adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 23, 2019 18:26:47 GMT
Ladbrooks etc have very sophisticated algorithms and a very good grasp of logic, probability and chance ie. know what they are doing so I don't think they would offer you very good odds on FS staying afloat!
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 23, 2019 19:45:56 GMT
Some would welcome the demise of FS as a means of stopping further mindless can-kicking and of crystallising painful losses. Also perhaps putting a spoke in the wheel of discreditable borrowers who by there actions have taken investors money with no intent to make good.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 24, 2019 1:24:26 GMT
Some would welcome the demise of FS as a means of stopping further mindless can-kicking and of crystallising painful losses. Also perhaps putting a spoke in the wheel of discreditable borrowers who by there actions have taken investors money with no intent to make good. Such indicates either possible schadenfreude or maybe not seen receivership up close and personal. Once FS isn't a going concern, there is zero incentive to try and maximise recoveries for lenders in order to ensure future viability of the company. Yes, losses will be crystallised faster which is good, but the extent of the shortfall will likely be much greater. That's why nobody without malintent is actively enjoying the prospect of FS failure and the large losses that will come from it. All just my opinion of course, I'm sure there may be individual exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 24, 2019 9:06:58 GMT
Administrators do have a duty to recover as much as is practicable. A silk purse cannot be made out of a sow's ear. I am in Collateral and Lendy and also Funding Circle so have some sense of whats what. I do not wish FS to fail - on the contrary I would like them to thrive but their track record is against them. In continuing to trade a consideration is that ever more investors and borrowers become entangled.
|
|
wuzimu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 236
Likes: 735
|
Post by wuzimu on Sept 24, 2019 9:18:18 GMT
Atm I would agree with arby. FS problems seem to spring from naivety and stupudity in the past. Whether the current management can save it, I dont know, but they must be cheaper than administrator and given a bit longer. This loan and some others will probly sink it anyway, we'll see. Actually I sometimes wonder how FS make any money, with the end loaded fee model, which they havent got on all these unredeemed loans. Its definitely the borrowers who have made out here.
It is a different fee model to lendy where the fees management were helping themselves to meant they were hugely more expensive than administration. Lendy should have been shut down by fca a year earlier. Bur fca do need to keep a very close watch on FS. Well I have asked them to!
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 24, 2019 12:28:48 GMT
Administrators do have a duty to recover as much as is practicable. A silk purse cannot be made out of a sow's ear. I am in Collateral and Lendy and also Funding Circle so have some sense of whats what. I do not wish FS to fail - on the contrary I would like them to thrive but their track record is against them. In continuing to trade a consideration is that ever more investors and borrowers become entangled. They do have a duty to recover as much as they can, but that has equal priority to just getting the job finished as soon as possible. With low liquidity assets a quick sale guarantees a low price. We all know that residential homes sold at auction go for a cheaper price than is typically gained through the traditional selling channel. This is massively amplified for niche assets and complex developments, of which FS have many.
|
|
bulletbill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 90
Likes: 223
|
Post by bulletbill on Sept 24, 2019 12:36:51 GMT
Some would welcome the demise of FS as a means of stopping further mindless can-kicking and of crystallising painful losses. Also perhaps putting a spoke in the wheel of discreditable borrowers who by there actions have taken investors money with no intent to make good. Such indicates either possible schadenfreude or maybe not seen receivership up close and personal. Once FS isn't a going concern, there is zero incentive to try and maximise recoveries for lenders in order to ensure future viability of the company. Yes, losses will be crystallised faster which is good, but the extent of the shortfall will likely be much greater. That's why nobody without malintent is actively enjoying the prospect of FS failure and the large losses that will come from it. All just my opinion of course, I'm sure there may be individual exceptions. I stand to lose a mid 5-figure sum, so I’m certainly not wishing for the demise of FS. What is hard to judge is which is the lesser of the 2 evils. Taking Lendy as an example, I stand to lose significantly more than I do with FS, but I was actually relieved when Administrators were appointed, at least it points towards a conclusion. It’s Hobson’s choice and I’m sure the outcome for me will be very upsetting and painful but I feel it is better than LB kicking the can down the road and continuing to strip the carcass. At at the moment I feel more comfortable to let FS continue to clean up the mess but I personally suspect the mess will be too big to sweep under the carpet and continue business as usual.
|
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on Sept 24, 2019 13:24:28 GMT
Such indicates either possible schadenfreude or maybe not seen receivership up close and personal. Once FS isn't a going concern, there is zero incentive to try and maximise recoveries for lenders in order to ensure future viability of the company. Yes, losses will be crystallised faster which is good, but the extent of the shortfall will likely be much greater. That's why nobody without malintent is actively enjoying the prospect of FS failure and the large losses that will come from it. All just my opinion of course, I'm sure there may be individual exceptions. I stand to lose a mid 5-figure sum, so I’m certainly not wishing for the demise of FS. What is hard to judge is which is the lesser of the 2 evils. Taking Lendy as an example, I stand to lose significantly more than I do with FS, but I was actually relieved when Administrators were appointed, at least it points towards a conclusion. It’s Hobson’s choice and I’m sure the outcome for me will be very upsetting and painful but I feel it is better than LB kicking the can down the road and continuing to strip the carcass. At at the moment I feel more comfortable to let FS continue to clean up the mess but I personally suspect the mess will be too big to sweep under the carpet and continue business as usual. I mentioned there could be occasional exceptions to my blanket statement and yours could well be one of them. If in the future you change your mind and wish for FS to be wound up, it's clear it wouldn't be for any sick joy, rather careful consideration of your current position and best course of action. Good luck with the recoveries! I also have the same ball park figure invested, but I don't currently consider all of it to be at risk, but maybe that's my own optimism talking!
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Sept 25, 2019 10:07:11 GMT
FS are we still waiting for documents to be signed? can you lot grow some b*lls and just let us know how much we have all lost on this heap of sh*te and move onto the next disaster.
|
|
sundown
Member of DD Central
Posts: 80
Likes: 103
|
Post by sundown on Sept 25, 2019 14:20:31 GMT
“We understand that a purchase for the building has been agreed at £4,549,761 plus an additional £350,000 for the Freehold interest”.
That’s what the VR dated November 2017, on which many will have based their investment decision, stated. The same VR says the estimated cost of completion per flat is £10,000.
Now it seems the “asset” is being marketed for less than £1 million. Rather than giving it away for a paltry sum, if FS truly has any backers and any money behind it then surely this is the time to step in and complete the project and realise its true value?
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Sept 25, 2019 14:31:54 GMT
Were I a "wealthy" backer or backers I would purchase the item at a knock down price, finish the project and sell on at profit. Unlikely that I would wish to get into bed with FS. I expect opportunist investors follow web-sites such as this in order to identify target opportunities.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 25, 2019 15:00:02 GMT
believe me - they do!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 25, 2019 15:34:13 GMT
agreed - but I think this is a project only for the big boys who know what they are doing. I have never taken on a tower block as out of my depth if not wallet. I don't know just how much this one is going to cost in engineering and architects fees etc, logistical problems in going up 10 stories, fire security etc etc so in other words I think any serious buyer is really going to need to do some serious DD and then really screw the price down in order to guarantee a profit.
Even if this one "only" needs another £400K spending on it - that is still a lot of money in terms of interest or cash tied-up. If a buyer pays £1m and it takes 6 months before a flat is sold that is a lot of dead money - some flat developments have gone extremely well in Liverpool whilst others have gone pectorals up - wonder which way this one is headed?
Don't forget this is ex-council which is not exactly going to add to the general appeal. I guess in some parts of the country it would make economic sense to simply flatten it. I wonder if FS ever considered this one was a dead duck from the start? Well 2 weeks passed well over a month ago..
Come on FS tell us the offered price or the true situation - we know you want to prove the doom-mongers wrong!
We are all ears - I thank you.
|
|
petrichory
Member of DD Central
Posts: 59
Likes: 207
|
Post by petrichory on Sept 26, 2019 10:46:49 GMT
“We understand that a purchase for the building has been agreed at £4,549,761 plus an additional £350,000 for the Freehold interest”. That’s what the VR dated November 2017, on which many will have based their investment decision, stated. The same VR says the estimated cost of completion per flat is £10,000. Now it seems the “asset” is being marketed for less than £1 million. Rather than giving it away for a paltry sum, if FS truly has any backers and any money behind it then surely this is the time to step in and complete the project and realise its true value? sundown I would like to point out that the council sold the building and freehold for a mere £375,000 at auction - this is based on my own research from land registry documents. The last VR that was published stated a freehold market value of £3,500,000 (the higher £4,500,000 was the GDV assuming completion, which clearly did not happen). We should base our criticism on the £3.5mil number but again, this is still ten times higher than what the borrower paid for it. The first valuation had a stated market value of £1,500,000 and there is no discernible explanation of how the asset appreciated by two million pounds with the limited and incomplete level of refurbishments that were carried out. RICS claim, surely! If the building ends up selling for a low seven-figure sum, that would be an outcome comparable to the old school/D*** disaster where the asset sold for a third of the valuation.
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,895
Likes: 4,122
|
Post by adrian77 on Sept 26, 2019 11:15:56 GMT
I have also come across this figure so doubtless as correct as it is worrying
I have no idea what has actually happened here but am very annoyed FS aren't telling us.
So this borrower buys the property for £375K and then FS throw £2.85m (according to my maths) of OUR money at it so that leaves £2.4m to play with - question - has 2.4m actually been spent on this property? To be honest this strikes me as a generous budget per m2 for a standard renovation project but I don't know just how much the premium is to renovate a tower block. Well this developer is clearly more intelligent than I am!
So my questions :
1) have FS an audit trail for the money - I wonder!
2) given the average spend is £57K per flat (this is not including lifts, structural maintenance etc) then just how come the valuer states another £10K is needed per flat - I have renovated flats for 1/3 of this and I don't have much have very low bargaining power with suppliers! £67K just to renovate a flat seems extremely high to me! Granted this chap claims to have spent £1m on fire security so is there any proof of this? If he hasn't spent this sum then that is an instant mega bill for the new developer!
3) Maybe just maybe the council knew what they were doing and they sold this off for what appears a very cheap price for a reason i.e. there was asbestos (all types were not banned in the UK until 1999) or some other major issue.
This one hardly has developers beating down the door has it - the more FS procrastinate and refuse to come clean over this one the more I am worried for my investment
Need a cup of tea now as come over all Whitehavenly...
|
|