chunkie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 83
|
Post by chunkie on Feb 19, 2017 15:51:11 GMT
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Feb 19, 2017 16:15:33 GMT
new pipeline loan at <link redacted as it identifies loan assets> Better get Asterix to obscure that thread title
|
|
|
Post by trentenders on Feb 19, 2017 16:17:23 GMT
Good spot! You might want to delete this one though, as: 1) You can't identify the address 2) You can't link to a site that identifies the address 3) Some Dude will be along in a little while to start his own thread on the same theme.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Feb 19, 2017 16:37:07 GMT
Check the pinned pipeline thread by new2p2p for current SS updates on this loan, dude diligence will follow.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 19, 2017 16:43:12 GMT
Well then ..... I might as well put this here
LIVE LOAN
|
|
| ------------------ | ------------------
|
|
|
| @ 1st Tranche 09/03/17
| @ 2nd Tranche >TBD<
| Loan Amount | : | £ | 7,452,896 |
| Gross Dev. Value | : | £ | 20,403,000 |
| SS Indicated LTGV | : |
| 37% |
| Current Value
| : | £ | 10,647,000 |
| Current LTV
| : |
| 70% |
| 90 Day Market Valuation | : | £ | N/A |
| LTV Based on 90 day MV | : |
| N/A |
| Term | : |
| 365 days |
| % PA
| : |
| 11% |
|
|
|
chunkie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 121
Likes: 83
|
Post by chunkie on Feb 19, 2017 17:00:28 GMT
Thx for spotting and fixing my errors.
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Feb 19, 2017 17:33:35 GMT
Interesting project and a long term loan which is very attractive.
However, I would like some assurance that the purchasing BVI company (family Trust) does not already own this site via an interrelated / closed company and that this loan is not simply to release equity / cash.
Jurisdiction over a BVI company is rather limited, if for example, this project does not take place.
Anyone able to assist ?
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 19, 2017 19:07:33 GMT
SS have corrected the LTGDV in the loan details (based on the total facility) to 56%.
|
|
|
Post by harryvederci on Feb 19, 2017 19:33:40 GMT
from the valuation report...
We are advised by the Applicant that they have negotiated to purchase the offshore
company (W** I******** P***** Limited) as the beneficial owner of H***** Property
Holdings Limited, which retains the freehold interest in the Site, with full vacant possession,
for a consideration of £11,000,000
and
We understand that the Applicant had negotiated to acquire the offshore company as
the beneficial owner of the freehold interest in the Site for £9,500,000. Subsequent to this,
the Vendor confirms that it received four unsolicited offers for the Site, with the benefit of
the planning consent and as a result of this the price increased to £11,000,000
Plenty of info in the public domain about this property, which is still sitting on R*******e for sale with a London agent since November - asking price £7,500,000 NOT sold STC NOT under offer - yet they have received 4 unsolicited offers up to £11m, really? How can the purported offers be unsolicited if its on the market for sale?
Bought with planning in 2013 at £5,256,000 from R*******e
So they cant sell it at £7.5m on the open market, are related parties trying to flip it inter company at £11m off sales values of the flats at £2,500 sq ft?
Its Marylebone, not Mayfair or Knightsbridge. A quick news search for 'Marylebone residential market review' brings up main agents market reports eg K***** F**** £1,594 average price sq ft of properties sold in Marylebone first 6 months of 2016
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 19, 2017 20:18:54 GMT
from the valuation report... We are advised by the Applicant that they have negotiated to purchase the offshore company (W** I********* P***** Limited) as the beneficial owner of H***** Property Holdings Limited, which retains the freehold interest in the Site, with full vacant possession, for a consideration of £11,000,000and We understand that the Applicant had negotiated to acquire the offshore company as the beneficial owner of the freehold interest in the Site for £9,500,000. Subsequent to this, the Vendor confirms that it received four unsolicited offers for the Site, with the benefit of the planning consent and as a result of this the price increased to £11,000,000Plenty of info in the public domain about this property, which is still sitting on R*******e for sale with a London agent since November - asking price £7,500,000 NOT sold STC NOT under offer - yet they have received 4 unsolicited offers up to £11m, really? How can the purported offers be unsolicited if its on the market for sale? Bought with planning in 2013 at £5,256,000 from R*******e So they cant sell it at £7.5m on the open market, are related parties trying to flip it inter company at £11m off sales values of the flats at £2,500 sq ft? Its Marylebone, not Mayfair or Knightsbridge. A quick news search for 'Marylebone residential market review' brings up main agents market reports eg K***** F**** £1,594 average price sq ft of properties sold in Marylebone first 6 months of 2016 Google tells me that "W**-I********* P***** Limited" (with a hyphen) is an Indian registered company, and "H***** Property Holdings" is Guernsey registered.
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Feb 19, 2017 21:18:09 GMT
Good to see The FCA doing such a good job of monitoring this Interim Member, gives me excellent peace of mind.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Feb 19, 2017 23:34:30 GMT
I've looked at the planning history on the City of Westminster planning portal. I've looked at Companies House via Google, and found a charge recorded as outstanding on the property (on an apparently unrelated company). I've looked at the housing market portal mentioned upthread and found the for sale ad, but no record of earlier transactions. (I haven't checked the rival housing market portal.)
I've failed to make sense of this data. Anybody up for the challenge?
|
|
|
Post by d_saver on Feb 20, 2017 10:20:40 GMT
I had a quick look when I noticed this in the pipeline, actually a few days ago. I was surprised there was no mention of it here Normally it only takes a few minutes! There's quite a bit of info found when Googling. I did find a page that said it had already been sold a while ago. Acquired as a development opportunity with the permission (in it's current state I believe, judging by the photos, though subsequent permission may have changed for the yoga studio, or whatever it was) for a 'wealthy middle east family' I believe. A 'cash' buyer who found out about and completed the deal in 10 days. Though no price was stated, I think judging by the other prices I found (5m and 7.5m), it was likely much less than the 11m quoted by SS and this most recent offer. All figures etc from memory. One wonders why they never developed it, but I guess a cool 3.5M return on your 7.5m (worst case) over a few year's isn't bad for doing nothing
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Feb 20, 2017 11:41:21 GMT
Anyone who has researched previous sales of this proporty or has taken a look on Google's Street View will notice that the building is actually 35-40% shorter than is being displayed on the SS' website, due to the photograph being taken in a portrait aspect ratio and then stretched to fit the proposal's landscape aspect ratio. Credit to Please turn me over for initially spotting the inconsistancy. Yes. savingstream can you please replace this misleading image please. Let us see an actual un photo-shopped picture. It reminds me of the times when SS would grant a loan on a narrowboat, then (without acknowledging image copyright despite being told) show us a picture of a totally different boat lifted from the internet....... and then use the same photo later for a totally different vessel of shorter length. And they still use pictures of identified Buckinghamshire landscape for their Bedfordshire farmland loan despite being told. SS pictures cannot be trusted.
|
|
seeingred
Member of DD Central
Posts: 470
Likes: 664
|
Post by seeingred on Feb 20, 2017 12:20:34 GMT
I am less concerned by pictures (even pictures of bananas that give a maybe false indication of a staple diet) than by valuations.
This property seems to have had a chequered history of valuations £7M, £11M and with a postulated final value of over £20M once redevelopment is completed. I've somehow never felt comfortable with the numbers. The added complication (or ruse) is the ownership change described above as a company flip......maybe these are the type of people you deal with in this game?
Added to which the development including two basements is supposed to be completed inside 9 months?
|
|