dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 739
Likes: 647
|
Post by dead-money on May 29, 2021 7:33:06 GMT
Well #1411 is just #1281 rolled over yet again! So just a refinance of a refinance of a refinance... No capital or interest repayment schedule, all rolled up and kicked down the road.
#1410 is Exit finance of an AC development loan, with additional bridging finance rolled in, but at least there's a capital repayment route and sales strategy.
So 'New' is sadly not so new.
Won't even bother reading the valuation reports as we all know they're not worth the paper they aren't written on.
|
|
alibaba
Member of DD Central
Posts: 341
Likes: 245
|
Post by alibaba on May 29, 2021 8:17:56 GMT
Interesting! on the issue of valuation I would be interested in forum members views on valuations with regard to LTV, for example, at the moment there is a loan on another site with an LTV of 22.5% with 6.7% interest and a loan on a different site with an LTV of 68% with 8% interest, personally I am for the lower risk and I suppose what I am trying to say is how much credence should we place on the LTV?
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 743
Likes: 835
|
Post by p2pfan on May 29, 2021 12:43:57 GMT
Interesting! on the issue of valuation I would be interested in forum members views on valuations with regard to LTV, for example, at the moment there is a loan on another site with an LTV of 22.5% with 6.7% interest and a loan on a different site with an LTV of 68% with 8% interest, personally I am for the lower risk and I suppose what I am trying to say is how much credence should we place on the LTV? I assume the 22.5% LTV loan you're referring to is the one on Kuflink. That is a mighty enticing one. As per the previous post, in Scam Lending, otherwise known as P2P Lending, the valuation reports and LTVs are generally overly optimistic and wide of the mark. I've long since stopped giving their valuations too much credence. Time after time after time I've seen with P2P loans that default that, where the loans were given out at, for instance, a 65% LTV, when the properties are sold, lenders end up not even getting all their capital back. How the valuers can very regularly overvalue properties by 20%-35% when property prices are generally going through the roof beggars belief, but it happens all the time in P2P Land. There's undoubtedly backhanders being given by some borrowers to valuers so they provide these fraudulent valuation prices. The fact that in all these years of P2P lending I've not come across a single valuer being held to account for being ridiculously optimistic with his valuation and a claim made against them to redeem P2P lenders who lose a sizeable chunk of the capital they lent proves that P2P networks themselves are in on the game. How many times do P2P lenders have to witness properties selling at 70% or 80% of a "RICS-Chartered" valuers value that he earned many hundreds of pounds to put together and absolutely nothing is done about it? Because this is not an African country, nobody calls it out for what it is: a cabal of high-earning crooks colluding to screw over largely powerless retail lenders. For this and other reasons, I do my own LTV calculations. I use the starting base of the 90 day valuation price - although those tend to be overly optimistic too and obviously don't include the inevitable very hefty Administrator and/or Legal fees etc. to manage the sale in case of default.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 29, 2021 14:09:03 GMT
Interesting! on the issue of valuation I would be interested in forum members views on valuations with regard to LTV, for example, at the moment there is a loan on another site with an LTV of 22.5% with 6.7% interest and a loan on a different site with an LTV of 68% with 8% interest, personally I am for the lower risk and I suppose what I am trying to say is how much credence should we place on the LTV? I assume the 22.5% LTV loan you're referring to is the one on Kuflink. That is a mighty enticing one. As per the previous post, in Scam Lending, otherwise known as P2P Lending, the valuation reports and LTVs are generally overly optimistic and wide of the mark. I've long since stopped giving their valuations too much credence. Time after time after time I've seen with P2P loans that default that, where the loans were given out at, for instance, a 65% LTV, when the properties are sold, lenders end up not even getting all their capital back. How the valuers can very regularly overvalue properties by 20%-35% when property prices are generally going through the roof beggars belief, but it happens all the time in P2P Land. There's undoubtedly backhanders being given by some borrowers to valuers so they provide these fraudulent valuation prices. The fact that in all these years of P2P lending I've not come across a single valuer being held to account for being ridiculously optimistic with his valuation and a claim made against them to redeem P2P lenders who lose a sizeable chunk of the capital they lent proves that P2P networks themselves are in on the game. How many times do P2P lenders have to witness properties selling at 70% or 80% of a "RICS-Chartered" valuers value that he earned many hundreds of pounds to put together and absolutely nothing is done about it? Because this is not an African country, nobody calls it out for what it is: a cabal of high-earning crooks colluding to screw over largely powerless retail lenders. For this and other reasons, I do my own LTV calculations. I use the starting base of the 90 day valuation price - although those tend to be overly optimistic too and obviously don't include the inevitable very hefty Administrator and/or Legal fees etc. to manage the sale in case of default. You do understand that the valuations dont provide a value for the security in a distressed scenario nor are they intended to. They only provide values in normal circumstances (ie between too willing parties), with a discount for a quick sale (the 90 day). Your comparison is a false one. Its like complaining a Ferrari doesnt reach 100mph when you take the front wheels off. FYI Lendy has made two successful claims against valuers.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 743
Likes: 835
|
Post by p2pfan on May 29, 2021 15:20:55 GMT
I wasn't referring to distress sell prices, which I am fully aware may be considerably lower than the open market price. I'm referring to situations where properties that have been on the market for several months sell for 70% of what the Valuer stated they were worth. In a rising market they should have sold for 105%+ of what the valuation was. Eventually the feedback from the P2P platforms state that the properties had all kinds of deficiencies and hence didn't sell for anything like the original Valuation price in their reports.
Even a 10% or 20% shortfall one can stomach, but anything more than that proves the valuations are a farce.
I'm delighted to hear that with Lendy a couple of Valuers aka fraudsters have been brought to book and I hope they are enjoying some time at Her Majesty's Pleasure rather than just having been given a "warning" as is the way with white-collar criminals of the right skin colour in this country.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 574
Member is Online
|
Post by dave4 on May 29, 2021 15:51:04 GMT
So over 4 years of a loan "Micro local area depreciation event" was the term to defend a 70% shortfall in value, everywhere else local had a 8/9% increase in value year on year. ?? Thats some party.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 29, 2021 15:57:50 GMT
So over 4 years of a loan "Micro local area depreciation event" was the term to defend a 70% shortfall in value, everywhere else local had a 8/9% increase in value year on year. ?? Thats some party. Which loan was that? Not one I was involved in I think. I assume there is more than one example
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 957
Likes: 647
|
Post by alender on May 29, 2021 17:18:16 GMT
You do understand that the valuations dont provide a value for the security in a distressed scenario nor are they intended to. They only provide values in normal circumstances (ie between too willing parties), with a discount for a quick sale (the 90 day). Your comparison is a false one. Its like complaining a Ferrari doesnt reach 100mph when you take the front wheels off. FYI Lendy has made two successful claims against valuers. The problem for P2P investors is that for the purpose of providing security the valuations are way too optimistic because the only time they are of relevance is when lender gets into trouble and does not pay and there is a forced sale.
For lenders the value of an asset is only relevant when the lender does not pay and for property development loans this is generally during the development stage so therefore using an LTV figure which is based on anything but the resale during this stage is at best misleading.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 739
Likes: 647
|
Post by dead-money on May 29, 2021 20:27:43 GMT
So over 4 years of a loan "Micro local area depreciation event" was the term to defend a 70% shortfall in value, everywhere else local had a 8/9% increase in value year on year. ?? Thats some party. Which loan was that? Not one I was involved in I think. I assume there is more than one example #336 springs to mind for one.
Given any forced sale will rarely yield more than a third of the supposed full LTV and what does materalise is swallowed up by administrators fees, plus AC always gets their fees first before the lenders see a penny, it might as well be unsecured lending...
Administrators and receivers seem to deliberately string out the process for as long as possible just to bleed us dry with their fees. I particularly cite the loans where they spent two years looking for a buyer just to sell back to the original borrower at a substantial discount !
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 574
Member is Online
|
Post by dave4 on May 29, 2021 20:33:31 GMT
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 29, 2021 20:51:37 GMT
#336 are distressed sales by receivers so comparisons are to a non-existent valuation.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 29, 2021 21:05:39 GMT
You do understand that the valuations dont provide a value for the security in a distressed scenario nor are they intended to. They only provide values in normal circumstances (ie between too willing parties), with a discount for a quick sale (the 90 day). Your comparison is a false one. Its like complaining a Ferrari doesnt reach 100mph when you take the front wheels off. FYI Lendy has made two successful claims against valuers. The problem for P2P investors is that for the purpose of providing security the valuations are way too optimistic because the only time they are of relevance is when lender gets into trouble and does not pay and there is a forced sale. Yes with that I agree but that is the valuation system and unlikely to change as a distressed valuation isnt something that can be provided in advance as it is entirely determined by the now and would be largely guesswork. What can be done is for platforms to provide a much better explanation of the numbers and what they do & do not say. Which is why they use the LTGDV as the only thing that can be determined with a degree of certainty but again more explanation to lenders.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 574
Member is Online
|
Post by dave4 on May 30, 2021 16:59:18 GMT
Interesting! on the issue of valuation I would be interested in forum members views on valuations with regard to LTV, for example, at the moment there is a loan on another site with an LTV of 22.5% with 6.7% interest and a loan on a different site with an LTV of 68% with 8% interest, personally I am for the lower risk and I suppose what I am trying to say is how much credence should we place on the LTV? Been pondering this Ltv values question, Thoughts.. Is LTV really relevant?? I suggest only if the loan performs as it should eg A. Loan performs perfectly, interest repaid, Capitol repaid. But.... B. Loan becomes under performing, Platform has to deal with this abiding by there t&cs (Is this the point where ltv becomes irrelevant???) and platform t&cs and actions have more of a relevance. C. Loan goes bad, abiding by platform t&cs receivers are called in to salvage the loan, is this the point where ltv becomes irrelevant?. Should the question be?? ltv is only a rough guide to a value (as per A.), which is then devalued by the value of the Platform T&c (B.) and then again devalued by (c.)receivers. So how should we and how do we give a value to B and C?? Using my crude and not quite exact example.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on May 30, 2021 20:34:45 GMT
Interesting! on the issue of valuation I would be interested in forum members views on valuations with regard to LTV, for example, at the moment there is a loan on another site with an LTV of 22.5% with 6.7% interest and a loan on a different site with an LTV of 68% with 8% interest, personally I am for the lower risk and I suppose what I am trying to say is how much credence should we place on the LTV? Been pondering this Ltv values question, Thoughts.. Is LTV really relevant?? I suggest only if the loan performs as it should eg A. Loan performs perfectly, interest repaid, Capitol repaid. But.... B. Loan becomes under performing, Platform has to deal with this abiding by there t&cs (Is this the point where ltv becomes irrelevant???) and platform t&cs and actions have more of a relevance. C. Loan goes bad, abiding by platform t&cs receivers are called in to salvage the loan, is this the point where ltv becomes irrelevant?. Should the question be?? ltv is only a rough guide to a value (as per A.), which is then devalued by the value of the Platform T&c (B.) and then again devalued by (c.)receivers. So how should we and how do we give a value to B and C?? Using my crude and not quite exact example. A) is too pessimistic, plenty of loans that havent gone perfectly and still repaid in full ... extensions, forbearance etc B) Non-performing needs to be defined between non-performing on standard terms & non-performing on default terms, high rate & low rate platforms, retained or serviced. Interest rates will always be the biggest factor, both normal in accrual & default. The level of these will determine whether LTV remains relevant or not. C) LTV irrelevant in nearly all circumstances LTGDV is a whole different ballgame
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Jun 1, 2021 21:22:49 GMT
The two latest loans (both internal refi's) No#s 1410 & 1411 both drawn by borrowers.
I had a £5 MLA request in #1411 but not fulfilled as yet despite the fact that I can see I'm holding it in AA's (clearly the "Underwriter")
|
|