|
|
Post by rudry2677 on Jul 13, 2015 20:12:51 GMT
From a further investment point "I'm out" but it is clearly a challenge for FF to prove DD wrong. This is where skill, self-control (no more Aston Martin cars etc) and hard work should kick in. Will they?
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Jul 13, 2015 23:01:50 GMT
For me, the key point was not the overvaluation but how many of the dragons seemed to think that the business was morally wrong - aimed at people who do not understand the riskiness of investing in property. Which is something that, as lenders, we all need to think about...
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,137
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 14, 2015 9:28:41 GMT
Well, they're not afraid to leverage it in their marketing...
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Jul 14, 2015 17:34:04 GMT
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jul 15, 2015 0:23:40 GMT
For me, the key point was not the overvaluation but how many of the dragons seemed to think that the business was morally wrong - aimed at people who do not understand the riskiness of investing in property. Which is something that, as lenders, we all need to think about... , why do you feel such investments are very risky? If the purchase is discounted (eg reposession), in an area with high rental demand, the worst case scenario is that short to mid term the value may go down.The rent, provided only short void periods occur, will still provide a decent return/yield until the properry returns to purchase value or higher to give an even higher ROI. Long term should always be bourne in mind so it may not be suitable for short termists. I am of course open to a differet slant on the above.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jul 15, 2015 0:27:38 GMT
I've had a chance to see a repeat on bbc tonight & frankly I thought it was the dragons that came across as arrogant. Frazer looked unintimidated by them which I think gave them a bigger hump. They might have had reason to question his valuation (to an extent rightly so as they are still non-profit making) but their egos seemed to go into overdrive on this one. If the guy has an option to speak to VCs, that's his prerogative but, it just seemed to rile them up which was quite funny to watch
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Jul 15, 2015 7:10:54 GMT
For me, the key point was not the overvaluation but how many of the dragons seemed to think that the business was morally wrong - aimed at people who do not understand the riskiness of investing in property. Which is something that, as lenders, we all need to think about... , why do you feel such investments are very risky? If the purchase is discounted (eg reposession), in an area with high rental demand, the worst case scenario is that short to mid term the value may go down.The rent, provided only short void periods occur, will still provide a decent return/yield until the properry returns to purchase value or higher to give an even higher ROI. Long term should always be bourne in mind so it may not be suitable for short termists. I am of course open to a differet slant on the above. I didn't say they are very risky, although your view is a bit rosier than mine. But I do think they tend to be marketed to people who don't understand the risks, and that this is likely to end in tears next time there is a property crash and a lot of investors all look for the exit at once. I fully understand why the dragons (who have chosen to be public figures) would not be comfortable with the reputational risk.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,137
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 15, 2015 7:29:48 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,137
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 15, 2015 9:36:35 GMT
They're talking to Sarah Willingham on R4 Woman's Hour right now, and started off by asking about the THC pitch.
She's given it the "It wasn't about the business itself, it was all his attitude of disrespect" line, and suggested that the editing made it all sound worse than it actually was.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922 
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Jul 15, 2015 10:29:45 GMT
Well I think for her it was about his attitude - it was the other dragons that questioned the value/risk etc.
For me anyway the way he came across was the final nail in the coffin - I was already feeling a little uneasy about the amount I'd already invested due to the general lack of open discussion, initial experiences of how they operate, plus the fact that there's a lot of dead time up front and dividends only paid annually and I now don't expect to invest any more with them (never say never) - when you contrast it with Property Moose who pay you interest until the deal completes and pay income monthly, and appear more interested in 2-way discussion - it's a no-brainer for me.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,137
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 15, 2015 18:31:49 GMT
when you contrast it with Property Moose For some reason, I'd sort of crossed them off my mental list. Revisiting now, thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnsnow on Jul 16, 2015 4:51:21 GMT
Hi Guys,
I am sure you have heard Property Partners raised 5.2M on 10% of 52M valuation.
Based on that, wondering why the Dragons were surprised on the 20M valuation of THC?
Thanks
John
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Jul 16, 2015 8:40:01 GMT
Hi Guys, I am sure you have heard Property Partners raised 5.2M on 10% of 52M valuation. Based on that, wondering why the Dragons were surprised on the 20M valuation of THC? Thanks John Because it is a TV show rather than a serious business programme.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,137
|
Post by adrianc on Jul 17, 2015 7:33:11 GMT
I watched it last night, finally.
For some context, it's the first time I've ever watched an episode of Dragon's Den.
Honest opinion? It's not THC I'll be abandoning first. Gawd, what a load of dribble that program is. Clearly MASSIVELY edited, with soundbites and reaction shots almost certainly taken out of context to prove whatever was wanted to be proved. Of course they were all out - everybody else wanted a tiny fraction of the money. Nobody was ever going to sploink a million quid down, especially once he said "Well, it's an option". Daft to think they would.
But THC is the only one of the four that stood out as having any kind of unusual business model. The rest were just a bit of marketing for some sub-contract manufactured generic things. Perhaps that confused "the Dragons"? It didn't fit into any of their neat mental boxes, given the time they had available and the amount of investment they were being asked for.
Of the other three...
No wonder they ripped shreds out of the tights woman - she walked in there saying her business was worth £1.4m, and it turned out not only could she not tell them what her turnover was, but it was likely to be somewhere ~£200k total over the first two years.
YogaLego had spent £100k on developing a plastic toolbox, of which £60k went to secure his IP, but apparently he'd actually added no value in that time? 50% for £50k? (I s'pose he hadn't lost any...) And still they went for it?
Market-trader-random-electronics bloke was the only one that I thought might have something really viable, worth the money and time - but you could hear a dozen emails being fired off to Chinese factory contacts even as he talked.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jul 17, 2015 17:12:07 GMT
Surelywith their business knowledge, at least one fo them would have heard of either thc or another co that gives a similar offering. They must have all heard of crowd funding & as such thc would not be so alien & as revolting as they made it out to be!
|
|
