|
Post by df on Mar 21, 2019 8:56:05 GMT
Yes, this is one of the reasons that leaned me towards making an exception to my "no FS property ordinance". There appears to be increasing use of underwriters to secure completion of the loan. That is a good thing in that it demonstrates confidence in the loa, but it's bad for us hoping to get risk free interest... This one appears to have no underwriters or BH bonuses. I think the era of "risk free interest" is almost gone now . Anything I get myself involved on FS - I'm prepared to hold.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 21, 2019 9:43:46 GMT
"Given that the borrower is working to a tight deadline to secure this refinance, they have agreed to pay a higher interest rate which secures 13% p/a for our investors. This rate does not necessarily reflect an increased credit risk." So maybe extra interest for no extra risk. Maybe.Personally I've stopped investing in development loans having had my fingers burned elsewhere - but it might be that New FS have looked at this one more carefully. For sure I'm pleased to see new loans on the platform and I wish it well.
Maybe indeed ... hmmm. The email announcing the loan at 17:20 this afternoon contained the same sentence but a 15% rate. (although the summary info did contradict that with the 13%).
The size of loan, the fact that initiating recovery seems to be a slower legal process in Scotland, a residual value valuation, an abandoned (for now) demolition are all suggesting to me that 13% is an appropriate risk related rate in the context of FS rate ranges. 14% or indeed 15% would indeed to me represent a higher interest rate. My guess would be that some lenders (institutional, syndicates, etc) are being offered 15% but it's only 13% to "retail" lenders.
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 21, 2019 10:58:33 GMT
Maybe indeed ... hmmm. The email announcing the loan at 17:20 this afternoon contained the same sentence but a 15% rate. (although the summary info did contradict that with the 13%).
The size of loan, the fact that initiating recovery seems to be a slower legal process in Scotland, a residual value valuation, an abandoned (for now) demolition are all suggesting to me that 13% is an appropriate risk related rate in the context of FS rate ranges. 14% or indeed 15% would indeed to me represent a higher interest rate. My guess would be that some lenders (institutional, syndicates, etc) are being offered 15% but it's only 13% to "retail" lenders. There was follow up e-mail correcting the mistake. They didn't mean 15%.
|
|
lobster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 636
Likes: 467
|
Post by lobster on Mar 21, 2019 19:04:04 GMT
Two consecutive purchases (I'm guessing husband&wife) went in today, each for 300k , so that's taken a 600k lump out of the availability . A nice 39k earner over 6 months for the lucky couple ................ assuming no problems . And let's not forget the "nice little earner" of interest starting to accrue immediately (at a rate of £213.70 per day). That particular facility must cost FS a good few quid, but to be fair , it probably pulls in a lot more lenders too.
|
|
lobster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 636
Likes: 467
|
Post by lobster on Mar 22, 2019 7:13:37 GMT
Personally, I quite like this loan , largely because it's a new loan at a reasonable LTV, and therefore hopefully stands a high chance of being renewed. My main issue isn't with the loan at all ...... it's with the platform. Is it irrational to be concerned about the viability of FS itself ? Sometimes I suspect I'm allowing myself to be unduly influenced by the large amount of negative feedback on these boards. Is there any real chance of FS sinking ? The punter with 600k on the line is presumably unworried
|
|
susan
Member of DD Central
Posts: 54
Likes: 64
|
Post by susan on Mar 22, 2019 13:35:02 GMT
This is the first loan I have seen on FS with a minimum investment level :
'Due to the size of the loan we have amended the minimum investment to be £500. Existing investments below this level will remain on the loan - but no new investments will be accepted below £500.'
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 22, 2019 13:40:24 GMT
This is the first loan I have seen on FS with a minimum investment level :
'Due to the size of the loan we have amended the minimum investment to be £500. Existing investments below this level will remain on the loan - but no new investments will be accepted below £500.'
My guess is that this will be a short lived trial before being consigned to the scrapheap. I think the number of people who would have invested £300 that now put in £500 will be swamped by the number who would have put in less than £200 that now put in nothing. Edit: There's ~£27k invested between £25 and £300, and a further ~£7k from £325 to £475. I'd guess that a lot of the £325-£475 investors might have rounded up to £500, bringing in an extra £1875, but you stand to lose £27k from the small investors. unless there's a big admin cost of managing £25 investments (which doesn't sound likely), then i just don't see the purpose of this.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 22, 2019 13:55:39 GMT
This is the first loan I have seen on FS with a minimum investment level :
'Due to the size of the loan we have amended the minimum investment to be £500. Existing investments below this level will remain on the loan - but no new investments will be accepted below £500.'
My guess is that this will be a short lived trial before being consigned to the scrapheap. I think the number of people who would have invested £300 that now put in £500 will be swamped by the number who would have put in less than £200 that now put in nothing. I doubt that. It’s an obvious move to drastically reduce the tail of small lenders they have to deal with, focusing efforts and resources towards attracting bigger hitters (classic 80/20 situation).
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 22, 2019 14:00:49 GMT
My guess is that this will be a short lived trial before being consigned to the scrapheap. I think the number of people who would have invested £300 that now put in £500 will be swamped by the number who would have put in less than £200 that now put in nothing. I doubt that. It’s an obvious move to drastically reduce the tail of small lenders they have to deal with, focusing efforts and resources towards attracting bigger hitters (classic 80/20 situation). That doesn't make sense at all- the big hitters won't be more "attracted" to this loan simply because there's a restriction on small investments. There's also no mention of what happens with the SM. Will £25 be allowed to be sold? If so, smaller investors are punished in that they will have to pick this up next week at a premium. If it isn't allowed to be sold, then this would reduce the attraction of investing £500 as it makes selling it harder. I edited my last post to include some figures which clearly shows that the vast majority of the smaller investors are investing less than £300. Are they likely to go up to £500?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 22, 2019 14:05:08 GMT
Its not just a minimum investment level, its a minimum bid level and minimum bid increment. So although I have a 4 figure sum in the loan, if I wish to increase my exposure I can only do it in multiples of £500.
Hmm ...
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 22, 2019 14:10:25 GMT
This is the first loan I have seen on FS with a minimum investment level :
'Due to the size of the loan we have amended the minimum investment to be £500. Existing investments below this level will remain on the loan - but no new investments will be accepted below £500.'
My guess is that this will be a short lived trial before being consigned to the scrapheap. I think the number of people who would have invested £300 that now put in £500 will be swamped by the number who would have put in less than £200 that now put in nothing. Edit: There's ~£27k invested between £25 and £300, and a further ~£7k from £325 to £475. I'd guess that a lot of the £325-£475 investors might have rounded up to £500, bringing in an extra £1875, but you stand to lose £27k from the small investors. unless there's a big admin cost of managing £25 investments (which doesn't sound likely), then i just don't see the purpose of this. I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this decision. It's very unlikely that excluding small investors will help the process of filling this loan. Perhaps some of those who were thinking of investing £400 will decide to increase to £500??? 385k to go - we'll see what happens.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 22, 2019 14:11:15 GMT
No, I doubt they would. But a couple of additional BH bids would replace several hundred £300 lenders and be a whole lot less of a drain on limited FS resource. It’s a further sign of common sense thinking from the new FS management team.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 22, 2019 14:14:13 GMT
My guess is that this will be a short lived trial before being consigned to the scrapheap. I think the number of people who would have invested £300 that now put in £500 will be swamped by the number who would have put in less than £200 that now put in nothing. Edit: There's ~£27k invested between £25 and £300, and a further ~£7k from £325 to £475. I'd guess that a lot of the £325-£475 investors might have rounded up to £500, bringing in an extra £1875, but you stand to lose £27k from the small investors. unless there's a big admin cost of managing £25 investments (which doesn't sound likely), then i just don't see the purpose of this. I'm struggling to understand the logic behind this decision. It's very unlikely that excluding small investors will help the process of filling this loan. Perhaps some of those who were thinking of investing £400 will decide to increase to £500??? 385k to go - we'll see what happens. Exactly, but so far, those going from £400 to £500 would only bring in an extra £1k, while you're putting at risk the £30k that's below £400. As SteveT mentioned, the only thing that makes sense is if there's a large admin cost of managing £25 investments, but surely the business is designed to automate that process so there should be no/minimal cost of additional investors.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Mar 22, 2019 14:15:56 GMT
No, I doubt they would. But a couple of additional BH bids would replace several hundred £300 lenders and be a whole lot less of a drain on limited FS resource. It’s a further sign of common sense thinking from the new FS management team. But how does this increase the likelihood of those additional BH bids? If all FS loans were flying off the shelf and BHs weren't able to get what they want then I'd understand, but its clear that there's enough capacity for all investors to get what they desire.
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 22, 2019 14:16:24 GMT
No, I doubt they would. But a couple of additional BH bids would replace several hundred £300 lenders and be a whole lot less of a drain on limited FS resource. It’s a further sign of common sense thinking from the new FS management team. Wouldn't BH be more likely attracted by bonuses?
|
|