stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Feb 2, 2017 19:55:05 GMT
MoneyThing- How can this be pari passu with TC if the amounts are not the same? ie if defaults and paid back in equal amounts off of MT and TC loans, as MT loan is lower, it would be paid back beforethe rest of TC's - I can't get the figures to add up: £745k+£1505K+£1750k = £4m, for a 4.5m price, where does the other £500k come from?
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 2, 2017 20:00:35 GMT
MoneyThing - How can this be pari passu with TC if the amounts are not the same? ie if defaults and paid back in equal amounts off of MT and TC loans, as MT loan is lower, it would be paid back beforethe rest of TC's - I can't get the figures to add up: £745k+£1505K+£1750k = £4m, for a 4.5m price, where does the other £500k come from? Evening Stevio, In the event of default, money's recovered would be apportioned by our respective holding as a percent. I.e. if 50% is recovered from the total £2,250,000, £372,500 would come to us and £752,500 to TC. Maths: £745k + £1,505K = £2,250 (which is 50% of the £4,500,000 valuation). Regards, Ed EDIT: Tagging dualinvestor
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Feb 2, 2017 20:04:27 GMT
I have just merged the three posts above from different threads to keep the conversations together with earlier discussions. I have also been very cheeky and edited mrclondon's post to change the thread title so that it includes the (now available) loan prefix.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 2, 2017 20:08:10 GMT
I think the maths issue is how £2.25m of loans plus £1.75m "balance" from the borrower gets us to the £4.5m purchase price?
|
|
|
Post by dualinvestor on Feb 2, 2017 20:08:24 GMT
MoneyThing - How can this be pari passu with TC if the amounts are not the same? ie if defaults and paid back in equal amounts off of MT and TC loans, as MT loan is lower, it would be paid back beforethe rest of TC's - I can't get the figures to add up: £745k+£1505K+£1750k = £4m, for a 4.5m price, where does the other £500k come from? Evening Stevio, In the event of default, money's recovered would be apportioned by our respective holding as a percent. I.e. if 50% is recovered from the total £2,250,000, £372,500 would come to us and £752,500 to TC. Maths: £745k + £1,505K = £2,250 (which is 50% of the £4,500,000 valuation). Regards, Ed EDIT: Tagging dualinvestor Thanks Ed, bt that still does not add up. £1.5million, TC, £740K MT, Borrower £1.75million=£4million Purchase price £4.5 million as stevio said
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 2, 2017 20:20:59 GMT
Just noticed the flagged borrower connection with the H*** Farm Cottage loan (446), also now prefixed FPAA. MoneyThing, many thanks for doing this!
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 2, 2017 20:21:13 GMT
Would it be to do with the tranche 1B loan form TC for 500k MoneyThing ? Loan 1A £1,505,000 Loan 1B £500,000 MT £745,000 Borrower £1750,000
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 2, 2017 20:23:30 GMT
Evening Stevio, In the event of default, money's recovered would be apportioned by our respective holding as a percent. I.e. if 50% is recovered from the total £2,250,000, £372,500 would come to us and £752,500 to TC. Maths: £745k + £1,505K = £2,250 (which is 50% of the £4,500,000 valuation). Regards, Ed EDIT: Tagging dualinvestor Thanks Ed, bt that still does not add up. £1.5million, TC, £740K MT, Borrower £1.75million=£4million Purchase price £4.5 million as stevio said stevio My apologies both - now I understand. There is a further £500,000 TC loan which ranks behind this loan (i.e. a subordinated 2nd charge). Regards, Ed
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 2, 2017 20:34:58 GMT
A couple of points that I've noticed 1) There seem to be two R***** J*******'s where the principal behind this loan is the Yorkshire one, rather than the Norwich one. So take care when googling the principal. 2) The VR states that the valuers are advised that "The property is situated in green belt land". Having looked at the location on Google maps, I found this a surprising claim. Looking further I found a map of the Bradford Green Belt (reliability unknown, but it matches an interactive map at the Telegraph) which places the green belt miles from the property.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Feb 2, 2017 20:38:35 GMT
I haven't completed my investigations yet but an impressive looking offering with plenty of answers to the questions already provided here and I expect with a high probability to be logged on at 4 tomorrow with a four-figure sum of new money to support this loan and the ever-growing MT platform.
I expect this one to be filled by 7 p.m. Friday evening so if you are coming home from work it would be a good idea to leave a bit early to avoid disappointment bearing in mind that some stormy weather is forecast for tomorrow afternoon and evening.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 2, 2017 21:36:43 GMT
Could someone clarify the planning permission status? My understanding is that outline planning permission normally lasts 3 years, and hence would have expired last July. The info pack says that it is valid until September 2017. (Presumably I'm missing something, such as an extension, or a non-standard duration.)
And how hard would that latter date be as a deadline for negotiating revised planning permission with the city council?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,871
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 2, 2017 21:45:31 GMT
Could someone clarify the planning permission status? My understanding is that outline planning permission normally lasts 3 years, and hence would have expired last July. The info pack says that it is valid until September 2017. (Presumably I'm missing something, such as an extension, or a non-standard duration.) And how hard would that latter date be as a deadline for negotiating revised planning permission with the city council? There has to be an application to resolve the reserved matters within three years of the date of the planning decision notice. That decision is dated 18/9/14 so the application would need to be made before 18/9/17 or the planning will expire.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 2, 2017 22:00:01 GMT
Could someone clarify the planning permission status? My understanding is that outline planning permission normally lasts 3 years, and hence would have expired last July. The info pack says that it is valid until September 2017. (Presumably I'm missing something, such as an extension, or a non-standard duration.) And how hard would that latter date be as a deadline for negotiating revised planning permission with the city council? There has to be an application to resolve the reserved matters within three years of the date of the planning decision notice. That decision is dated 18/9/14 so the application would need to be made before 18/9/17 or the planning will expire. Ah, I see my mistake - the date I was looking at was date of application, not date of grant.
|
|
gnasher
Member of DD Central
Posts: 207
Likes: 146
|
Post by gnasher on Feb 3, 2017 8:43:02 GMT
Umm. So let me see if I have analysed this correctly. I can have exactly the same loan on the same terms with MT and TC. TC retain the right to appoint the LPA of their choice, but that doesn't really affect anything. On one of those platforms there is (CURRENTLY) a highly liquid SM with no selling fees, a slick IT system, and a highly communicative team. On the other, I would bear a cost of 1% on the SM and at any time it could be quite illiquid, and the communications can be a touch ummm lacking. Scratching head. ..... and now with the passage of time we have another differentiator. - On TC you can bid a min of £1000, no max
- On MT you can bid a max of £1250, no min (in the first 24hrs but likely it will be filled before you get another chance)
That could be an advantage either way depending on your financial heft
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2017 9:23:22 GMT
A couple of points that I've noticed 1) There seem to be two R***** J*******'s where the principal behind this loan is the Yorkshire one, rather than the Norwich one. So take care when googling the principal. 2) The VR states that the valuers are advised that "The property is situated in green belt land". Having looked at the location on Google maps, I found this a surprising claim. Looking further I found a map of the Bradford Green Belt (reliability unknown, but it matches an interactive map at the Telegraph) which places the green belt miles from the property. It is on an old mill site, so no chance it is green belt. I know the site well.
|
|