oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 23, 2020 15:11:59 GMT
reportedly those who were trying to withdraw a sufficiently large amount got allocated a bit over £40 each yesterday, so the net effect of that if "everyone" was withdrawing would have been a noticeable reduction in the totals, rather than an increase.
If so, I'm puzzled. According to the update www.assetzcapital.co.uk/blog/access-accounts-update
"All existing QAA, 30 Day Access Account and 90 Day Access Account withdrawal requests are still queued in the order they were requested, and their position will be honoured." If everyone got £40 on the same day then what sort of queue is that? Did they really all make their withdrawal request at the same second, on the same day? Or are payments being made using some other criteria - regardless of the actual order in which requests were made?
I think Assetz need to clearly explain precisely how their strange "queue" system works. Unless they do, and quickly, there will be a permanent and unrecoverable loss of confidence in their business.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 20, 2020 13:33:54 GMT
chris I think this should be rethought if the intention of Assetz is for investors to think they're being treated fairly.
I made a withdrawal request from the 30 day acc to QAA over a month ago (just part of the money I have in 30 day) but so far just 0.41% of the withdrawal, having served the full notice period, has been transferred to QAA. I assumed it has been queued.
Having got to the QAA, it seems I have now been put back to the end of the QAA queue to get that 0.41% to the Cash account, and if I ever get to the front of that queue I may have to wait in yet another queue to actually get that money to my bank account. That really is taking the mickey.
If investors see others being paid long before they are even allowed to join the queue, despite already having served the full notice period, then any reputation for fair dealing will be out of the window.
Surely, money that has already served the notice period should be transferred to the requested account , such as QAA, immediately so that it can join the queue with others to go to the cash account. Not queues to join queues.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 19, 2020 18:13:44 GMT
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that there is not a double/triple queue. At the end of your notice period (90 days, 30 days, or 0 days in the case of the QAA) you enter the new "withdraw pool" where any cash assigned to the pool is shared out pro-rata between everyone in the pool. Thanks, that would make more sense. Has there been any confirmation from Assetz or stuartassetzcapital of that, i.e. after the notice period for a withdrawal to QAA there won't be a queue just to join the queue? I gave notice a month ago to withdraw a part of my investment, £10k, to QAA so I could withdraw from there. It was scheduled to go to QAA on the 18th but hasn't moved.
If it's being queued for withdrawal, which is what I wanted, that's fine but not if it's just queuing to be transferred to QAA where I'll have to join another queue to withdraw.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Mar 19, 2020 12:39:45 GMT
At the risk of repeating what may have already been said, it seems those who requested a withdrawal from either 30 or 90 day accounts may be in for a double (or triple) whammy - even if they put their withdrawal request in well before the coronavirus panic and asked for their money to go into the QAA. It seems that having reached the end of the 30 or 90 day notice period, they'll then need queue to get their money into QAA, and then have to join yet another queue to get their money out of the QAA. Would seem fairer if, having reached the end of the notice period, their funds were transferred on the due date so they could at least be allowed to join the QAA withdrawal queue, if that's what they want.
It's obviously reasonable for there to be a queue but surely not reasonable for there to be a queue to join the queue.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jul 1, 2019 12:59:12 GMT
According to my records the Luton loan was repaid with full capital and interest on 7/12/17. There may be some turkeys on MT at the moment but this wasn't one of them. Whoops, sorry, it was the other 'L': Lytham. Moneything has become just a distant memory.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 27, 2019 19:29:00 GMT
.....would suggest some factor other than 'non performing' and slowly dying is involved. Don't know the age profile of MT lenders but would guess a few of them will have popped their clogs too before this one is played out.
I got out of MT a year ago with good returns after about 20 months and just one default (the mis-valued, mis-described Luton Lytham loan when my constitutional cynicism let me down). I was undecided on whether MT were not good at evaluating the risk of loans and the people they offered loans to, or good enough but didn't want to tell us. Too often, minimal DD showed the chances of repayment was no better than 50/50, Whatever, there would need to be big changes before I considered returning - and with the chance of decent size loans to make it worthwhile.
Very much hope there's a good outcome for lenders in this one; they deserve it for their patience alone.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Jun 19, 2019 15:53:15 GMT
It would make life so much easier if RS communicated more effectively. How hard would it be to pop up a banner when a withdrawal request is made saying that withdrawals are currently taking around xx hours to process? I’ve been with RS a while and so it’s unnerving when the system doesn’t behave in line with historic norms. Did you get the email? "Our records show that you recently requested to withdraw money and you may have experienced a delay in receiving funds to your bank account.
We are aware that withdrawals have been slower than usual, especially at the start of the week, and would like to apologise for any inconvenience.
Our goal is to provide a consistently reliable service for all our investors and we are working very hard to ensure that we continue to deliver this. Ongoing investment to upgrade our platform this year will address these issues in the longer term."
Which perhaps suggests they anticipate problems until an upgrade is in place.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 7, 2019 15:43:10 GMT
Correct oik - but if you read what I wrote I said it could be found on Trott's blog (and others actually) - not that he wrote it.
You really must pay closer attention to what is actually being written - not what you think is being written - often two different things (as we have just seen)!!
Have a great day.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGhMdT_C-vQ
Ah I see, you called it "a straight cut and paste from Dave Trott's Blog" knowing that it could have been cut and pasted from the original source or a zillion other places like Trotty's just to confuse us. You're way too sharp for me dav but I expect you already knew that.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Feb 7, 2019 14:24:11 GMT
Crikey oh great one - surely you can do better than a straight cut and paste from Dave Trott's Blog? My four year old grandson can do that!!
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 17, 2018 21:12:14 GMT
I thought that RS fielded three capable and informed people with the intention of engaging openly with forum members in the hope that we will post information on the forum (as they believe the previous Kevin level of RS posting is not possible in today's regulatory environment). I think we can all guess why they wanted to speak directly to eight lenders that they would be in a position to select or reject on the basis of their posting to this board. In the event, they weren't able to make that selection as there were only four willing to attend. Did they say at what point they decided that regulations prevented their representative from posting here as they suggest they would wish? Was it when Kevin left their employ or more recently and what reason was given for them being unable to engage to the same extent as the Assetz representative for example? Did they explain who makes the "Borrower Offers" and if it isn't the Borrowers why they continue to mislead new lenders with the use of that term? They seemed to be thoughtful about how the platform operates and I do not believe they implement changes without thinking through the consequences and alternatives. In which case I'm left wondering why after implementing a very significant change to their terms (that they failed to properly give notice of to lenders) that they were then obliged to reverse that position just two weeks later. The subsequent headless chicken impression suggests they gave it substantially less thought than needed.
I think I'd need a little more "openness" than they seem to have shown to be frank, which they need to demonstrate, not just mouth the words.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 17, 2018 17:38:59 GMT
Maybe not everyone shares your touching faith in the legal system I understand that sentiment and to some extent sympathise: problem is that the alternative often doesn't work too well either.
In this case the plumbers aren't any better off and the borrower isn't any worse off. The cost will likely fall on the lenders who by providing the finance are an important link in creating such work. Would the plumbers gain any satisfaction by knowing they'd hit Monything lenders, in many cases with only small amounts to lend; I doubt it.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 7, 2018 10:34:42 GMT
I confess to feeling a bit smug about my investment in the first tranche of a certain Bolton loan at Collateral: first in line with £3.5m of subsequent lower ranking loans all sitting behind it. Then something that wasn't in my calculations popped up...
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 5, 2018 14:18:01 GMT
From 5 September, you will be able to set your own rate on both reinvested capital and interest, or choose to automatically match at the prevailing Market Rate. Hi RateSetter . There has now been an update to the site but so far it allows an option for interest received only, not for capital. I trust the update to provide the option for " both reinvested capital and interest" will be completed today as promised? And from www.ratesetter.com/blog/article/Rate-setting-in-the-Rolling-market: "How will I be able to set my own rate for capital reinvested in the Rolling market? Investors wishing to set their own rate for reinvested capital may log into their account and update their Rolling market reinvestment settings from 5 September onwards."
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Sept 5, 2018 8:19:41 GMT
From 5 September, you will be able to set your own rate on both reinvested capital and interest, or choose to automatically match at the prevailing Market Rate. Seems to me that today is 5 September, and has been for the last 9 hours, but on my account there still appears to be zero re-investment options for rolling other than to accept Ratesetter's very contrived version of 'market rate'. They even make banks look efficient.
|
|
oik
Member of DD Central
Posts: 254
Likes: 349
|
Post by oik on Aug 14, 2018 18:39:53 GMT
Two weeks ago MoneyThing were able to update lenders that a sale price had been agreed with TfL and legals were underway. Could they now tell lenders what that agreed price is?
Also, could they clarify how that price relates to the property on which they have a first charge - bearing in mind that parts of the building have been sold off?
|
|