happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on May 22, 2020 14:15:14 GMT
£4.15 for me today at this rate I calculated I may be repaid in 21 years, I might just about be still alive but knocking on a bit Unlikely it will take that long. Loans are 1-5 year terms so they should all be repaid, re-financed, recovered or written off long before then. Just highlights the dangers of extrapolation of data out of context.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on May 3, 2020 16:31:39 GMT
Which is just about the dumbest idea of them all. Really? How, exactly? Sell them at pennies in the pound? Or are you feverishly imagining that issuing a demand to a late borrower - in today's circumstances - is going to yield any response whatsoever? Calling in receivers, or whatever plan you have in mind, is going to achieve precisely nothing except a huge waste of costs. Personally I'd like to get as much as my cash back as possible, and the only way to achieve that will be forbearance (not that anyone has a lot of choice about that - the courts will have little patience with the impatient). If you'd like to get out quick, with a haircut, then it seems that you will shortly have the opportunity to do so, and I'm sure everyone - including you - will be happier for it. I am afraid it is above my pay grade how they get my money back - it is their problem and they are paid huge fees to manage this. I am an investor who invested in access account not a specific loan and when I ask for my money back AC said they will give it back to me in a quick access format, 30 days access or 90 day access. Now if they can't do this then I believe I have been mis-sold a product and they are legally liable for mis-selling just like the banks were liable for miss-selling PPI. It is almost 2 months since I have asked for my cash back from the quick access account. Totally wrong again Jason. You actually invested in SME and Development loans of varying terms up to 5 years as described in the account key information available on the platform where it is also clearly stated in the description of all the access accounts that instant access is NOT guaranteed and that you may need another investor to be able to sell your loans to to withdraw money You really did not understand what you invested in, are very forgetful or you are just telling fibs. Now which is it Jason?
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 28, 2020 6:44:16 GMT
IMHO. I see there has been mention that the access accounts may be some sort of hybrid collective scheme. I seriously hope this is not the case and hope AC confirm this. I also hope AC have never told or inferred this. AC are definitely not authorised and regulated for an sort of collective scheme. There are statutory instruments that make is clear p2p authorisation and regulation does not cover collective investment schemes of any sort. AC are regulated for client money and Operating an electronic system in relation to lending. Unauthorised collective investment schemes are unlawful. There are other authorisation and regulation that covers collective investment such as AIFMD. My assumption is any uninvested cash the the access accounts in held in segregated client money accounts. Client money is covered by CASS. However AC decribe or operate the Access Accounts they can never be called or appear to be collective investments. I used the term hybrid and collective by way of comparison only and I am obviously not suggesting that AC is doing anything that is outside their P2P operating remit. IFAIU, as investors in the AAs do have loan certificates issued they do hold P2P confirming loans. Additionally, AC has been audited by the FCA as conforming to the regulations governing P2P so I would feel it is unlikely they do not. Lets say perhaps that there is an abstraction layer that exists between the individual investments and the underlying loans/cash pool. The cash element of the AA funds is there to provide liquidity and operational efficiency but as I understand it this would not need to segregated as it constitutes invested money in the platform and therefore would not be subject to any client money segregation rules.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 28, 2020 5:57:35 GMT
- That the "withdraw all" function for repayments on the AA accounts never actually withdrawn capital as due to the fact you were invested in a cash/asset hybrid collective fund you could only ever automatically withdraw any interest payments. If you wanted to withdraw capital you always had to request a separate capital withdrawal for a specific amounts, which you can still do. This is now being touted as a basis for a legal challenge by these shillers. Really! you kidding me aren't you.....you need to getyour facts straight before talking legal chaps.
I really wish you had told AC the "withdraw all" function for repayments on the AA accounts never actually withdrawn capital because they did not know this as they advised me on the phone I could use this function to withdraw capital. I think this is why it was removed for the access accounts as it was confusing people. You have always had the 'withdraw' option which queues a withdrawal from the cash pool, now withdrawal queue, and in my experience it was the only was to ever get capital out of any of the access accounts. As you don't really own the loans parts directly, you own a share of a pool of loan parts and cash. It was the cash element of the pool that facilitated the capital withdrawal. function.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 28, 2020 5:36:59 GMT
2) Yes, that's the use of the word queue. AFAICS There is no reference to a 'queue' in any shape or form in KAI. In fact there is no reference to a system for managing the withdrawal of funds at all. AFAIA AC has always stated that withdrawals should be instant in normal circumstances but not guaranteed. So the existence of a queue is only revealed in an after the fact explanation of how the newly revealed queue is going to work and amending how the never actually referenced before queue wasn't actually working in the first place because there hadn't actually been a queue anyway. I struggle to see the logic in an argument that something has been misrepresented if it hasn't been represented at all. There is logic if your sole intention is, by continually trying to show AC in a bad light, to attempt to force / coerce/ shame AC management into changing the queue for AAs to first come first served. Unfortunately none of these posters actually realise there is no money right now to pay them back and won't be until forebearance is over and things return to some sense of normality. So any discussion as to the structure of any queue is unfortunately a mute point, something they seem unable to understand. They don't understand or accept anything that the many experienced posters here have shared, they are obviously not here to learn anything, which is a shame as there are many things they obviously don't know, such as: - How GLDV work and that development loans are risky and potential residual value can fluctuate until the development is complete. This is normal for these types of loans an not a function af appalling DD by AC as they claim. My many years of P2P experience tells me that, whilst not perfect, AC DD has always been among the best.
- That the removed "withdraw all" function for repayments on the AA accounts has never actually withdrawn capital as due to the fact you were invested in a cash/asset hybrid collective fund you could only ever automatically withdraw any interest payments. If you wanted to withdraw capital you always had to request a separate capital withdrawal for a specific amounts, which you can still do. This is now being touted as a basis for a legal challenge by these shillers. Really! you kidding me aren't you.....you need to getyour facts straight before talking legal chaps.
- That most AC loans are not amortising and therefore they don't return capital every month, hence why you might have to wait until lthe loan matures to get your capital back unlike most of the loans at places like RS that I know they love so much.
If it does not fit their narative it is ignored. Total waste of time engaging with this bunch of what seem like angry bully boys who seem incapable of recognising that the economic world has just been shaken to it's core and all bets are now off predicting where the future will lead us They are not here to share, or to learn, or perhaps support. They are here to simply to ram their misplaced anger at their own ill-informed investment choices in everybody's faces until they get what they want.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 24, 2020 21:53:56 GMT
It seems that you have trouble counting. Have a look at the thread "access account withdrawal date tracker". That includes the data of every distribution made by AC since the start of the lock in and shows how many months/years/decades or indeed centuries investors are going to have to wait for their money back at the current rate. You forget that to extrapolate any data series effectively you need a meaningful sample duration that contains a number of meaningful data points. If the significant event you are sampling happens once every 3-4 weeks then a sample period of say 2 weeks probably tells you nothing. You have no meaningful data yet with AC to compare in any way with RS or similar due to a. The suspension of capital and interest repayments/refinance options unavailable and b. The fact that the AC loan book is a few hundred loans versus RS with tens of thousands of loans. Your argument simply does not stand up to any reasonable forensic analysis of the datasets involved. The other very important difference you fail to appreciate with your flawed comparison of AC = Bad vs. RS = Good is that most loans with RS are fully amortising loans, i.e. a 36 month loan pays off the borrowed capital sum in equal monthly payments of capital and interest over the 36 month term of the loan so nothing is owed at the end, whereas a significant majority of AC loans are either interest-only or are only partiality amortising (often only 10-20% capital repayment over the term and often only in the latter period of the loan). Due to the relatively few loans in ACs loan book (800 approx vs 100,000 +) it means capital repayment for AC can be very lumpy with periods of little ot no capital repayments) So even with no forebearance in play AC would never receive anywhere close to the same consistent level of monthly capital repayments seem by their retail focused cousins like RS. This makes a fundamental difference in ACs ability to repay lenders wishing to withdraw ahead of term. So lets run some numbers on this so you can better understand: If RS has a fully amortising loan book of say £800m with an average loan duration of 40 months they would receive capital repayments of approx £20million per month without doing anything special on our behalf. AC only get significant capital repayment at the end of the loan term or on refinancing. To reiterate, RS get capitall repayments throughout the term whereas AC typically get one at the end. This allows RS to be a lot more certain of daily, weekly and monthly capital inflow and therefore allows them to more predictably and regularly release capital for withdrawals etc. For AC it is much more difficult to manage this part of their business due to the capital repayment lumpiness described above and they therefore need to be more cautious in the control of czpital repayments. So from a repayment viewpoint they are in fact like comparing apples with cauliflowers..... So please do not make out that RS are doing something amazing and wonderful here that we should be grateful for and use as some big stick to beat other platforms like AC over the head with until they do the same. It is just the differing structure of retail lending versus business lending, they serve very different purposes and are structured accordingly. As investors we should seek to understand these things if we plan to invest significant sums in these asset classes. Quite honestly I do not believe that you do fully understand the differences here, hence this discussion.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 24, 2020 20:37:28 GMT
You people seem to be extrapolating from a singe data point And you are confused that you are (possibly) losing money? It seems that you have trouble counting. Have a look at the thread "access account withdrawal date tracker". That includes the data of every distribution made by AC since the start of the lock in and shows how many months/years/decades or indeed centuries investors are going to have to wait for their money back at the current rate. You forget that to extrapolate any data series effectively you need a meaningful sample duration that contains a number of meaningful data points. If the significant event you are sampling happens once every 3-4 weeks then a sample period of say 2 weeks probably tells you nothing. You have no meaningful data yet with AC to compare in any way with RS or similar due to a. The suspension of capital and interest repayments/refinance options unavailable and b. The fact that the AC loan book is a few hundred loans versus RS with tens of thousands of loans. Your argument simply does not stand up to any reasonable forensic analysis of the datasets involved.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 24, 2020 12:46:18 GMT
Thats just talking about the provision fund cash level which has gone up by £4.65m (its now around £12m in total). The actual provision fund itself is significantly larger than this at £31m. Its not clear if that number has also increased by this £4.65m or whether it remains at £31m. Where's the £12m, I can only see just under £7m cash? Totally agree, and unfortunately he just can't stop saying it over and over again. There are number of posters here who quite obviously do not understand the first thing about what they invested in. Just like all those who invested in property fund some years ago and then cried like babies to anyone and everone who would listen when the market went against then, they all panicked, created a run on the funds cash reserve, the funds were suspended to protect themselves and then the investors couldn't get their money out. Bottom line....the investors simply did not understand what they had invested in.........and I see no difference here.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 24, 2020 12:32:53 GMT
You are right I am a fool for investing in AC - I believed their prominent publicity blurb about instant access but I have to take responsibility as I did not look at the small print carefully enough. Mea Culpa. But the prominent publicity you read has always clearly stated that instant access is only possible "under normal market conditions", you must have seen this also and it was certainly not hidden away in the small print. There cannot be an investor alive today who was prepared to certify themselves as sophisticated, or otherwise for that matter, that could describe the situation we have today as normal in any sense of the word. Simply put, we will all have be patient and wait. For me personally, I have been dis-investing significantly from P2P over the last 2 years but the majority of my residual 5 figure investment is with AC. I am however expecting more potential losses coming from the smaller amounts I have with the retail P2P lenders, such as RS, LW and Zopa (legacy accounts), than AC as although these platforms look the better bet right now WRT repayments they are almost 100% dependent on their somewhat underfunded PFs surviving the potential tsunami of defaults coming down the line. Remember also that RS went heavily into property development loans a while back. As I commented at the time, these loans have the potential to swamp their PF in very short order if a few of them head south. So, even apples are not always the apples we think they are.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 21, 2020 13:57:42 GMT
I haven’t been following the debate for the last couple of days, work kind of got in the way. But reading through some of the recent whining posts I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Legal action? Really? In my 60 odd years on the planet the one truth I am certain of is the only winners in legal actions are the lawyers. Is it really in any of our interests to have the management distracted dealing with threats of frivolous legal actions rather than, I don’t know, maybe managing the business in he face of the worst depression since 1709? I am one of the larger investors/ mugs/ losers with over £200k on the platform- so am (apparently) one of those disadvantaged by the decision to prefer the small investors- and you know what, I am cool with that. The amount of money that I would get if it was done pro-rata is tiny- this is a row over a tiny amount of cash- and frankly if the small investors, who may be financially squeezed, have need of their money then I am not going to stand in their way, just like I am delighted when those older than me can go straight t the front of the queue at my supermarket. Allegations that the management are dishonest strike me as over-stating it, the fees they are charging aren’t’ "to line their pockets” - I suspect they are to keep the lights on (as I do think the business is financially vulnerable, another reason I want the management focussed 100% on the day job. If the platform goes over then it is lights out for all). I am sure they have made mistakes- that what comes in managing a business in these awful circumstances. Criticism of the company is all to the good- but never ending moaning just becomes tedious. I think I will go back to work. Well said! I said something similar a while back on another thread but as is the way with this little band of AC haters they just keep creating more threads saying the same thing over and over and over again, never really supporting their ridiculous assertions of all manner of dubious practices by the platform or the dire state of its financial situation with any verifiable facts. I feel many of their statements are actually getting very close to what could comfortably be defended in court and as this is all in the public domain could well be viewed in a very unfavourable light by any judge who was to preside over their potential future case. Smacks of coercion to me. There will be little by way of repayments in the coming 3-6 months to give these big boys their money back even if they were all at the front of the queue so survival of the platform is the only way out here for us all to get our (or most of our) money back one day. This handful of bully boys are looking at fire-sale pence in the pound on their and our investments if they drag this through the courts and bring down the platform as a result. Who knows what the other 99.9% of AC investors who don't agree with them could choose to do then to recover their money then, these boys might be big but I bet there are a fair few bigger boys around who will be none too pleased to see their investments put in peril. They have obviously taken leave of their senses, cannot see the wood for the trees, should take up Yoga and start to see the big picture, oh yes, and actually they should have put their money in a building society savings account. Fancy thinking P2P was a liquid asset class. Nothing to see here folks, move on........
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 12, 2020 14:18:10 GMT
1. the value of the underlying businesses and assets that our money is invested in and 2. the success of AC as a viable business So with respect to point 1, If projects fail due to the collapse of the funding pipeline the result is partially completed developments - maybe 25-50% of your money back. Point 2 is demonstrated by the huge hit that investors have taken (and are still taking) funding the wind-down costs in the multiple P2P business failures we have witnessed over the last year or so - a 50-75% return might be seen as a very good result in this scenario. Great post. Regarding your point 1 though, do you think 25-50% return on unfunded developments is realistic? My bigger concern is that legally there isn't even a claim on security, in fact it may be in the other direction. If a contract has been signed for £X to be provided over a time period and instead £0.3X has been supplied, can AC realistically say we aren't funding the rest and demand repayment? If the repayment isn't forthcoming can they then call in a receiver? I'm really not sure they can. Imagine a developer that has put in £1m of their own equity, signed an agreement for a £3m loan from AC, has received £1.5m of it from AC and built out half the site. If AC then says OK we are breaking this contract and you now need to sell the building site into a market like this, whats the legal position (I know from experience people are very reluctant to buy an incomplete building site as they effectively have to start everything again from scratch). I think the developer who is then looking at a certain wipe out of the £1m they have put in plus a lot of wasted effort is going to be pretty unhappy about this. Of course a lot depends on the nature of the agreement but it is the main worry for me. Thanks bg. For a partially built development it may well be the case that the resales value may even be below that of the undeveloped land as new developers may not want to deal with taking over something that may not be what they would want to build or may not be built to regulations etc and they could factor the cost of demolition/ site clearance etc into their offers. It could also depend on the state that the development is handed over in. If the developer has gone to the wall it could be an unknown entity for the new owner outside of any documented site visits by local Planning Control Officers. Regarding the legalities of AC breaking their contract through failing to fund subsequent draw-downs that would in the first instance depend on the contract between the two parties however it is not inconceivable that AC may be able to use force majeure in their defence to protect their interest in the security. It would make an interesting legal case however.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 11, 2020 21:01:41 GMT
Millions of pounds of cash building up in AC access accounts but they don't seem to want to release it to investors...Just does not make any sense to me. Should have put it into an instant access cash account somewhere, now paying about 0.25% interest, if you are lucky. You need to forget who gets paid how much when, this is a distraction and will be of little importance to anyone beyond the next few weeks or so. Beyond that all bets are off as to how much your invested money is actually worth. What you and the few others trying to destroy AC managements credibility here totally fail to realise is the value of yours, mine and everyone else's money in intrinsically linked to two things: 1. the value of the underlying businesses and assets that our money is invested in and 2. the success of AC as a viable business So with respect to point 1, If projects fail due to the collapse of the funding pipeline the result is partially completed developments - maybe 25-50% of your money back. Point 2 is demonstrated by the huge hit that investors have taken (and are still taking) funding the wind-down costs in the multiple P2P business failures we have witnessed over the last year or so - a 50-75% return might be seen as a very good result in this scenario. So lets be really clear here, you didn't invest in an instant access cash account and you knew this, you were never guaranteed instant access in all situation and your knew this also. The return of your investment has always depended on two things, the cash pool/new inward investment being available within the account and the value of the underlying assets/Provision Fund and you really should have know this if you had read any of the documentation available to you as a potential investor. In these unprecedented times if AC so chooses to it could suspend all access to all investments and quite easily legally justify this action. Many investment vehicles have done this in the past with any legal challenges having very limited success. What I would like you to focus on is not how quickly can you get my money back but the reality that, if things go really bad, you may never get all your money back. Worse still, you may have to wait years to get any of it back at all. So while you are trying to hammer another nail into the coffin of AC remember, without a properly functioning AC, ever getting your hands on your money again becomes an even less certain outcome. So I believe the reason why I and the overwhelming majority of AC investors support what AC management are doing right now is because their actions have put in place the supports required to ensure the survival of the underlying projects and businesses and the continued viability of AC. Surely you must understand this.... Oh by the way, did you know that there is currently a global virus pandemic that is about to wipe multiple double digit percentage figures off most of the major economies of the world and could potentially disrupt global trade and travel for maybe another year or two
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 11, 2020 19:51:08 GMT
This AC board is completely unusable now. The whole point of this forum was the sharing of useful information and knowledge. If you have a complaint with AC, direct your rage at them, don't bombard the 1% of AC's investors who use this forum with endless arguing. I wish a Mod would just delete all those useless, repetitive, pointless bickering threads, and set a user limit of one new thread - per user - per week, until people learn how to be a responsible human again. This problem has been caused by AC - I am an investor that invested in the access account on the basis that I would be able to access my cash in a reasonable time frame. It feels I have been mis-sold a product, is this the PPI crisis again? I'm sorry, but are you really being serious.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 10, 2020 16:17:41 GMT
I've still got coffee, hobnobs and toilet paper; so sitting tight for another nine weeks at least.
On that diet for nine weeks you better make sure you are sitting "buttock clenching" tight 😂
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 5, 2020 20:51:49 GMT
I posted this reply about the recent repayment made by AC for these loans on the AC private board and was then asked by another forum member, Mikeme if I could post it here on the public board, so here it is. Mar 31, 2020 at 10:15pm Tony said: Total disgrace, they knew the full financial implications of making such a promise, any company would have made a provision at that point. It all add up to total mistrust into AC's management of what, less face it, their job right now 13 hours ago happy said: Couldn't agree less. This action is perfectly understandable in the current circumstances and IMHO the fact AC paid anything at all is, in my opinion, a testament to their determination to try to honour, at least in part, their original commitment to us all. We all need to think about what is going on outside our homes right now: no planes in the sky, no cars on the roads, shops, restaurants, hair salon, bars, cafes and business closed and empty everywhere. Shut down building sites where they can't even work if they wanted because every builders merchant in the country is closed. My young children ask me about what all this will mean to us and my answer is, I truly do not know. Nobody has ever seen or even read of a global event like this in modern times. This global crisis, and it really is a crisis, is an unprecedented event, the effect of which could yet prove to be devastating for all of our financial wellbeing, not just for this generation but for many more to follow us. The actions Stuart and his team are taking show a level of prudence and caution that gives me confidence in their management, not of their reckless disregard for a commitment made in what now might as well have been made in another dimension. Stay safe everyone and look after those you love.
|
|