who would not necessarily be expert in the field of valuation surveying - although he may have added that string to his bow.

If there is a deficiency in this regard it could lie with a lack of property expertise within SS itself. I would say that clients need to give clear instructions and be clear about their needs so that they get exacty what they require. They need to take care to choose suitably qualified surveyors. Problems can occur when a client doesn't fully understand what is needed, or lacks the skill to interpret and understand what has been reported and thus doesn't go back to seek further information or clarification on any points, though hopefully solicitors would pick up a lot.

A 3 month marketing period is not generous when we are dealing with properties such as these restaurants in quite poor order and a forced sale within that tight timeframe may well not allow a sale at just 10or 20% below market value to be achieved. Forced sellers are not in a strong position to negotiate and fully test the market and they lack the time needed to add value to an asset.

Overall I wonder if SS, in their keenness to expand the platform and bring new loans to the table, may be starting to take on slightly higher risk loan business in the property sector. I hope this isn't the case.

It is reassuring however that SS is using the services of Charered Surveyors who are RICS Registered Valuers and not local estate agents or such like who are not required to conform to such standards, ethics and continuing professional development and who may have different agendas and perspectives and be unafamiliar with RICS Professional Valuation Standards.

Property valuation is said by some to be an art rather than a science. Valuations will always vary from valuer to valuer. A 10 to 15% variance is accepted as reasonable. The only way to prove market value is to properly market a property and then agree a price between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arms length transaction. The forced sale scenario takes the willing seller part out of the equation to a large extent so the outcome becomes much less certain.

I note with regret that ten days have passed and savingstream have not provided any clarification here. 

Meanwhile, I note that there's less than £200 of PBL012 to fund.

PBL011, PBL012, & PBL013: We have been informed that one of the borrowers (initially a couple) has suddenly passed away. Apparently the remaining party still wishes to proceed with the loan however understandably this will cause some delays in completion.

Can anyone explain why PBL012, and to a lesser extent PBL013, are so much more popular than PBL011?

That was precisely my thinking when I made my investments - since they are all part of the same loan I allocated an amount to the three as a whole, and in thinking how to spread it between the three I put the lion's share into 012, a smaller amount into 013 and none into 011.

mike said: I have no idea how successful SS are being at bringing in new investors.

The number of investors is listed at the bottom of the home page, currently 1279. On a previous thread I remember j congratulating SS on their 1000th lender and that was around June/July time. So they are gaining new investors at around 3 per day.

@ ramblin rose 





Or assuming a linear trend