|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 4, 2016 12:17:49 GMT
mrclondon , are you not tempted to take another £30k off the sm before its all gone?....that would be enough to remove my investment! Sorry  , I have a strict 0.5% of p2p porfolio limit per loan and I am already at that limit for this loan.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Aug 4, 2016 14:05:26 GMT
.... The alledged background of the borrower's directors/shareholders does not IMO influence the valuation placed on the security for this loan. Mmm! Like the AC loans Epping/Ipswich ... good security/valuations(??), but borrower/directors' behaviour has been destructive. I prefer to vacate PBL56/64 despite apparently good security/valuations, because of previously publicised borrower behaviour. But I'm a riskwimp. Each to his own!  edit?timing!! Two minutes ago!! AC loan 174 called in borrower behaviour.
edit 17:03, OK AC #174 is different and the security may even be enhanced, but borrower behaviour still matters if they obstruct eventual repayment of the loan, so I still take existing knowledge of borrowers into account.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Aug 4, 2016 14:51:38 GMT
easilyparted In general my comments on this forum are based on my investment strategy for the p2p related part (well into 6 figures) of my portfolio which is spread over several platforms and well over 200 individual loans. My background is as an engineering, IT, business and management consultant working with multinational corporations and FTSE-100 companies on manufacturing strategy. I have a lower tolerance to risk than some p2p investors, and yet I have a large position in this loan which I have no intention of selling. At the risk of repeating myself, the loan is secured by a high quality asset, with at least in part a strong rental covenant. The alledged background of the borrower's directors/shareholders does not IMO influence the valuation placed on the security for this loan. Behaviour/character absolutely should be taken into account. At what point does a lender say "I will not deal with you"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 15:12:42 GMT
Take a look at the advertised rental (google the name of the building from page 1 of the valuation report plus I**).... it is NOT a tin shed, it is a modern smart office building on an estate of similiar modern office buildings. The I** part of the building does have a roller shutter door, leading into state of the art modern clean IT workshops. The rental offices are well fitted out with air conditioning suspended ceilings etc etc. Without giving too much away,I think I'm far more qualified to comment on this particular building. Without giving too much, do you have an investment in this particular loan? In the past 48 hour I have read total fantasy stories, downputting almost everything connected to this borrower to zero. Yes, I understand he has some enemies around. But this does not mean everything he is doing is Worth nothing. Let's be reasonable and wait for the updated evaluation and reassesment (wich will be signed by somoeone at least formally more qualified than you in discussing this particular building).
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 4, 2016 15:14:56 GMT
.... The alledged background of the borrower's directors/shareholders does not IMO influence the valuation placed on the security for this loan. Mmm! Like the AC loans Epping/Ipswich ... good security/valuations(??), but borrower/directors' behaviour has been destructive. I prefer to vacate PBL56/64 despite apparently good security/valuations, because of previously publicised borrower behaviour. But I'm a riskwimp. Each to his own! edit?timing!! Two minutes ago!! AC loan 174 called in borrower behaviour. I'm pretty risk adverse myself, but I have been increasing my holding in AC's #174 over the last few weeks in anticipation of it defaulting in due course. Yes a highish LTV but that was before today's partial capital redemption of funds held by AC, and the security is now arguably worth an additional 10 to 15% since it was valued. From today holders in that loan are accruing an additional 3% pa default interest ... something sadly missing on SS and indeed most platforms where if they charge the borrrower default interest that goes in its entirity to the platform to cover the additional overhead of managing the defaulted loan not lenders as compensation for having funds tied up beyond term. Again I don't see how this AC borrowers behaviour has affected the valuation of the security, I can see no impact on the assumptions made by the valuer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 15:16:26 GMT
easilyparted In general my comments on this forum are based on my investment strategy for the p2p related part (well into 6 figures) of my portfolio which is spread over several platforms and well over 200 individual loans. My background is as an engineering, IT, business and management consultant working with multinational corporations and FTSE-100 companies on manufacturing strategy. I have a lower tolerance to risk than some p2p investors, and yet I have a large position in this loan which I have no intention of selling. At the risk of repeating myself, the loan is secured by a high quality asset, with at least in part a strong rental covenant. The alledged background of the borrower's directors/shareholders does not IMO influence the valuation placed on the security for this loan. Behaviour/character absolutely should be taken into account. At what point does a lender say "I will not deal with you"? Try and put yourself in the position of forcing the other party to do what you want (i.e. repaying). If you offered him far less than the Whole builging was really worth (say 40%), he would have no interest in thinking to anything else than repaying you. In cases of doubt you have to play hard and give very very very little money to be sure it will be given back. In that case you don't even have to ask yourself when you will not deal with someone, i.e. you deal with everyone but force them to play also on your side.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Aug 4, 2016 15:19:23 GMT
...the security is now arguably worth an additional 10 to 15% since it was valued... Partly because borrow behaviour has not allowed the property to fall into disrepair?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 4, 2016 15:26:41 GMT
...the security is now arguably worth an additional 10 to 15% since it was valued... Partly because borrow behaviour has not allowed the property to fall into disrepair? No because of the enhanced planning consent obtained by the borrower for the site of 4 slightly smaller flats vs 3 larger flats, and general property inflation in the area (although offset once inflation on the now slightly larger development cost especially fixtures and fittings is taken into account i.e. 4 kitchens not 3; 8 bathroom suites not 6 etc).
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Aug 4, 2016 15:32:30 GMT
No because of the enhanced planning consent for the siteof 4 slightly smaller flats vs 3 larger flats, and general property inflation in the area (although offset once inflation on the now slightly larger development cost especially fixtures and fittings is taken into account i.e. 4 kitchens not 3; 8 bathroom suites not 6 etc). My post was a bit tongue-in-cheek ... my point was that borrow behaviour (leaving the property to rot for a year and doing zero maintenance) would reduce the security value. In general, the security won't retain it's value if the borrower doesn't care for it. That requires good behaviour on the borrowers part, no? So isn't it applicable in making lending decisions? *edit: And your edit only goes to show that the borrower behaviour, obtaining planning consent, did have a material impact on security value?
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 4, 2016 15:47:34 GMT
easilyparted In general my comments on this forum are based on my investment strategy for the p2p related part (well into 6 figures) of my portfolio which is spread over several platforms and well over 200 individual loans. My background is as an engineering, IT, business and management consultant working with multinational corporations and FTSE-100 companies on manufacturing strategy. I have a lower tolerance to risk than some p2p investors, and yet I have a large position in this loan which I have no intention of selling. At the risk of repeating myself, the loan is secured by a high quality asset, with at least in part a strong rental covenant. The alledged background of the borrower's directors/shareholders does not IMO influence the valuation placed on the security for this loan. Behaviour/character absolutely should be taken into account. At what point does a lender say "I will not deal with you"?I don't know - but evidently not at the point when a lender discovers a borrower has: - Been declared bankrupt twice - Entered into 1 IVA - Has a criminal conviction for theft - Has CCJs against him in double figures - Has a long history of litigious behaviour including getting a major Bank to abandon repossession proceedings arising from the non repayment of a previous £2m+ loan
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 4, 2016 15:49:04 GMT
Mike ... you are quite right borrower behaviour in its widest sense does impact on the value of security held against loans, both positive and negative. And a borrower that does not care for the property and make timely repairs as necessary (prime example AC's Anglesey loan) will negatively impact the security value quickly. Whereas in the case of AC's #174 the planning consent will have enhanced the security and particularly the marketability of the finished flats by creating slightly smaller cheaper flats. I also understand and accept that some people take ethical considerations in account when considering who to lend their money to. But to argue that ethical consideration of a borrowers behaviour has a material impact on a RICS redbook valuation of an asset owned by the borrower is pretty hard to accept IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 4, 2016 15:56:21 GMT
harvey I'm hoping that a friend from my school days who I haven't spoken to in 30 years will now he has been released after 12 months plus in prison for a white collar theft/fraud he confessed to when apprehended, will be afforded the right to rebuild his life and to re-engage in business. And if he was to apply to a p2p platform for funding for a new business venture would be given a fair hearing especially if he was to pledge high quality assets as security.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Aug 4, 2016 15:59:38 GMT
harvey I'm hoping that a friend from my school days who I haven't spoken to in 30 years will now he has been released after 12 months plus in prison for a white collar theft/fraud he confessed to when apprehended, will be afforded the right to rebuild his life and to re-engage in business. And if he was to apply to a p2p platform for funding for a new business venture would be given a fair hearing especially if he was to pledge high quality assets as security. That is a very good point. But that information should be made available so people can make there own judgement
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 4, 2016 16:03:42 GMT
harvey I'm hoping that a friend from my school days who I haven't spoken to in 30 years will now he has been released after 12 months plus in prison for a white collar theft/fraud he confessed to when apprehended, will be afforded the right to rebuild his life and to re-engage in business. And if he was to apply to a p2p platform for funding for a new business venture would be given a fair hearing especially if he was to pledge high quality assets as security. Very admirable mrclondon but a very different scenario to the one presented by harvey. harvey's example demonstrates a worrying pattern of behaviour from an investor's perspective. Some people make mistakes and deserve a second chance whilst others are rotten eggs and should be avoided at all costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Aug 4, 2016 16:08:46 GMT
easilyparted In general my comments on this forum are based on my investment strategy for the p2p related part (well into 6 figures) of my portfolio which is spread over several platforms and well over 200 individual loans. My background is as an engineering, IT, business and management consultant working with multinational corporations and FTSE-100 companies on manufacturing strategy. I have a lower tolerance to risk than some p2p investors, and yet I have a large position in this loan which I have no intention of selling. At the risk of repeating myself, the loan is secured by a high quality asset, with at least in part a strong rental covenant. The alledged background of the borrower's directors/shareholders does not IMO influence the valuation placed on the security for this loan. Behaviour/character absolutely should be taken into account. At what point does a lender say "I will not deal with you"? I absolutely 100% agree with the first part of your reply, but unfortunately that particular horse bolted last October and has since appeared in your supermarket own brand meat pie. Two points though, we do not have access to credit reference agency records, I presume SavingStream do, where these matters will be recorded, along with a simple company search that in a couple of clicks records 55 appointments for this particular person, something which should raise questions in itself. We do have access to Gogle (other search engines are available  ) where all of his alleged misdemeanors are readily available. Secondly, by quite a sizable majority it would appear that posters on this board do not agree with you and me, if the results of the poll on the other thread is anything to go by.
|
|
, I have a strict 0.5% of p2p porfolio limit per loan and I am already at that limit for this loan.
) where all of his alleged misdemeanors are readily available. Secondly, by quite a sizable majority it would appear that posters on this board do not agree with you and me, if the results of the poll on the other thread is anything to go by.