blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 2, 2023 12:03:15 GMT
Just received my interest for the QAA in July. 1p. Are they giving the 'p' or taking it?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 2, 2023 8:32:24 GMT
Assetz Capital web page states "The existing loan book relating to the Retail platform is now in run-off and this will, over time, deliver the return of capital to investors." (My bolding). I believe that investors will, if they are lucky, get back a proportion of their capital. The interest or its equivalence will be deducted in various spurious ways so that the return on capital for repaying loans is effectively zero at a time of high inflation. The unpalatable alternative is that the platform is placed into administration. Operators of the platform continue to feather their own nest at the expense of investors and put two fingers at the FCA who in turn well know what is going on and do nothing but twiddle their thumbs or issue pious and meaningless advice notes. Let's not be too pessimistic or lower our expectations. Our captors (may they live forever) seem to have returned only about 1% of AA capital this month and have paid no interest (so far), which suggests that loan repayments were barely enough to provide for their needs, which must take priority of course. However, these are loans secured on property and all the money taken for fees will no doubt ensure that in default both we an our captors will be fully compensated by taking full advantage of our rights on security. It may take a time, and inflation will nibble on the value of our capital.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 1, 2023 15:18:30 GMT
Surely that's not all they are going to return?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 27, 2023 16:16:17 GMT
Yes, reminds me of an expression involving the words 'short' and 'curlies'.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 20, 2023 15:04:28 GMT
Hattie May Cox is also best avoided.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 1, 2023 20:39:12 GMT
I did say it might fall this month. In two months' time they might require us to set up a direct debit to pay the fees. Must be permitted in the T&Cs somewhere - or maybe tomorrow's update.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 23, 2023 9:35:12 GMT
The fee on the access accounts is deducted from the full loan rate on the loans held by the AA, not the target rate. The rate averaged across performing loans is approx 6.2%, so after deduction of the 2.9% would be 3.3%. The definition of loans against which the fee is applicable is in the FAQ but is basically any loan that is paying interest. If it doesnt pay interest in a month then the fee accrues until a payment is made so the fee will be lumpy, particularly in relation to loans where it is being rolled up where in theory it will all fall due on loan redemption. Transparent it is not. Thanks for that. I said I did not understand the 3.3% and your further explanation has made my post worthwhile. But the purpose of the fee is to take (monthly equivalent of) 2.9% of total principal from investors funds into the coffers of Assetz. So while the interest we receive may 'only' go down from 4% to 3.3%, much more cash that was ours is being taken from the Access Accounts invisibly (to most lenders). That presumably would have been cash for the provision fund which will no longer be there. Does that not increase the threat to the future interest rate on the access accounts and eventually to the return of our capital? Transparent? Invisible and unaccountable, more like.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 22, 2023 21:00:26 GMT
Could you clarify what you mean by capital? I was referring to investor capital, not borrower. Also the way AC word it in their email makes it sound like the % fee applies to the interest portion received by investors only, on performing loans. If that's the case, this fee seems very low, but I suspect they've worded that poorly - because they go onto explain that the average fee would work out as reduction of 1.15% per anum over 5 years. That effectively means capital isn't touched. It's better to use the word principal rather than capital, principal being the amount of the loan or loans advanced. So the 2.9% is the amount you will pay in fees expressed as an annual percentage of the total performing principal which is outstanding to your account. Performing means, I think, only the loans which are not in arrears. This is paid monthly, so that each month your fee will be 0.242% of outstanding performing principal. The fee is being collected by deducting it from interest payments. Effectively, if all loans perform, it is as if your annual interest rates were currently reduced by 2.9%. This is happening in MLA, effective 15 Dec. On the Access accounts with the interest rates at 4% it should be as if that rate had been reduced to 1.1%. For some reason they paid 3.3% on the Access accounts on 1 Feb. Maybe they applied some notice period? Anyway we will soon find out on 1 March.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 16, 2023 14:00:48 GMT
Best that AC avoid the problem then, by removing unfair fees.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 10, 2023 14:28:46 GMT
Mustn't rock the boat then. We'll just have to let the captain and crew eat the third class passengers.
I dont think they will eat them, just nibble them a bit. And Better that than the ship sinking and everyone getting eaten by the sharks.
I don't think that is 'eating customers fairly'. And the captain may be the only shark in these waters.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 10, 2023 10:40:53 GMT
Mustn't rock the boat then. We'll just have to let the captain and crew eat the third class passengers, as they think necessary.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 9, 2023 11:24:45 GMT
I also received a final response this week and my complaint went to the FOS yesterday. You might want to consider what are non - normal market conditions. Even if it is non - normal market conditions why shut the retail business. The discount mechanism for access accounts and discounting of MLA loans is already in place. What is the fee being used for? There is no extra cost of winding down the retail business. AC gets fees and monthly interest from borrowers. I think the lender fee is being used to fund ongoing development tranches, and if that is the case then I want a piece of those tranches. The tranches are funded from the AA free cash pot. The AA holdings in the loan increase with each drawdown. The fee is to cover the loss of arrangement fee & 'excess' costs of winddown ... like you I'm sceptical on both these. A bit more than sceptical on that. The cost of winding down the loans should not increase. It's the normal process with the borrowers and the rates are low. On the arrangement fees they say: 'Lender Fees The ceasing of new retail lending means a significant drop in our income for the retail part of the business' But they are still doing the new lending and gaining the arrangement fees for their business. It's just that they have chosen to apply those arrangement fees to the institutional business and to ring-fence the costs of the retail business. There is no material change to their fee income, it is just an accounting device to allocate the fee income, other than new tranches of retail loans, to the institutional business. It was their choice to cease retail lending, based on their previous lending at unsustainably low rates. I assume we have no visibility of the institutional lending at the time the decision was made. Were the 5%ers (net) dumped on retail Access Accounts and the 8%ers given to institutional?
|
|
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!
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|