|
|
Post by highlandtiger on Feb 27, 2016 9:40:51 GMT
Getting back to the matter at hand: I don't see any mention of fly tipped nuclear waste, so I'm in for a modest punt. errrrrrrr Whilst you are 100% correct that there is no fly tipped nuclear waste on this property. You don't know just how close you are to the truth  RAF Machrihanish is only a couple of miles away, and was once the longest runway in Europe, (now I believe the second longest), and was once a US Airbase. Although officially it wasn't a nuclear base, in reality it was. In the two years before the US left in 1995, two massive underground facilities were built, (using local labour, hence the fact I know about it. I lived there and friends of mine worked on the construction). In the weeks whilst the US where leaving, a lot of trucks and cargo planes left the airfield, APART from a convoy of very large sealed army trucks which arrived at around 2am, and seen by my father in law, out walking his dogs, (He had a job that didn't finish work till 1am). Consequently we discovered that these trucks contained nuclear material. Could never find out whether it was weapons or waste. A point to note , that local people do believe there is a link to a slightly higher cancer rate in the nearby town and villages, than the rest of Scotland, and some do connect the dots to the goings on at Machrihanish. I'm still of the opinion that these bunkers contain nuclear items of some description.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022 
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 27, 2016 9:52:30 GMT
I can easily believe that there might have been nuclear weapons on site. But why waste? It just makes no sense whatsoever if you pause and think about it. "Nuclear waste" would only be present at the reactor where the material for the warhead was made. Some waste warhead material would be present - but tightly controlled - at the machining plant where the warheads were manufactured. At an airbase in the boonies where the warheads might or might not have deployed? Not a hope. B'sides, why truck the warheads out (and where to?)? Why not just load 'em onto a plane and fly 'em to another base? If they were being decommissioned, they'd be taken back to the US for that. If they were being redeployed, the planes would have to be redeployed too. It's not even remotely plausible that they'd have got everything else out, be running round the hangers for a final once-over before locking the place up, and suddenly spot a couple of crates of warheads that somebody had left behind the fridge. The consequences of a "broken arrow" are just too serious. Sure, it happened a few times, but all back in the relatively early days. mentalfloss.com/article/17483/8-nuclear-weapons-us-has-lost |
|
|
|
Post by highlandtiger on Feb 27, 2016 10:14:43 GMT
I can easily believe that there might have been nuclear weapons on site. But why waste? It just makes no sense whatsoever if you pause and think about it. "Nuclear waste" would only be present at the reactor where the material for the warhead was made. Some waste warhead material would be present - but tightly controlled - at the machining plant where the warheads were manufactured. At an airbase in the boonies where the warheads might or might not have deployed? Not a hope. B'sides, why truck the warheads out (and where to?)? Why not just load 'em onto a plane and fly 'em to another base? If they were being decommissioned, they'd be taken back to the US for that. If they were being redeployed, the planes would have to be redeployed too. It's not even remotely plausible that they'd have got everything else out, be running round the hangers for a final once-over before locking the place up, and suddenly spot a couple of crates of warheads that somebody had left behind the fridge. The consequences of a "broken arrow" are just too serious. Sure, it happened a few times, but all back in the relatively early days. mentalfloss.com/article/17483/8-nuclear-weapons-us-has-lostYou may also ask why for a several years after they officially left, American personnel continued to guard the site. But unlike when they controlled the base when they did so wearing full uniform and insignia, these guards did so wearing non-descript uniforms with no markings whatsoever. Seen with my own eyes. You'd be very surprised what gets transferred by road rather than by plane. This is not a tin pot little airfield. The USAF spent more money on upgrading this airport in the last 5 years they were there than any airfield in the entire world. This airfield is accessible by the US without having to fly over any other countries airspace, (apart from ours). Which is why they used it to test experimental planes. (they still do it, a drone crashed on the beach next to the airport a few years back, caused quite a stir with everyone) I watched the aurora spyplane do touch down manoevers years before they admitted it existed. I've seen planes hovver, turn 90 degrees and go straight upwards, (never quite got my head around that one), I've had my house literally shake due to an unknown triangular shaped plane pass close overhead at dusk, (my house at the time was on the eastern approach to the airfield) . Why did the USAF spend all that money upgrading, only to "leave" within months of the completion of the upgrade. From what I witnessed with my own eyes, Nuclear weapons or waste being still kept on the site is not a great leap in the dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Feb 27, 2016 11:21:11 GMT
Although I can't see a strategy for the borrowers reason for needing the loan, the overview states the purpose of the loans is "Purchase". Therefore, I assume that the borrower is not the current owner of the security and that they are looking for the loan to purchase the property and using it as security against the loan. It is also worth adding that an additional £360,000 of value could be added to the estate (read 5.1 of the valuation for more information). I missed section 4.5 in my own summary; it's quite important so I will add it. However, the surveyor did the valuation with this in mind, so their indicated market value should represent this, but they do go on to say that a marketing period of 12 months might be required to sell the property. I wouldn't be worried about 5.3; the surveyor actually starts by saying "may have a particular appeal and, in the event of a sale, this may result in a relatively short marketing period and / or a price exceeding expectation", then seems to backtrack to cover their own back. Okay, that makes more sense. I'm not impressed with the new loan "particulars", we used to get a half decent explanation of what the loan was for. @shanectheman , if your asking me if I'm investing the answer is no. That's mainly because I'm fully invested, and can't see the purpose in over diversifying. Its a Purchase loan as set out very clearly in the parts.
|
|
tomtom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 262
Likes: 39
|
Post by tomtom on Feb 27, 2016 11:27:36 GMT
When is it coming?
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Feb 27, 2016 11:29:09 GMT
Personally I have little interest on what people want these loans for. My main interest is how accurate the valuation is. After all, if the loan defaults I want to know how much of my money I will get back. I'm not interested in trying to second guess people's financial situation or business acumen Could not disagree more. There used to be something called the four "C"s - Collateral, Competence, Capability, Character - on which one would judge a loan. We are left with just one criterion which is heavily dependent upon the opinion of one person, albeit a professional. I would like to know something about the character of the borrower, his/her track record (their competence), and whether the business plan is capable of meeting the repayments, but I will never get it with SS. Yes, I will still invest with SS, but carefully. I am not one of the many gung-ho investors that believe SS has some magical formula that enables it to avoid problem loans.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 27, 2016 11:44:49 GMT
The loan is due to go live sometime today. Shouldn't be long now....
|
|
|
|
Post by carbonr1 on Feb 27, 2016 12:06:36 GMT
Quite short and sharp there from SS, think there still annoyed with yesterdays none starter.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 27, 2016 12:13:15 GMT
I'm in for a few bags of sand. I'm forecasting 2.5x overfunding. On a £4.65m loan?? I'll be surprised if you're right. I'm assuming we'll get 90% of pre-funds.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 27, 2016 12:13:52 GMT
I'm in for a few bags of sand. I'm forecasting 2.5x overfunding. It's a big loan; my prediction on the wasteland was well off, but I'm guessing closer to 75%.... Let see how wrong I am 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 27, 2016 12:27:44 GMT
WOW Allocation is in and it is 98%! 1404 investors; seems 300 investors were put off by this loan? Let's watch the SM now |
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Feb 27, 2016 12:33:08 GMT
The churn is warming up nicely !
|
|
Hairbear
He who dares..wins (most of the time)
Posts: 144
Likes: 39
|
Post by Hairbear on Feb 27, 2016 12:48:42 GMT
woooooooosh... what the hell was that...? it was pbl084... one sec it was there.. the next it was gone.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Feb 27, 2016 13:28:58 GMT
Hmm,98%. I got 100% again.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 27, 2016 13:31:22 GMT
SO why didn't you want any of this one then liz?
|
|
