PBL83 Canceled (26/02/2016)

Too many good loans to invest in than this as mentioned above so i am out. Trading on secondary market could be interesting especially as months progress and no planning agreed. Obviously purchasers though do have some money invested so hopefully they are confident.

I would love to have more specifics from SS on the PF. I would like to see it saying something like covering a maximum of 20% of any default. eg we all know our money is at risk! if security coverage 70% (appreciate debatable on this one) and any further losses covered by another 20% we are all unlikely to loose too much as well as the PF still having some money left?

I just hope that we do not see a stream of complaints from investors advising that the PF should cover all their losses if they do not use some common sense (or undertaking some DD)!

The masses are revolting.

If the sentiment on the forum is anything to go by, pre-funding allocation for this one will be 100% - better check those pre-funding levels !!!!

On a selfish note I have to totally disagree with you on this point. We all need the people who don't do any DD, because without them we will never sell all the older loans, the negative loans, or the slightly iffy loans on the SM.

The more people there are blinded by the 12% is actually better for those of us who are a little more picky.

 

Thanks. I should have gone to Specsavers.

Personally I'll be surprised if this one isn't at least 3X overfunded, and not just because many / most SS lenders are happy to trust SS's judgement on DD.

Firstly, I rate the probability that PP will be granted for a residential scheme as high. National planning policy has changed fundamentally since 2011 and now operates on the basis of a "presumption in favour of sustainable development". The planning officers clearly think the scheme must be supported (as they did last time around) so, even if local Councillors are minded again to heed local objections and vote to refuse, it will likely be nodded through by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal. Frankly it sounds like a site that's crying out for a serious clean-up (although I wouldn't want to be involved financially in the development project itself; I reckon 60-80% of the build costs could be "in the ground" on this site!).

Secondly, the real question for SS lenders should be "What is the likelihood of the bridging loan being repaid?" and here I suspect SS will have been especially careful to investigate the strength of the PG and the assets that stand behind it. Many lenders have been burned by worthless PGs on other platforms, but a PG from a HNWI is a very different beast. £5m of liquid assets (and likely a fair bit more in illiquid assets like a personal residence) is unlikely to disappear within 12 months.

Perhaps I'm a hopeless optimist but I'm happy to seek my usual slice of this one and I'm confident (especially given the size) there will be plenty of willing SM buyers 6 months down the line, when I always try to reduce and replace. If I'm left holding it to term, so be it. I'm certain there will be SS loans that run into trouble in future but I'd wager a small sum that it's more likely to be a loan that looks fine on the surface rather than this one, where the potential rocks are clear and well understood from the outset.

Harsh but true.

It would surprise me if this loan was 3x overfunded.  The lack of activity on the SM this morning would hint that investors aren't clearing the way ready for their pre-fund to be allocated, as seen in recent >1m loans

I'm going to stick my neck out and guess 1.5x overfunding...... between 1100 - 1200 investors with the BH being the first to avoid this taking a big chunk out of the pre-funding.