webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 15, 2015 18:29:21 GMT
Did you sell any PBL58 that you put on the SM? If so it answers a question: Do parts on the SM take priority over unsold parts? I thought SS have said that retail lender parts are put into the sales queue ahead of any underwriter parts. Still nice to see evidence of it. It's only right that they do, as they don't pay interest in parts on the SM.
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Sept 15, 2015 19:06:17 GMT
I thought SS have said that retail lender parts are put into the sales queue ahead of any underwriter parts. Still nice to see evidence of it. It's only right that they do, as they don't pay interest in parts on the SM. Just managed to sell 2*£500 of PBL58 in a matter of minutes, so I guess that's proof....
|
|
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 Sept 15, 2015 19:50:53 GMT
Still nice to see evidence of it. It's only right that they do, as they don't pay interest in parts on the SM. Just managed to sell 2*£500 of PBL58 in a matter of minutes, so I guess that's proof.... It's always been that way, and has been proved many times over, so there is no doubt about it. Obviously newer lenders haven't seen it for themselves necessarily, but my word is my bond 
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Sept 15, 2015 20:57:30 GMT
Savills seems to have a pretty poor opinion of the development scheme put forward by the borrower, but do say he is contemplating changing the design ... which presumably would need a revised planning application. Savills also say that the holiday let / leisure scheme as currently approved by planning will act as a brake on sales of the residential units ... so SS's belief of sufficeint sales over the next six months for the borrower to be able to redeem this loan early seems a bit optimistic.
And yet the Loan Particulars states "The apartments have recently been granted full residential status; our borrower has found genuine buyers for all of the apartments..".
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 15, 2015 21:07:35 GMT
Savills seems to have a pretty poor opinion of the development scheme put forward by the borrower, but do say he is contemplating changing the design ... which presumably would need a revised planning application. Savills also say that the holiday let / leisure scheme as currently approved by planning will act as a brake on sales of the residential units ... so SS's belief of sufficeint sales over the next six months for the borrower to be able to redeem this loan early seems a bit optimistic. And yet the Loan Particulars states "The apartments have recently been granted full residential status; our borrower has found genuine buyers for all of the apartments..".
I didn't see a date on the VR. Did I miss it? I did see the paragraph that was supposed to indicate when the valuers visited the property. One was in 2012, IIRC. I expect the other visit was more recent, but there's a blank space where the date should be, and I wouldn't have thought that was felt to be sensitive data that needed to be redacted. Has anyone investigated the status of the planning application for the change to full-time residential use on the local authority website? The VR indicates it was 'Pending' at the time of the VR but, as noted above, I don't know how long ago that was.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 15, 2015 21:38:00 GMT
And yet the Loan Particulars states "The apartments have recently been granted full residential status; our borrower has found genuine buyers for all of the apartments..".
I didn't see a date on the VR. Did I miss it? I did see the paragraph that was supposed to indicate when the valuers visited the property. One was in 2012, IIRC. I expect the other visit was more recent, but there's a blank space where the date should be, and I wouldn't have thought that was felt to be sensitive data that needed to be redacted. Has anyone investigated the status of the planning application for the change to full-time residential use on the local authority website? The VR indicates it was 'Pending' at the time of the VR but, as noted above, I don't know how long ago that was. Approved 9/7/15 Think this is relevant bit Units 1-41 of the units hereby approved shall be occupied for holiday
purposes only and not as a persons sole place of residence. Units 42-50
shall be occupied for residential purposes (as defined by Class C3 of
the Town and Country Planning Used Classes Order 1987 as amended).
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Sept 15, 2015 23:20:27 GMT
Gone up to £964k available.
|
|
paulg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 312
Likes: 189
|
Post by paulg on Sept 15, 2015 23:46:48 GMT
Gone up to £964k available. Which means there's about £330k been dumped back on the SM, so that's how much has got to sell before anyone else's SM sales of this loan will go through. 
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 16, 2015 3:11:17 GMT
Gone up to £964k available. Which means there's about £330k been dumped back on the SM, so that's how much has got to sell before anyone else's SM sales of this loan will go through. Not necessarily. It depends on the source of the £330k of parts. In the past SS have not always released all available underwriter parts for sale at once. If they've done that here, and the £330k are really underwriter parts, then there will be no effect on retail lenders trying to sell some of their parts. The only ways to tell for sure would be... - if savingstream tell us that's what has happened; or
- if someone here puts some parts up for sale tomorrow and reports a quick sale.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 16, 2015 7:10:45 GMT
If the extra £300k is underwriter parts, then the total take up was only about £1.5m, a LOT less than any of the other pre-funds, including the much unloved stretch of the river Humber's bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Sept 16, 2015 7:18:47 GMT
Gone up to £964k available. Which means there's about £330k been dumped back on the SM, so that's how much has got to sell before anyone else's SM sales of this loan will go through. Liz and paulg, thank you for quoting those figures. The last time I looked yesterday evening it was approx. £770k or thereabouts. So eventually, by late evening at some point, it went down to £630k approx. before another £330k appeared... Sales so far this morning are £17,400k. The amount available to fund, as I post, is £970,468.62
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Sept 16, 2015 9:04:15 GMT
There were some naughty investors massively overbidding and subsequently releasing back into the market.
Whilst this is working well enough, we are going to be tweaking the rules slightly to stop this kind of behaviour. Wait out.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Sept 16, 2015 9:08:48 GMT
There were some naughty investors massively overbidding and subsequently releasing back into the market. Whilst this is working well enough, we are going to be tweaking the rules slightly to stop this kind of behaviour. Wait out. Shocking behaviour! Glad to hear you guys are going to deal with this, but remember that many of those who were overbidding were probably doing so because they had a target holding in mind that the current pre-funding model means they can't be sure of achieving. The simplest solution might be reconsider whether your original model of equitably sharing the loans amongst all investors might not actually have been so terrible for the "big-hitters" after all.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 16, 2015 9:11:34 GMT
Do you folks think that we might have finally reached saturation point where all current platform users are fully invested? If so we might have to wait for ISA implementation to restore liquidity to the SM. Or SS might "do a Wellesley" and spend money on TV advertising rather than paying it to investors.
Or is it that lenders don't like the specific loan? Hard to see why it is so much less attractive than Humberside.
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 637
Likes: 658
|
Post by warn on Sept 16, 2015 9:13:42 GMT
There were some naughty investors massively overbidding and subsequently releasing back into the market. Whilst this is working well enough, we are going to be tweaking the rules slightly to stop this kind of behaviour. Wait out. Jolly good. About time. How about a rule that says "you can't sell something until you've actually paid for it"? Old-fashioned ethics, I know...
|
|
