|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Feb 4, 2016 19:05:52 GMT
I have a problem with the Leatherhead property. When I put the address in google maps it is showing me a corner in high street. I know that place and it does not look like the picture. Also I cannot see how it can be at risk of flooding as mentioned in a previous post. Edit: using just leathered and the postcode, google maps shows a different place. Still I cannot understand how using the whole address as given takes you to town centre. On my google maps it comes up as a fairly exclusive looking area that is highly likely to be the location of such a property. maybe you used the wrong post code? LW
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Feb 4, 2016 21:06:56 GMT
Total live loans 61m.
pipeline is 39m.
If that lot went live at once, or even staggered over a month or two, I suspect the challenges of buying on the SM would be radically reduced. Some people could get burnt with over egging prefunding if SS splurge on loans in quich succession.
Of course, that would also help the continuing growth of SS!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2016 21:22:08 GMT
What does 'remaining time' mean for pipeline loans? I see 0 days, 12 days, 365 days. Is it the time the borrower expects the loan to run before repayment? If so, 12 days hardly looks worthwhile The "0 days" and "12 days" are typos. Doubtless will be corrected to 365 days at launch. I found one on the list showing 182 days (i.e. 6 months). I'd guess cooling_dude is correct with his suggestion that the "12 days" is intended to mean 12 months. I doubt that the "0 days" is a typo. I suspect it simply means that there was an empty field in the database used to fill in the fields of the web page. (For a website like this, I'd expect the page to be created from a template and data extracted from a database whenever a browser submits a request to display the page.) Aside from a simple failure to input the data, the zero could mean that the loan's term is still being negotiated.
|
|
romy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 78 
Likes: 41
|
Post by romy on Feb 4, 2016 22:06:45 GMT
Some of my observations from my quick read of the New Build Surry Valuation
- A Valuation that’s actually done on behalf of Lendy Limited (at last!)- SS has used the Market Value & 180 day marketing period for LTV (£4,250,000), not the valuations 90 marketing period (£3,750,000). Once again SS is using the best case scenario. However with the valuation report giving the same valuation for a 180 day as the marketing value, I would guess they are confident the property would sell fairly easily. - The property is in a flood risk area, and the valuer recommendeds getting further information in regards to thisWith the current lack of information from SS about what the loan is to be used for, this may or may not be importent to follow up on Looking at the EA flood map for the area, the area at risk of flooding seems virtually all to the west of the A24 and the property seems quite clearly to the East of the A24 and out of even the low risk area.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 4, 2016 22:46:22 GMT
- The property is in a flood risk area, and the valuer recommendeds getting further information in regards to thisWith the current lack of information from SS about what the loan is to be used for, this may or may not be importent to follow up on : Setting aside the question of whether or not the property actually is in a flood risk area, and presuming for my question that it is, what difference would it make what the loan is to be used for? I would have thought that the issue was whether the security could be sold for enough to repay the loan if the borrower defaulted, so why does it matter what they used the money for?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 4, 2016 23:15:02 GMT
- The property is in a flood risk area, and the valuer recommendeds getting further information in regards to thisWith the current lack of information from SS about what the loan is to be used for, this may or may not be importent to follow up on : Setting aside the question of whether or not the property actually is in a flood risk area, and presuming for my question that it is, what difference would it make what the loan is to be used for? I would have thought that the issue was whether the security could be sold for enough to repay the loan if the borrower defaulted, so why does it matter what they used the money for? Are you keeping tabs on me mikes1531  I’m just suggesting that if the the loan was for the redevelopment of the actual property, then the loan purpose itself could be called into question (i.e. whether or not the property could increase in value because of the flood risk). In any case, I don’t think it matters for 2 reasons 1. I don’t think the loan will be for the redevelopment of the property, just the owner using it as security 2. There doesn’t seem to be a flood risk. Looking on google maps and the nearby street views, the property is way up in the hills; and with what romy has found the properties has no flood risk as far as I can see. Why the surveyor suggested it after they had done an onsite inspection is beyond me.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,884
Likes: 6,979
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Feb 5, 2016 7:13:41 GMT
2. There doesn’t seem to be a flood risk. Looking on google maps and the nearby street views, the property is way up in the hills; and with what romy has found the properties has no flood risk as far as I can see. Why the surveyor suggested it after they had done an onsite inspection is beyond me. I once lived in a flat and ran the management company. One year I was shocked to have the property refused insurance due to flood risk. The property was high up on a hill well out of the city centre where flooding had occurred 20+ years earlier before extensive flood prevention works had been carried out (the centre used to flood almost every winter). It transpired that because the flats had the same postcode as the centre of the city the same risk was imposed (which was out of date due to the prevention works) ..... lazy. My suspicion here is that the same 'lazy' approach has taken place, reliance on a database rather than real world facts.
|
|
jonbvn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 326
Likes: 95
|
Post by jonbvn on Feb 5, 2016 10:21:52 GMT
Easily found on Rightmove (with shockingly poor quality photography).
The flood risk is clearly erroneous. I just had a look on the Environment Agency website and the flood risk is to the west side of the A24 (the property is on the east side).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 11:10:36 GMT
Total live loans 61m. pipeline is 39m. If that lot went live at once, or even staggered over a month or two, I suspect the challenges of buying on the SM would be radically reduced. Some people could get burnt with over egging prefunding if SS splurge on loans in quich succession. Of course, that would also help the continuing growth of SS! Let's not forget that in 2 months time the new IF ISA will be launched. If the transfers in from previous years ISAs are confirmed, this pipeline will not be sufficient to satisfy everyone (for example I will be looking to double my investment in SS via my previous years ISAs)
|
|
Balder
Member of DD Central
Posts: 646
Likes: 622
|
Post by Balder on Feb 5, 2016 11:15:58 GMT
Total live loans 61m. pipeline is 39m. If that lot went live at once, or even staggered over a month or two, I suspect the challenges of buying on the SM would be radically reduced. Some people could get burnt with over egging prefunding if SS splurge on loans in quich succession. Of course, that would also help the continuing growth of SS! Let's not forget that in 2 months time the new IF ISA will be launched. If the transfers in from previous years ISAs are confirmed, this pipeline will not be sufficient to satisfy everyone (for example I will be looking to double my investment in SS via my previous years ISAs) Has anyone seen any information from SS on IFISA - are they going to offer it from April 16 or at all?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 5, 2016 11:20:00 GMT
Let's not forget that in 2 months time the new IF ISA will be launched. If the transfers in from previous years ISAs are confirmed, this pipeline will not be sufficient to satisfy everyone (for example I will be looking to double my investment in SS via my previous years ISAs) Has anyone seen any information from SS on IFISA - are they going to offer it from April 16 or at all? No hint of it to date (that I have heard of anyway). I'd be surprised if they're not working on it behind the scenes just playing it safe, keeping the details close to hand until closer to April. If they didn't jump on the IFISA bandwagon, I could see the SM becoming much more active in April.....
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 5, 2016 11:49:10 GMT
Total live loans 61m. pipeline is 39m. If that lot went live at once, or even staggered over a month or two, I suspect the challenges of buying on the SM would be radically reduced. Some people could get burnt with over egging prefunding if SS splurge on loans in quich succession. Of course, that would also help the continuing growth of SS! Let's not forget that in 2 months time the new IF ISA will be launched. If the transfers in from previous years ISAs are confirmed, this pipeline will not be sufficient to satisfy everyone (for example I will be looking to double my investment in SS via my previous years ISAs) Firstly, AFAIK the final rules for IFISAs haven't been published, and that product can't be launched until they are. And just because HMG have said that these will be available for the 2016/17 tax year doesn't mean they'll be available on 6/Apr. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the situation but, AIUI, even if the final published IFISA rules allow transfers in, it's still up to the IFISA manager/operator to decide whether to accept transfers in. I'd expect a lot not to implement that option in the beginning until they see what sort of cash inflow they have into their product without transfers in, whether they can put that much cash to work, and whether they could use the extra funding that would arrive if they did allow transfers in. There's no point in bringing in more funding than they can deploy. In fact, it probably would be counter-productive in that they could end up with reputation that money invested with them spends too much time idle and earning nothing. Do I have this wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 12:03:27 GMT
Let's not forget that in 2 months time the new IF ISA will be launched. If the transfers in from previous years ISAs are confirmed, this pipeline will not be sufficient to satisfy everyone (for example I will be looking to double my investment in SS via my previous years ISAs) Firstly, AFAIK the final rules for IFISAs haven't been published, and that product can't be launched until they are. And just because HMG have said that these will be available for the 2016/17 tax year doesn't mean they'll be available on 6/Apr. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the situation but, AIUI, even if the final published IFISA rules allow transfers in, it's still up to the IFISA manager/operator to decide whether to accept transfers in. I'd expect a lot not to implement that option in the beginning until they see what sort of cash inflow they have into their product without transfers in, whether they can put that much cash to work, and whether they could use the extra funding that would arrive if they did allow transfers in. There's no point in bringing in more funding than they can deploy. In fact, it probably would be counter-productive in that they could end up with reputation that money invested with them spends too much time idle and earning nothing. Do I have this wrong? You are right in saying that the details have not yet been finalised. But I would be surprised not to see the IFISA launch before the summer. This investment type has been pushed for a long time by the p2p association and the big players in this field (RS, Zopa, FC). So They will certainly want to capitalise on their (current) dominant position. But incumbent (like SS) too will want to get their share of this very likely new large inflow of money out of the banks... My understanding is that SS has expanded/is expanding his staff to be capable of handling more business. In this context, if anyone will accept transfers in (and I guess the big ones will do it!), all the rest will have to accept them as well, otherwise will loose ground. So it is extremely likely that all them will accept transfer ins, if the law allows them. Of course the process will get clearer in the next few weeks, but I am not at all surprised to see the pipeline ramping up massively here...
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 5, 2016 12:26:35 GMT
Just thinking aloud....
Must we wait for the IFISA? Could these large loans be structured as Single Loan Vehicles which could be held in a S&S ISA? For a £1m loan a company with 1m shares is created. Lenders become shareholders, the interest and capital are repaid by winding up the company when the borrower repays.
Just thinking aloud....
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Feb 5, 2016 13:02:24 GMT
Firstly, AFAIK the final rules for IFISAs haven't been published, and that product can't be launched until they are. And just because HMG have said that these will be available for the 2016/17 tax year doesn't mean they'll be available on 6/Apr. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the situation but, AIUI, even if the final published IFISA rules allow transfers in, it's still up to the IFISA manager/operator to decide whether to accept transfers in. I'd expect a lot not to implement that option in the beginning until they see what sort of cash inflow they have into their product without transfers in, whether they can put that much cash to work, and whether they could use the extra funding that would arrive if they did allow transfers in. There's no point in bringing in more funding than they can deploy. In fact, it probably would be counter-productive in that they could end up with reputation that money invested with them spends too much time idle and earning nothing. Do I have this wrong? You are right in saying that the details have not yet been finalised. But I would be surprised not to see the IFISA launch before the summer. This investment type has been pushed for a long time by the p2p association and the big players in this field (RS, Zopa, FC). So They will certainly want to capitalise on their (current) dominant position. But incumbent (like SS) too will want to get their share of this very likely new large inflow of money out of the banks... My understanding is that SS has expanded/is expanding his staff to be capable of handling more business. In this context, if anyone will accept transfers in (and I guess the big ones will do it!), all the rest will have to accept them as well, otherwise will loose ground. So it is extremely likely that all them will accept transfer ins, if the law allows them. Of course the process will get clearer in the next few weeks, but I am not at all surprised to see the pipeline ramping up massively here... I believe the other bottleneck for P2P platforms is that they need to be fully authorised by the FCA (interim permission is not sufficient) prior to offering IFISAs. I understand that authorisation for a number of P2P platforms is fairly imminent, but is still to a large extent dependant on the FCA's staggered timetable. I too would be surprised if the platforms did not allow transfers in. They are going to be quite competitive about attracting money in on the basis that lenders are likely to remain loyal given the general inertia people have to switch providers. It is a shame that you can only select one IFISA provider per year. I would like to transfer in the bulk of by previous ISAs across to P2P loans, but being limited to one platform in the first year poses to much of a concentration/platform risk.
|
|
