adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014 
Likes: 5,141
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 18, 2016 10:54:09 GMT
(I didn't like to say anything, but I was wondering where your LTVs were coming from...)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,141
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 18, 2016 10:55:19 GMT
SIMPLE MESSAGE TO SS. could you please provide below. 1. valuation with rc's in place 2. valuation with rc's removed. thanks for your attention. They've already done that. Valuation with RC in place or no PP = "continuing office use" Valuation with RC removed and PP (likely or granted) = the others.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 18, 2016 10:59:45 GMT
(I didn't like to say anything, but I was wondering where your LTVs were coming from...) 90% SS sending conflicting information; 10% Brandy 
|
|
brin
I am trying to stay calm.
Posts: 379
Likes: 69
|
Post by brin on Mar 18, 2016 11:01:21 GMT
SIMPLE MESSAGE TO SS. could you please provide below. 1. valuation with rc's in place 2. valuation with rc's removed. thanks for your attention. They've already done that. Valuation with RC in place or no PP = "continuing office use" Valuation with RC removed and PP (likely or granted) = the others. i like figures in pounds and pence 
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 11:08:19 GMT
I'm staying out of the valuation discussion (and the pre-funding) until SS provide further information to sort this valuation saga out.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Mar 18, 2016 11:36:55 GMT
I'm staying out of the valuation discussion (and the pre-funding) until SS provide further information to sort this valuation saga out. What saga? We said that the old vals (now removed and replaced) got knocked by 20% to take into account the RCs currently in place and that the new vals which are live, are accurate and take into account the RCs. Thus we are lending with the RCs in place at a 70% LTV as usual. The upside is that within 3 months we hope to have the RCs removed, or in 2 years as a backstop the value will be plus £12m on both of the units.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,141
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Mar 18, 2016 11:44:58 GMT
We said that the old vals (now removed and replaced) got knocked by 20% to take into account the RCs currently in place and that the new vals which are live, are accurate and take into account the RCs. OK, great. Well, hold on one minute... While the RCs are in place, surely the "continuing office use" value is the relevant one? When the RCs are removed AND PP is granted, THEN the other valuations come into play - giving the 70% LTV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 12:19:05 GMT
I'm staying out of the valuation discussion (and the pre-funding) until SS provide further information to sort this valuation saga out. What saga? We said that the old vals (now removed and replaced) got knocked by 20% to take into account the RCs currently in place and that the new vals which are live, are accurate and take into account the RCs. Thus we are lending with the RCs in place at a 70% LTV as usual. The upside is that within 3 months we hope to have the RCs removed, or in 2 years as a backstop the value will be plus £12m on both of the units. The knowledgeable ilmoro summed it up better than I can - Mar 17, 2016 19:56:57 GMT ilmoro said: ' I havent changed the figures on the updates list since the valuations first appeared and they are identical to the ones currently shown on site. The loans have increased, the LTV has increased as a result but the valautions are the same so I just cant see where this 20% reduction has appeared from unless there were earlier valuations which we never saw. The original value in 1/2 update for unit 4 was 5m so there has been a 12% decrease in that one but the valuation for unit 3 was 8m so thats increased by 10% Going to just have to trust SS on this one, which hasnt worked out too badly so far. '
|
|
brin
I am trying to stay calm.
Posts: 379
Likes: 69
|
Post by brin on Mar 18, 2016 13:00:50 GMT
did not get any simple figures, but hey ho, it looks like the position is as i earlier thought, all seems fine, onwards and upwards |
|
max
Posts: 75
Likes: 47
|
Post by max on Mar 18, 2016 17:34:11 GMT
Well, hold on one minute... While the RCs are in place, surely the "continuing office use" value is the relevant one? When the RCs are removed AND PP is granted, THEN the other valuations come into play - giving the 70% LTV. No. The continuing office use value is not the price I would pay for a commercial property with forthcoming change of use to residential. We can argue on the appropriate discounting factor for the value attached to the change of use, but such a value will materialize eventually - in 3 months or 2 years. IMHO SS 20% discount is not unreasonable. Here is where I'm confused though: Did SS effectively reduce the value of PBL087-8 by 20% form initial listing to reflect updated evaluation report? (I haven't noticed any change) Perhaps, the value of PBL087-88 was already discounted by 20% since initial listing in the pipelines? (a bit too forward looking) Or perhaps, someone at the top said "reduce total value of the loans and increase their LTV", and someone at the bottom heard only the last bit? It would be great if savingstream could clarify so we can put an end to.. the saga 
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 18, 2016 18:55:57 GMT
savingstream whether or not you view this as a saga is immaterial, the fact is we have arrived at a situation where a fair number of people are confused and unwilling to commit to these loans. Painful as it might be, it would really helpful to prepare a small table setting out the history of both loans ... showing the valuations for each assumption you received at given date vs the proposed loan size. My guess is the position is obvious from your point of view, but we simply can't see the wood for the trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Mar 18, 2016 19:54:52 GMT
savingstream whether or not you view this as a saga is immaterial, the fact is we have arrived at a situation where a fair number of people are confused and unwilling to commit to these loans. Painful as it might be, it would really helpful to prepare a small table setting out the history of both loans ... showing the valuations for each assumption you received at given date vs the proposed loan size. My guess is the position is obvious from your point of view, but we simply can't see the wood for the trees.
Value without any RCs in place - £8.815m Value (today) with 2 years to run until RCs expire - £7.45m Value on SS - £8.815m Unit 4
Value without any RCs in place - £4.4m Value (today) with 2 years to run until RCs expire - £3.275m Value on SS - £4.4m Reasoning - it is our commercial decision to offer a loan on this property based on the original figures as the RCs are a diminishing and finite risk. When our loan needs renewing or repaying at 12 months, the customer will pay us for another 12 months in interest and fees and we will run with this for another 12 months. By that time, the RCs will have expired, our customer will have removed the RCs, or he will have achieved the uplift in the planning. It is our COMMERCIAL DECISION based on the information that we have, with the professional abilities of this borrower at the forefront in our minds, that this decision is sound. Prefunding - You will again be surprised at how popular this loan is. Confusion - Apologies for any caused. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 18, 2016 20:26:44 GMT
Well thanks, that's pretty clear, and assuming you have 12 months interest retained upfront, I for one will be happy to have a small nibble. It is a tad confusing though when the asset value, and thus the LTV, turns out to be based on a future valuation of a 'what if / when' kind, rather than a straight-forward 'what will it sell for today' version (PBL83 had that problem in spades, iirc).
|
|
brin
I am trying to stay calm.
Posts: 379
Likes: 69
|
Post by brin on Mar 18, 2016 20:50:04 GMT
i wondered why my simple question was not answered, cool_dude, i am thinking you were correct, if i read this correctly, the loan has been issued on the higher valuation and assumptions of an actual ltv of 80+% seem correct.
the statement clearly says "Value (today) with 2 years to run until RCs expire - £7.45m"
the loan is being or has been issued today with a valuation assuming no RCs are in place. thus value of £8.815m
please everyone, i am here to be corrected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 20:53:08 GMT
Thank you Saving Stream, the valuations saga (misunderstanding) is over. |
|
