oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 30, 2017 12:57:49 GMT
There's nothing to worry about here so sit back and enjoy your 13% would be my advice. Your advice would obviously carry more weight if you made clear your reasons and also said whether you held this loan and are trying to sell some or are buying more. If there are dots to be joined let's join them. If you don't want to sell then I don't fully understand the thread you started protesting at the queue to off-load the recent loan paying cashback and similarly with this one. If you aren't stuck in a queue trying to sell then this would seem to be bit of a non-event for you. Perhaps we should also all try to be a little less smug about deriding others as "sheeples". (Always used for those exiting, never those entering a loan.) The reality is that there are people with less time or better things to do than endlessly study loans, especially if they have relatively small sums invested. I've a six figure sum invested in p2p, but as that's a low single figure percentage of my total investments it's becoming clear that the returns often don't warrant the time I feel obliged to spend penetrating the smoke and mirrors. For me it's solely an investment, not a game, and platforms need to provide more information upfront to make DD less time-consuming and do more to be trusted. Declaration of interest. I don't hold this loan and therefore not in the queue trying to sell; neither with over half a million available on the SM am I trying to buy. (The possibilities for using this forum to pump and dump or trash and cash perhaps shows the additional risks for some, and opportunities for others, of a discounting SM. )
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 28, 2017 12:03:49 GMT
This is a bridging loan, not a development loan, and the security appears pretty solid to me. Indeed, Please turn me over 's photos show that serious money has been spent in recent weeks by demolishing the derelict building, increasing the site value further. I suspect much of selling queue is larger holders simply wanting to ensure their funds aren't stuck behind everyone else if / when they wish to redeploy elsewhere. That's the downside of par-only Secondary Markets; all you can do is queue! And as each queue lengthens, prospective buyers assume there's something amiss so sales dry up. All MoneyThing needs is an option for those genuinely wanting to exit quickly to offer a discount (in 0.1% steps, perhaps with a 1% cap initially to protect the unwary from themselves) and let market forces do the rest. (Disclosure: I currently have my entire holding up for sale, in various bits dotted through the queue, because there's no logic in not doing so. However, I'd happily buy some more at a decent discount) Yep, that's absolutely valid (though Moneything say they offered to fund the development and for the the borrowers to get funding elsewhere looks increasingly problematic). They say the loan "is expected to be repaid from the pre-sales of the units" which unsurprisingly now isn't going as predicted - so far just a fraction of those contracts expected by this stage. Even assuming the valuation is right, most wouldn't see hoping to be repaid from a recovery as ideal. The MT blurb tells us " The borrower on this project is.... As such, the borrower is a highly experienced developer having designed & built a number of similar projects in the Liverpool and Manchester area". Would have perhaps been more balanced to have mentioned their failures too. No-one should expect high rates without defaults, that's the deal, but that's not to say lenders shouldn't be properly informed of the facts. Good luck with the sale of your holding.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 28, 2017 10:49:04 GMT
There seems to be a lot more allegations and dirty washing lnked to various directors. The Liverpool Echo seems a good source and every soul in Liverpool seems to know about them. Not a loan I'd choose to hold. ...It would be reassuring to see MT managing this loans exit strategy closely from here on in. It would, and would be still more reassuring if Moneything stopped offering loans like this and others we've seen recently altogether. It seems unlikely that they are so inept as to have not been well aware of the group's history and their unfinished projects that litter Liverpool. And that of the various directors (at least one using several variations of his name) moving between the myriad companies on a magic roundabout. If they didn't know, then they didn't choose to look. Withdrawing offers only after sharper users of this site point out the problems isn't good enough. It's also the fault of us, the lenders, as well; too often ready to mop up iffy loans for what looks like a high rate or a bit of cashback on the expectation of being able to off-load them onto someone less sharp when the cracks appear. If MT is to survive and prosper then they'll need to give lenders more reason to have confidence in their processes and not expose them to the sharks. That means proper DD by them to inform lenders of the specific risks or making it far easier and less time-consuming for lenders to do their own assessment. It might be that lower rates have to be offered, so be it, but it should be possible for all retail lenders to make an informed choice rather than the current murky catch-as-catch-can.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 27, 2017 17:45:55 GMT
I found that the director and the directors of the significant control company are part of group of companies registered at the same address. Interestingly, reported in July 2017 in BBC news, one of their regeneration project was stalled and its sales agent was accused of fraud in Hong Kong. The group "will seek to dispose of" all property interests. Not sure whether it is related to this loan. There seems to be a lot more allegations and dirty washing lnked to various directors. The Liverpool Echo seems a good source and every soul in Liverpool seems to know about them. Not a loan I'd choose to hold.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 14, 2017 9:43:23 GMT
Presumably the agreed uplift in the buy back agreement that the developer must pay to current owners, would be nice for Coll to clarify the given value. So all ultimately dependent on that famous super-borrower behind nigh half the loans on Collateral etc?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 13, 2017 17:35:09 GMT
I notice that on an investment property sales site they were offering the units from £55k but that included an assured net rental of 9% for 5 yrs and presumably they won't be worth that much without the assured income. Looks as if they were previously offered at the same price but with an assured income of 11.59%. Zoopla shows a unit that had been listed for sale on 3rd Mar 2017 for £48k. Rightmove had one for rent at £81 pw and currently one on Gumtree at £350.00 pm (possibly the same one) - which even gross is a fair bit less than 9% of £60k.
So would be useful to know where the £60k valuation came from as there doesn't seem to be a VR. What have I missed?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 9, 2017 9:52:49 GMT
If you don't want to sell, then it's of no real interest if a lot of others do. If you do want to sell, then it's probably way too late for that now and so of no useful interest either.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 5, 2017 17:28:07 GMT
Collateral Rep , is it the case that with a renewal you can choose whether to renew your loan parts or not, but with a loan extension you don't have the option of having your loan parts repaid? If Collateral are going to extend loans without the expressed agreement of lenders, then I'd suggest that it would be reasonable for lenders to at least have the option of trying to sell those loan-parts without financial penalty - i.e. without Collateral pocketing the interest while the loan-part to be extended is on sale.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Oct 4, 2017 19:29:41 GMT
Please note that the site is being acquired for £730,000. The borrower was able to act quickly to secure a substantial discount from the site's true value. So yet again, the "true value" apparently isn't what he's paying for it but almost double - presumably what someone would pay him for it for an instant profit without all the kerfufle of actually building something. Who are these foolish souls who sell property for half it's true value and others who will pay double what it could have been acquired for? There seem to be plenty of them around and they need looking after. Development site valuation is a mysterious business.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 26, 2017 15:50:13 GMT
So not sticklers for detail then? You might think that reading the previous stuff before copying it would be part of the service. So where did the description as 'Freehold' in the VR by JPA Surveyors come from?
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 26, 2017 14:27:38 GMT
Wimpey were taking flak some while back over describing long lease properties as "virtual freeholds" so I'd assumed the term was just sales patter rather than a legal term. www.propertyreporter.co.uk/finance/thousands-of-flat-owners-in-virtual-freehold-nightmare.htmlCompanies House describes Moneything's charge as: Persons entitled Moneything (Security Trustee) Limited (Co No 09933277) Brief description The leasehold land registered at the land registry with title number **********
From VR on MT: "MARKET VALUE FREEHOLD SITE WITH VACANT POSSESSION. We are of the opinion that the Market Value of the Freehold interest in the site on vacant possession basis is the sum of £650,000."
I'm a tad confused.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 26, 2017 14:02:53 GMT
Would no doubt help with a sale if it was clear what was being offered. "Tenure: Freehold" in the agent's main details. "TENURE: We understand the site is held by way of a long leasehold interest subject to a nominal ground rent." in their linked PDF. The VR states that the valuation of £650,000 is for the freehold interest. The tenant's lease expires in Feb 2018. Perhaps MoneyThing could advise the agent asap, and us, of the correct position.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 25, 2017 12:10:22 GMT
I’ve just lent £1200 in Rolling and looking at my October repayments I get it all back (£1203.77) exactly a month later. All of my lent rolling money gets paid back in October and that’s how it seems to happen every month. So it seems every rolling loan I make is for exactly 1 month, unless repaid early. Why is that??? It’s a bit annoying. I don’t think it’s always been that way? Cheers If you don't want that annoyance then you might consider Assetz Capital paying 4.25% on their 30 Day Access account until you give notice to get it back, or their Quick Access account paying 3.75%.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
MoneyThing (MT) in Administration
Supercars ...
Sept 19, 2017 17:55:33 GMT
Post by oik on Sept 19, 2017 17:55:33 GMT
That also rates as a concern ....... :-) Err, yes, there is that too. Though both cars still seem to be on sale on the website, despite reports, albeit one seems to be listed as 1991 rather than 1990 as in the loan details. I have surprising amount of money in these. And I don't normally do "renewals" on this sort of stuff on FS. So not really sure why I have on MT. No good deed ever goes unpunished.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 19, 2017 16:30:17 GMT
cash flow problems I expect, he was on the TV at some point and they had a pretty decent selection of high value motors, and a very nice house I might add, hopefully the cars are secured correctly, in which case we shouldn't have to worry too much all being well. The rest of the cars may be owned by him or he may be selling them on a brokerage basis. It might be the big loan on the nice house he aspired to that put him in difficulty along with the other blingy stuff. As well as the Ch4 film there's a lot of allegations on various petrolhead forums going back years, some of them fairly scary if true. That said, the cars should be quicker, cheaper and easier to dispose of than property. Let's hope MT are as efficient as Collateral were in a similar situation.
|
|