|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 8, 2016 15:18:32 GMT
Maybe they've got a "pre-fund" on all loans, then spit out if they don't want something. I just had a go at one. Clicked within a half second of the thing appearing on screen ..... all gone .... didn't even get as far as "are you a bot?" No living person could have gone through the motions to buy it in that time, so either the bots have cracked the system, or (more likely) someone else sees the offer before I do because of internet/computer download speeds etc. I don't think it's bots. All it would take is someone to run through the same motion as you 0.1 seconds faster than you, and they get the loan part. Gone are the good old days where you could actually buy SM SS pieces. But at least it's easy to sell.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 7, 2016 17:53:22 GMT
I've used the following set n forget successfully
Lending Works (5yr term) Assetz Capital GBBA Landbay (fixed Rate)
Recently withdrew from Landbay as the interest rate is too low, put about 1/4 of the Landbay cash into Money Thing's Managed Portfolios which are set and forget since they tend to renew every 6 months.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 4, 2016 16:54:51 GMT
So what is the general thought on the new one, 8 flats, not exactly a great yield 2.20 and only 5% discount on its current value, looks like the last few have not been as good as one or two of the previous ones seems like a purely speculative gamble. For me a 5% discount and a low yield isn't an investment.
|
|
|
FundingSecure (FS) in Administration
New Loans (FS)
Feb 2, 2016 15:07:34 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 2, 2016 15:07:34 GMT
Not many takes for latest 3 "super" domains 1068145233. 11 minutes into it and barely 36% taken. Why? Domain values are highly speculative, worse than modern art. A domain name may be worth £10k but finding someone who will pay that amount may take a long time.
|
|
|
Property Moose
SPV 39
Feb 1, 2016 19:39:33 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 1, 2016 19:39:33 GMT
IMO This property is overvalued, it's not being secured for much of a market discount and the area isn't good. The yields might be ok but as an investment, it falls way short. Surely as an investment it is only the yield that matters? Like undated gilts. I'm not sold on HMO's as I think they will run into troubled waters regarding valuations. I think when they do, the properties that are being valued on HMO basis will fall in value, so if the property is sold in a couple of years, it's likely to be worth much less than current valuation. Plus PM has had some issues with previous HMO investments. Landlording an HMO is difficult at the easiest of times so yields are really an estimate.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 1, 2016 16:56:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 1, 2016 16:32:16 GMT
Small isn't necessarily bad because it can imply that it can be maintained at a hobby level for loan runoff, particularly if the loans are short term, which might allow just funding for the runoff period as an ongoing business. Or just buying out all investors to close at the tiny end. Potential for debt collection costs would be a factor to consider here. Ultimately we each have to decide on our own preferred balance. In this case I'm content with it and you're not but I think we do at least agree that bond ladders beat short term investment rates at some low paying platforms unless very high proportions of the capital have to be made available short term? The smaller platforms may really suffer at the hands of the FCA because of Full Permission regulation. From what I understand, the FCA has rigorous levels of compliance which are quite expensive to fulfill. There are some stringent IT requirements concerning website security. If the smaller platforms don't have deep pockets, then how will they comply and continue to operate? There lies the risk. Yes we can agree bond ladders make sense, despite being quite time consuming.
|
|
|
Property Moose
SPV 39
Feb 1, 2016 16:24:38 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on Feb 1, 2016 16:24:38 GMT
IMO This property is overvalued, it's not being secured for much of a market discount and the area isn't good. The yields might be ok but as an investment, it falls way short.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 31, 2016 18:02:57 GMT
Good analysis that ignores the risk factors involved with investing in the high interest rate platforms. A bond ladder can be constructed at any platform that doesn't insist on every loan you buy ending at the same time. What isn't necessary is using short term lending at lower rates when only relatively modest amounts of capital might be needed at short notice and the longer term rates at the same or other platforms can be used instead, taking instead of reinvesting the capital at maturity. I don't ignore the risk factors of different platforms or terms, rather I think that the lending risk is likely to be lower from the secured lending platforms in very adverse situations because of the security often offered, which has greater total loss-absorbing capacity than protection funds. Then I consider the trade off between those and other risks and returns. Each person should do the same and pick the mixture that meets their needs and preferences. Personally I think that the 12% or so platforms today are broadly offering decent trade offs for 3-12 month and sometimes longer terms compared to the 5-6% or so for three to five years or 0.5-2% for short terms platform options. Not necessarily for all individual loans, though, there are some whose blend I do not think is a good enough deal to get my money. All good points James but I should have written risk of platform failure as I'm not so concerned about loan defaults. I think placing large amounts of money into the smaller and less established platforms that aren't turning a profit increases the risk factor immensely, even if it's short term. For me I'd have to receive a more than 1% monthly to ignore the safer more established platforms.
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 30, 2016 16:24:55 GMT
on the months when I have an excess, can just stuff it back on a monthly market. Every few months, I can decide if I leave it in monthly as short term extra rainy day money, or put some back into longer term income generation. Why waste money in a short term market that offers lower rates? Instead, put plenty of money into many loans on platforms that have liquid secondary markets without the punitive costs that RateSetter has for selling before the end of term. Next worst after RateSetter is Zopa for cost of selling. Both force you to take a capital loss if rates have increased but take from you the capital profit that is available if rates have dropped, in addition to explicit charges. RateSetter also punishes you with a change to a shorter term market for the whole term you've had the money invested, while Zopa does it only for the remaining term. Good analysis that ignores the risk factors involved with investing in the high interest rate platforms.
|
|
|
Property Moose
SPV 39
Jan 30, 2016 15:47:58 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 30, 2016 15:47:58 GMT
My friend read the valuation, and is saying the comparables are not at all comparable, therefore the valuation is inflated: "One is a single flat, two is by the sea and the third is a new purpose build development of modern flats" Where is the valuation showing the comparables? I can't find it. PM for some reason doesn't post the valuations, you have to ask them to email it to you.
|
|
|
Property Moose
SPV 39
Jan 30, 2016 15:20:32 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 30, 2016 15:20:32 GMT
I'd trust my friends valuation over a PM valuation, which is designed to make the property look as attractive as possible to garner investment. My friend is very experienced in the Northern market, owns his own firm with many employees and has been in the business 20+years. I just post the information for help to others, you can do what you want with it and it makes no difference to me whether you invest your money or it. I would have thought it would be in PM'S interest not to over pay on any property. As it reduces both the capital and rental yield and makes it less attractive to investors. Whilst I don't disbelieve your friend with his valuation, it does put into focus how objective valuations can be. Yes it would be in their interest not to overpay, but companies make mistakes with regards to valuations all the time. A good real estate investment isn't one that is secured for 5% under market value. That's called paying retail (or overpaying IMO).
|
|
|
Property Moose
SPV 39
Jan 30, 2016 13:40:49 GMT
adrianc likes this
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 30, 2016 13:40:49 GMT
I'd trust my friends valuation over a PM valuation, which is designed to make the property look as attractive as possible to garner investment. My friend is very experienced in the Northern market, owns his own firm with many employees and has been in the business 20+years.
I just post the information for help to others, you can do what you want with it and it makes no difference to me whether you invest your money or it.
|
|
|
Property Moose
SPV 39
Jan 30, 2016 13:32:26 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 30, 2016 13:32:26 GMT
In the nature of information sharing, as I like for people to do the same for me if possible, my oldest friend is a very experienced Chartered Surveyor. I sent him SPV39 info and he replied: "Wow, how do they manage to get four units out of one terrace house! Hartlepool is a dog of an area. It looks as though it’s just a HMO with shared facilities, even an HMO would only have an investment value of £90k. I’ve just had a look at this comparables. One is a single flat, two is by the sea and the third is a new purpose build development of modern flats. No way is it comparable to a crappy terrace! Bottom line is that you can buy terraced houses for £40k on that street." Hope that helps. A RICS survey carried out on the 15th January 2016, values the property at £134,000. It seems that the chartered surveyor PM used would disagree with your mate. My friend read the valuation, and is saying the comparables are not at all comparable, therefore the valuation is inflated: "One is a single flat, two is by the sea and the third is a new purpose build development of modern flats"
|
|
|
Property Moose
SPV 39
Jan 29, 2016 22:12:36 GMT
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 29, 2016 22:12:36 GMT
In the nature of information sharing, as I like for people to do the same for me if possible, my oldest friend is a very experienced Chartered Surveyor. I sent him SPV39 info and he replied:
"Wow, how do they manage to get four units out of one terrace house! Hartlepool is a dog of an area. It looks as though it’s just a HMO with shared facilities, even an HMO would only have an investment value of £90k. I’ve just had a look at this comparables. One is a single flat, two is by the sea and the third is a new purpose build development of modern flats. No way is it comparable to a crappy terrace! Bottom line is that you can buy terraced houses for £40k on that street."
Hope that helps.
|
|