|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 13, 2016 21:46:43 GMT
Not much time to decide on PF. Do any of these look like they have a genuine LTV of 70%? As far as I'm concerned, the LTV should be calculated against the 9-day market value, which is 82% - 84% on all of these loans. 7, 8, 9 & 14 are valued against a lease extension that has yet to happen, so are ones to avoid. The rest look better than the above... which isn't saying much  7,8,9 & 10 are refurbishment "under way" which is also a negative.
So the better ones are IMO
113 & 115 both 4 bed mid terraces in Fulham ( freehold ) refurbished
111 & 112 both 2 bed flats in Notting Hill / Bayswater (c. 90 year leases) refurbished
EDIT 1:
Looking at the last sold prices of 113/115 £1.265m Sep 14 / £1.1M Jan 15 vs loan values 70% LTV £0.98m / £0.96m vs new 2016 valuation £1.4m / £1.4m
and the fact that 4 bed houses are in desperately short supply in inner London; these two look particularly solid. In my much cheaper area of inner London 4 bed freehold townhouses are selling for £0.9m to £1.2m.
EDIT 2:
111 as noted by investor is being sold and is under offer so will probably repay within a month to six weeks
112 is very close to the Paddington mainline tracks; noise disturbance is inevitable esp. in summer with open windows
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662 
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Jun 13, 2016 22:00:51 GMT
As far as I'm concerned, the LTV should be calculated against the 9-day market value, which is 82% - 84% on all of these loans. 7, 8, 9 & 14 are valued against a lease extension that has yet to happen, so are ones to avoid. The rest look better than the above... which isn't saying much 7,8,9 & 10 are refurbishment "under way" which is also a negative.
So the better ones are IMO
113 & 115 both 4 bed mid terraces in Fulham ( freehold ) refurbished
111 & 112 both 2 bed flats in Notting Hill / Bayswater (c. 90 year leases) refurbished
Looking at the last sold prices of 113/115 £1.265m Sep 14 / £1.1M Jan 15 vs loan values 70% LTV £0.98m / £0.96m vs new 1016 valuation £1.4m / £1.4m
and the fact that 4 bed houses are in desperately short supply in inner London; these two look particularly solid.
Except that 111 is likely to be sold within a month, and 113/115 are <1m so will be funded bottom up. Basically nothing there worth getting excited about
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 13, 2016 22:12:37 GMT
mrclondon is spot on in my opinion and knows his stuff. After completing my own checks and due diligence this evening I had pre-funded 113 and 115 and I left all the others out.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 13, 2016 22:19:09 GMT
mrclondon is spot on. After completing my own checks and due diligence this evening I have decided to pre-fund 113 and 115 and I have left all the others out. Shhh, don't tell everybody  I too have prefunded 113&115 only. Maybe the reason we need variable rates, to reflect risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenbiscuits on Jun 13, 2016 22:22:02 GMT
This is madness, if you don't check your email for 24 hours or less, you could end up with 9 (or more) times what you want and no opportunity to sell for 7 days.
Time to sit back and watch the chaos.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 13, 2016 22:22:19 GMT
mrclondon is spot on. After completing my own checks and due diligence this evening I have decided to pre-fund 113 and 115 and I have left all the others out. Shhh, don't tell everybody I too have prefunded 113&115 only. Maybe the reason we need variable rates, to reflect risk. It makes little difference; they'll both be bottoms up... However; we're looking at £500 each, and that suits me just fine for this borrower (avoiding the other loans).
|
|
NSFW
Posts: 118
Likes: 58
|
Post by NSFW on Jun 13, 2016 22:29:18 GMT
This is madness, if you don't check your email for 24 hours or less, you could end up with 9 (or more) times what you want and no opportunity to sell for 7 days. Time to sit back and watch the chaos. So keep the general pre-fund at zero and manually pre-fund instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by silvermachine on Jun 13, 2016 22:29:19 GMT
Definitely 1 borrower - all properties are listed together as "asset to be valued" in valuation of Carrington Rd and I'm guessing the other valuations too
Think I'll be following a cautious approach here!! 
Off to reset pipeloan!
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 13, 2016 22:30:18 GMT
Shhh, don't tell everybody I too have prefunded 113&115 only. Maybe the reason we need variable rates, to reflect risk. It makes little difference; they'll both be bottoms up... However; we're looking at £500 each, and that suits me just fine for this borrower (avoiding the other loans). Eh? If these 2 were listed at 10%, then demand would be lower, and you would get more. My point is a lot of us "chery pick" the best loans, and variable rates would reflect risk, like other sites.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jun 13, 2016 22:35:06 GMT
There is no saying, that the security within 7, 8, 9 & 14 haven't had a lease extension (since the valuation report). Maybe that is why SS asked for it to be valued as such; because they gave instruction to the borrower that the loans(s) will only be provided against the security if and when the lease extensions have been completed... and maybe that was completed today I've dropped them an e-mail asking if 7, 8, 9 & 14 have had their leases extended or not. It is indeed quite possible that the leases have been extended and the refurbishments completed since the valuations were performed; but we should not be asked to assume it. At the least, if material changes have occurred, SS should document them, without any need for prompting.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 13, 2016 22:36:32 GMT
Yes great minds think alike. I have pre funded 113 and 115 by a little over 500 with the hope I may get 400 to 500 in each of them. I don't think anyone will get more with the bottom-up allocation.
But even that sort of amount will be helpful in terms of enabling me to sell off bits in older loans and overall I regard such a manoeuvre as being risk reducing rather than risk increasing in terms of my overall saving stream portfolio.
I will be very interested to see if some of the bigger loans against the leasehold flats are fully subscribed or if for the first time in a long time we see an under fund from investors. £12 million becoming up for grabs in one day must be a first for this platform.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 13, 2016 22:41:03 GMT
It makes little difference; they'll both be bottoms up... However; we're looking at £500 each, and that suits me just fine for this borrower (avoiding the other loans). Eh? If these 2 were listed at 10%, then demand would be lower, and you would get more. My point is a lot of us "chery pick" the best loans, and variable rates would reflect risk, like other sites. I wasn't talking about your 10% comment, more the Shhh, don't tell everybody.I agree with your cherry picking methodology considering that all loans are 12%, and which is the reason I would prefer the current system remains (fixed rate). However with 113 & 115, I would be cautious due to the borrower being linked to the other loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 13, 2016 22:50:25 GMT
As well as the four I've already highlighted, another couple are worthy of some consideration pending a reply to cooling_dude's email regarding the leases. The refurbs were clearly under way in the photos so may be largely completed by now.
108:
3 bed flat in Chelsea (border of Belgravia) 84 year lease remaining so OK for residential mortgages (just, many cut off at 75 years to allow 50+ years at maturity) so lease extension under discussion not essential Last sold £1.9m Mar 15 vs 70% LTV loan = £1.82m vs £2.6m post refurb + extended lease value
110:
2 bed flat in West Brompton which is actually the lower ground floor of a large house and has an outside terrace. 981 year lease Last sold £1.3245m vs 70% LTV loan = £1.205m vs £1.722m post refurb value
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 13, 2016 22:53:21 GMT
I share CD's concern about the borrower being associated with the other much riskier looking loans and that is and was a concern of mine. However in view of the reasonable looking security against the 2 I am backing and the fact that I won't get more than a few hundred in either of them and always sell out before loan maturity date, I have decided to take a punt on them to enable me hopefully to reduce a little bit in one or two older loans I hold. Although I fear liquidity may not be so great for a few days after this big launch all at once.
If I knew for certain there would be other better opportunities coming up in the next week or two I may have sat these out but tonight i see a 12% cherry on the tree and I feel an urge to pick it. As others have said recently, it's quite hard to sit things out all together when you've been enjoying the taste for a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 13, 2016 23:07:03 GMT
As well as the four I've already highlighted, another couple are worthy of some consideration pending a reply to cooling_dude's email regarding the leases. The refurbs were clearly under way in the photos so may be largely completed by now.
108:
3 bed flat in Chelsea (border of Belgravia) 84 year lease remaining so OK for residential mortgages (just, many cut off at 75 years to allow 50+ years at maturity) so lease extension under discussion not essential Last sold £1.9m Mar 15 vs 70% LTV loan = £1.82m vs £2.6m post refurb + extended lease value
110:
2 bed flat in West Brompton which is actually the lower ground floor of a large house and has an outside terrace. 981 year lease Last sold £1.3245m vs 70% LTV loan = £1.205m vs £1.722m post refurb value Yes, I had a pre fund on 108 until the last minute when I decided to only stick with the two houses. But I must have felt ok with the 108 security because after my first review of the loans I had pre funded 108, 113 and 115.
|
|
I too have prefunded 113&115 only. Maybe the reason we need variable rates, to reflect risk.
