|
|
Post by jonboy73 on Aug 9, 2016 13:19:20 GMT
looks like it's selling pretty well on the SM down to 336k
I wonder if many people have foregone pre-funding and all it's associated gaming/guesswork to just wait and buy what they actually want on the SM.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Aug 9, 2016 14:44:27 GMT
There was no gaming/guesswork on this one, since it was bottom up allocated (which is why I'm a big advocate for doing it that way). OK, the distribution to the biggest 10-30 lenders might be different from % allocation, but I doubt they do much worse once the game playing is eliminated (on this occasion they apparently got what they wanted too).
|
|
stokeloans
Member of DD Central
Posts: 402 
Likes: 485
|
Post by stokeloans on Aug 9, 2016 15:59:45 GMT
The key question for savingstream is: For PBL 124, how do you account for a reported Land Registry purchase price of £2,885,000 on 20 March 2015 and the SS market valuation of £5,000,000 dated 27 May 2016? Was the purchase price of £2,885,000 some type of option price that was paid by the borrower that was agreed prior to planning permission being granted on 3 December 2014? This is the very question I am waiting on for an answer before I invest. It's basic 'discrepencies' like this that is worrying me with SS at the moment
|
|
micky
Member of DD Central
Posts: 669
Likes: 572
|
Post by micky on Aug 9, 2016 19:25:27 GMT
Tim's reply to my query about the method of loan allocation-
The loan was only circa. 90% filled so it made no difference if the loan was bottom filled or proportionally filled as all investors were allocated what they wished. We are considering moving all loans to the bottom fill method.
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Aug 9, 2016 19:26:46 GMT
The key question for savingstream is: For PBL 124, how do you account for a reported Land Registry purchase price of £2,885,000 on 20 March 2015 and the SS market valuation of £5,000,000 dated 27 May 2016? Was the purchase price of £2,885,000 some type of option price that was paid by the borrower that was agreed prior to planning permission being granted on 3 December 2014? This is the very question I am waiting on for an answer before I invest. It's basic 'discrepencies' like this that is worrying me with SS at the moment
I commented yesterday that that the borrower was involved with the property prior to purchase in March 2015. In fact the borrower has been involved since at least mid 2012 (there was an earlier planning application that was rejected). I hope you will agree that it is rather unlikely that the borrower would go to the expense of obtaining planning permission on a property he did not own unless he had an agreement with the previous owner to buy it.
Here's the proof of the pre-purchase involvement:
The brochure document states that the borrowing company is part of P*******-T* group. Look up the planning application on the Canterbury City Council website and see this group named as the applicant. Alternatively do a internet search for the planning consultant/architect (mentioned on page 12 of the valuation document) then do a search within the site using the name of the development and the above group is disclosed as the client.
|
|
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 Aug 9, 2016 19:32:58 GMT
This is the very question I am waiting on for an answer before I invest. It's basic 'discrepencies' like this that is worrying me with SS at the moment
I commented yesterday that that the borrower was involved with the property prior to purchase in March 2015. In fact the borrower has been involved since at least mid 2012 (there was an earlier planning application that was rejected). I hope you will agree that it is rather unlikely that the borrower would go to the expense of obtaining planning permission on a property he did not own unless he had an agreement with the previous owner to buy it.
Here's the proof of the pre-purchase involvement:
The brochure document states that the borrowing company is part of P*******-T* group. Look up the planning application on the Canterbury City Council website and see this group named as the applicant. Alternatively do a internet search for the planning consultant/architect (mentioned on page 12 of the valuation document) then do a search within the site using the name of the development and the above group is disclosed as the client.
Director of borrower is/was also boss of P-T group (cant seem to get access to their website)
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Aug 9, 2016 21:12:50 GMT
Tim's reply to my query about the method of loan allocation- The loan was only circa. 90% filled so it made no difference if the loan was bottom filled or proportionally filled as all investors were allocated what they wished. We are considering moving all loans to the bottom fill method. Filling all loans bottom-up ought to kill the problem of people ending up with more than they expected and then failing to pay.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 9, 2016 21:16:41 GMT
Tim's reply to my query about the method of loan allocation- The loan was only circa. 90% filled so it made no difference if the loan was bottom filled or proportionally filled as all investors were allocated what they wished. We are considering moving all loans to the bottom fill method. Filling all loans bottom-up ought to kill the problem of people ending up with more than they expected and then failing to pay. I suspect it will also put off the BHs who will move onto platforms where they face fewer restrictions.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Aug 9, 2016 21:23:02 GMT
Tim's reply to my query about the method of loan allocation- The loan was only circa. 90% filled so it made no difference if the loan was bottom filled or proportionally filled as all investors were allocated what they wished. We are considering moving all loans to the bottom fill method. Filling all loans bottom-up ought to kill the problem of people ending up with more than they expected and then failing to pay. Very true. And it saves SS a lot of time, reversing all those transactions of people who didn't pay.
|
|
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 Aug 9, 2016 21:27:59 GMT
I commented yesterday that that the borrower was involved with the property prior to purchase in March 2015. In fact the borrower has been involved since at least mid 2012 (there was an earlier planning application that was rejected). I hope you will agree that it is rather unlikely that the borrower would go to the expense of obtaining planning permission on a property he did not own unless he had an agreement with the previous owner to buy it.
Here's the proof of the pre-purchase involvement:
The brochure document states that the borrowing company is part of P*******-T* group. Look up the planning application on the Canterbury City Council website and see this group named as the applicant. Alternatively do a internet search for the planning consultant/architect (mentioned on page 12 of the valuation document) then do a search within the site using the name of the development and the above group is disclosed as the client.
Some good sleuthing there, meledor , thanks. I agree it seems unlikely that the borrower would go to the trouble of getting PP if there wasn't some agreement in place with the previous owner, especially given the borrower's pre-purchase involvement. But rather than having to infer this, I think it is perfectly reasonable for savingstream to provide us with confirmation that such an option to buy was indeed in place and that it explains the difference in purchase price of £2,885,000 in 2015 and SS's market valuation of £5,000,000 in 2016. Question has been asked, wait to see if I get a response, otherwise CD will have to do it as they like him 
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Aug 9, 2016 21:36:21 GMT
Some good sleuthing there, meledor , thanks. I agree it seems unlikely that the borrower would go to the trouble of getting PP if there wasn't some agreement in place with the previous owner, especially given the borrower's pre-purchase involvement. But rather than having to infer this, I think it is perfectly reasonable for savingstream to provide us with confirmation that such an option to buy was indeed in place and that it explains the difference in purchase price of £2,885,000 in 2015 and SS's market valuation of £5,000,000 in 2016.
Why? It sounds like you expect SS to not only offer you the chance to invest in the loan but do your DD for you.
Remember it wasn't too long ago that we didn't get to know the identity of the borrower. Now apparently SS, according to some, need to check that the borrower meets an as-yet-unspecified ethical checklist, and also disclose the commercial (and possibly confidential) arrangements the borrower made with the previous owner of the property.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Aug 9, 2016 21:55:30 GMT
Some good sleuthing there, meledor , thanks. I agree it seems unlikely that the borrower would go to the trouble of getting PP if there wasn't some agreement in place with the previous owner, especially given the borrower's pre-purchase involvement. But rather than having to infer this, I think it is perfectly reasonable for savingstream to provide us with confirmation that such an option to buy was indeed in place and that it explains the difference in purchase price of £2,885,000 in 2015 and SS's market valuation of £5,000,000 in 2016. otherwise CD will have to do it as they like him And i am glad they do, saves me a lot of time and effort. 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Aug 9, 2016 22:14:20 GMT
Some good sleuthing there, meledor , thanks. I agree it seems unlikely that the borrower would go to the trouble of getting PP if there wasn't some agreement in place with the previous owner, especially given the borrower's pre-purchase involvement. But rather than having to infer this, I think it is perfectly reasonable for savingstream to provide us with confirmation that such an option to buy was indeed in place and that it explains the difference in purchase price of £2,885,000 in 2015 and SS's market valuation of £5,000,000 in 2016. Question has been asked, wait to see if I get a response, otherwise CD will have to do it as they like him I've always had a reply from SS when I send a question via e-mail.. Maybe you just have to ask the question differently... My e-mails to SS are always informal... That always does the trick.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Aug 9, 2016 22:22:32 GMT
Some good sleuthing there, meledor , thanks. I agree it seems unlikely that the borrower would go to the trouble of getting PP if there wasn't some agreement in place with the previous owner, especially given the borrower's pre-purchase involvement. But rather than having to infer this, I think it is perfectly reasonable for savingstream to provide us with confirmation that such an option to buy was indeed in place and that it explains the difference in purchase price of £2,885,000 in 2015 and SS's market valuation of £5,000,000 in 2016.
It sounds like you expect SS to not only offer you the chance to invest in the loan but do your DD for you.
Considering it is my money.. thats exactly what i expect.
|
|
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 Aug 9, 2016 23:04:03 GMT
Its a question of lender confidence and lender education/understanding. There is a considerable discrepancy between the last attained market price and the valuation even if that valuation appears well supported. This isnt the first time such discrepancies have arisen Scottish Leisure was pulled because of a similiar gulf between attained price & valuation, and questions have been raised about discrepancies with PBL123, PBL64, PBL20, and doubts cast on PBL56
Its not really DD that lenders can do as it is probably due to circumstances that cant be found out through public domain enquires: options, related party transactions, debt forgiveness, prepack administration and therefore it would be beneficial to SS just to slay the elephant in the room and provide a little more background if possible.
|
|
