mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 23, 2017 12:31:10 GMT
One further observation regarding the valuation report, whilst the comparables on page 8 are (with 1 exception) all from June to December 2016, the market commentary on page 9 dates from early 2016 (note the phrase "we expect that the first half of 2016 will see" ). To be using the same boilerplate text 12 months later, with zero commentary on brexit (and the subsequent interest rate cut) rather glosses over the very real issues that brexit will bring to this area of London, and borders on the professionally negligent by this particular suveryor IMO. Not having seen any other VRs from this same valuer, I can't help wondering whether the '2016' in the "we expect" sentence is a typo and was intended to be '2017'.
|
|
mikeh
Member of DD Central
Posts: 499 
Likes: 370
|
Post by mikeh on Mar 23, 2017 12:49:13 GMT
One further observation regarding the valuation report, whilst the comparables on page 8 are (with 1 exception) all from June to December 2016, the market commentary on page 9 dates from early 2016 (note the phrase "we expect that the first half of 2016 will see" ). To be using the same boilerplate text 12 months later, with zero commentary on brexit (and the subsequent interest rate cut) rather glosses over the very real issues that brexit will bring to this area of London, and borders on the professionally negligent by this particular suveryor IMO. Not having seen any other VRs from this same valuer, I can't help wondering whether the '2016' in the "we expect" sentence is a typo and was intended to be '2017'. I don't think so. There are a number of references to 2016 following on from a discussion of 2015.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 23, 2017 12:56:33 GMT
One further observation regarding the valuation report, whilst the comparables on page 8 are (with 1 exception) all from June to December 2016, the market commentary on page 9 dates from early 2016 (note the phrase "we expect that the first half of 2016 will see" ). To be using the same boilerplate text 12 months later, with zero commentary on brexit (and the subsequent interest rate cut) rather glosses over the very real issues that brexit will bring to this area of London, and borders on the professionally negligent by this particular suveryor IMO. Not having seen any other VRs from this same valuer, I can't help wondering whether the '2016' in the "we expect" sentence is a typo and was intended to be '2017'. Not credibly a typo IMHO. The commentary is discussing 2015 in some detail, and also contains the phrases "2016 is seeing a continuation of this trend" and "also expect to see ........ throughout 2016" There is absolutely no way I would have been prepared to accept that valuation if I had been paying for it, and does IMO call into question the judgement of the borrower (who commissioned it, not MT to whom it has been re-addressed, another conflict of interest that occurs all too often in p2p. See page 2 "Following instructions from Broadoak ....") The more I think about it, the less sure I am that this loan should be on MT. (cross posted with mikeh )
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 23, 2017 16:19:30 GMT
I've uncovered more potentially serious issues with the valuation report. I've now cross checked the comparables listed on pages 7 & 8 against the public databases of sale prices made available by rightmove and zoopla plus one other (whom I have an account with). Whilst most of the comparables tally, these don't: 110 P***** Lane, sold on 11th June 2015 (not that date in 2016 as stated in the valuation report) 13 W********* Road, sold on 30th October 2015 (not that date in 2016 as stated in the valuation report) 8 G******** Gardens, does not appear in the databases as having sold in recent years, but no. 38 sold at the stated price in March 2016 (cf no. 8 was stated as sold on 19th Aug 2016). I know these public databases of sale prices are not always 100% accurate (which is why I've used 3 different ones today), but given other issues already noted with the valuation report containing outdated market commentary, there has to be a suspicion that the two 2015 dates I've highlighted have been erroneously edited to show 2016 to make the valuation seem more valid than it perhaps is. I'm wondering whether this valuation actually originates from early 2016 and a less than thorough job has been done in updating it this year. MoneyThing or bengilbert care to comment ? |
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 23, 2017 17:30:36 GMT
/mod hat off
Appreciate all the good inputs MRC .. however I had already arrived at the same conclusion ('use long stick') by means of the a) one strike for being London, b) strike 2 for being ridiculously expensive in a down-market area, strike 3 for being 10.5%, instead of a more acceptable 12% or more. Completely unscientific, so I may have a small and temporary nibble with returned RCC funds, but it's definitely not a keeper IMO. Given planning approval for N smaller/cheaper properties instead, it'd look a lot better (whatever happened to 'build some affordable housing'? I mean 'affordable' for Putney .. sub a £1m or summat).
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Mar 23, 2017 19:51:14 GMT
/mod hat off Appreciate all the good inputs MRC .. however I had already arrived at the same conclusion ('use long stick') by means of the a) one strike for being London, b) strike 2 for being ridiculously expensive in a down-market area, strike 3 for being 10.5%, instead of a more acceptable 12% or more. Completely unscientific, so I may have a small and temporary nibble with returned RCC funds, but it's definitely not a keeper IMO. Given planning approval for N smaller/cheaper properties instead, it'd look a lot better (whatever happened to 'build some affordable housing'? I mean 'affordable' for Putney .. sub a £1m or summat). /also mod hat off Pretty similar conclusions without even bothering to read VR ( mrclondon unearthed some excellent extra food for thought there). Lower rate for a possible single dwelling (should be at least 12% for such imho), high ltv @ 70% & in London were immediate turn off points. Had the PP been for multiple dwellings (ongoing) then even at 10.5% coupled with possibly lower ltv would have made for much more attractive proposition & most likely have invested a decent sum. The first loan on MT in a very long time that I won't bother with.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 23, 2017 19:54:18 GMT
I've uncovered more potentially serious issues with the valuation report. I've now cross checked the comparables listed on pages 7 & 8 against the public databases of sale prices made available by rightmove and zoopla plus one other (whom I have an account with). Whilst most of the comparables tally, these don't: 110 P***** Lane, sold on 11th June 2015 (not that date in 2016 as stated in the valuation report) 13 W********* Road, sold on 30th October 2015 (not that date in 2016 as stated in the valuation report) 8 G******** Gardens, does not appear in the databases as having sold in recent years, but no. 38 sold at the stated price in March 2016 (cf no. 8 was stated as sold on 19th Aug 2016). I know these public databases of sale prices are not always 100% accurate (which is why I've used 3 different ones today), but given other issues already noted with the valuation report containing outdated market commentary, there has to be a suspicion that the two 2015 dates I've highlighted have been erroneously edited to show 2016 to make the valuation seem more valid than it perhaps is. I'm wondering whether this valuation actually originates from early 2016 and a less than thorough job has been done in updating it this year MoneyThing or bengilbert care to comment ? These sites often use the "price paid date" on the LR DB which is pretty accurate I've checked myself on the Land Registry Open Data, and what you report from rightmove and zoopla from the first 2 is correct, but there was sale at "8 G******** Gardens" in 2014 @ £430,500 (so not 2016 and not £550,000) Awful VR - one of the worst I have seen on P2P
|
|
trevor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 557
Likes: 381
|
Post by trevor on Mar 23, 2017 20:14:01 GMT
10.5% insufficient.
Putney=bargepole
|
|
sussexlender
Member of DD Central
Cheat seeking missile
Posts: 550
Likes: 916
|
Post by sussexlender on Mar 23, 2017 20:35:54 GMT
There appears to be some serious credibility issues with this VR.
It is to be hoped that MT or Jamie from Broadoak call the maker of the report to account / enquire how all these rather curious "mistakes" as to sale dates etc have come to be placed in the VR.
Thanks to all the above Forum contributors for the very helpful information.
I was going to invest but I am not sure I will bother with this one.
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 529
Likes: 245
|
Post by bababill on Mar 24, 2017 0:14:34 GMT
/mod hat off b) strike 2 for being ridiculously expensive in a down-market area, For the sake of clarity two doors 'down' and the opposite side of the street is this google street view. l Mod Hat On :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 6:31:15 GMT
/mod hat off b) strike 2 for being ridiculously expensive in a down-market area, For the sake of clarity two doors 'down' and the opposite side of the street is this google street view. View Attachmentl Mod Hat On :-) Wow I'd hate to have to live in such a 'down-market' area. Looks absolutely terrible, I have sympathy for the owners of these tenements!
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Mar 24, 2017 7:23:08 GMT
For the sake of clarity two doors 'down' and the opposite side of the street is this google street view. l Mod Hat On :-) Wow I'd hate to have to live in such a 'down-market' area. Looks absolutely terrible, I have sympathy for the owners of these tenements! Maybe we could have a quick whip round to relieve their suffering a bit.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,064
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 24, 2017 8:31:44 GMT
Hopefully a follow up from MoneyThing could rest our minds about some of the issues raised (giving bengilbert a noted pass on this one). |
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Mar 24, 2017 9:53:17 GMT
Morning,
Acknowledged. We have sent these points on to the valuer for comment.
I would just like to say (and whilst lenders have to make up their own minds), there are a number of things supporting the valuation, including the price paid for the property (in excess of the valuation), the receipt of an offer to buy it substantially in excess of the valuation, and the fact that the development team view it as conservative and are committing over £500,000 of their own money in backing their judgement.
Kind regards,
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by sannytwist on Mar 24, 2017 12:18:12 GMT
Thanks for the important points on this VR. Not gonna invest a penny until more clarity is given on the highlighted points.
|
|
