|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 5, 2017 18:58:29 GMT
In case anyone missed the email:
"As our costs of managing nearly 100 entities are growing, we are now levying a monthly £18 accounting and £12 corporate governance fee on those PM SPVs that came before PM SPV 58......These fees are linked to the level of rental income, and they cover various costs that the PM SPV incurs each month and year of the investment term."
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,993 
Likes: 5,132
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 6, 2017 8:42:56 GMT
I definitely didn't receive that email, despite being in several properties in that range. That seems a bit... arbitrary. I presume that's per property, not per shareholding or even per share (those would mostly be £500 shares). Have you looked into the documentation for those older SPVs to see if they have the power to suddenly impose extra fees like that? propertymoose |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,993
Likes: 5,132
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 6, 2017 15:53:55 GMT
Just looking at SPV22, adding £30/mo to the fees is going to hit an already abysmal return back to almost zilch.
Of the last six months, only two months have seen more than £30 of total net income. £30/mo in extra fee would see a total of £22.67 net income over that six month period, just £3.80/mo to split between 187 £500 shares. Just under 2p/each per month, or a return of about 0.5%. Which way was that bank savings account?
|
|
kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Feb 6, 2017 16:28:33 GMT
I have to agree that the amount of fees and costs are pretty shocking, leaving a miserable 60% or so of the rent actually paid to us - if it gets paid at all! The novelty of it all might wear off rather too soon, I fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 6, 2017 23:20:55 GMT
Part of me thinks this should be based on the performance of each property and scaled accordingly. I totally agree with you on SPV22.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Feb 7, 2017 7:51:46 GMT
/mod hat off/
The lure of PM is ebbing away fast for me. A number of my shares are performing miserably, as a few have already mentioned. I am now only investing in £10-£20 chunks (a fraction of what I used to put in) & only doing so because I like the concept of property of crowd funding but bad performance & increasing fees are taking their toll.
|
|
oldtimer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 211
Likes: 156
|
Post by oldtimer on Feb 7, 2017 8:17:41 GMT
/mod hat off/ The lure of PM is ebbing away fast for me. A number of my shares are performing miserably, as a few have already mentioned. I am now only investing in £10-£20 chunks (a fraction of what I used to put in) & only doing so because I like the concept of property of crowd funding but bad performance & increasing fees are taking their toll. Agree with that. I have sold several of my worst performing properties on the secondary market and invested the money elsewhere for a much better return.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Feb 7, 2017 9:58:09 GMT
Just looking at SPV22, adding £30/mo to the fees is going to hit an already abysmal return back to almost zilch. Of the last six months, only two months have seen more than £30 of total net income. £30/mo in extra fee would see a total of £22.67 net income over that six month period, just £3.80/mo to split between 187 £500 shares. Just under 2p/each per month, or a return of about 0.5%. Which way was that bank savings account? Hey, 2p is better than the 0p SPV 47 and 49 have paid out for half a year! I wonder how the fees on these properties will be collected, I would hope no tenants = no fees. PM really need to try harder to get these properties tenanted.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,993
Likes: 5,132
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 7, 2017 10:26:26 GMT
I'm not - generally - unhappy with PM.
So far, my returns are 4.25%. Without SPV22, they'd be 5%. SPV22, though, has returned 1.5% so far - it's a 3bed HMO that started paying in Nov 2013. In that time, it's had just one month with three paying tenants, and has only had one tenant since a non-payer was evicted in August. Yes, this target market is not going to be straightforward, and there will be voids and turnover, but...
There's clearly very little oversight of the poorly-performing properties. Will the £30/mo improve matters? Or will it just further depress the returns? If it's being described as an "accounting" and "corporate governance" fee, that doesn't sound as if it will be positive for us.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Feb 7, 2017 12:05:57 GMT
Looks like the pre-SPV59 properties won't be seeing the fees after all (see recent PM e-mail)  |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,993
Likes: 5,132
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 7, 2017 19:42:11 GMT
Looks like the pre-SPV59 properties won't be seeing the fees after all (see recent PM e-mail) Oh, look. Another email I've not received.
|
|
damar
Member of DD Central
Posts: 110
Likes: 47
|
Post by damar on Feb 8, 2017 21:52:48 GMT
The email, if you didn't get it
Hope you've had a good day so far.
I wanted to get in touch as a follow up to our email sent last week, which has raised some interesting questions around values and culture within the business.
As many of our members know, Property Moose was founded in 2013 as a platform of transparency and opportunity for anyone to invest in property in a diversified way. Since then, we have grown to over 20,000 members in 67 countries around the world and have funded over £8million of property.
All this has been achieved with a very minimal budget and small team of dedicated and passionate individuals – many of who are very close with our members and speak with them regularly.
From an early stage, we focused on working closely with our members and listening to suggestions as to how we can improve. This has led to developments such as our improved dashboard reporting and, soon to be released (tomorrow!), statement of returns for your tax calculations. By listening, we quickly learn what is important and what can wait.
Last week, we announced that each SPV would need to start paying for accounting and book-keeping services as a result of the increased volume of SPVs. This was already included in the calculations on all investments from SPV 59 (as is clearly stated on the description for each of the listings and will continue to be charged). However, before SPV 59, we had relied on our terms and conditions which stated that third party costs attributable to the SPV could be charged as applicable. This was always intended to be outsourced once the scale was there, however, upon assessing the market, it was clear that pricing was high (the cheapest quote we had was £53 +VAT per month and the dearest £500 +VAT).
As a result, we went to the effort of assessing the market and working out how much it would cost us to provide that service in house – the figure came to c.£39 p.m. which led to our decision to charge £30 - £40 p.m. on SPVs 59+ for accounting services. Our view was that it was better to provide these services at cost rather than go to an outsourced provider and pay more.
To date, we have done this work for free but this is not sustainable as a business as everyone will appreciate.
A handful of our members have raised the question as to whether it is right for us to now start charging SPV 2 – 58 for accounting fees when it was not shown in the original calculations. Our view is that legally it is, and is in accordance with our terms of investment, as outlined on our terms and conditions.
However, as a business that is very close to its members, I feel that a different approach is warranted here and that Property Moose should continue to take the cost as a business. This will have an impact on our own cash-flow but I do believe is the right thing to do and more in line with the culture of the business that our members have learnt to love – one of transparency and fairness.
For those SPVs that incurred the £30 cost in January (SPV 2- 58), next month and until the end of the initial term there will be no accounting and corporate governance fee charged.
SPVs 59 and onwards will continue to be charged an accounting fee of £30 - £40 p.m. (+VAT) to cover the costs of providing those services, as was disclosed in the listing description. In accordance with our terms, you can vote on the appointment of Moose Services for SPV 59 onwards HERE.
If you have any questions on this or anything else, please do get in touch.
- Andrew Gardiner, Founder & CEO
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,993
Likes: 5,132
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 9, 2017 8:33:49 GMT
The email, if you didn't get it Hope you've had a good day so far.
I wanted to get in touch as a follow up to our email sent last week, which has raised some interesting questions around values and culture within the business.
As many of our members know, Property Moose was founded in 2013 as a platform of transparency and opportunity for anyone to invest in property in a diversified way. Since then, we have grown to over 20,000 members in 67 countries around the world and have funded over £8million of property.
All this has been achieved with a very minimal budget and small team of dedicated and passionate individuals – many of who are very close with our members and speak with them regularly.
From an early stage, we focused on working closely with our members and listening to suggestions as to how we can improve. This has led to developments such as our improved dashboard reporting and, soon to be released (tomorrow!), statement of returns for your tax calculations. By listening, we quickly learn what is important and what can wait.
Last week, we announced that each SPV would need to start paying for accounting and book-keeping services as a result of the increased volume of SPVs. This was already included in the calculations on all investments from SPV 59 (as is clearly stated on the description for each of the listings and will continue to be charged). However, before SPV 59, we had relied on our terms and conditions which stated that third party costs attributable to the SPV could be charged as applicable. This was always intended to be outsourced once the scale was there, however, upon assessing the market, it was clear that pricing was high (the cheapest quote we had was £53 +VAT per month and the dearest £500 +VAT).
As a result, we went to the effort of assessing the market and working out how much it would cost us to provide that service in house – the figure came to c.£39 p.m. which led to our decision to charge £30 - £40 p.m. on SPVs 59+ for accounting services. Our view was that it was better to provide these services at cost rather than go to an outsourced provider and pay more.
To date, we have done this work for free but this is not sustainable as a business as everyone will appreciate.
A handful of our members have raised the question as to whether it is right for us to now start charging SPV 2 – 58 for accounting fees when it was not shown in the original calculations. Our view is that legally it is, and is in accordance with our terms of investment, as outlined on our terms and conditions.
However, as a business that is very close to its members, I feel that a different approach is warranted here and that Property Moose should continue to take the cost as a business. This will have an impact on our own cash-flow but I do believe is the right thing to do and more in line with the culture of the business that our members have learnt to love – one of transparency and fairness.
For those SPVs that incurred the £30 cost in January (SPV 2- 58), next month and until the end of the initial term there will be no accounting and corporate governance fee charged.
SPVs 59 and onwards will continue to be charged an accounting fee of £30 - £40 p.m. (+VAT) to cover the costs of providing those services, as was disclosed in the listing description. In accordance with our terms, you can vote on the appointment of Moose Services for SPV 59 onwards HERE.
If you have any questions on this or anything else, please do get in touch.
- Andrew Gardiner, Founder & CEOThat seems fair. Thanks, damar, for sharing it. propertymoose - is there any way of figuring out why neither of these arrived with me? I use gmail, albeit with a directly-mapped domain name, and there's nothing in the spam. If it's not arrived here, I'd suggest there's a LOT of others who haven't received it, since my experience is that gmail is one of the less paranoid mail providers.
|
|
|
|
Post by propertymoose on Feb 14, 2017 18:10:22 GMT
I definitely didn't receive that email, despite being in several properties in that range. That seems a bit... arbitrary. I presume that's per property, not per shareholding or even per share (those would mostly be £500 shares). Have you looked into the documentation for those older SPVs to see if they have the power to suddenly impose extra fees like that? propertymoose Adrianc, I'm sorry that you haven't been receiving our emails! Would you be able to get in contact with support@propertymoose.co.uk so that we can rectify the issue immediately, and ensure we have your preferred email address on our system? Regards, Jenna
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,993
Likes: 5,132
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 14, 2017 18:34:07 GMT
I definitely didn't receive that email, despite being in several properties in that range. That seems a bit... arbitrary. I presume that's per property, not per shareholding or even per share (those would mostly be £500 shares). Have you looked into the documentation for those older SPVs to see if they have the power to suddenly impose extra fees like that? propertymoose Adrianc, I'm sorry that you haven't been receiving our emails! Would you be able to get in contact with support@propertymoose.co.uk so that we can rectify the issue immediately, and ensure we have your preferred email address on our system? Regards, Jenna email sent, Jenna.
|
|
