|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Nov 17, 2017 9:22:24 GMT
I don't understand why it is necessary to block sales of shares on these properties which the re-valuation is on-going. Either the value will go up or down and it's up to the free market to decide which way they think it will go and buy/sell accordingly. I suppose if you were new to the platform and saw what looked like a tasty discount, only for the valuation to be heavily revised down right after you invested you might be a bit cheesed off. Unless you've been using PM for a while or keep and eye on things on this forum then you might not have a feel for how the projected rental yields and capital value tend to be a tad optimistic. I think it's reasonable to suggest the valuations will be revised down rather than up based on past experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by propertycalf on Nov 17, 2017 12:19:59 GMT
It happened to me with SPV 54.. I made multiple small investments and then one day there was a 'revision', rendering my investments bought at a substantial premium.
I still feel the fundamentals make it a decent longer term investment, but it's annoying at best.
|
|
kulerucket
Member of DD Central
Posts: 336 
Likes: 93
|
Post by kulerucket on Nov 17, 2017 14:58:27 GMT
I suppose it seems fair in some ways but putting it on hold is just forcing the current owner to take on the risk when they might not want to. If someone wants to sell and someone else wants to buy then that transaction shouldn't be blocked. It seems the same as a companies blocking sales of their stock in the lead up to publishing their annual report because the results might be bad.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 17, 2017 15:23:28 GMT
I suppose it seems fair in some ways but putting it on hold is just forcing the current owner to take on the risk when they might not want to. If someone wants to sell and someone else wants to buy then that transaction shouldn't be blocked. It seems the same as a companies blocking sales of their stock in the lead up to publishing their annual report because the results might be bad. I think I would at least have expected them to cancel all sell orders on the SM for that property when the revaluations are released. Otherwise if the value of the property rockets up you'll find people caught unaware who have listed shares for sale at the old lower price. It certainly wouldn't seem fair to me that an unannounced revaluation could put them in that position. That said, locking the SM for weeks without really saying anything does seem somewhat unhelpful. It does strike me as well that since we're basically entirely reliant on PM to provide info about the properties, including state and valuation, it's really not possible to come to any conclusion about fair price that doesn't depend heavily on PM. If the valuation process did reveal a significant, and hitherto unknowable to investors, change in the property then it would seem problematic for PM to allow sales directly beforehand, especially since in this case the fact that a revaluation was going to occur seemed not to be released to investors. However, I'm not convinced the method they've taken of just shutting the SM and staying fairly quiet for weeks actually solves that problem either - investors who are buying are in the same position if they buy and suddenly a revaluation occurs as if they buy, the SM is shut for some time and then the revaluation occurs. I certainly think that communicating more with lenders about the whole thing could only help the situation, however.
|
|
|
|
Post by charlata on Nov 17, 2017 17:31:35 GMT
I suppose it seems fair in some ways but putting it on hold is just forcing the current owner to take on the risk when they might not want to. If someone wants to sell and someone else wants to buy then that transaction shouldn't be blocked. It seems the same as a companies blocking sales of their stock in the lead up to publishing their annual report because the results might be bad. In theory at least, insider dealing is policed on regulated stock markets, whereas it would be very easy for a party connected to a valuer to deal on the PM sm.
|
|
damar
Member of DD Central
Posts: 110
Likes: 47
|
Post by damar on Nov 28, 2017 9:38:57 GMT
Why is SPV31 off the market? Supposedly it (and SPV42) are off for "revaluation". Since this has been the case for at least three weeks (a month?) I'm curious as to what this revaluation actually involves, but requests for further information have gone unanswered. I have chased this on SPV41 and told the that they will be done as soon as possible, a third party does the revaluation. I have asked for this to be escalated, although to be honest I don't hold out much hope.
|
|
oldtimer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 211
Likes: 156
|
Post by oldtimer on Nov 28, 2017 9:54:05 GMT
SPV 12 and 36 have been off the market for "revaluation" for at least 6 weeks. How they can let this drag on with no further explanation for the delay beggars belief. I have chased twice but got nowhere.
|
|
p2ploser
Member of DD Central
Posts: 163
Likes: 221
|
Post by p2ploser on Nov 28, 2017 18:48:05 GMT
Maybe it’s a cynical attempt to stop people selling out  |
|
damar
Member of DD Central
Posts: 110
Likes: 47
|
Post by damar on Dec 3, 2017 10:21:26 GMT
Maybe it’s a cynical attempt to stop people selling out Strange, I had the same thought this morning, I am down to two investments, the second one is drifting away nicely, and SPV41 will be the only one left.
|
|
