elgerod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 99
Likes: 29
|
Post by elgerod on Mar 2, 2016 1:21:42 GMT
I see that SS increased the loan based on a higher valuation, so the LTV stays the same. If they didn't have the higher valuation when the loan was launched, then presumably they couldn't increase the loan at that time and with pre-funding.
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Mar 2, 2016 6:15:14 GMT
I think the right way to go about increasing any loan following an increase in the asset value is to list the further loan on the prefunding pipeline.
I did not notice this further loan because it was just put on the SM by SS. Just feels wrong somehow.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 2, 2016 8:08:48 GMT
I agree, and it's going to become a recurring issue as SS enters the world of Development Finance Loans, with multiple phased advances linked to development progress. It would have been much better if savingstream had listed the further advance to the PBL061 borrower as another pipeline loan (PBL061b, ranking pari passu with the original loan) and so allowed lenders to set pre-fund targets as they wished. If that means that many tranches are below £1m and therefore allocated bottom-up then so be it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,668
Likes: 5,041
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 2, 2016 8:17:41 GMT
I think the right way to go about increasing any loan following an increase in the asset value is to list the further loan on the prefunding pipeline.
I did not notice this further loan because it was just put on the SM by SS. Just feels wrong somehow. It wasn't a "further loan". It was a bit more of the same loan.
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Mar 2, 2016 8:38:59 GMT
Err,...... the original info about the loan includes the wording "Once they are complete, we may offer a further loan"
They did not but simply bunged it on the SM.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 2, 2016 10:21:25 GMT
I agree, and it's going to become a recurring issue as SS enters the world of Development Finance Loans, with multiple phased advances linked to development progress. It would have been much better if savingstream had listed the further advance to the PBL061 borrower as another pipeline loan (PBL061b, ranking pari passu with the original loan) and so allowed lenders to set pre-fund targets as they wished. If that means that many tranches are below £1m and therefore allocated bottom-up then so be it. The disruption caused by having the multiple tranches forever trading as separate loans seems to me far greater than that caused by dumping a big chunk onto the SM all at once. This solution seems to me worse than the supposed problem it is trying to solve. I've seen plenty of units of PBL061 available to buy on the SM recently, with some available right now as I right this post, and plenty of different names in the "Investor Activity" section of the page, so it's hardly been difficult to get hold of. If a pre-allocation approach is taken, it would seem better to me if the subsequent tranches become indistinguishable from the original tranche after drawdown, otherwise you end up replicating the problems over on FC where different tranches of the same loan have very different liquidity solely due to market effects, and creating a lot of extra hassle for people who want to keep track of how much of each loan they've got.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 2, 2016 10:27:58 GMT
I don't have a problem with SS releasing more of the same loan, but I think they might want to pre-announce it as they would a new loan, and/or release it over a couple of hours in reasonable size bits. Just a thought... Yes, there is some available at the moment, but that's true of lots of things. There wasn't lots available between when the released the new tranche and yesterday!
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,874
Likes: 7,919
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 2, 2016 10:36:19 GMT
Definitely better if all tranches are treated as part of the same loan (once released), and PBL061 is a bit of a red herring as it's a big loan that most people already have plenty of. But consider a future DFL like the Bolton student block (£3.75m total). Say the first tranche is under £1m and filled bottom up, so we maybe get £500 or so. If later tranches are simply released to the SM then they will be hoovered up by a handful of lenders in no time, so the maximum most will ever hold is the original £500. However if 3 later tranches also are allocated via pre-funding then lenders might reasonably expect to end up with almost £2k each.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 2, 2016 11:44:31 GMT
Definitely better if all tranches are treated as part of the same loan (once released), and PBL061 is a bit of a red herring as it's a big loan that most people already have plenty of. But consider a future DFL like the Bolton student block (£3.75m total). Say the first tranche is under £1m and filled bottom up, so we maybe get £500 or so. If later tranches are simply released to the SM then they will be hoovered up by a handful of lenders in no time, so the maximum most will ever hold is the original £500. However if 3 later tranches also are allocated via pre-funding then lenders might reasonably expect to end up with almost £2k each. Once a loan is allocated to a sufficiently large pool of investors, this will, in itself, generate plenty of activity as various investors for a variety of reasons adjust their holdings. For example, PBL075 and PBL076 both had quite low allocations per investor, but both are generating moderate amounts of activity on the SM. In principle, I agree that it's good to release further tranches to many investors rather than to few, for the same reason's it's good for the original release. IMHO "Pre-funding" needs to be renamed anyway, because it's confusing... maybe "target investment level" or something? During such additional drawdowns on the same loan, I'd think the best way would be to re-open it for setting a target investment level, and proceed as follows: 1. For "bottom up" funding, allocation proceeds much as it does for a new loan, except that the amount you are allocated is the DIFFERENCE between your current holding and your target investment level. This way, investors can leave their target investment level unchanged from the original drawdown and simply receive a top-up. In particular, new investors or others who didn't get the original allocation in full would be preferentially topped up. 2. for "proportional" funding, your demand is again the DIFFERENCE between your current holding and target investment level. If it's over-allocated, you're allocated the relevant proportion of your demand.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 2, 2016 12:30:49 GMT
Yes that'd work, and would also tie in with having a 'target investment level' for each loan, as discussed / requested / suggested over on the 'how to keep of track of what you want' thread.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,231
Likes: 11,422
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 4, 2016 11:35:44 GMT
Updates for all loans, where applicable, on site now. Just updating first post.
Wow. Lot of cash potentially coming back in the near future. Pipeline might not be as healthy as expected
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Mar 4, 2016 12:01:02 GMT
Updates for all loans, where applicable, on site now. Just updating first post. Wow. Lot of cash potentially coming back in the near future. Pipeline might not be as healthy as expected Hmm... not the first time we've been expecting a lot of repayments that take much longer than suggested to materialise, and even manage to turn into something else along the way sometimes. I wouldn't panic just yet . You're doing a great job on the updating, and I'm glad your table will provide a dated reference of what they said when. On balance I think I'd quite like them to keep sending a summary email as well though.
|
|
alanp
Member of DD Central
Posts: 168
Likes: 72
|
Post by alanp on Mar 4, 2016 12:26:05 GMT
Are PBL055 and PBL057 the same borrower as the x-country reference on 55 implies it might be?
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Mar 4, 2016 12:28:32 GMT
I will guess the boat will be next one to pay back so will see
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,231
Likes: 11,422
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 4, 2016 12:39:55 GMT
Are PBL055 and PBL057 the same borrower as the x-country reference on 55 implies it might be? Yes, good shout, hadnt noticed that valuations are addressed to same person. Running out of letters! Incidentally Watford loans will also be to existing borrower though not sure which yet, Hemel maybe
|
|