shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563 
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 9, 2015 14:13:15 GMT
The info packs says
there has already been an offer on the freehold of the land for £1.55m per block (so 3.1M the pair)
So why is the undeveloped land valued at 4.79M?
I think it's probably me, (and I wish SS had an onsite Q&A), can somebody straighten me out?
While I'm here is there any sign of some system of tying the loans to the lenders directly not lender-ss-borrower?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2015 16:08:09 GMT
I haven't seen the bit about the offer but perhaps the offer is considered to be below the Market Value?
I note also the valuation is a year old (March 2014), Would have thought a current valuation should be used , not a 1 year old one.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Mar 9, 2015 18:55:18 GMT
The info packs says there has already been an offer on the freehold of the land for £1.55m per block (so 3.1M the pair) So why is the undeveloped land valued at 4.79M? I think it's probably me, (and I wish SS had an onsite Q&A), can somebody straighten me out? While I'm here is there any sign of some system of tying the loans to the lenders directly not lender-ss-borrower? Thanks I took this to mean the units will be sold as leasehold and the freehold will be sold separately. The owner of the freehold receives an annual ground rent from each leaseholder. Obviously, worth quite a bit when there are 252 units.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 9, 2015 19:27:57 GMT
Yes but the loan is 3.1M, the security value is supposed to be 4.79M but it seems actually to be 3.1M
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Mar 9, 2015 19:43:56 GMT
The planning permission will have a value. Hence the value of potential profit from 504 units. 504 possible £20,000(maybe £30K) profit each = £10m profit, plus the £3.1m from the sale of the freehold.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Mar 9, 2015 19:47:44 GMT
Yes but the loan is 3.1M, the security value is supposed to be 4.79M but it seems actually to be 3.1M The 4.79M is the value of the land with Planning Permission. There is a profit to be made on the development and the freehold can be sold for 3.1M as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2015 0:09:12 GMT
Yes but the loan is 3.1M, the security value is supposed to be 4.79M but it seems actually to be 3.1M The 4.79M is the value of the land with Planning Permission. There is a profit to be made on the development and the freehold can be sold for 3.1M as well. £4.79m was the value of the freehold interest in the land with planning permission as at March 2014 as far as I can tell. That's the value of the asset the loan is being secured against. My concern is that the valuation is already a year out of date and doesn't appear to have been commisioned by SS specifically in respect of this loan.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Mar 11, 2015 14:04:44 GMT
Not too worried about an out of date land valuation, if anything land values have risen. They can't grow land, yet anyway. Mass immigration and surging demand for housing is great for wealthy land owners,  I need a Kip! |
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Mar 11, 2015 15:47:51 GMT
Oh well it's a SS loan anyway so as far as I know they are all lumped together in Lendy rather than being p2p, so my original point doesn't count for much really
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Sept 30, 2015 19:42:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 12, 2015 15:50:12 GMT
EDIT: Borrower is attempting to refinance this loan at MT
Apparently this SS loan is secured against block "B" at Huddersfield, despite the valuation report attached to the loan being for block "C" An attempt is being made to refinance Block 'C' (from unknown lender) to MT - see this thread savingstream - can you comment on what your understanding is of block 'B' vs block 'C' please ? |
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 12, 2015 16:12:08 GMT
Can SS please confirm if the charge is against block B or block C?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 12, 2015 16:22:27 GMT
Erm ... that's not going to happen since it appears that block 'C' will be the first to be completed, and block 'C' isn't SS's security.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 12, 2015 16:24:29 GMT
Erm ... that's not going to happen since it appears that block 'C' will be the first to be completed, and block 'C' isn't SS's security. OK, but can we have this straight from SS.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Nov 13, 2015 9:40:56 GMT
The situation is confused because of the lack of clear identifiers for the various sites. it does appear that the borrower has used the funds obtained against a security on one site to develop a different site and is now looking to borrow against that second site, which is now worth more as a result of the development. A neat trick? It is not clear to me what advantage he gains, but it makes life more difficult for lenders.
|
|
I need a Kip! 
