As you know we have received a lot of comments from you in relation to our deal performance figures with a number of you expressing concern over the source of our data and the actual figures itself.

We have come up with a solution to meet with your concerns and would like to present you with a number of options. We would then ask for your input and suggestions as to which option you feel would be the best way to present this data going forward:

Option 1: We stop publishing the investment performance data.


Option 2: We will continue publishing the investment performance data based on the best estimates we can get from the market and continue to provide this to you free of charge. This is based on your understanding and acceptance that we are conducting this research based on estimates.


Option3: We will outsource this service to an independent expert in the local market – a valuer to conduct this performance data on our behalf. We will offer this as a paid service through our i-PA business.

Please let us know what you think would be the best option for you.

Many thanks,
Anna

Interesting ideas...

1 - of course we don't want you to stop publishing it

3 - no we don't want to pay anything extra, or I don't anyway!

2 - this is the best option, but going forward figures should be more accurate as increasingly more and more PS developments will be completing, renting and selling. This should remove much of the guesswork we've had so far.

Dan

fully agree with my namesake. PS's willingness to research and publish this sort of data is something that differentiates you from most of your competitors. dropping it would erode your appeal!

dan (w)

Agree with the Dan's.

iPA will now be building up evidence of real sales/rental figures rather than notional market values. This should be used whenever possible and best estimates for the other developments where the 'real' data is unavailable.

I appreciate your comments (and we'd like more on this).

Option 2 comes with the caveat that for INCOMPLETE developments we are in the hands of our local partners, developers and the like. This has been a contentious issue in the past. If this can be accepted, then fine.

As you say though, for COMPLETED developments our data is accurate - and real. This is FAR more accurate and as more deals complete that will only increase.

If this is acceptable then Option 2 is viable.

More thoughts please!

Don't cop out guys. Option 2 definitely preferable. I think most of the criticism was to ensure comparing apples with apples (e.g. on finishes) and I don't see why even with the constraints you explain you can't do that.
Huw

I couldn't agree more with you Huw.

I am surprised that PS feel that any critisism will result in an option of them taking their bat away.

My understanding is that there is sometimes a lack of consistency in the comparisons.....sometimes built area vs living area, or with or without kitchens or other extras.

As long as this is tightened up I am sure everyone on the site would be pleased with the results and PS's continued differentiation from other companies.

Hi I would prefer option 2, if PS could publish the exact comparables that lead them to their estimated MV.

If you can specifically as possible publish the comparables (mentioning the unit characteristics, etc) this would be very helpfull.

Erico

Thank you all for the comments.

The idea to stop publishing the deal performance is a simply a result of many of you saying they find data useless, especially for incomplete deals.

We are not afraid of the criticism; we just don’t want to waste our time for collecting date that is not use for our clients.

We try to find the best way of researching and presenting the data to our clients.

Looking forward for more comments and opinions!

Anna

The original and new estimated prices need to be based on a like for like basis, i.e. both white finish+kitchen and not black finish vs white+kitchen as appears to be the case with both of my polish developments leading to massivly inflated roi figures.

The same goes for the I-PA completion reports. Of the two I have received one is accurate (riverview) and correctly states the ROI to be about half that in your performance update because it is compairing like for like correctly unline the performance update.

The other report for Eko park states that they are both white finish but when you check the figures for the original value it is clearly black finish and the new value is white (and I've been told by PS includes a kitchen too.)

If PS/I-PA can't do this then I suggest removing them and just publishing some figures showing % increases in each area.