PBL136 - Farmland (937 acres) - REPAID

Say the property has a bricks and mortar value of £2million in the report. Max 70% LTV... it's unlikely you'd get less that £1.4 million for it. If you did, then the surveyor would have some questions to answer.
Personally, I'm happy with SS. To all you moaners, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Yes, you should expect to lose capital. There is a rule of thumb that in the long run all asset classes produce more or less the same net return with some variation for risk, which is reckoned to be in the 5%-7% range. A successful asset picker can beat the odds, but successful asset pickers are thin on the ground.

Thus you should expect that a proportion of loans will run into trouble, a proportion of these will require exercising the security, and a proportion of those will result in a loss of capital (and interest owed). You can make assumptions - say 67% of loans that run into trouble end in calling in the receivers, half of those result in a capital loss, the average recovery on those is 75%, and the net return is 9% - and calculate how many troubled loans we should expect to be seeing. I had my own estimate of around a dozen currently troubled loans (not counting perennially delayed loans such as Fleetwood) before the latest update from SS, and the two lists more or less matched. After this confirmation I've made a subjective estimate of how many troubled loans there should be, and having done so I'm feeling concerned about the number than I was.

At the moment you can practice the bigger fool theory of investment - selling off loans before the initial term is up - perhaps to big hitters who'd rather make 9% on all their pot than 12% on half of it, and are relying on the odds and SS - but this continuing indefinitely can't be relied on.

There was one proposed loan - the landfill - where the valuation may not have been overenthusiastic, but was composed mostly if not all of hope value* (the community here suspected that without hope value the value might even have been negative). The problem with that loan is that prospective capital losses were perhaps 100%, and 12% interest wasn't enough for the perceived risk (25%?) of the loan going bad. It was mentioned that the borrower had other assets, but my attitude would have been that if he wasn't interested in pledging those assets as security I wasn't interested in lending. SS didn't proceed with this loan, perhaps in response to the feedback received here. 

Yes I'm afraid to say there are going to be some people losing quite a lot of their money on here and peer to peer and when you think about it they aren't paying you 12% out of the goodness of Their Hearts and 12% is a sky high rate even for your peer to peer savings.
I have to say there's a lot of trouble ahead and already we see the word receivers appearing over more and more loans when they are forced to tell as something bad and by the end of 2017 the Year just started there will be people on there who are writing off quite a lot of the money and you have to deal with it if you want 12% you are going to have to lose money to get it. So the big big question that everyone is asking is not do I get 12% know it's will once the receivers have been in and flogged off my assets and taking all their fees out how much of my capital will be left and when I work out how much interest if paid me at 12% will I have actually made a profit or will I have made a loss and if I made a profit will it be 3% or 4% or 6% or 7% and if I've made a loss will I have lost 2% of my money 5% of my money or 20% of my money.

The men on the white horses are the men at saving stream HQ but are they really John Wayne or are they Derek Trotter

am , presumably that's more concerned than you were?

No, less concerned - as a result of (very rough) calculation that the number of loans in trouble is not in excess of expectations.

Let's see if a large cash injection will reduce the SM available value.