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 Apr 20, 2015 13:53:08 GMT
There is a loan #654474218 where FS have just sold some of the paintings for less than 30% of their value. This loan had an LTV of 40% and now FS are "giving them away" without lenders getting a vote.
I would have thought the valuer should be liable, if the valuation is out by over 70%. What do lenders think?
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Apr 20, 2015 15:00:44 GMT
There is a loan #654474218 where FS have just sold some of the paintings for less than 30% of their value. This loan had an LTV of 40% and now FS are "giving them away" without lenders getting a vote. I would have thought the valuer should be liable, if the valuation is out by over 70%. What do lenders think? Agreed. Experience tells me to always question situations where there is the potential for someone to make a fast buck. 
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Apr 20, 2015 16:39:28 GMT
Something just doesn't smell right with this. Definitely needs a clear explanation of why FS went this route, NOW!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 20, 2015 16:54:57 GMT
There is a loan #654474218 where FS have just sold some of the paintings for less than 30% of their value. This loan had an LTV of 40% and now FS are "giving them away" ... Where is this info coming from? The 20/Apr update on the loan's web page says only that the proceeds from the three paintings sold were £1880. It doesn't specify the valuation of those paintings. It also says "The pdf has been updated to show which paintings have been sold" but when I look at the PDF, all I see is images of 14 paintings (which I presume is the original collection used as security for the loan) with no individual valuations and no indication that any have been sold. I also note that the 20/Apr update says the paintings were sold "for somewhat less than the original valuation." If the proceeds actually were just 30% of the value then I'd say FS are being rather economical with the truth -- or perhaps I should say misleading? This definitely does not bode well for the other loan secured on paintings of the same artist, since that loan was at 57% LTV before it was renewed, and at 67% LTV after renewal. (FS reduced the valuation from £35k to £30k at the time of the renewal, presumably because they weren't seeing a lot of interest in the collection from the first loan.)
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Apr 24, 2015 11:09:26 GMT
There is a loan #654474218 where FS have just sold some of the paintings for less than 30% of their value. This loan had an LTV of 40% and now FS are "giving them away" ... Where is this info coming from? The 20/Apr update on the loan's web page says only that the proceeds from the three paintings sold were £1880. It doesn't specify the valuation of those paintings. It also says "The pdf has been updated to show which paintings have been sold" but when I look at the PDF, all I see is images of 14 paintings (which I presume is the original collection used as security for the loan) with no individual valuations and no indication that any have been sold. I also note that the 20/Apr update says the paintings were sold "for somewhat less than the original valuation." If the proceeds actually were just 30% of the value then I'd say FS are being rather economical with the truth -- or perhaps I should say misleading? I would imagine that sqh has taken an average value for each painting by dividing the total valuation by 14. On this basis the returned value across the 3 paintings sold would have been just over 27%. This may or may not be a valid assumption to make; we have no way to know from the information provided.
|
|
