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?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 2, 2023 10:26:39 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. 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?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 1, 2023 15:43:43 GMT
I see that Outstanding Fees are accumulating in our accounts as the interest payments are made. Note that the outstanding fee will not be seen on the accounts page if not selected to be displayed under 'settings'. It is best to have that displayed and to see the potential deductions - awaiting software development. Are they really going to go through with charging these unfair fees on the access accounts, having be judged to be unfair in similar past circumstances? I rather thought that common sense would prevail and they would not go to the point of making us all complain about the unfair fees before they accept that they have no leg to stand on. It adds insult to injury. I like others had given notice on the access accounts before they started rundown, with the intention of withdrawing on completion of notice perhaps with a discount. Not only do they tie me in for the period of my loan contracts in Access, but they pay the interest they feel fit and charge me an additional fee (additional to their share of the repayments) according to the anticipated cost of their change of business policy. And on top of that they do not return the cash from repayments on my contracts with borrowers within the Access accounts, but instead create new contracts between me and borrowers because they cannot find money from elsewhere to fund the commitments that the platform has made to existing borrowers. This contrary to what we were told about wind-down (see above) as well as unfair. And they want to charge me a fee for the privilege? Well I suppose we all have to go through the formalities of complaints. They don't seem to be worried about reputational damage and compliance costs from their actions.
PS And another thing. I cannot find any explanation of the value of the number in Outstanding Fee - nothing. Its just an opaque number of their choosing. I suppose we have to ask for an explanation of the fees outstanding before we can complain about them? More work for them than me. I can take screen shots, I suppose.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 1, 2023 10:16:27 GMT
Has anyone received their January interest? Logged on this morning to see that interest not paid into cash account for withdrawal. Same here. They don't need to bother, do they?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 26, 2023 14:57:10 GMT
A DDC thread allows more to be said, but it's still public. Those who cannot gain access overtly will have friends who can - if they can be bothered. I would not say anything there which would disadvantage me if said here.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jan 9, 2023 15:14:18 GMT
Yes, this is a most unfair practice. I have never made a complaint to a p2p firm but this is unavoidable. We had given notice on all our funds before they made the business decision not only to deny access to our funds but also to charge and extra fee (other than their commission) on the funds they tie up. Add to that the position that I cannot leave the access accounts nor sell my MLA loans but they insist they can write new contracts using my access account, rather than use institutional funding, extend the time I am tied up and plan to charge a fee for contracts I do not wish to enter at interest rates I would not touch. Unfair with bells on. Assetz have given unsustainable loans. It's their cost to manage resulting from their business decisions.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 22, 2022 22:58:04 GMT
Like other lenders, I do not understand why Assetz Capital has suspended the ability to exit using a discount. During the pandemic the ability to exit both the QAA and MLA was maintained, with significant discounts available on some loans. I do not understand why lenders are being denied the ability to exit now. It is now clear that the plan to repay lenders pro – rata for each loan will make the orderly transfer of ISA holdings impossible, allowing lenders to exit at a discount will make the transfer process far simpler. Assetz Capital must clearly understand the difficulties now faced by some lenders. Retaining lenders ability to exit could go some way to addressing current sentiment and in turn the number of complaints directed towards the FCA. You can't have SM in wind down scenario. What they could've done is to announce the wind down few days in advance as ABL did... Those who are desperate could get out and the brave could have discounts that worth the risk, but I don't think AC cares much about us, especially now when we are the redundant part of the business). Quite so, unfortunately. The wind down means no new loans and no new loan contracts between lenders and borrowers. However, I don't quite understand why it is permissible to set up new loan contracts between retail lenders and borrowers who need extra tranches. That should only be funded by institutional lenders. I would be surprised if the FCA has agreed that.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 15, 2022 12:38:42 GMT
Dead in the water is a good description. I think it is intended as an Xmas present for the FCA.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 8, 2022 11:44:42 GMT
maybe not the correct investment thing to do , but Ive moved 95% of my cash from AA to 90AA, at least Im getting 0.6% more than the non AA (which if the sh!t hits the fan it will make no difference anyways) The monthly interest repayments will be more and it will enable me to pay more later to get my money out (if that makes sense) Lets see what happens I think you are just trying to get the award from Assetz for Post of the Month.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 30, 2022 22:34:05 GMT
The problem with AC is that non-normal market conditions have become the normal condition of AC.
Situation Normal, Assetz Fouled Up.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 30, 2022 12:50:31 GMT
Funds are still flowing at a discount. Anyone wanting out can do it much like in any other market. Thanks, I had the impression that the discount option was not operating - for some reason. So, once the notice period is up there is a queue for repayment cash which you can jump by offering a discount to new investment cash? In an emergency that's useful.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 30, 2022 9:07:30 GMT
Yes, elsewhere it might be called a wind down, but giving priority to AC's contractual loan funding commitments. A year will pass before any money starts to be returned.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 15, 2022 9:42:41 GMT
'A dem lones, dem lones, dem dry lones A dem lones, dem lones, dem dry lones A dem lones, dem lones, dem dry lones Now I hear the word of the Ablrate.
Your pod lone's connected to your cabin lone Your cabin lone's connected to your battery lone Your battery lone's connected to your other lones Now we waits for the words of the Ablrate.'
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Ablrate (ABL) in Administration
AF Loans (ABL)
Nov 10, 2022 13:13:43 GMT
Post by blender on Nov 10, 2022 13:13:43 GMT
We could ask Ablrate to count the number with small black dots, which are the entry points of the fly, or whatever insect. Should I order the pectin?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Ablrate (ABL) in Administration
AF Loans (ABL)
Nov 10, 2022 13:08:40 GMT
Ace likes this
Post by blender on Nov 10, 2022 13:08:40 GMT
I just hope that Ablrate has placed a net over the tree sufficient to protect the fruit from the birds. [Yes, I know that vultures do not eat fruit and wasps can get through nets, but it's not my analogy, apart from the net.]
|
|