am
Posts: 1,495 
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Apr 25, 2017 16:45:06 GMT
Am I missing something? It seems to me that the appropriate valuation is the valuation with the tenancy in place, and not the vacant possession valuation, giving an LTV of 81%.
|
|
mosaic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 69
Likes: 57
|
Post by mosaic on Apr 25, 2017 17:08:04 GMT
The point is that it is not vacant and will not be until the existing lease expires in 2023, therefore the lower valuation of £190,000 should be used
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 25, 2017 17:15:04 GMT
The point is that it is not vacant and will not be until the existing lease expires in 2023, therefore the lower valuation of £190,000 should be used In which case, there's not a lot of fat on the deal, more like a sinew? And a bargain 7%er at that! 
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 25, 2017 17:20:12 GMT
The point is that it is not vacant and will not be until the existing lease expires in 2023, therefore the lower valuation of £190,000 should be used This seems very misleading savingstream / Paul64 Very unlike you Dude, so all is forgiven. You invariably are firmly clutching the correct end of the stick, and thoroughly thwacking people with it. Did you go to Public School perchance?  
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Apr 25, 2017 17:31:26 GMT
There also seems to be the question of the identity of the borrower of record - the person named in the VR, or one of his companies?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 25, 2017 19:09:31 GMT
At 7% I didn't even bother reading the details.
It's a No from me - regardless of the facts.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Apr 25, 2017 19:18:35 GMT
There also seems to be the question of the identity of the borrower of record - the person named in the VR, or one of his companies? According to LY's overview, the borrower is an individual Yes, but. Saving Stream have form in confusing the borrower and the borrower's principal. Hence in the absence of an "in his personal capacity" I don't feel I can draw a firm conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 25, 2017 19:33:36 GMT
Hi, I will look at this in the morning and get back to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 26, 2017 9:47:25 GMT
All, further to the discussion yesterday, I've looked into PBL175.
As per our thorough legal and property due diligence process, we always carefully review and consider the valuation report.
As a result of this, for the above loan we are aware that the 'investment' value of the property is lower than the vacant possession value. This means that whilst the LTV is 65%, based upon the vacant possession value, it is 81% of the market value subject to the existing tenancy.
As part of our lending T&Cs the borrower is required to mandate the net rental income to Lendy, which is held in a separate client account, until the loan is repaid.
This account effectively provides an increasing cash reserve throughout the term of the loan and will only be released back to the borrower upon full and satisfactory repayment of the loan.
Effectively the LTV reduces as the account balance increases. With this provision, we are comfortable with the risk profile of this loan. In the event of the tenant defaulting and the property being vacated, the reported value of the property will increase.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Apr 26, 2017 11:32:18 GMT
All, further to the discussion yesterday, I've looked into PBL175. As per our thorough legal and property due diligence process, we always carefully review and consider the valuation report. As a result of this, for the above loan we are aware that the 'investment' value of the property is lower than the vacant possession value. This means that whilst the LTV is 65%, based upon the vacant possession value, it is 81% of the market value subject to the existing tenancy. As part of our lending T&Cs the borrower is required to mandate the net rental income to Lendy, which is held in a separate client account, until the loan is repaid. This account effectively provides an increasing cash reserve throughout the term of the loan and will only be released back to the borrower upon full and satisfactory repayment of the loan. Effectively the LTV reduces as the account balance increases. With this provision, we are comfortable with the risk profile of this loan. In the event of the tenant defaulting and the property being vacated, the reported value of the property will increase. Is this snippet of very important information included in the loan proposal on the site for perspective investors to peruse and make informed decisions upon, or is it just here where it could in the event of a default... A) Be deleted B) Be brushed off by Lendy as an ill informed employee giving incorrect information which he shouldn't have, and wasn't authorised to do? I'm not doubting your's or Lendy's integrity Paul64 , I am however saying that important information which forms part of the contract should be documented and disclosed to investors in a professional manner where it cannot be placed into doubt at a later date.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul64 on Apr 26, 2017 12:20:56 GMT
Hi, and yes. It has.
|
|
twoheads
Member of DD Central
Programming
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by twoheads on Apr 26, 2017 15:31:44 GMT
Just went live (at 16:30).
EDIT: 430 investors.
Don't ask me the allocation!
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 26, 2017 15:37:13 GMT
Paul wrote - The LTV assuming VP is a non LTV , a totally irrelevant, non real world figure. VP isn't available. A 10 year business tenancy is in place - a legal contract for occupation for a fixed term - and the tenant has rights. A current day valuation with VP, when VP isn't available until 2023 (the lease is contracted outside the security of tenure provisions of the LTA 1954 Pt 2) , is a hypothetical, non valuation that it is misleading. There is a tenant only break option in 2018 but that may not be exercised by the tenant. The LTV is 81%. No ifs, no buts. And only 7% to boot  |
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Apr 26, 2017 16:28:48 GMT
Paul wrote - The LTV assuming VP is a non LTV , a totally irrelevant, non real world figure. VP isn't available. A 10 year business tenancy is in place - a legal contract for occupation for a fixed term - and the tenant has rights. A current day valuation with VP, when VP isn't available until 2023 (the lease is contracted outside the security of tenure provisions of the LTA 1954 Pt 2) , is a hypothetical, non valuation that it is misleading. There is a tenant only break option in 2018 but that may not be exercised by the tenant. The LTV is 81%. No ifs, no buts. And only 7% to boot It pleases me greatly to see that Investors are finally getting increasingly riled about these VRs and contrived LTVs Will Surveyors and the P2P industry now tidy up their act?
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 1,576
|
Post by GeorgeT on Apr 26, 2017 16:33:03 GMT
Paul wrote - The LTV assuming VP is a non LTV , a totally irrelevant, non real world figure. VP isn't available. A 10 year business tenancy is in place - a legal contract for occupation for a fixed term - and the tenant has rights. A current day valuation with VP, when VP isn't available until 2023 (the lease is contracted outside the security of tenure provisions of the LTA 1954 Pt 2) , is a hypothetical, non valuation that it is misleading. There is a tenant only break option in 2018 but that may not be exercised by the tenant. The LTV is 81%. No ifs, no buts. And only 7% to boot It pleases me greatly to see that Investors are finally getting increasingly riled about these VRs and contrived LTVs Will Surveyors and the P2P industry now tidy up their act? It's got nothng to do with the VR. The valuer provided the valuations he was asked to provide. It's up to the client how he chooses to interpret and use them. IMO, one of the problems is that the financial, banking, IT types who tend to run platforms lack property expertise and the ability to understand and apply properly the information they have been given. That's why there's still a strong argument, espoused regularly by C_D, to do your own DD and analysis of the facts and figures.
|
|
