seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470 
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 14, 2016 12:23:12 GMT
Looking through the email I received today giving many updates, I was struck by DFL002 - the commercial tenant is ready to sign the lease. This is dated three weeks ago on the DFL002 listing (but no actual date when it was first posted)
My recollection from some weeks ago is that this update said that the commercial tenant had signed the lease. The project therefore looked to be going well so I invested some more funds. Maybe I am thinking of a different project - is there one with similar wording about a commercial tenant having signed, and begun the fit-out work?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 14, 2016 12:31:27 GMT
Looking through the email I received today giving many updates, I was struck by DFL002 - the commercial tenant is ready to sign the lease. This is dated three weeks ago on the DFL002 listing (but no actual date when it was first posted) My recollection from some weeks ago is that this update said that the commercial tenant had signed the lease. The project therefore looked to be going well so I invested some more funds. Maybe I am thinking of a different project - is there one with similar wording about a commercial tenant having signed, and begun the fit-out work? See ilmoro 's invaluable summary of past updates! p2pindependentforum.com/post/47560/thread(Looks like you're correct)
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Nov 14, 2016 16:54:22 GMT
Looking through the email I received today giving many updates, I was struck by DFL002 - the commercial tenant is ready to sign the lease. This is dated three weeks ago on the DFL002 listing (but no actual date when it was first posted) My recollection from some weeks ago is that this update said that the commercial tenant had signed the lease. The project therefore looked to be going well so I invested some more funds. Maybe I am thinking of a different project - is there one with similar wording about a commercial tenant having signed, and begun the fit-out work? You're right. & ditto! I know SS are trying to avoid passing on the 'word on the street' but surely the signing of a lease is a matter of fact.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 14, 2016 17:08:07 GMT
Looking through the email I received today giving many updates, I was struck by DFL002 - the commercial tenant is ready to sign the lease. This is dated three weeks ago on the DFL002 listing (but no actual date when it was first posted) My recollection from some weeks ago is that this update said that the commercial tenant had signed the lease. The project therefore looked to be going well so I invested some more funds. Maybe I am thinking of a different project - is there one with similar wording about a commercial tenant having signed, and begun the fit-out work? See ilmoro 's invaluable summary of past updates! p2pindependentforum.com/post/47560/thread(Looks like you're correct) I really don't mind too much if SS discover that a previous update was incorrect and either give the correct info in a later update, or edit the original update to cross out the bad info and replace it with the good info. To do what they appear to have done here, however, and make the erroneous comment disappear completely -- as if it never had existed -- is incredibly unprofessional and misleading. It's as bad as rewriting the facts in history books. Please stop this practice at once, savingstream!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 14, 2016 17:13:56 GMT
As I said over in the updates thread - the val doc does say that the commercial side is one restaurant unit (464m2) and two retail units (131m2 and 135m2), all let as shells, so they could easily be separate leases. Terms had been agreed for the restaurant at the time of the valuation, so I'm guessing these updates are the first, and now the second retail units.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 14, 2016 17:23:32 GMT
As I said over in the updates thread - the val doc does say that the commercial side is one restaurant unit (464m2) and two retail units (131m2 and 135m2), all let as shells, so they could easily be separate leases. Terms had been agreed for the restaurant at the time of the valuation, so I'm guessing these updates are the first, and now the second retail units. : That's a possibility, but SS haven't made that the least bit clear in their update. If it were the case, however, shouldn't there be two separate updates? IMHO that doesn't excuse the deletion of the old update and replacing it with the new update!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 14, 2016 17:56:33 GMT
As I said over in the updates thread - the val doc does say that the commercial side is one restaurant unit (464m2) and two retail units (131m2 and 135m2), all let as shells, so they could easily be separate leases. Terms had been agreed for the restaurant at the time of the valuation, so I'm guessing these updates are the first, and now the second retail units. : That's a possibility, but SS haven't made that the least bit clear in their update. If it were the case, however, shouldn't there be two separate updates? IMHO that doesn't excuse the deletion of the old update and replacing it with the new update! They've removed an update? Oh. That's naughty... And, yes, that does support the "Well, we were told but didn't bother to check. When we did, it turns out we were told a fib" theory. savingstream - can you clarify? Is this two leases, or an error last month?
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Nov 14, 2016 18:37:51 GMT
My query was related to the change of wording in an existing update. The original wording 'signed the lease' I recollected was about three weeks ago (when I invested more funds) and the new wording is also 'dated' 3 weeks ago. (At least it was last time I looked.) For me, time only moves in one direction, inexorably. I often wish it didn't.
If it was a newly signed lease for retail, and a more modern update, then maybe it should have been dated more recently?
I only asked the question to clarify what I thought I recollected.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,026
Likes: 5,152
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 14, 2016 18:59:10 GMT
I only asked the question to clarify what I thought I recollected. The master list at the start of the updates thread maintained by ilmoro says: 24th October [Term being extended with each drawdown] Build progressing on schedule. Commercial tenant has signed the lease and begins work on the fit out next week. So I think we can regard that as fairly authoritative. It also says: 6/1(/16) ...A lease has been signed with a well known restaurant brand which will significantly increase the value of the asset... 1/12(/15) A tenant has been found for the commercial element and they have signed a 15 year lease... Both those date back to when it was PBL50
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 14, 2016 20:47:04 GMT
Might any of those signed leases have had clauses in them that allowed the lessee to pull out if something didn't happen on schedule and thus allowed those 'signed' leases to lapse and need signing again?
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Nov 18, 2016 11:05:04 GMT
That was fortuitous. The exact valuation update (so they can be done  ) required for 70% max. As I'm not one for coincidences I'm not wondering why this isn't the first time I've seen it on SS loans. "Build costs have increased by circa £300k so we have obtained new valuation which shows an improved GDV of £4.24m so increased costs will remain within 70% of GDV".
My italics and underlining  . |
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Nov 19, 2016 8:00:49 GMT
That was fortuitous. The exact valuation update (so they can be done ) required for 70% max. As I'm not one for coincidences I'm not wondering why this isn't the first time I've seen it on SS loans. "Build costs have increased by circa £300k so we have obtained new valuation which shows an improved GDV of £4.24m so increased costs will remain within 70% of GDV".
My italics and underlining .Yes, its convenient that the valuation means the GDV remains EXACTLY at 70% LTV, not even a few pounds less
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Nov 19, 2016 8:24:53 GMT
I'm not sure if anyone has bothered to look, some of the 7 apartments are for sale at circa £700k each, three are due to be finished by the end of this month, add to that the commercial space underneath (which should be getting fitted out now) and you have a fairly hefty GDV on this, probably well above the quoted amount if they manage to achieve the monies they are looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Nov 20, 2016 10:57:19 GMT
I wonder if these loans will go live today, or drift on to be pre-funded.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 20, 2016 14:02:18 GMT
I wonder if these loans will go live today, or drift on to to.pre-owned. /Mod hat off We are all wondering the same thing, but the person(s) who know(s) CBA to tell us (again), apparently. Seems to be really hard for them to send a brief email, or post here; something like 'Sorry, delayed, probably Monday' would do it.
|
|
) required for 70% max. 
.
