|
|
Post by savingstream on Sept 30, 2015 10:27:46 GMT
Is it just me or did someone else also notice that the contract with the College is effectively invalid? Page 41 of the valuation report: Owners Obligations 3.1 The owner will complete the project in line with the development plans ready for the start of the 2015/16 academic year. This has passed for a while now and I presume the building is not finished and there will be no money coming in and the College might have another partner on top of all that. Could anyone please shed some light on the current state of this contract? Also a TC like forum or Q&A on the website would be a really nice feature... As previously stated there is no contract between Signature and Hugh Baird college. There is an exclusivity agreement whereby Hugh Baird will solely promote the Signature accommodation to their UK and international students. Signature have no obligation to provide flats or hold available flats for Hugh Baird students. Two weeks ago 63 lets were confirmed by the local letting agents of which none were students. The lawyers are checking with the agents on the current confirmed lettings from the letting agents. The whole building has residential planning approval so the student letting is a bonus and with the majority of overseas students commencing courses in October and January it is full expected that any vacant flats available will be mopped up by the January intake together with students that have 6 months tenancy agreements in other properties switching to this building around April if vacant flats are available. In the event that there are any vacancies, Signature will use the spare flats for over spill from their hotel operations. All their hotel accommodation is fully booked for months ahead (Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday ) and they also have short period accommodation requirements for between 3 and 4 weeks which they are having to decline at present. These short stay lets would produce significantly more income than 6 or 12 months AST's.
|
|
chrish
New Member
Posts: 4 
Likes: 1
|
Post by chrish on Sept 30, 2015 20:00:29 GMT
Thank you, that is an acceptable answer.
Where was it stated that there is no contract if I may ask?
|
|
paulg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 312
Likes: 189
|
Post by paulg on Oct 3, 2015 15:57:41 GMT
SS just added another £100k to the pot. That makes £1m extra released since launch. So the pre-fund was only about £1,400,000.
|
|
paulg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 312
Likes: 189
|
Post by paulg on Oct 5, 2015 11:08:40 GMT
And another £100k added an hour ago, so the pre-fund couldn't have been more than about £1,300k which is more inline with the subsequent loans.
I wonder how much more there is to come on this one?
|
|
|
|
Post by ogwellian on Oct 5, 2015 11:37:16 GMT
The largest investment today is £10k according to the Investment Activity tab.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 7, 2015 9:37:46 GMT
Down to sub-£50k (<1.5%) now, unless there's another lump to come
|
|
paulg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 312
Likes: 189
|
Post by paulg on Oct 7, 2015 10:29:36 GMT
Another £100k just added.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 7, 2015 10:44:16 GMT
Another £100k just added. I think we're starting to see why SS don't announce the total pre-fund for non-100% loans...
|
|
jimbob
Member of DD Central
Posts: 317
Likes: 74
|
Post by jimbob on Oct 7, 2015 11:03:29 GMT
I'd have thought the PBL would be quite close today - why does the "Amount available to fund" keep jumping up  ? Surely people aren't trying to sell particularly as it's Very new; you get your 1% on drawdown; you're earning 12% for a non live loan at the moment which (I think) carries less risk than if it was 'live'; are sales even possible at this point ? |
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Oct 7, 2015 11:13:55 GMT
Another £100k just added. I think we're starting to see why SS don't announce the total pre-fund for non-100% loans... I didn't think they announced it for any loan, and in any event would it make any difference for undersubscribed loans? I pre-fund on how much I'd like to hold, and have worked on the assumption the larger loans are less likely to be oversubscribed. At least SS put investors funds in front of underwriters in the sales Q if you got it wrong!
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Oct 7, 2015 11:15:22 GMT
I'd have thought the PBL would be quite close today - why does the "Amount available to fund" keep jumping up ? Surely people aren't trying to sell particularly as it's Very new; you get your 1% on drawdown; you're earning 12% for a non live loan at the moment which (I think) carries less risk than if it was 'live'; are sales even possible at this point ? SS are most likely releasing underwriters funds onto the market. This has happened several times before with other large loans.
|
|
jimbob
Member of DD Central
Posts: 317
Likes: 74
|
Post by jimbob on Oct 7, 2015 11:19:58 GMT
Wotcha, got it - so there is probably behind the scenes movement of underwriter's funds from PBL 59 to 60 today I can see the sense in thall this. |
|
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: 11,544
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 7, 2015 11:27:07 GMT
I'd have thought the PBL would be quite close today - why does the "Amount available to fund" keep jumping up ? Surely people aren't trying to sell particularly as it's Very new; you get your 1% on drawdown; you're earning 12% for a non live loan at the moment which (I think) carries less risk than if it was 'live'; are sales even possible at this point ? SS are releasing UW parts onto the market in stages to encourage demand as loan looks more scarce than it actually is. Do wonder if theyre holding off on drawdown to allow better sell thoùgh on UW (cost benefit despite CB?) as people will start selling on drawdown, and due to wider appreciation of market as they attract money from those disaffected with other platforms - more likely to fill large future loans as a result, scaling up model to next tier lending (eg Wellesley) Pure speculation.
|
|
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: 11,544
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 7, 2015 11:34:02 GMT
I think we're starting to see why SS don't announce the total pre-fund for non-100% loans... I didn't think they announced it for any loan, and in any event would it make any difference? I pre-fund on how much I'd like to hold, and have worked on the assumption the larger loans are less likely to be oversubscribed. At least SS put investors funds in front of underwriters in the sales Q if you got it wrong! They do on the overfunded ones in the allocation email, thats what hes referring to. Only relevant for trying to game PF on smaller loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickthefool on Oct 7, 2015 11:40:50 GMT
I didn't think they announced it for any loan, and in any event would it make any difference? I pre-fund on how much I'd like to hold, and have worked on the assumption the larger loans are less likely to be oversubscribed. At least SS put investors funds in front of underwriters in the sales Q if you got it wrong! They do on the overfunded ones in the allocation email, thats what hes referring to. Only relevant for trying to game PF on smaller loans. They've stopped doing that now, at least on the latest two.
|
|
?
