evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Apr 28, 2021 11:02:48 GMT
Hi Duck, thanks for all your hard work! Could you add me to your PM list too please
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 25, 2020 10:26:36 GMT
Lender Update dated 23rd March states "Funds have now been received to redeem this loan in full"...."funds will be distributed to lenders". I can still see #597 in my QAA holdings, suggesting that the distribution has not yet taken place. Any idea, usually, how long does it take AC to distribute funds after receipt? I've seen it take several hours before. I don't think they will distribute all of this to investors though. Looks like they are building the cash buffer to pay for future tranche drawdowns on dev loans so they will probably distribute a portion of it. I think this is sensible. Also I think they need to conserve enough cash to keep the interest rates on access accounts stable for as long as they possibly can. This will be key to confidence. I for one would rather have the interest than the odd few pounds here and there.
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 20, 2020 14:03:35 GMT
I got £41.49. I have £79,811.53 still "queued". So firstly AC promise a queue and deliver a pool, then they promise pro-rata and deliver a flat rate per account. Not impressed. Pro-rata to the amount queued would be stupid - we would maximise our requests. Flat rate means that investors will invest the money which cannot be withdrawn for a while. Three months ago I planned to make a large withdrawal and gave notice, and that is now stuck in the QAA queue. It is difficult for many of us, but Assetz are doing the right thing overall.
Of course you are right and some people would maximise their requests but there is a simple way round this. Put a cap on the allocation of each distribution. The distribution that has just taken place means that an investor with £500 has just received over 8% whereas an investor with £100,000 has received about 0.04%. There is no way that this can be perceived as fair and being treated equally.
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 20, 2020 12:58:58 GMT
I notice also that they have increased the max direct investment in the QAA to £300k. Well I'm sure they must be inundated with investors looking to put 300 grand in and find themselves right at the back of any queue when they want to get their money out. AC have overnight taken themselves completely off the radar of anyone looking to invest more than a smallish sum. I was on my way to invest more before the lockout, ofc that was unavoidble. But now I am almost convinced that my wealth shouldn't be anymore than 1-2% in AC, as a result of the possbility of another market issue. I don't see why somebody with £500 who has far less risk involved is getting a high % payout than, somebody who has 10k's or 100k's taking on a greater deal of risk gets a mathmatically 1000's times small payout? Interesting, I think investors who have small holdings such as £300-500 may not even be aware that a market event is even going on the site, if they only check it on interest payment day ect. I totally agree. They have managed to do the exact opposite of what they said they were trying to achieve in their FAQ 'everyone has the same proportion of their funds allocated within the Access Accounts that is partially held as uninvested cash. It would not be fair to other lenders in the Access Accounts to grant any one person disproportionate access to the uninvested cash so all queue members will be treated equally' The way to make it fairer would be to put a cap on the allocation from each distribution. That way the small investor would get something and the larger investor would get a bit more. The small investor would likely still get more as a percentage of their holding but it wouldn't penalise larger investors quite so much.
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 20, 2020 11:11:33 GMT
It seems they have also redefined disproportionate as if their suggested method of distribution is used it will certainly not work in a proportionate manner. AIUI the proportion of cash in the QAA belongs to me so I can't see that it is fair to give it to someone else! If they use this method then someone who has £1000 invested will be 100% out after say 50 allocations of £20. Someone who has £10000 will only have received 10% and still have 90% still stuck. I'm quite prepared to take my share of the pain but don't see why I should take other people's for them! How many toilet rolls did you Buy? Not sure of the relevance to your comment but I didn't take anyone else's!
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 20, 2020 11:03:51 GMT
Pro rata definition - If something is given out to people on a pro rata basis, it means assigning an amount to one person according to their share of the whole. While a pro rata calculation can be used to determine the appropriate portions of any given whole, it is often used in business finance. AC have a different dictionary I am afraid Here 'queue' means 'pool' and 'pro-rata' means based on an equal amount rather than a percentage! It seems they have also redefined disproportionate as if their suggested method of distribution is used it will certainly not work in a proportionate manner. AIUI the proportion of cash in the QAA belongs to me so I can't see that it is fair to give it to someone else! If they use this method then someone who has £1000 invested will be 100% out after say 50 allocations of £20. Someone who has £10000 will only have received 10% and still have 90% still stuck. I'm quite prepared to take my share of the pain but don't see why I should take other people's for them!
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 20, 2020 10:14:14 GMT
Up until now I thought AC have handled this situation very well but the way that Chris has stated that distributions are to be made is far from fair. They are to be treated in the same way that loan allocations were to the MLA. So on each distribution of say £10 per account Investor A with £1000 would get 1% and Investor B with £10000 would get 0.1%
How does that square with this statement in their faq
The “pool” of uninvested cash in the Access Accounts belongs to all the investors in the account – everyone has the same proportion of their funds allocated within the Access Accounts that is partially held as uninvested cash. It would not be fair to other lenders in the Access Accounts to grant any one person disproportionate access to the uninvested cash so all queue members will be treated equally until further notice - joining the queue today versus tomorrow will not create a significant advantage in the short term as there will be a pro-rata distribution of cash available for distribution to all Access Account withdrawal queue members.
Surely in the example above Investor A is getting 10 times what Investor B is getting so they are most definitely getting a disproportionate amount of any distribution.
This system worked when we were buying loan parts but then we had a choice. Now we don't!
stuartassetzcapital
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 20, 2020 9:39:49 GMT
chris Surely there is a very easy and much fairer way round this. Put a cap on the allocation per distribution, either in absolute terms or as a percentage of the allocation. So if £1m was to be distributed you could have a maximum allocation of £x or x% of £1m The smaller investor would still likely get a disproportionately higher amount of any distribution but not as bad as I suspect it will be now.
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 20, 2020 9:16:36 GMT
Up until now I thought AC have handled this situation very well but how can this be fair? So on each distribution of say £10 per account Investor A with £1000 would get 1% and Investor B with £10000 would get 0.1% How does that square with this statement in their faq The “pool” of uninvested cash in the Access Accounts belongs to all the investors in the account – everyone has the same proportion of their funds allocated within the Access Accounts that is partially held as uninvested cash. It would not be fair to other lenders in the Access Accounts to grant any one person disproportionate access to the uninvested cash so all queue members will be treated equally until further notice - joining the queue today versus tomorrow will not create a significant advantage in the short term as there will be a pro-rata distribution of cash available for distribution to all Access Account withdrawal queue members. Surely in the example above Investor A is getting 10 times what Investor B is getting so they are most definitely getting a disproportionate amount of any distribution. This system worked when we were buying loan parts but then we had a choice. Now we don't! chris
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on May 17, 2019 13:05:36 GMT
Possibly a bonus payment for the incentive they were running last year. I got another £100 bonus in April.
This won't be invested automatically, you have to create a new lend order as it is yours to invest or withdraw as you wish.
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Kuflink (KUF)
Kuflink
Apr 9, 2018 10:31:40 GMT
Post by evo22 on Apr 9, 2018 10:31:40 GMT
If this offer is still current could someone pm me their referral link please.
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Mar 15, 2017 13:00:17 GMT
Requested yesterday evening, mine just arrived
|
|
evo22
Posts: 13
Likes: 16
|
Post by evo22 on Apr 14, 2014 8:23:40 GMT
Totally agree. New p2p platforms such as Wellesley are given momentum by early investors such as us that are willing to back a new venture. To then be disadvantaged like this destroys loyalty. I don't know if it is new customers or new money they are trying to attract, but if it's new money I've got a five figure sum waiting for a new home if they offer existing customers the same deal. If not it'll probably be heading to Assetz now.
|
|