SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 28, 2018 13:48:00 GMT
My sense is that I'd rather be in the new loan (Phase 1) either way. Having had £580k spent on it already to obtain the environmental consents (and seen its valuation increased by less than this), I'd guess this plot is likely to be the initial focus for development by the borrowers. The Phase 2/3/4 land could remain undeveloped for quite some time.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Mar 28, 2018 13:57:57 GMT
My sense is that I'd rather be in the new loan (Phase 1) either way. Having had £580k spent on it already to obtain the environmental consents (and seen its valuation increased by less than this), I'd guess this plot is likely to be the initial focus for development by the borrowers. The Phase 2/3/4 land could remain undeveloped for quite some time. Didnt the AB update for the extension on 80 say that £500k had been spent by AC? If so, I wouldn't be so sure it has been spent on just 98 and not spent on the site as a whole
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 28, 2018 14:00:02 GMT
My sense is that I'd rather be in the new loan (Phase 1) either way. Having had £580k spent on it already to obtain the environmental consents (and seen its valuation increased by less than this), I'd guess this plot is likely to be the initial focus for development by the borrowers. The Phase 2/3/4 land could remain undeveloped for quite some time. I agree with the first part. Once 98 is funded, the risk of default occurs if these loan terms are completed without the development funding being found. The loans do seem to have separate security.The priorities for the borrowers will be firstly, to do whatever is required to obtain the development funding. But then to do whatever development gives the best cash flow, consistent with planning conditions.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Mar 28, 2018 14:05:59 GMT
Ostensibly the risk profile of 1000080 appears to be similar to 1000098 being offered today. But £190K+ of 1000098 has been subscribed in the past few hours when more than £10K of 1000080 is available at a discount on the SM suggesting that the latter is riskier. Is this the case? Ultimatelty it's the same project requiring development finance. As blender says, this is currently reduced risk instant returns until filled and some investors may prefer the secondary market choice of being split across different 15% tranches. Edit - let's not overlook the altruistic amongst us who like to see a new tranche get over the line (and thereby also helping to secure their underlying investment too).
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 28, 2018 14:18:38 GMT
Ostensibly the risk profile of 1000080 appears to be similar to 1000098 being offered today. But £190K+ of 1000098 has been subscribed in the past few hours when more than £10K of 1000080 is available at a discount on the SM suggesting that the latter is riskier. Is this the case? Ultimatelty it's the same project requiring development finance. As blender says, this is currently reduced risk instant returns until filled and some investors may prefer the secondary market choice of being split across different 15% tranches. Edit - let's not overlook the altruistic amongst us who like to see a new tranche get over the line (and thereby also helping to secure their underlying investment too). True about instant returns, but that's not what I meant, elliottm. The present risk to 80 is that 98 falls short of the total. That is why 80 is at a discount, imo. I have moved from 80 to 98. Ablrate may hope that when the next IFISA year opens, 98 will offer the best rate for new some ISA money (if 98 not already filled). We should all wish 98 to get over the line, pure self-interest.
|
|
|
Post by fatbritabroad on Mar 28, 2018 15:24:48 GMT
I dont think my 100 is going to help much lol
|
|
nw99
Posts: 340
Likes: 114
|
Post by nw99 on Mar 28, 2018 17:36:31 GMT
Filling my boots with 80 below 99.5
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Mar 29, 2018 13:43:15 GMT
I dont think my 100 is going to help much lol Might just make the difference at the end of the day. I do wonder if this and the one just launched isn't a big ask in the current climate. I have little inclination to move new funds in to finance more loans for existing borrowers, might be tempted for something new to the market but neither of these.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 29, 2018 14:17:29 GMT
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 30, 2018 8:08:28 GMT
I dont think my 100 is going to help much lol Might just make the difference at the end of the day. I do wonder if this and the one just launched isn't a big ask in the current climate. I have little inclination to move new funds in to finance more loans for existing borrowers, might be tempted for something new to the market but neither of these. I agree that 98 in particular is a big ask, and my guess is that ablrate might have preferred it to be refinanced elsewhere, or for the current finance to be extended to match the extension of 80. However, the three are filling more quickly that I thought. For a new lender, with a fresh ISA allowance in 2018/19, these three loans will make an ablrate IFISA look attractive, if still there on April 6th. Some new borrowers definitely needed next.
|
|
|
Post by epicurean on Mar 30, 2018 12:38:15 GMT
All of the issues I mentioned in my previous post below still seem to exist, just on a larger scale p2pindependentforum.com/post/210965One further issue is now splitting the land security across different facilities. It looks as if the valuer has assumed if 100% of the land is worth £100m, then 25% is worth £25m. That isn't always the case. - If you enforce and only have Phase 1 land, do you still have planning permission, or is the permission for the whole site? No planning is a big hit to value - Are you reliant on the Phase 2/3/4 land to get access to the site? - Are you reliant on the Phase 2/3/4 land for enabling infrastructure? For example, mains utility connections - Are you reliant on Phase 2/3/4 land to make the economics work on Phase 1? Often redevelopment of Grade II listed buildings only works through effectively being subsidised by new builds on other phases of the site - If none of the above are issues, can you really build houses on only Phase 1 that people will want to buy? And at what price? Noting that the rest of the site is derelict and asbestos-ridden - If Ablrate enforced on both sites, they would be expected to represent the best interests of two separate pools of investors who would own what would become two competing development sites next to each other Other lenders have not been able to get comfortable providing development finance to date. Will the site really be materially derisked such that lenders become more comfortable over the course of the next 8 months when this comes up for refinance? Will the owners have the equity they need to fund their share? Presumably people think yes.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on May 31, 2018 16:24:10 GMT
With the related 1000098 planned to complete on 4th June for a 8 month term, #98 would be expected to have maturity date around 4th Feb 2019.
1000080 has a maturity date of 29 Dec 2018.
Is the maturity of #80 dependent on the maturity /refinancing of #98?
If so, is the maturity date of #80 expected to be extended to match that of #98?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 31, 2018 16:38:15 GMT
They are separate loans with separate physical security, and with fixed terms and pre-funded interest. Whether they decide to apply for an extension to 80, again, will probably depend on the progress of the development finance. My guess is that they would rather 98 had filled more quickly, but that the moving out of the end date is less of a problem than being forced to exchange loan for equity. The borrower seems very confident in the project, which is a good thing imo.
|
|
Balder
Member of DD Central
Posts: 641
Likes: 614
|
Post by Balder on Jul 20, 2018 12:13:28 GMT
I see the company trading report changed to not rated 19/7/18 - any ideas why?
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Jul 20, 2018 12:43:08 GMT
I see the company trading report changed to not rated 19/7/18 - any ideas why? Probably because of the CCJ that's now showing against the company. Difficult to assess if this is a real issue without knowing the size of the judgement. Normally these type of credit reports are fairly irrelevant when dealing with non-trading property development SPVs.
|
|