Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 17, 2016 18:07:37 GMT
Any thoughts on (e.g. how or why SS has negotiated) the (nominal) LTV of 58%? (Not that 58% (nominal) isn't welcome - I reckon 60% or 65% is more appropriate in the current climate.) If there is a loss Savingstream need to "Top up" the provision fund, so a loss on an asset in a worst case senario costs Savingstream money, so maybe they aren't comfortable lending more than 58%. Also the 58% could jump to 70% after we get the valuation report, we have seen this before.
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Jun 17, 2016 18:26:21 GMT
I am puzzled and concerned that (for PBL116 Luton at least), SS states "The borrower is using the [loan] to purchase the property...", whereas the valuation states "We note that the applicants purchased the property on 6th April 2016 ...". The word "applicants" is ambiguous - it cannot refer to SS, so I must assume iy refers to the loan applicants. This is the standard way that these valuation report refers to the borrower. If you read the 2nd page of the valuation report, you will note that SS & Lendy are refered to as the 'client' and that the borrower is referred to as the 'applicant'. Complacency creeping in, cooling_dude? The SS info says within an inch that the the loan is for refurbishing and then it's for purchase. If SS don't know, how are we supposed to?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 17, 2016 18:31:36 GMT
This is the standard way that these valuation report refers to the borrower. If you read the 2nd page of the valuation report, you will note that SS & Lendy are refered to as the 'client' and that the borrower is referred to as the 'applicant'. Complacency creeping in, cooling_dude ? The SS info says within an inch that the the loan is for refurbishing and then it's for purchase. If SS don't know, how are we supposed to? I'm only just getting started I did note that, and it does seem strange. I'm just starting on the other valuation reports and note that the overviews for each loan look copied and pasted... so was wondering if one or more of the properties were being purchased the borrower and that PBL116 was already owned.
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 17, 2016 18:35:12 GMT
This is the standard way that these valuation report refers to the borrower. If you read the 2nd page of the valuation report, you will note that SS & Lendy are refered to as the 'client' and that the borrower is referred to as the 'applicant'. Complacency creeping in, cooling_dude ? The SS info says within an inch that the the loan is for refurbishing and then it's for purchase. If SS don't know, how are we supposed to? By doing our own DD? The borrower has recently bought the Luton property as there is a charge against the borrower registered at Companies House.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 17, 2016 18:41:01 GMT
Complacency creeping in, cooling_dude ? The SS info says within an inch that the the loan is for refurbishing and then it's for purchase. If SS don't know, how are we supposed to? By doing our own DD? The borrower has recently bought the Luton property as there is a charge against the borrower registered at Companies House. And is also noted in the valuation report for PBL116 I've got a feeling this is just a case of bad copy & pasting...
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 17, 2016 18:56:12 GMT
Complacency creeping in, cooling_dude ? The SS info says within an inch that the the loan is for refurbishing and then it's for purchase. If SS don't know, how are we supposed to? By doing our own DD? The borrower has recently bought the Luton property as there is a charge against the borrower registered at Companies House. Something I can't get my head around... V** P****** 3 Limited (our borrower) is owned by V** D*********** PLC. V** D*********** PLC current has a charge of PBL116 (why would a parent company have a charge against a property that is owned by its junior company?)
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 17, 2016 19:01:36 GMT
By doing our own DD? The borrower has recently bought the Luton property as there is a charge against the borrower registered at Companies House. Something I can't get my head around... V** P****** 3 Limited (our borrower) is owned by VIA D*********** PLC. VIA D*********** PLC current has first charge of PBL116.Why? Why? Yep, i'm confussed too.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 17, 2016 19:04:37 GMT
Also, there is a lender that has a charger against PBL116...
Charge was delivered on 20 April 2016; why does the borrower need to refinance with Lendy so soon?
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 17, 2016 19:05:54 GMT
PBL116
Borrower
The borrower is using the bridge to refurbish the property.
Purpose of Borrowing
The borrower is using the bridge to purchase the property and then to refinance and develop.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 17, 2016 19:10:50 GMT
By doing our own DD? The borrower has recently bought the Luton property as there is a charge against the borrower registered at Companies House. Something I can't get my head around... V** P****** 3 Limited (our borrower) is owned by VIA D*********** PLC. VIA D*********** PLC current has a charge of PBL116 (why would a parent company have a charge against a property that is owned by its junior company?) Put the F brandy down! We need investment advise. Good job you have endemnity.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 17, 2016 19:14:51 GMT
By doing our own DD? The borrower has recently bought the Luton property as there is a charge against the borrower registered at Companies House. Something I can't get my head around... V** P****** 3 Limited (our borrower) is owned by V** D*********** PLC. V** D*********** PLC current has a charge of PBL116 (why would a parent company have a charge against a property that is owned by its junior company?) The parent company appears to have lent the borrower money/offered a loan facility (its an SPV I suspect) to make the initial purchase maybe (along with another lender) and secured the loan with a charge on the property. SS loan will refinance these loans I assume and cover refurb. Might be why the loan purpose is confusing - purchase, refinace, refurb
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Jun 17, 2016 19:14:55 GMT
Also, there is a lender that has a charger against PBL116... Charge was delivered on 20 April 2016; why does the borrower need to refinance with Lendy so soon?
The same situation as for V** P****** 1 Ltd.
There is another lender that is being taken out for some reason. I am assuming V** D*********** are second charges to provide some security for some funding that has been put in, but it's not very clear.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jun 17, 2016 19:15:20 GMT
Liz & ilmoro ... Do me a favour and add some stars (V**) to my quoted comments in your post... or you'll get me in trouble with the MODs 
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Jun 17, 2016 19:25:16 GMT
Liz & ilmoro ... Do me a favour and add some stars (V**) to my quoted comments in your post... or you'll get me in trouble with the MODs I dont need to, the mods are watching you and your"freinds" like a hawk. Now do some DD.
|
|
markdirac
Member of DD Central
Posts: 128
Likes: 51
|
Post by markdirac on Jun 17, 2016 19:26:53 GMT
Any thoughts on (e.g. how or why SS has negotiated) the (nominal) LTV of 58%? (Not that 58% (nominal) isn't welcome - I reckon 60% or 65% is more appropriate in the current climate.) Eh ? Why would you want a higher LTV  ? Sorry jimbob. Less ambiguous edit: "Not that 58% (nominal) isn't welcome - I reckon 60% or 65% is generally more appropriate than SS's typical 70% in the current climate." I like Liz's suggestion that because of the PF, the risk is primarily SS's, and so perhaps SS "aren't comfortable lending more than 58%". If correct, then why would SS be less comfortable with this loan? Because of Brexit? Or something else?
|
|
?