star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Feb 18, 2016 14:35:03 GMT
Yes, I have read the ilmoro thread. From this, SS first started talking about a 6 month extension back in October which made me think it was initially only a 6 month loan. However, this thread says it was a 12 month initial term - Hence my confusion I'm trying to decide which of my beloved children (this was one of my first) I will need to kick out of the nest to make room for "the Watfords", once they go live. Someone else has been going on about this for an age, their latest post is here see the edit at the bottom with info from the horse's mouth. 
|
|
awk
Posts: 276
Likes: 147
|
Post by awk on Feb 18, 2016 14:36:06 GMT
Got a lot of nice farming countryside yesterday and managed to have a good clear out of my "necessary" distressed purchases needed to get my money in - you know, just buy anything you can ....... except the boat (I've got principles).
Going forward, I can now be more organised and target the oldest and those at risk of being paid back.
So, 35 and 50 are toast and logically 31. However, 31 was my second ever purchase on SS (£50 on the SM) and it's got a lovely name and pretty picture !!
When I view my portfolio, then 53, 65 and 75 are ugly and 46 is just a garden shed !
|
|
awk
Posts: 276
Likes: 147
|
Post by awk on Feb 18, 2016 14:39:29 GMT
Yes, I have read the ilmoro thread. From this, SS first started talking about a 6 month extension back in October which made me think it was initially only a 6 month loan. However, this thread says it was a 12 month initial term - Hence my confusion I'm trying to decide which of my beloved children (this was one of my first) I will need to kick out of the nest to make room for "the Watfords", once they go live. Someone else has been going on about this for an age, their latest post is here see the edit at the bottom with info from the horse's mouth. Thanks star dust, I hadn't seen that Looks like 31 must make room for the Watfords
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 18, 2016 14:42:41 GMT
Got a lot of nice farming countryside yesterday and managed to have a good clear out of my "necessary" distressed purchases needed to get my money in - you know, just buy anything you can ....... except the boat (I've got principles). Going forward, I can now be more organised and target the oldest and those at risk of being paid back. So, 35 and 50 are toast and logically 31. However, 31 was my second ever purchase on SS (£50 on the SM) and it's got a lovely name and pretty picture !! When I view my portfolio, then 53, 65 and 75 are ugly and 46 is just a garden shed ! Interesting strategy you got there; investing and diversifying in loans with nice pictures  031 is full of so many little holes that I avoid it, and would suggest you look at offing it to make room for the Watford loans. For starters The 70% LTV is is misleading considering it assumes PP is a given; the 90 day market value is considerably less, but a much better gauge (LTV would be 86%). That along with the fact that planning permission has not even been submitted (after a quick search on the planning portal) makes 031 look too risky to me. This is only my opinion; always do your own DD 
|
|
awk
Posts: 276
Likes: 147
|
Post by awk on Feb 18, 2016 14:58:18 GMT
Got a lot of nice farming countryside yesterday and managed to have a good clear out of my "necessary" distressed purchases needed to get my money in - you know, just buy anything you can ....... except the boat (I've got principles). Going forward, I can now be more organised and target the oldest and those at risk of being paid back. So, 35 and 50 are toast and logically 31. However, 31 was my second ever purchase on SS (£50 on the SM) and it's got a lovely name and pretty picture !! When I view my portfolio, then 53, 65 and 75 are ugly and 46 is just a garden shed ! Interesting strategy you got there; investing and diversifying in loans with nice pictures 031 is full of so many little holes that I avoid it, and would suggest you look at offing it to make room for the Watford loans. For starters The 70% LTV is is misleading considering it assumes PP is a given; the 90 day market value is considerably less, but a much better gauge (LTV would be 86%). That along with the fact that planning permission has not even been submitted (after a quick search on the planning portal) makes 031 look too risky to me. This is only my opinion; always do your own DD Ah, but cooling_dude, just you wait for the captcha which asks you to identify all the ugly loan pictures - then we'll see who's laughing
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 18, 2016 15:56:41 GMT
At the risk of making it more difficult for me to sell parts when I decide the time has come...
One other factor I consider when deciding which loan parts to keep and which to sell is the loan size relative to the size of the PF. Smaller loans could take a significant haircut when sold as a repossession after a default, but the amount of the loss should be covered more easily by the PF, so that ought to reduce the likelihood of investors making a loss, shouldn't it?
That presumes, of course, that the PF is robust, doesn't have a long queue of claims against it, and the trustees are willing to use it in the specific case. With no history of SS PF use, it's obviously hard to say exactly how it will work when the crunch comes, but I have no reason to believe that it won't work as expected.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 18, 2016 19:46:53 GMT
Yes, I have read the ilmoro thread. From this, SS first started talking about a 6 month extension back in October which made me think it was initially only a 6 month loan. However, this thread says it was a 12 month initial term - Hence my confusion I'm trying to decide which of my beloved children (this was one of my first) I will need to kick out of the nest to make room for "the Watfords", once they go live. Someone else has been going on about this for an age, their latest post is here see the edit at the bottom with info from the horse's mouth. I'd like to think that my nagging went some way towards SS being clear that PBL075 (Great Bookham) is a six-month loan. Let's hope we have similar transparency in future rather than the standard 12 months applied to everything regardless of the interest paid up-front. Oh, there I am, going on about it again...
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 18, 2016 20:18:45 GMT
Someone else has been going on about this for an age, their latest post is here see the edit at the bottom with info from the horse's mouth. I'd like to think that my nagging went some way towards SS being clear that PBL075 (Great Bookham) is a six-month loan. Let's hope we have similar transparency in future rather than the standard 12 months applied to everything regardless of the interest paid up-front. Oh, there I am, going on about it again... Sam, were both loans you queried an initial 6 months? Its not clear from your edit if Tim's replay was for 31, 46 or both. Need to purplelify the end date if they have been extended and will affect the graphs. Thanks
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 18, 2016 21:27:04 GMT
I'd like to think that my nagging went some way towards SS being clear that PBL075 (Great Bookham) is a six-month loan. Let's hope we have similar transparency in future rather than the standard 12 months applied to everything regardless of the interest paid up-front. Oh, there I am, going on about it again... Sam, were both loans you queried an initial 6 months? Its not clear from your edit if Tim's replay was for 31, 46 or both. Need to purplelify the end date if they have been extended and will affect the graphs. Thanks Actually Tim's reply was only definitive about 46. I had asked about 31 initially and came to the conclusion that it must have been the same but this was not confirmed. Both were initially stated to be 12 month loans but both had an extension part way through this term. Edit: So I think this means that the end dates are the same as they were but instead of being 12-month loans at outset they were actually 6-month loans followed by a 6-month extension.
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Jan 23, 2017 10:51:27 GMT
After 20 months on the site, they've just changed 'Ponyclun' to 'Pontyclun'.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 23, 2017 10:54:35 GMT
After 20 months on the site, they've just changed 'Ponyclun' to 'Pontyclun'. Oh, good - they must have got my e-mail... From about 3 months ago! ...along with a request to change the indicated borrower in PBL142... that one has still hasn't been changed 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 31, 2017 14:11:37 GMT
Update
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 31, 2017 14:35:07 GMT
oldgrumpy various relatives all sat by the phone then
|
|
69m
Member of DD Central
Posts: 122
Likes: 215
|
Post by 69m on Jul 6, 2018 18:49:26 GMT
A year ago today, the update for this loan (which was already nearly seven months overdue at the time) stated: "We have requested our receivers to place this property in the earliest auction."
Needless to say, that never happened, despite Lendy eventually getting a possession order in January 2018.
Since then, the borrower managed to postpone every bailiff visit, a 'trusted developer' appeared and two other parties recently expressed an interest in buying the property.
Now the borrower has suddenly found a new lender (if the most recent update is to be believed) and Lendy is negotiating a settlement figure. This suggests that investors should be prepared for interest and possibly capital shortfalls, while the borrower will get to remain in the property. A rather unsatisfactory outcome, to put it politely.
|
|
69m
Member of DD Central
Posts: 122
Likes: 215
|
Post by 69m on Oct 1, 2018 16:09:46 GMT
Yet another loan where we seem to be going around in circles.
A settlement was apparently anticipated by the end of August 2018, but now the 'interested party' wants a twelve-month extension in order to try to obtain enhanced planning permission. That Lendy is even considering such a scheme suggests a familiar situation: the security property in its current state is worth a lot less than the loan amount outstanding.
Meanwhile, another 'trusted developer' has appeared with two more proposals which might appear in next month's update. In other words, some more plot twists to look forward to...
|
|
