macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,934 
Likes: 1,199
|
Post by macq on Aug 27, 2017 16:55:54 GMT
may not be what you mean by ethical and i don't think it does property development but Flender does come with a social edge with its friends & family idea
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Aug 27, 2017 19:38:44 GMT
Yes, mrclondon. ( Thumbs up emoticon here )
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Aug 27, 2017 22:13:13 GMT
I agree with all of the above but I would also like to know the name of the borrower (be it a company or an individual). Anonymity is fine for pawn loans but I can't see any justification for it in business/property loans. When doing my DD I want to do just as much research into the borrower(s) as I do into the specific proposition on offer. Sometimes it isn't too difficult to work out who it is but why should I have to go digging? AC name them but MT and Col do not. If identity isn't disclosed by the platform, the educated guesswork required to reveal it can sometimes lead to a wrong conclusion and consequently the wrong lending decision. I'm equally fastidious when it comes to assessing the character of the various Nigerian princesses that contact me with their urgent requirement to divest themselves of $100,000,000. It turns out that quite a lot of them are crooks. It would also be helpful if they made it clear in the 'overview' if the borrower has other loans with the platform... I think, lack of transparency is one of the main problems.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Aug 28, 2017 10:09:48 GMT
I'm not sure that I have this idea clear in my own mind yet, and it's not specific to property development loans (but might be more of an issue with them than other loan types?) but it seems to be that there's a bit of an inherent conflict in the current model. On the one hand platforms say "just trust us, we've got a great credit department" (when there are obvious examples to the contrary), and on the other they say "we're only intermediaries, you need to do your own due diligence" (but without the necessary disclosure). Surely they can't have it both ways?
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 772
|
Post by m2btj on Aug 28, 2017 11:03:00 GMT
I too have had concerns regarding the general property market ever since my niece sold her very swish flat in Muswell Hill last year. After no more than six viewings in four months she finally accepted an offer well below the estate agent valuation. She then in turn made a reduced offer on the property she subsequently bought in Southgate. I knew the London property market had cooled but was surprised at just how difficult it was getting to sell. I would not invest in a any property with an LTV over 65%. Anyone who has attended a property auction will be amazed at just how little a distressed property (or plot of land) will sell for. I expect the property market to get a whole lot worse before it gets better & would urge all P2P platforms to be highly wary of valuations underpinning the security of our investments.
|
|
|
|
Post by brummiefred on Aug 28, 2017 11:19:33 GMT
My apologies if this is slightly off topic, but, in the case of a defaulting property development loan, I won't name the ones I'm thinking of though I'm sure you will know, could we not, as first charge holders, repossess the property, engage the IMS as project manager, for a fee of course, and complete the scheme (maybe for the sum that the IMS has advised!) and then sell at the enhanced GDV which should cover the capital and interest due, or else expose the exaggeration of the initial presentation. MoneyThing |
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 772
|
Post by m2btj on Aug 28, 2017 11:45:15 GMT
My apologies if this is slightly off topic, but, in the case of a defaulting property development loan, I won't make the ones I'm thinking of though I'm sure you will know, could we not, as first charge holders, repossess the property, engage the IMS as project manager, for a fee of course, and complete the scheme (maybe for the sum that the IMS has advised!) and then sell at the enhanced GDV which should cover the capital and interest due, or else expose the exaggeration of the initial presentation. I too have thought of this & it is certainly an interesting concept. Would we then not become property developers in our own right or would the platform become the developer? Interesting but feasible? Another thought I had was a platform trading solely in defaulted loans at discounted rates?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2017 12:22:31 GMT
Two articles in the Economist touch on this week. "Growing pains" looks at the economic benefits of student accom development in university towns. There is also a nice little piece the "no longer managings" about how different counties have different individual rates of going bust. Lets face it Cornwall and Devon needs to be punt poled.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Aug 28, 2017 15:48:39 GMT
Two articles in the Economist touch on this week. "Growing pains" looks at the economic benefits of student accom development in university towns. There is also a nice little piece the "no longer managings" about how different counties have different individual rates of going bust. Lets face it Cornwall and Devon needs to be punt poled. What???
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Aug 29, 2017 15:13:44 GMT
Two articles in the Economist touch on this week. "Growing pains" looks at the economic benefits of student accom development in university towns. There is also a nice little piece the "no longer managings" about how different counties have different individual rates of going bust. Lets face it Cornwall and Devon needs to be punt poled. What??? is clear enough to me. 
|
|
ozboy
Member of DD Central
Mine's a Large One! (Snigger, snigger .......)
Posts: 3,168
Likes: 4,859
|
Post by ozboy on Aug 29, 2017 15:23:12 GMT
I too have had concerns regarding the general property market ever since my niece sold her very swish flat in Muswell Hill last year. After no more than six viewings in four months she finally accepted an offer well below the estate agent valuation. She then in turn made a reduced offer on the property she subsequently bought in Southgate. I knew the London property market had cooled but was surprised at just how difficult it was getting to sell. I would not invest in a any property with an LTV over 65%. Anyone who has attended a property auction will be amazed at just how little a distressed property (or plot of land) will sell for. I expect the property market to get a whole lot worse before it gets better & would urge all P2P platforms to be highly wary of valuations underpinning the security of our investments.Ha Ha m2btj, that'll never happen, most Platforms don't give a toss, they're too busy cosying up to the Borrowers, at Investors expense. Why derail their gravy train?
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Aug 30, 2017 15:41:45 GMT
...... I am absolutely fuming that after spending hours working out my own LTV for the MT Birkenhead loan, I now discover that for whatever reason I wasn't told of the existence of what probably (subject to further legal guidance) amounts to prior charges ahead of the MT charge, ..... My understanding is that buyers of the apartments who registered a Unilateral Charge before the loan went live do have priority over lenders. see p2pindependentforum.com/post/140647 However, I see this as a good thing, because the buyers who paid a 25% deposit for their apartment are committed to pay the remaining 75%. If they fail to pay the 75% on completion, then they lose the 25% deposit. The 75% is legally mandated to pay off our loan. see p2pindependentforum.com/post/158700/thread. My only concern is that the receivers are not focused on getting the development finished, their report seemed more about justifying their own costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Aug 30, 2017 16:00:51 GMT
...... I am absolutely fuming that after spending hours working out my own LTV for the MT Birkenhead loan, I now discover that for whatever reason I wasn't told of the existence of what probably (subject to further legal guidance) amounts to prior charges ahead of the MT charge, ..... My understanding is that buyers of the apartments who registered a Unilateral Charge before the loan went live do have priority over lenders. see p2pindependentforum.com/post/140647 However, I see this as a good thing, because the buyers who paid a 25% deposit for their apartment are committed to pay the remaining 75%. If they fail to pay the 75% on completion, then they lose the 25% deposit. The 75% is legally mandated to pay off our loan. see p2pindependentforum.com/post/158700/thread. My only concern is that the receivers are not focused on getting the development finished, their report seemed more about justifying their own costs. Agreed. However, my reading of the admin report (pdf pages 5 & 17-19 RH columns) is the sale of the development "as is" is pretty much inevitable (to my mind the wording in the two sections talking about the administrator's future work tends to imply the decision has already been made.) There will be no finished apartments for the UN1 buyers available to complete on, they will not be paying anything, IMO. The first five with UN1's infront of Broadoak will probably get their deposits back, the others have almost certainly lost them. Also note the paragaph (pdf page 3 top of RH column) discussing the borrower's agreement to sell the freehold of the completed development, and the conclusion that as the company is not in a position to fulfil its obligations under the agreement, it will be cancelled. (Which again implies the administrators consider that there will be no finished development from which the freehold can be sold) After reading a number of these administrators reports for failed development projects I'm beginning to get a feel for how the administration process evolves. It seems the normal practise is for the charge holder and the proposed administrators to discuss and agree the main direction (such as build out vs sell as is) before the administrators are formally appointed.
|
|
justme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 203 
Likes: 89
|
Post by justme on Aug 30, 2017 17:59:22 GMT
Excited to see at how much it will be sold, how it compares to the VR and how much of a sale proceeds will find the way to MT lenders (for each tranche)
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 31, 2017 6:08:32 GMT
Good post by mrclondon above, and I agree with most of it. The only point I would query is the opinion that AC are the most transparent. They are unwilling (and I think are actually unable) to say which lenders in the QAA would take the hit in the event of a default which could not be covered by them. If a loan in the QAA remains tradable, i.e. new lenders are diversified into it, then the provision fund has taken its discretionary decision and set aside funds to cover any expected loss. If there is a loss to be passed on to lenders then holdings in that loan are frozen at that point, ie. lenders wouldn't be able to withdraw that portion of their QAA funds, and each lender in the loan will take their share of any shortfall.
|
|
