ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 19, 2016 14:47:04 GMT
Certainly havent had any update to my enquires regarding this or any of the other outstanding predrawdown sums. Havent chased it for a while though.
|
|
jcb208
Member of DD Central
Posts: 838
Likes: 638
|
Post by jcb208 on Dec 20, 2016 6:44:22 GMT
Just noticed 3 new holiday parks in Christchurch have appeared on the pipeline making a total of 9 now
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 20, 2016 9:14:50 GMT
Just noticed 3 new holiday parks in Christchurch have appeared on the pipeline making a total of 9 now The word I instantly associate with "Christchurch" and "holiday parks" is "flooding", but I've checked and these aren't the ones that the Coastguard teams get to visit regularly. Great spot for keen plane spotters to holiday ...
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Dec 20, 2016 9:48:33 GMT
Just an advanced warning that we are giving notice on several of the pipeline loans today with anticipated 'go live' tmrw morning.
Not included at this stage and probably not this week:
Pickering (removed from Pipe for now), Bradford, Suffolk, Castle.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Dec 20, 2016 10:09:37 GMT
Just delayed, a slight planning issue.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Dec 20, 2016 11:08:45 GMT
So we have the Go-Live email for PBLs 149-154 all going live tomorrow Wednesday 21 December.
Number Value Loan Size Rate LTV
PBL154 - E**** V*** - £2,000,000 £733,373 9% 37%
PBL153 - L********* - £1,365,000 £518,700 9% 38%
PBL152 - C********* - £6,372,500 £3,186,000 12% 50%
PBL151 - C********* - £4,500,000 £2,349,000 12% 52%
PBL150 - C********* - £4,000,000 £2,090,000 12% 52%
PBL149 - H******** - £140,000 £98,000 9% 70%
In excess of £9 million of loans - bottom up funding.
|
|
|
|
Post by portlandbill on Dec 20, 2016 11:11:56 GMT
why do the 3 caravan parks have draft details?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 20, 2016 11:28:27 GMT
In excess of £9 million of loans - bottom up funding. That's certainly woken the SM up a bit ...!
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 20, 2016 11:36:25 GMT
why do the 3 caravan parks have draft details? Because SS don't seem to have sorted out the proper values/loan amounts for each of them? A better Q might be why these are shown as 3 loans when they are all cross-guaranteed and to the same borrower, etc. Like the Bedford Farm land (which eventually got consolidated) , you might better treat them as one large loan again a basket of 3 sites, although I suppose that could throttle the amount you want to put into each one.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 20, 2016 11:59:17 GMT
I note an apparent inconsistency in the overview for the riverside site. It is said to be 14.1 acres divided between 4 titles. However it also says that the borrower owns 2 plots and is purchasing "the third". I've only just started with the VR, but it refers to a 9.1 acre site. (Edit: there's now a clause in the overview which I didn't notice before which refers to the 4, southernmost, plot of 3.97 acres, which I presume is not part of the security, but which is not explicitly stated. 9.1 + 3.97 != 14.1, but there are some houses within the LDO area, at the northeast, which may also not be included within the security.)
The overview also describes the borrower as an individual, but then refers to his company. As the applicant in the VR is a company I presume that the borrower of legal record is the company not the individual.
(Edit: The overview also refers to 450 residential and commercial properties, while the VR says 245. I presume that this is also due to SS not clearly distinguishing between the overall site and the loan security.)
The LDO referred to can be found on the council's web site. I've only glanced at it, but one of the conditions is a drainage plan for the tributary stream crossing the site.
(Edit: flood risk is an issue on this site, but, while I'd think twice about buying a house on the site, between the low LTV (I haven't sanity checked it yet) and the council backing, this seems a decent bet, but perhaps liable to a drawn out planning process and loan overrun - the LDO is supposed to streamline the process, but on the other hand the borrower has to convince the council that they're taking appropriate steps to deal with the flood risk. On the other hand I find the lack of clarity in the overview discouraging.)
[Edit 2: the VR refers to 9.1 acres in two separated titles. That sinks my working hypothesis. I'm confused.]
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Dec 20, 2016 12:02:59 GMT
"That's certainly woken the SM up a bit ...!"
Wait until the farmland repays later this month. If......... 
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 20, 2016 12:21:55 GMT
why do the 3 caravan parks have draft details? Because SS don't seem to have sorted out the proper values/loan amounts for each of them? A better Q might be why these are shown as 3 loans when they are all cross-guaranteed and to the same borrower, etc. Like the Bedford Farm land (which eventually got consolidated) , you might better treat them as one large loan again a basket of 3 sites, although I suppose that could throttle the amount you want to put into each one. IIRC, the farmland was split to allow the option of repaying parts (and clearing charges) independently. It's conceivable that a similar logic might apply here. (I haven't even looked at the overviews on these, so this is pure speculation.)
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 20, 2016 15:00:24 GMT
On skimming the overviews for the caravan parks they seem to involve 3 very different propositions. My interpretation is that one is an operating business, and the valuation would be based on the income it makes; one is a late stage development project, and the valuation would be based on a mixture of residual income (ground rents and service charges) and capital returns from the sale of the remaining units; and one is a early stage development project. This presumably means that the risk profiles are different, even if the LTV's are intended to be the same.
|
|
jamesc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 447
Likes: 253
|
Post by jamesc on Dec 20, 2016 17:45:22 GMT
What do people think the demand for the new loans will be ? Clearly the SM is full of negative days loans and as usual the farmland and will probably get worse before it gets better but anything slightly long dated still seems to be FFF even saw a large chunk of PBL145 disappear within a few minutes. Last time we had this much on one day 'the London loans' we saw the SM logged jammed for days and to a lesser extent with J** . Will there be chunks of the Caravan Parks not taken up or will 12% and 365 days be enough to shift the lot even though we don't have final valuations yet ?
|
|
grahamg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 220
Likes: 62
|
Post by grahamg on Dec 20, 2016 17:50:11 GMT
On skimming the overviews for the caravan parks they seem to involve 3 very different propositions. My interpretation is that one is an operating business, and the valuation would be based on the income it makes; one is a late stage development project, and the valuation would be based on a mixture of residual income (ground rents and service charges) and capital returns from the sale of the remaining units; and one is a early stage development project. This presumably means that the risk profiles are different, even if the LTV's are intended to be the same. It says "We are lending to the one SPV legal entity and all three parks will secure all three loans." Which i assume means it does not matter where we put our money?
|
|
