nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056 
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Dec 20, 2016 18:39:57 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? The wording is not particularly clear, but have interpreted it that each loan is secured against a charge against each property. It would be extremely unusual to have separate loans 'sharing' a fixed charge.....you can't have two primary charges on the same property.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 20, 2016 18:46:01 GMT
In excess of £9 million of loans - bottom up funding. That's certainly woken the SM up a bit ...! And what an unimpressive list of offerings it is. I didn't realise there were so many negative numbers in the universe.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Dec 20, 2016 18:57:49 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 ? I would be very surprised if the full balance is pre-funded, but I would expect that any residual balance would be bought up within a day or so. If I recall correctly, J** was not fully pre-funded and a substantial amount, £2.5M was subsequently released on the SM in a couple of chunks which were very quickly gobbled up. I can't say I'm particularly enthusiastic about any of these loans, I don't think value of the security would cover the debt if goes Pete Tong - I struggle to see 50% of the valuation being achieved in a distressed sale of these holiday parks. I may just wait to see what others end up selling in order to fund some of these prime assets..........
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Dec 20, 2016 19:48:30 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 ... I thought of New Zealand and thought we were going international...
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 20, 2016 20:51:03 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? As I understand the implications, it doesn't matter until one property is refinanced independently of the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 20, 2016 21:45:18 GMT
/mod hat off
But why would we (or SS) release our security over one of them (to allow refinance) unless all three loans are cleared at the same time? It does seem slightly opaque. I think I'll have a dabble, but a dabble "as if it was one huge loan".
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 20, 2016 23:44:27 GMT
/mod hat off But why would we (or SS) release our security over one of them (to allow refinance) unless all three loans are cleared at the same time? It does seem slightly opaque. I think I'll have a dabble, but a dabble "as if it was one huge loan". Because it would be unfair to prevent the borrower obtaining development finance for one site until he has a sufficient trading record on another site to refinance that one onto a commercial mortgage. (And the borrower might well baulk at such a condition.) This is a possible explanation as to why there are separate loans for each property.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 21, 2016 9:23:31 GMT
Then the cross-guarantees are worthless because they can vanish at any time?
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Dec 21, 2016 9:43:56 GMT
Then the cross-guarantees are worthless because they can vanish at any time? Depends if they are supported by a charge, which would have to be released, if not yes.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Dec 21, 2016 10:46:48 GMT
Then the cross-guarantees are worthless because they can vanish at any time? My answer is of course speculative - I haven't had sight of the loan contract terms. Perhaps savingstream can clarify this. There would be value if for some reason SS defaulted the loan early in its life.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Dec 21, 2016 16:59:02 GMT
New appearance, with a number - PBL156 - Hull - refinance of PBL131.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Dec 21, 2016 17:02:58 GMT
Pipeline update being sent shortly. Busy week!
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Dec 21, 2016 17:03:37 GMT
And another - DFL @ 10% - DFL011 - S*** Road, H******* H****
<EDIT> The Castle has acquired a number too.
<EDIT2> keeps coming
New DFL001 tranche
and DFL to refinance PBL092
|
|
ped
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 84
|
Post by ped on Dec 21, 2016 17:08:44 GMT
Pipeline update being sent shortly. Busy week! Busy week you are not joking 2 loans gone like so far today and now pipeline has 4 extra loans! What is this Christmas! Hohohoho. Seen a few of these developments before? Liverpool and Hull.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 21, 2016 17:20:20 GMT
savingstream, can you please confirm that holdings of PBL092 will be rolled over into the new DFL012? Thanks
|
|
