cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jul 28, 2016 14:23:31 GMT
This Loan was REPAID (Before Drawdown - See update below) on 31/08/2016
| Loan Amount | : | £3,000,000
| | Security Value | : | £5,000,000
| | SS Indicated LTV | : | 60% | | 90 Day Market Valuation | : | £3,500,000
| | LTV Based on 90 day Market Valuation | : | 86% |
PLEASE NOTE : This post (and all my DD posts) are no longer being updated by myself (besides the basic loan status)
Loan Information & Observations
Borrower
- Our borrower is "B***** Retirement Villages - H**** B** Court Ltd"
- Via the Loan overview SS say that our borrower "is a highly experienced professional hotelier and property developer. He has been active in this business for some 35 years, initially in South Africa and subsequently in Europe, when together with his brothers, he owned, operated and redeveloped a number of hotels as well as financially seeded a large privately owned construction company, the P*********, which is now owned by a relative."
- A quick search of the above company finds that it was established on 30 August 2011, and has a single director (N****** B******) who is also 100% shareholder.
- There is little historic information about the above director, other than a Linkedin Page, that just repeats what SS have said. He does seem passionate about this development; a quick look online comes up with several news articles about this development, and he says "he has every interest in making the scheme work – because he plans to live there himself!" He goes on to say that "A third of any profits would be gifted back to the community."
Loan
- Our borrower will be re-financing away from another short-term lender to us.
- There would seem to be some inconsistencies between the loan overview, and the information provided by the valuation report. SS state that this loan is for the purpose of refinancing, however, the valuation report notes; "12.1 - We are informed that your customer is intending to purchase the freehold interest in this property. We have assumed that there is a good and marketable title being free from any charges or encumbrances that would deter an informed and prudent purchaser".
- Despite the above, the borrowers companies house listing does show a current charge against this security, so the above information in the valuation report seems to be wrong.
Security
- The property comprises a vacant site that was formerly occupied as a Christian holiday and conference centre until its closure in 2007. The site extends to a total 3.76 hectares (9.28 acres) and provides a mixture of residential and conference/holiday accommodation, together with a large area of open green space including tennis courts to the south-west of the site.
- PP to develop site into a residential care village.
- It is intended that this building excluding the extensions will be retained and extensively renovated to provide what will be known as Block A, The Clubhouse. All other buildings will be demolished.
Exit Strategy
- The Borrower will be selling the property onwards to a large property investment firm (which he has a joint venture agreement with). We have seen an offer confirming this arrangement. The new purchaser has already started their due diligence.
| Code Number Assigned | : | 28/07/16 | | Loan went live @ | : | 09/08/16 | | Allocation | : | 100% | | Amount of Investors @ Live | : | 1419 |
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Jul 28, 2016 14:37:37 GMT
Why doesn't @cooling_dude work for me? Perhaps because you don't pay him enough.  Try @"dnallov"
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jul 28, 2016 14:44:46 GMT
I liked the look of this one and the valuation looks sound and these retirement villages are all the rage.
The downside as mentioned above is that it seems the loan is being taken out to pay off a previous bridging loan. But we do have a 90 day marketing period valuation which is quite heavily discounted from the non time limited marketing period value and that is still higher than the proposed loan value. And we have 9 acres of land with planning permission for a Retirement Village development in a part of Kent on the coast that is popular with retired folk.
I'm reasonably ok with this one and I expect to be having a reasonable slice of the pie, although I would apply my usual care in insuring I dispose of my investment before the notional loan end date.
I think we have to accept that when we are looking for a 12% return on our investment that no loan is going to be perfect and I have seen a lot more dangerous looking proposals put forward than this one.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jul 28, 2016 19:15:09 GMT
- A quick search of the above company finds that it was established on 30 August 2011, and has a single director (N****** B******) who is also 100% shareholder. However, the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of S***** Capital Ltd., a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, and no information that I can find online.
- There would seem to be some inconsistencies between the loan overview, and the information provided by the valuation report. SS state that this loan is for the purpose of refinancing, however, the valuation report notes; "12.1 - We are informed that your customer is intending to purchase the freehold interest in this property. We have assumed that there is a good and marketable title being free from any charges or encumbrances that would deter an informed and prudent purchaser".
- Despite the above, the borrowers companies house listing does show a current charge against this security, so the above information in the valuation report seems to be wrong.
How can a company with a single director owning 100% of the company be a subsidiary of another company? Either the director owns all of it, or he doesn't. I haven't looked at the VR myself, so the following question might be rubbish... Might the VR have been prepared originally for the borrower before they bought the property and then subsequently reissued for SS without much/any updating?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jul 28, 2016 19:32:14 GMT
How can a company with a single director owning 100% of the company be a subsidiary of another company? Either the director owns all of it, or he doesn't. I'm not sure, but that's what is indicated on several websites that mine the information from companies house; that the director holds 100% of the shares but that S***** CAPITAL LTD is the "ultimate parent company", and also on the company accounts. However, after a quick search, the borrowers most recent accounts indicates that "During the period S***** Capital Ltd sold their shareholding and the company is no longer a subsidiary".
OP amended  The VR is current (dated May 2016), but may explain the inconsistency as the report does mention it valued the property previously ( "This property was previously valued for another lender on 6 March 2015 and 20 November 2015") and I note the current (earliest) charge is dated March 2015. Seems like a bad case of copy & pasting... 
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Aug 2, 2016 9:39:00 GMT
What happened to this loan  ? |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 2, 2016 9:58:28 GMT
What happened to this loan ? From the update e-mail from last week, SS said that this loan would likely to be going live sometime this week. We're now just waiting for the go-live e-mail
|
|
ped
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 84
|
Post by ped on Aug 2, 2016 14:11:35 GMT
Bottoms up or Percentage do you think?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 2, 2016 14:18:56 GMT
Bottoms up or Percentage do you think? Well above the 1m border, so will be percentage allocation
|
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Aug 2, 2016 23:32:44 GMT
I hope this one does go live this week as advised. We could do with some positive action this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by p2plender on Aug 3, 2016 6:42:18 GMT
Surely 'positive action' is a loan repayment or two and not another loan go live?
|
|
ped
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 84
|
Post by ped on Aug 3, 2016 8:05:43 GMT
Surely 'positive action' is a loan repayment or two and not another loan go live? Totally agree, new loans are nice but repayment is a must.
|
|
spyrogyra
Member of DD Central
Posts: 386
Likes: 148
|
Post by spyrogyra on Aug 3, 2016 10:47:31 GMT
Yep, very true. Won't let myself start on repayments or more precisely promises of repayments "imminently". Probably it is high time for a separate thread called "Repayments". I remember the times I was fooled by a repayment being "imminent", invested short term,exhausted my patience and had to sell. Last example of failed repayment was loan 19 - update said "payment in days, not weeks". That was more than 3 weeks ago.
|
|
spyrogyra
Member of DD Central
Posts: 386
Likes: 148
|
Post by spyrogyra on Aug 3, 2016 11:24:57 GMT
A very good idea. In this case probably there will be less flipping. And the newly generated loans must show the exact duration interest is paid for in advance ( a good hint about the borrower's ability to pay interest upfront for more than a month or two as it is in most cases currently)
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Aug 3, 2016 11:54:01 GMT
Yes, no more "new" money invested from me until some of my older loans start repaying. We need to see a more balanced outcome of the loan book, some new ones launched BUT the older ones being repaid. SS appear to have an extremely relaxed approach to "live" loans, just allowing them to continue without asking the lenders. Perhaps we should have an FS or MT approach where at the listed loan end date, the loan is reposted with those that do not want to continue to participate being repaid with new lenders taking their place.This could work for formal extensions where there are funds from the borrower or the platform to repay those who wish to be repaid, but I suspect most of the SS loans go overdue simply because the borrower cannot repay on time so is given more time as an alternative to declaring a default and seizing the asset.
|
|
?
