oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Aug 6, 2017 12:20:52 GMT
My personal opinion is that it's always better to go for the highest rates, regardless. Because higher rate = higher liquidity. That approach relies heavily on the the "greater fool" theory but no less valid for that - except of course for those greater fools. An alternative approach might be to try to ensure that, whatever the rate accepted, it reasonably reflects the level of risk.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Aug 6, 2017 11:15:44 GMT
I take a different angle. I've got mostly tranche A in this loan as its effective LTV is 46% and it ranks ahead of tranche B. This gives me a warm feeling when things are looking a little uncertain. Though I'm still pretty confident MT will resolve any issues so neither tranche loses money I think you've read it right. Let's put it this way: if you were to lose out on a loan supposedly with an LTV of 46% that would certainly be a wake up call for those of us with alleged 70% LTV loans.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 27, 2017 11:39:31 GMT
sounds like a recipe for success and high liquidity to me. And after they come back for another £1m assuming they get the pp renewed?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 26, 2017 14:55:44 GMT
Yes I can confirm that this loan will be capped at 60% LTV and if we do the development finance, it will rank behind this loan. Which I assume to mean that if there is any further finance against this site, it will rank behind this loan?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 25, 2017 10:43:42 GMT
But this morning I noticed it had been repaid already - the money seemed to have been on loan for no more than 1.5 hours before being repaid! Those mysterious "borrowers" are a fickle bunch.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 22, 2017 14:33:00 GMT
as a user of this platform, may I recommend col to offer higher interest rather than CB? I'm cool with both, depending on the circumstances, though don't especially like the side effects of cashback. Before either, I prefer a reliable valuation and sensible LTV. That's fair to the borrower and lenders and losing money seriously ruins my day. Can I ask the reasons for your preference?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 20, 2017 11:34:57 GMT
They know what their p2p clients want and give it to them. Not much cop with camera either is he?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 19, 2017 12:26:50 GMT
I've just got back so haven't had a chance to look at this yet. Certainly interesting but as yet I just don't get it.
Someone buying one of 444 lodges in a picturesque setting with views over a loch or river valley, yes, I'd understand that. But a lodge looking out at 443 other sheds sat in the middle of nowhere in particular, surrounded by fairly ordinary countryside, allbeit with the attraction of a golf-course 24 miles away, isn't going to have me rushing for my chequebook. Will early buyers be happy to holiday there while the site is developed?
Not an industry I know anything about but seems to me that the present business with a few holiday lets is an appropriate use for this scrap of land: surely there are thousands of acres elsewhere with more to offer and better suited for a more ambitious development. Which may be why having obtained pp some years ago no one has gone ahead with the development before. It would seem to be about creating a resort where people would actually want to holiday rather than just putting up a few sheds in a remote field. I'd like to know what previous success the borrowers have had in doing that. I'd be quite happy with the loan at the current £2m valuation but it's when/if the pp is renewed and the valuation and loan is doubled that I might start to worry.
Others like it so maybe I'll change my mind when I read a bit more, but in the meantime I'll just watch with interest.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 13, 2017 12:16:42 GMT
Incidently PPD isnt the borrower on Plymouth, its another of the directors companies according to CH. That doesn't surprise me though the loan details for B******* do say it's the same buyer, rather than another company with the same sole director. He does seem to have quite a lot of companies, a dozen or so created last year alone iirc. As you suggest there are many possible scenarios, some less likely than others. What we seem to know with some certainty is that one of the borrower's companies was making planning applications for this site from some while back until recently before becoming insolvent and being put into compulsory liquidation by its creditors. Then another of the borrower's companies acquired the same site from an unnamed company, also in financial difficulties, at a knockdown price. Gets very confusing with the many companies and could have been a coincidence of two unconnected companies, one making planning applications for the site and the other owning it, both companies getting into difficulties at around the same time. Perhaps just an unlucky site. Would be more easily understood if MT were to clarify the sequence of events either here or in the details. Thanks for the pics agent69. I guess the question being if this one of the borrower's companies were also to get into difficulty, would anyone be willing to pay £2,180,000, the new valuation, to take over the project as it currently stands. Given that the borrower found that a part completed project can be bought for just a fraction of the normal value, himself having paid just £331,000 for this site as a distressed sale, I wouldn't necessarily count on it. Looks way too early for the latest tranche to me. It could of course be repaid on time without a hiccup.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 13, 2017 9:53:06 GMT
Afternoon. I can confirm that our borrower was in no way connected to the previous ownership. Regards, Ed. Thanks for that Ed. Could you help me a bit more on that? For the residential development in B********* (MTAS713), we're told "Related Loans: This is the same borrower as the recently funded Plymouth student development (MTAS707)": which I gather is P******** P******* D******** Ltd. This is one of a number of companies of which a Mr DH is the sole director. On planning application documents for both B********* (MTAS713) and the Plymouth development the applicant is C******* A**** Ltd. Which is another of the companies of which Mr DH is/was the sole director, until it became insolvent and went into compulsory liquidation recently. All of which gave me the impression that both sites were previously owned by Mr H's liquidated company C******* A**** Ltd until they were acquired by his other company, P******** P******* D******** Ltd, the borrower. Could you help by pointing out what I may have misunderstood?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 12, 2017 10:18:09 GMT
How does what you want to know affect this loan Oik? That's for you to judge. It's of relevance to me because in the original loan description it was said: "Please note that the site was purchased out of a distressed sale for £331,000. The borrower was able to act quickly and had the appropriate contacts to be able to secure a substantial discount from the site’s true value."If the actual circumstances were that the current owner obtained the site from a company where he was also the sole director after it had been put into compulsory liquidation by the courts following a petitition by creditors, then that would seem to be misleading as the "contacts" would presumably have been himself. It might also affect my view of why the previous source of finance for his other loan on MT decided not to continue the relationship on the existing terms. More generally, clarification would inform me as to how loan descriptions should be read and relied upon. Rather than becoming a discussion of either the borrower or the various other companies he has owned without having access to the full details, I think a simple clarification by MT would be preferable.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 11, 2017 19:57:55 GMT
I notice that the site (initially valued at £1,430,000 and now at £2,180,000 after some work) was acquired a few months ago through a distressed sale for just £331,000 because the borrower had what are described as "contacts".
Could we get some clarification on that? My understanding is that the previous owner of the site was another company owned by the borrower that became insolvent and went into compulsory liquidation in April. Did the borrower buy the site from his own insolvent company?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 5, 2017 11:50:57 GMT
Tesco looking more promising by the minute! Seems even RBS are doing their bit. Their Ulster Bank now offering 1.25% on up to £5m with instant access via FP using internet, phone or phone app. And the warm and cuddly FSCS. (Not to mention all those current accounts and regular savers around @ 2%-5%, several offering £100 upwards just to transfer in an account.)
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 5, 2017 11:29:53 GMT
Would agree that the total sum held on the platform can be calculated by adding the right figures together. In fact, the same figures appear several times here and there. I'd also find it useful to have the total sum itself shown somewhere, perhaps in a space taken by the repeated figures. I do a lot of adding numbers together so a few less to do would be appreciated.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 3, 2017 16:01:39 GMT
Always like this on the big days Returns from 5 year can be as late as lunchtime/early afternoon, and they don't start any matching until all thats done it would seem. They could do with a faster box (and less conspiracy theorists) To use the term "matching" as you do seems to suggest that there really are "borrowers" who wouldn't pay more than 2.2% this morning but at the end of the day are now willing to change their offers to match the 2.9% being asked by lenders. Isn't quite how it works is it, though some people who were accepting 2.2% may have believed it.
|
|