|
Post by bob2010 on Feb 2, 2023 14:35:43 GMT
I requested support for the 3.3% interest paid out and was told that they wouldn't be able to provide that detail. It effectively means that the PF is no longer funded and instead it's being diverted together with the extra fees as additional revenue for Assetz Capital. There is clearly no care for their investors and they're going to return as little as possible. With regards to the 2.9%, it'll be deducted from the Manual Interest % not from the target 4% rate. Do we have any confirmation that is the case? It would be shocking if the PF was being used to line Assetz Capital's pockets in their wind-down money grab. Just complaining in these forums doesn't achieve anything whatsoever - the boss is too busy at his favourite place, the Bentley dealership, looking for a new car no doubt - but, while Assetz Capital doesn't care the slightest about their customers anymore, don't forget their sister business, Assetz Exchange. Therefore, why not leave reviews here on Trustpilot or elsewhere to let them know how Assetz Group treat their lenders and how they'll handle matters when Assetz Exchange eventually winds down? It's more likely to wake-up Assetz Capital that they can't just treat us atrociously now that they've decided to kick us to the kerb. I've just noticed there's a lot of recent negative reviews for Assetz Capital here, but, as that business is being closed down, they'll have no impact on how Assetz treat us. The PF is funded by difference between the Manual interest % and the target rate. The fact that AC are paying us less at only 3.3% means there's nothing to put in the PF.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 3, 2023 10:24:06 GMT
Thanks, I was looking for fee payments and had not noticed that they had reduced the interest rate. So the outstanding fee is just ( in my case) for MLA and it does work out at an annual rate of 2.9% for six weeks. They will take it when they have done the programming. It is a rip-off. But on the access accounts, I don't see why they pay interest 'net' at 3.3% (setting aside the lack of proper statements covering the fee). If the annual interest was in January 4% to 4.5% and the fee is currently an annual rate on performing capital of 2.9%, then at present the 'net' interest rate paid should be 1.1% to 1.6%. Much more should have been taken, which is why I assumed that it had not been. Or am I getting too old to do the sums? I do not know how much of my AA capital is performing. So is this 3.3% just a token swipe and there is worse to come? How do we complain about the fees taken on the Access accounts when there are no account statements about fees taken? They have reduced the interest rate paid but made no statement about the relationship of that deduction with fees announced, and the numbers do not work, imo. My cash is in ISAs and I have no worries about tax, but I suppose that if you have a non-Isa account you have to declare the amount of interest paid to you (as stated in the account) and you cannot, I believe, deduct the fees you pay. So, if they do the statements properly and separate the interest at say 4% from the fees at 2.9%, then the net payments are currently 1.1%, but you are liable for income tax charges on 4%. Result approx nothing for a basic rate tax payer. Have I got this all wrong, or are they in a mess which will get worse? I requested support for the 3.3% interest paid out and was told that they wouldn't be able to provide that detail. It effectively means that the PF is no longer funded and instead it's being diverted together with the extra fees as additional revenue for Assetz Capital. There is clearly no care for their investors and they're going to return as little as possible. With regards to the 2.9%, it'll be deducted from the Manual Interest % not from the target 4% rate. Many thanks for enquiring about the 3.3% and I can believe that they choose not to explain it, because it seems arbitrary. I am struggling to understand the rest, but am not a total expert in how it works and it may be my fault. However, they make a clear statement that the PF will operate as stated through the run-down and we should hesitate to say that we do not believe that. I do not think that the 3.3% says anything about the use of the PF. Maybe they will have sorted it by next month and we will see. 'With regards to the 2.9%, it'll be deducted from the Manual Interest % not from the target 4% rate.' The target 4% rate applies to the Access Accounts while the 'Manual Interest %' applies to the Manual Lending Accounts. The level of the fees they will charge (by some mechanism) is stated as 'Through to end of June 2023 - 2.9% pa of performing loans
July to December 2023 - 1.4% pa of performing loans
January 2024 onward - 0.9% pa of performing loans'This is a percentage of the capital we hold in each account, less non-paying loans, and it is clear that for the MLA this is a fee that will be charged, currently an outstanding fee, as a straight fee and not as a reduction of interest rates. That has tax implications for people with personal MLAs outside of an ISA. For the Access Account the amount paid as fees should be a percentage of our capital in each account, less non-performing loans. The plan seems to be to take that cash by means of a net interest rate, which should currently be the monthly equivalent of 4% less 2.9% (but adjusted for non-performing loans) or a bit over 1.1%. How do they get 3.3%? The PF is a second order effect and should not affect this very much. My understanding is that it helps to maintain the 4%. Where am I going wrong, please?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,900
Likes: 11,124
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 3, 2023 12:18:04 GMT
I requested support for the 3.3% interest paid out and was told that they wouldn't be able to provide that detail. It effectively means that the PF is no longer funded and instead it's being diverted together with the extra fees as additional revenue for Assetz Capital. There is clearly no care for their investors and they're going to return as little as possible. With regards to the 2.9%, it'll be deducted from the Manual Interest % not from the target 4% rate. Many thanks for enquiring about the 3.3% and I can believe that they choose not to explain it, because it seems arbitrary. I am struggling to understand the rest, but am not a total expert in how it works and it may be my fault. However, they make a clear statement that the PF will operate as stated through the run-down and we should hesitate to say that we do not believe that. I do not think that the 3.3% says anything about the use of the PF. Maybe they will have sorted it by next month and we will see. 'With regards to the 2.9%, it'll be deducted from the Manual Interest % not from the target 4% rate.' The target 4% rate applies to the Access Accounts while the 'Manual Interest %' applies to the Manual Lending Accounts. The level of the fees they will charge (by some mechanism) is stated as 'Through to end of June 2023 - 2.9% pa of performing loans
July to December 2023 - 1.4% pa of performing loans
January 2024 onward - 0.9% pa of performing loans'This is a percentage of the capital we hold in each account, less non-paying loans, and it is clear that for the MLA this is a fee that will be charged, currently an outstanding fee, as a straight fee and not as a reduction of interest rates. That has tax implications for people with personal MLAs outside of an ISA. For the Access Account the amount paid as fees should be a percentage of our capital in each account, less non-performing loans. The plan seems to be to take that cash by means of a net interest rate, which should currently be the monthly equivalent of 4% less 2.9% (but adjusted for non-performing loans) or a bit over 1.1%. How do they get 3.3%? The PF is a second order effect and should not affect this very much. My understanding is that it helps to maintain the 4%. Where am I going wrong, please? I dont think they are taking the AA fee as a net interest rate reduction, merely that is the outcome once the fee is deducted. So you will have an amount of interest collected over the preceding month, and a fee due for the performing book, deduct that from the interest and then calculate what rate that gives across the the full account balance. If they are using the PF to support interest payments then AIUI they have to notify lenders under COBS. There was one notification during the last fee period but nothing since
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 3, 2023 14:23:42 GMT
Thanks for that. If we still get 3.3% now then it should be better after June when the fee reduces. Whatever the mechanism they are paying us, in our accounts, a reduced interest rate and there is no explicit fee charged at present. I think they will have a compliance problem with that with HMRC because the tax treatment of interest and fees is different. And a compliance problem elsewhere because the fees paid are not transparent. The tax treatment was sorted for p2p explicitly in 2016, when lender fees could no longer be netted off. I remember that FC just redefined their lender fee as a borrower fee. I will wait to see what happens on March 1.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 3, 2023 20:19:21 GMT
It looks like our fees are being used to fund the completion loan #1588. We should be entitled to claim a portion of the finished development.
|
|
|
Post by df on Feb 3, 2023 21:30:40 GMT
My outstanding fee is 39% of what I received as the interest in January. Not sure how they work it out. In the last email they said - "Through to end of June 2023 - 2.9% pa of performing loans". 39% pm looks a little bit too high. 2.9% of your invested capital, not 2.9% of your earned interest. So if you have a loan paying 5% pa, they will grab 2.9% of the capital pa, you will be left with only 2.1% pa interest. That is 58% of your interest confiscated so that they can change their business model for their benefit, not yours. This is not a failed platform, this is pure fraud. Clearly I didn't read the announcement properly. I thought they meant 'of the interest' which I understood was the case in the covid crisis fees... I have a fair amount of performing 6%-ers (according to updates most of them performing well) which are now turned into 3.1%-ers, shocking . It's not a fraud unless defined by the court, but it feels like a rip off to me. Why do they suddenly need to dip into our invested money? I thought monitoring fees are already there to cover the costs of running the loan book.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,900
Likes: 11,124
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 4, 2023 0:55:17 GMT
It looks like our fees are being used to fund the completion loan #1588. We should be entitled to claim a portion of the finished development. Which loan? There isnt a 1588
|
|
iann
Posts: 104
Likes: 86
|
Post by iann on Feb 4, 2023 11:36:46 GMT
When I asked on chat on 2nd Feb about the reduced rate, the agent mentioned provision fund and put a link to the 15th December announcement FAQ. When I asked about why that would affect the access accounts and why the reduction wasn't pro-rated to target rate, I got no response and the chat timed out / ended. I may try again next week, but I will probably get a similar response.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 5, 2023 11:20:27 GMT
It seems that (for me) payments of fees for the MLA started on 3 Feb, when a couple of interest payments which were to be paid to me were reduced to zero to be subtracted from my 'Outstanding Fee'. So I will get no more MLA interest paid on either account until my outstanding fee for that account has been paid. A statement with numbers rounded:
'03/02/2023, 11:07
Claimed Lender Fee of £0.3 from Interest payment of £0.3 for loan M***** P******* SPECIALIST LIMITED (1546) [Paid to me] £0.00 '
No fees have been taken from repaid capital, and so every indication and every statement given suggests that they are subtracting fees (calculated as a % of performing capital) from interest and presenting the net interest in our statements - with no transparency on fees at all. I do not think this compliant with HMRC rules, but I am no expert and it seems to help lenders with non-Isa accounts. So I will leave that there.
However, I do say that for the Access accounts they have paid much more in interest for January that would be expected from netting off the fee, unless there was a notice period. Wait for February (1 March) to find out what is going on.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Feb 6, 2023 14:08:46 GMT
It looks like our fees are being used to fund the completion loan #1588. We should be entitled to claim a portion of the finished development. Which loan? There isnt a 1588 Sorry, I meant #1538.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 918
Likes: 507
Member is Online
|
Post by rscal on Feb 6, 2023 15:51:11 GMT
[Back to the topic at hand] I've contacted the FCA to air my concerns, having already complained to AC themselves [i.e. going the FOS route] and they have acknowledged receipt and will at least review things:
Me:
Them:
(Now.... 'Bite', Rover, 'Bite'!)
|
|
rscal
Posts: 918
Likes: 507
Member is Online
|
Post by rscal on Feb 6, 2023 16:13:39 GMT
Remember that is probably for part of December as well. Did my rough maths and it is about 2.9% of my non-default standard MLA loans for 6 weeks. AA took 0.7% interest rate deduction Looks like they have paid 3.3% across the board, so QAA took 0.7%, 30DAA 0.8% and 90DAA 1.2% deductions. Yet none of the interest payments from GBBA/GBBA2 had a fee taken. Yes.. today I got some principal and interest paid for a GBBA2 loan and the interest has gone into my cash account without deduction (meanwhile my reducing MLA fee has yet to reach '0.00')
|
|
|
Post by oliveau on Feb 6, 2023 17:13:23 GMT
Today: Loan 1037, Interest paid £5.00 Claimed lender fee £5.00 Net receipt £zero - and AC can't understand why I think they have been underhand!
AC now as big a shower of s**t as Thincats/BLN/ESF!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 6, 2023 17:38:55 GMT
[Back to the topic at hand] I've contacted the FCA to air my concerns, having already complained to AC themselves [i.e. going the FOS route] and they have acknowledged receipt and will at least review things: Me:Them:(Now.... 'Bite', Rover, 'Bite'!) A simple 'like' is simply inadequate to express appreciation for this excellent action and post. What he said!
|
|
|
Post by oliveau on Feb 7, 2023 11:20:20 GMT
Following pikestaff's initiative I have today made a complaint to Assetz. Perhaps if we all shout loud enough they may be forced to change their stance:
I note that following the closure of the platform to new lenders that you have reintroduced Lender Fees. Given the fait accompli nature of this change I feel that I [and other lenders] have been unfairly treated for the following reasons :
It was the decision of Assetz to close the platform to retail investors, and operate on a 100% institutional funding basis, This was a business decision which lenders should not be asked to fund
Your Terms and Conditions may give you the right to introduce a fee, but given the sudden change of direction and the immediate closure of the 'secondary market' I was unable to close my account and move funds, so the enforced change in fee structure has led to an unwelcome reduction in income from my investments.
Under the circumstance I would be obliged if you would refund any Lender Fees already deducted, and reverse the decision to charge lender fees. If necessary I will raise a complaint with FOS.
|
|