|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 25, 2019 19:11:04 GMT
For those who have some concerns as to the integrity of RICS VR's ( ozboy and others) this one is especially interesting.
Page 3 & 38 (SWOT analysis) "The property has Planning Permission for its demolition and redevelopment" & "Redeveloping the property in line with the Planning Permission has the potential to add value (we have been specifically asked to value the property in it’s current configuration)"
Page 25 "We have inspected the Newham Council website and confirm that the property has the following recent releavant planning history" followed by the description of the planning application as given by FS.
Note - this page doesn't say approved application, merely "planning history".
Well I may not be a RICS surveyor, but I'm perfectly able to inspect the Newham Council website myself. As I posted yesterday there is nothing on the planning portal to suggest the approval has occured, or indeed is approved in principle pending S106/CIL payments.
Its worth noting that the current planning application is for a five-storey building but there is an expired approved application for a four-storey building dating back to 2006, so the concept of a large building on this site should be fine (despite the numerous objections as to its size on the 2018 application)
I would contend the statement in the SWOT analysis should read "The property has expired Planning Permission for its demolition and redevelopment", and the section on page 25 should be longer and reference the 2006 application, and the current status of the 2018 application. (Although to be fair they are valuing on an as is basis, so the current planning status should not affect the actual valuation).
Other things I've spotted that may be of interest:
Page 27 "We have not been provided the commercial leases or the occupational tenancies and as instructed we have relied on information provided prior a previous valuers report and valuation."
Page 33: "Due to the property’s current configuration as a mutli unit property, where a number of the units are below 30 sq. m and therefore would not be suitable security for the majority of mainstream lenders and the applicant holds the property as a whole, we consider that an appropriate valuation approach in on an investment basis on the assumption that the area occupied by the applicant is let on a lease (with a minimum term of five years). With this in mind our analysis is as follows [...]"
I'm not feeling any enthusiasm for this one, even if it was at 12%.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920 
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 25, 2019 19:15:37 GMT
And some of these units are 30m2 - I have tenants but would never sink to doing this - glad this one is going to fail in attracting the funds!
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Jul 25, 2019 21:39:48 GMT
And some of these units are 30m2 - I have tenants but would never sink to doing this - glad this one is going to fail in attracting the funds! Just maybe this is one that's been rejected by friends, family, favourites, close associates, underwriters of the FS management who pick up the cream whilst everything else is fed to the crowd.
No proof, just me being sarcastic but the way this platform operates these days along with several others I doubt if everything is offered to traditional lenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Jul 25, 2019 22:15:49 GMT
It makes perfect sense - min is to follow the new policy (exclude the unwanted) and max is to make sure that every worthy one can get a slice. It's a great offer - very attractive 9% rate, no nonsense like instant return or monthly repayments. There's no need for VR, it says that LTV is 64.66% and the borrower has 6.5m of assets, that already tell the volumes. Five investors have already took an advantage of this 12 months bond. It shouldn't take too long to fill - only £2,247,500 to go. Sorry for this sarcasm, but I really don't understand where exactly FS is going atm. Me neither.
If this is the work of the new management then they clearly don’t understand the P2P marketplace at the moment. Or perhaps even worse, if it’s the work of the remaining old management then they clearly don’t understand the P2P marketplace at the moment.
I’d put the chance of this filling in the current P2P climate, with FS’ current reputation, at 9%, with no VR, min £500, no interest until activation and no underwriters, as precisely zero.
Or maybe they’re not that bothered. We have enough evidence to suggest they do very little DD and now with no interest until activation they can just chuck loans up and if they don’t fill then they’ve lost very little by giving it a try. The volume of commitment is now 11k (I'm guessing 22 investors went for it). I can't remember when they are lifting the minimum - it might start filling a bit faster? It's a new loan, so I assume that this is the work of new management. With regard to DD and general info presented for new loans (and renewals), I think it has improved quite a lot. However, if I jumped into FS few months ago I would see it as a bit of a mess. It's not very professional to open a loan for bidding without any VR attached. Other things like changing the loan term from original 6 months to "whenever the project is complete and sold" - I understand why they did it, but I don't think it is fair on investors who put their bids in assuming it is 6 month investment.... changing the minimum from £25 to £250 a few days into bidding process suggests very chaotic strategy - normally, platforms work on new strategies first and then introduce them to us in orderly manner (thinking of recent MT's change to SM and LW's product change - both were discussed with us in this forum in advance and we knew what is coming). I'm of the same opinion. I don't think FS management fully understands the current p2p climate. Apart from what had already been said, I think future growth of p2p industry will rely on the increase of small retail investors. The banks do everything they can to encourage branching out to p2p  BM tried to weed out the smallest by introducing 5k minimum held on platform and it didn't last long - the product has been discontinued. I think an extreme min £1 offering from AC is more in line with the reality - I doubt many would invest as little £1, but the message "anyone with spare cash is welcome" is a good marketing tool.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 1,963
|
Post by rocky1 on Jul 28, 2019 10:26:49 GMT
This loan is now fully funded by the underwriters BUT we are leaving it open to try and tempt some more mugs into thinking this is a good deal.underwritten at 9% I doubt it.FS return the funds to the few lenders in this loan and jog on with your underwriters.you may need to to bring them them in on a few more of your measly offerings.it is pretty handy having directors who have access to a big developers company that also like to underwrite loans.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Jul 28, 2019 11:23:33 GMT
This loan is now fully funded by the underwriters BUT we are leaving it open to try and tempt some more mugs into thinking this is a good deal.underwritten at 9% I doubt it.FS return the funds to the few lenders in this loan and jog on with your underwriters.you may need to to bring them them in on a few more of your measly offerings.it is pretty handy having directors who have access to a big developers company that also like to underwrite loans. Anger at inadequately described loans is one thing, but being angry that an underwriter is taking all the risk while still leaving the option open for those who want to invest is just bananas. The loan is funded- those who wanted to invest are happy, the borrower is happy, the UW is obviously happy. The only unhappy person at this outcome is the one who isn't even involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 28, 2019 11:49:54 GMT
This loan is now fully funded by the underwriters BUT we are leaving it open to try and tempt some more mugs into thinking this is a good deal.underwritten at 9% I doubt it.FS return the funds to the few lenders in this loan and jog on with your underwriters.you may need to to bring them them in on a few more of your measly offerings.it is pretty handy having directors who have access to a big developers company that also like to underwrite loans. Anger at inadequately described loans is one thing, but being angry that an underwriter is taking all the risk while still leaving the option open for those who want to invest is just bananas. The loan is funded- those who wanted to invest are happy, the borrower is happy, the UW is obviously happy. The only unhappy person at this outcome is the one who isn't even involved. To an extent I agree, however I think that those not currently involved in the loan could argue that if the loan was priced more in line with the apparent risks at say 12%, more lenders would be tempted to participate. On a loan of this size, underwriting was always going to be a neccessity, and the cost of an extra 3% going to the small number of retail lenders would be insignificant.
Underwriters will have a limit as to the availability of funds, and a modest contribution to large loans by retail lenders does allow underwriter's funds to reach more loans in total.
As an aside its worth noting the number of loans offering bonuses for larger investments has nose dived this year. This has also had a knock on effect on the SM, as most BH held to maturity to collect the bonus (if the loan repaid in full !) rather than lose the bonus by selling on the SM. There seems to be more big chunks of loans hitting the SM this year.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Jul 28, 2019 12:53:29 GMT
Anger at inadequately described loans is one thing, but being angry that an underwriter is taking all the risk while still leaving the option open for those who want to invest is just bananas. The loan is funded- those who wanted to invest are happy, the borrower is happy, the UW is obviously happy. The only unhappy person at this outcome is the one who isn't even involved. To an extent I agree, however I think that those not currently involved in the loan could argue that if the loan was priced more in line with the apparent risks at say 12%, more lenders would be tempted to participate. On a loan of this size, underwriting was always going to be a neccessity, and the cost of an extra 3% going to the small number of retail lenders would be insignificant.
Underwriters will have a limit as to the availability of funds, and a modest contribution to large loans by retail lenders does allow underwriter's funds to reach more loans in total.
As an aside its worth noting the number of loans offering bonuses for larger investments has nose dived this year. This has also had a knock on effect on the SM, as most BH held to maturity to collect the bonus (if the loan repaid in full !) rather than lose the bonus by selling on the SM. There seems to be more big chunks of loans hitting the SM this year.
Yes, I'm sure it's apparent to all of us the increased number of FS loans at 9%. I wonder if the material driver is competing with other lenders, shoring up FS's own accounts through an increase of their share of the return, cost of increased DD, or other?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,722
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by michaelc on Jul 28, 2019 17:02:52 GMT
To an extent I agree, however I think that those not currently involved in the loan could argue that if the loan was priced more in line with the apparent risks at say 12%, more lenders would be tempted to participate. On a loan of this size, underwriting was always going to be a neccessity, and the cost of an extra 3% going to the small number of retail lenders would be insignificant.
Underwriters will have a limit as to the availability of funds, and a modest contribution to large loans by retail lenders does allow underwriter's funds to reach more loans in total.
As an aside its worth noting the number of loans offering bonuses for larger investments has nose dived this year. This has also had a knock on effect on the SM, as most BH held to maturity to collect the bonus (if the loan repaid in full !) rather than lose the bonus by selling on the SM. There seems to be more big chunks of loans hitting the SM this year.
Yes, I'm sure it's apparent to all of us the increased number of FS loans at 9%. I wonder if the material driver is competing with other lenders, shoring up FS's own accounts through an increase of their share of the return, cost of increased DD, or other? You missed them being so popular at the moment that folk are beating a path to their door.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 28, 2019 17:12:18 GMT
Anger at inadequately described loans is one thing, but being angry that an underwriter is taking all the risk while still leaving the option open for those who want to invest is just bananas. The loan is funded- those who wanted to invest are happy, the borrower is happy, the UW is obviously happy. The only unhappy person at this outcome is the one who isn't even involved. To an extent I agree, however I think that those not currently involved in the loan could argue that if the loan was priced more in line with the apparent risks at say 12%, more lenders would be tempted to participate. On a loan of this size, underwriting was always going to be a neccessity, and the cost of an extra 3% going to the small number of retail lenders would be insignificant.
Underwriters will have a limit as to the availability of funds, and a modest contribution to large loans by retail lenders does allow underwriter's funds to reach more loans in total.
Possibly but as an underwriter on other platforms I would most certainly not be happy if retail were getting 12% and I was getting 9% (plus a small fee). I don't think any u/w would sign up to that.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 28, 2019 17:51:24 GMT
can't argue with that - not sure how this underwriting melarchy works. Does the underwriter get a cut of the loans that are bought by the retail investors? If not they why would anybody lend at 9% when as a retail client they would get 12% - or maybe they put up over £2m for a fee which they earn in a few weeks and don't take any further risk?
Genuine questions as a bit puzzled - I thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jul 28, 2019 18:10:55 GMT
To an extent I agree, however I think that those not currently involved in the loan could argue that if the loan was priced more in line with the apparent risks at say 12%, more lenders would be tempted to participate. On a loan of this size, underwriting was always going to be a neccessity, and the cost of an extra 3% going to the small number of retail lenders would be insignificant.
Underwriters will have a limit as to the availability of funds, and a modest contribution to large loans by retail lenders does allow underwriter's funds to reach more loans in total.
Possibly but as an underwriter on other platforms I would most certainly not be happy if retail were getting 12% and I was getting 9% (plus a small fee). I don't think any u/w would sign up to that. Yeah fully understand and agree.
However, the assumption here is the "underwriters" are corporate entities not HNWI. The role that the corporate entities with common directors with FS are playing is not entirely clear, but I don't think the lack of disclosure of their involvement can be taken to mean anything.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 4,145
|
Post by adrian77 on Jul 28, 2019 18:25:48 GMT
indeed - although it does not contradict my own personal conclusions after reading director profiles on LinkedIn etc
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 29, 2019 10:29:19 GMT
I am completely and utterly baffled by what is going on here. This loan looks pretty bad to me so why would anyone(thing?) be so keen to underwrite the whole amount? I would not put a fiver in to this loan. Help, my head hurts.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Oct 4, 2019 15:33:20 GMT
The 2018 planning application for demolition and replacement with a five-storey building was formally approved today.
|
|
BM tried to weed out the smallest by introducing 5k minimum held on platform and it didn't last long - the product has been discontinued. I think an extreme min £1 offering from AC is more in line with the reality - I doubt many would invest as little £1, but the message "anyone with spare cash is welcome" is a good marketing tool. 