cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 13, 2016 9:12:12 GMT
This Loan Is LIVE
| Loan Amount | : | £ | 1,779,000
| | Security Value | : | £ | 2,965,000
| | SS Indicated LTV | : |
| 60% | | 90 Day Market Valuation | : | £ | 2,620,000
| | LTV Based on 90 day Market Valuation | : |
| 68% | | Term | : |
| 274 days
|
PLEASE NOTE : This post (and all my DD posts) are no longer being updated by myself (besides the basic loan status)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 - C********** J*** F***
- SS state that our borrower is a wealthy landowner from East Sussex. He has a background in property development and buying/selling trading businesses.
- Despite our borrower not being a company, he is involved in a couple of property related businesses where he is a director.
Loan
- This loan is a relaunch (not a rollover) of PBL052. Saving stream will be increasing the loan and the will have the first charge on the security as opposed to the current second charge. It will be relaunched with a 9-month term
- It is also connected to PBL051
- SS state that our borrower is keen to keep the woodlands as part of his overall investment portfolio
Security
- When carrying out your own DD please note that the postcode is TN6 *** not TH6 *** as indicated in the valuation report
- The Woods comprises of 502 acres of commercial and amenity woodland, a lake and a range of associated buildings, which form part of a wider agricultural, equestrian and residential estate holding.
- The difference between the market value when PBL052 valuation report was released (July 2015 - £2,200,000) and this current valuation report (August 2016 - £2,965,000) is £765,000. That's quite an increase in just one year.
Exit Strategy
- The borrower will be selling off parts of his portfolio.
| Code Number Assigned | : | 13/09/16 | | Loan went live @ | : | 14/09/16 | | Allocation | : | £2400 | | Amount of Investors @ Live | : | 1942 |
If you require any citation for the above information please PM me  . Any observations you have please be sure to post it in this thread and I will try to add it to this overview.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Sept 13, 2016 9:15:05 GMT
Will it really be launched |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 13, 2016 9:18:08 GMT
Will it really be launched Just got the e-mail. To be launched tomorrow... No update in regards to the whereabouts of PBL130 
|
|
|
|
Post by geraldine1210 on Sept 13, 2016 9:19:35 GMT
Will it really be launched Tomorrow is the big day (or not)
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Sept 13, 2016 9:20:10 GMT
I know i got the same email.
Just wondering if it will be forgotten like PBL130.
|
|
bloodycat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 184
Likes: 84
|
Post by bloodycat on Sept 13, 2016 10:01:32 GMT
The valuation in appendix 5 appears more in keeping with that given for PBL052, and also what I would be inclined to use as the basis for my LTV calculations which puts it at 71% or (84% on 90 day basis).
I might stick a little bit in just to soak up some of my excess funds, but certainly won't put in as much as on most of my other loans.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 13, 2016 10:09:47 GMT
The valuation in appendix 5 appears more in keeping with that given for PBL052, and also what I would be inclined to use as the basis for my LTV calculations which puts it at 71% or (84% on 90 day basis). I might stick a little bit in just to soak up some of my excess funds, but certainly won't put in as much as on most of my other loans. It does make you wonder why SS didn't use the same surveyor from PBL052 to carry out an updated valuation for this loan... The same wonderment applies for PBL054 > PBL131....
|
|
bloodycat
Member of DD Central
Posts: 184
Likes: 84
|
Post by bloodycat on Sept 13, 2016 11:25:53 GMT
It does make you wonder why SS didn't use the same surveyor from PBL052 to carry out an updated valuation for this loan... The same wonderment applies for PBL054 > PBL131.... I suspect because it would be much harder for them to justify such a large increase over their previous valuation in order to meet the desire to have sub-70% LTV. It's not like the market for such plots of land has changed significantly over the last year, much easier for another company to justify using slightly different assumptions since valuation is more of an art than a science, presenting the available data and validating assumptions in such a way as to support the given valuation.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 13, 2016 11:56:00 GMT
The valuation in appendix 5 appears more in keeping with that given for PBL052, and also what I would be inclined to use as the basis for my LTV calculations which puts it at 71% or (84% on 90 day basis). I might stick a little bit in just to soak up some of my excess funds, but certainly won't put in as much as on most of my other loans. It does make you wonder why SS didn't use the same surveyor from PBL052 to carry out an updated valuation for this loan... The same wonderment applies for PBL054 > PBL131.... The valuer for PBL052 subcontracted evaluation of the woodlands (but so did this one) - at least on a first glance it's a better report, except for the generous valuation at £5,000 per acre. (The suggestion that the post-Brexit devaluation of sterling leads to an increase in prices for forestry products might justify adding a bit to the price. On the other hand some of the woodland is unworkable, so should be valued at a considerable discount, and there seems to be a degree of problems with undermanagment and disease.) 500 acres as £5,000 per acre only comes to £2,500,000 so there must be an element for something else in the valuation. I don't see an explanation, but the buildings and licenses presumably do count for something.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 13, 2016 12:18:00 GMT
It does make you wonder why SS didn't use the same surveyor from PBL052 to carry out an updated valuation for this loan... The same wonderment applies for PBL054 > PBL131.... The valuer for PBL052 subcontracted evaluation of the woodlands (but so did this one) - at least on a first glance it's a better report, except for the generous valuation at £5,000 per acre. (The suggestion that the post-Brexit devaluation of sterling leads to an increase in prices for forestry products might justify adding a bit to the price. On the other hand some of the wood is unworkable, so should be valued at a considerable discount, and there seems to be a degree of problems with undermanagment and disease.) 500 acres as £5,000 per acre only comes to £2,500,000 so there must be an element for something else in the valuation. I don't see an explanation, but the buildings and licenses presumably do count for something. Interestingly the VR for PBL052 states that the land has a value in the region of "£2,200,000 reflecting broadly £4000 per acre". Which is either wrong (£4000/ acre would amount to £2,000,000) or I'm missing something. I wonder if the additional value comes via the lake; I note the VR states that " The lake is stocked and leased for fishing". It has a current rent @ £ 2,750 per annum (which has been in effect since 1 June 2013). I will have another read later today to see what I can find.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 13, 2016 12:29:11 GMT
The valuer for PBL052 subcontracted evaluation of the woodlands (but so did this one) - at least on a first glance it's a better report, except for the generous valuation at £5,000 per acre. (The suggestion that the post-Brexit devaluation of sterling leads to an increase in prices for forestry products might justify adding a bit to the price. On the other hand some of the wood is unworkable, so should be valued at a considerable discount, and there seems to be a degree of problems with undermanagment and disease.) 500 acres as £5,000 per acre only comes to £2,500,000 so there must be an element for something else in the valuation. I don't see an explanation, but the buildings and licenses presumably do count for something. Interestingly the VR for PBL052 states that the land has a value in the region of "£2,200,000 reflecting broadly £4000 per acre". Which is either wrong (£4000/ acre would amount to £2,000,000) or I'm missing something. I wonder if the additional value comes via the lake; I note the VR states that " The lake is stocked and leased for fishing". It has a current rent @ £ 2,750 per annum (which has been in effect since 1 June 2013). I will have another read later today to see what I can find. At that rent the lake is worth about £35,000 or £17,500 per acre. So it only adds £25,000 to the valuation. I'd guess that the buildings are the major part of the missing elements of the valuation. The values of the other elements seems to having jumped from £200,000 to £450,000 between the two valuations.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 13, 2016 12:31:41 GMT
Interestingly the VR for PBL052 states that the land has a value in the region of "£2,200,000 reflecting broadly £4000 per acre". Which is either wrong (£4000/ acre would amount to £2,000,000) or I'm missing something. I wonder if the additional value comes via the lake; I note the VR states that " The lake is stocked and leased for fishing". It has a current rent @ £ 2,750 per annum (which has been in effect since 1 June 2013). I will have another read later today to see what I can find. At that rent the lake is worth about £35,000 or £17,500 per acre. So it only adds £25,000 to the valuation. I'd guess that the buildings are the major part of the missing elements of the valuation. The values of the other elements seems to having jumped from £200,000 to £450,000 between the two valuations. It seems the added value is not in the lake or the buildings...
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 13, 2016 12:47:52 GMT
At that rent the lake is worth about £35,000 or £17,500 per acre. So it only adds £25,000 to the valuation. I'd guess that the buildings are the major part of the missing elements of the valuation. The values of the other elements seems to having jumped from £200,000 to £450,000 between the two valuations. It seems the added value is not in the lake or the buildings... I believe that you have misinterpreted this. It is from the subcontracted forestry report - the subcontractor values the woodlands alone at £2,500,000. It says nothing about what the value the valuer has placed on the other elements. Another discrepancy - the acreage has reduced from 518.66 to 502 (presumably ±0.5)
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Sept 13, 2016 12:58:21 GMT
It seems the added value is not in the lake or the buildings... I believe that you have misinterpreted this. It is from the subcontracted forestry report - the subcontractor values the woodlands alone at £2,500,000. It says nothing about what the value the valuer has placed on the other elements. Another discrepancy - the acreage has reduced from 518.66 to 502 (presumably ±0.5) Fair enough... The fact that the forestry report values the land @ 2.5m, and specifically states the above, means the only additional value has come from those buildings and lake. I'm alternating between my tablet PC and fixing a cold room ATM, but from memory the VR from PBL052 doesn't actually value these buildings separately (does it?). Also, it still seems that PBL133 is the exact same security as what was included in PBL052.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisj on Sept 13, 2016 14:00:27 GMT
Seems to me like the valuations are made to fit the criteria then hope that they dont have a default. im sure it isnt quite as simple as that but doesnt seem like good business to me. This is an area where i would welcome more regulation as some people wont but much time in their own DD and go purely off of what SS advertise. Rightly or wrongly.
|
|
. Any observations you have please be sure to post it in this thread and I will try to add it to this overview.
