PBL064 - Tenanted Office Block, Somerset DEFAULT

Just like several people have already done, you mean?

Be far easier to just go and buy a copy of the paper. I have and SS doesn't look too rosy in this - assuming you believe everything you read of course.

The exit strategy listed in the loan particulars is 'Refinance with Commercial Mortgage'.

I raised that with SS last year after I had done some checks on the individuals concerned and questioned how they would ever get a commercial mortgage with their credit history - I did't get a response.

Regardless of the recent Times article, there was already significant reputational risk to SS from this transaction - it doesn't pass the smell test!  There are lots of other red flags, not just the credit history of the individuals concerned. The rent for half the office comes from a related company, which questions the value of that income stream. The original SS loan was to refinance another bridging loan (why not go commercial if the rent covenent is so strong...)

Bottom line is that a significant number of borrowers who resort to paying 18%+ for bridging finance have 'issues' that mean mainstream finance not readily available - it isn't always that the Banks don't want to lend on a particular type of asset. SS primarily base investment decisions (as do SS investors) on the valuation of the collateral and future saleability/recovery. 

This is all casting very serious questions regarding the integrity and judgement of certain individuals in the SS credit evaluation office. Certain other loans may warrant closer scrutiny. One overdue "should be refinanced in 2-3 weeks" ... five months ago. Recent confirmation of "imminent" refinance is sadly lacking, apart from a forum post suggesting "holidays" are now the culprits.

I await a comprehensive SS response .... imminently.

There's more to this article than there seems at first look.

SS were on the front page of the Telegraph last Monday indirectly promoting themselves to property developers by getting the name out there. Fast forward to this Monday and today's article in the Times seems set on tarnishing the SS name. Coincidence? I think not. Make of it what you will...

SS already responded to the complaints here. I don't think that the Times article says anything new, so I doubt they will see the need to re-iterate that which they have already said.

What exactly do you expect to hear from them? We all know how SS loans work, and there isn't much that can be done until repayment. The directors change, this and that, but until repayment comes along I can't see what it is from SS we can expect beyond what they have already said several pages back? Nothing here seems to compel them to give anything more away, to me at least.