Eek! Moose on the loose! Positives and negatives?

I like the idea of owning equity, as an addition to my loan portfolio on other platforms. 

The costs seem indeed high, but hey, I want to be a landlord and its fun 

They're acquisition costs not furniture costs - read the blurb near the bottom of the listings.
Other costs - yeah some of them, particularly for HMOs have been nasty, but that's what happens sometimes in BTL.
Buying fees - there was a discussion when the SM was launched. These are to cover transaction costs that don't exist with p2p SMs. Hasn't stopped people buying where the price is right for the property concerned (I've sold a few of the older £500 shares for between 3-14% gain)
Cash-back opt out is probably there for the Sharia investors who can't receive interest.

I like them because I was originally planning to invest in BTL anyway but didn't really fancy doing all the work myself or being stuck with eggs in too few baskets. The other main positive for me is that some of the returns are capital not income.

 

Why opt out of the 3% interest?

the Quran states: O ye who believe! Devour not interest, doubled and multiplied; but fear Allâh; that ye may (really) prosper.

According to the Quran ‘Those who eat Ribâ (interest) will not stand (on the Day of Resurrection) except like the standing of a person touched by Shaitân (Satan) leading him to insanity.'

So it seems it is ok to take rental yields and profit from property sales, but not interest while your investment is in the holding phase if this is the particular god you put your faith in.

As far as SPV52 is concerned they probably didn't have much choice given the original structure would have been. And if no-one else is doing it it's probably very worth their while!

''furniture costs are mislabelled as furniture, they are mainly financing costs to the PMF loans.'' thanks pom and Neil

so, ''There is an additional ‘Acquisition cost’ (shown as 'Furniture cost') which represents a finance fee paid to PMF A Ltd and PMF B Ltd''

er, so why not call a spade a spade? This seems a crazy description if the aim is full transparency. Could anyone enlighten me as to who/what exactly PMF A and PMF B are, what is the difference between them - and between PM - and what these (hefty!) costs actually represent? PM are taking a 5% fee (of total raised) - so does that mean 5% of the 'furniture costs' aka finance fees too? - like a 'tax' on 'tax'?!

I'm not pointing any suspicious fingers here, just trying to understand the mechanics of it all, and the various parties that are profiting out of these transactions. My initial impressions are that the whole scheme is a good money spinner for various parties, but which leaves margins tight for lenders, though obviously PM have to make their dollar too.

I think they just haven't got round to calling it a spade yet!  Here's some excerpts that can be found in the 'about this property' text for the properties:

"There is an additional ‘Acquisition Cost’ (shown as 'Furniture Cost') which represents a finance fee paid to PMF A Ltd, and property management disbursements (auction fee, inventory, checkout, inspection, visit). This structure can provide access to new routes of property sourcing at large discounts...    ...Please bear with us while we update the names of these fields on the website. To confirm, the projected returns are net of these fees."

When you arrive at a whole new platform and are completely unfamiliar with the set-up, or anything about it, confusions in terminology such as this are really not helpful. Re the other matter, I looked in vain for details of loan structures re PMF's in the 'knowledge center', but apparently this has no knowledge of such things. It was only later, when I got around to looking through every deal, and thus looking through the PMF loans in question, that the picture then became a bit clearer - though I am really still in the dark as to these 'acquisition costs', and how lenders lend into these funds that then seem to have such a marked impact on the profit margin on some deals (but not others). Any advantages of sourcing well-below market properties seems to get swallowed up into these 'costs', leaving the same tight margins. Anyway, I'm not pretending to know anything about it, but a comprehensive explanation in the 'knowledge center' or elsewhere would be helpful.
Anyway, I'm on board to give it a try, though it would appear that the number of active investors is a very small proportion of the number of 'registered' members. Although it all looks interesting, I'm not at all sure that it will be all that financially rewarding! And sorry to dampen any illusions of being a 'landlord' or property 'owner' - a nice fanciful idea perhaps, but I would consider the SPV to be the 'landlord' and 'owner' - to which we buy shares into.
One final thought for now - I saw some extortionate agent 'tenant finder fees' on some loans - I think one was for about £400! This is ridiculous, especially when the general 'quality' and average length of tenancies is considered. Perhaps something needs to be done to discourage agents from writing their own cheques. Who are these agents anyway? Might they be directly connected to PM in some way? Indeed, when any connected parties, directly or indirectly, are aware that the 'crowd' is paying, and that there is no direct control over costs, some 'inflationary' pressures might come into play! But that is the nature of the hassle-free hands-off approach I suppose.