|
Post by bikeman on Feb 4, 2018 16:10:05 GMT
Surely it can’t have been a surprise to you that the GBBA would likely stick up to 20% of your funds in any single loan? It’s been discussed on this forum ad nauseum for years (and I see you joined the forum last March). Unfortunately I joined this forum AFTER investing in the GEA. As to this folklaw about 20% diversification - it's not in ACs t&cs so no I wasn't aware of it and frankly I think it suits AC to allow this misinformation to persist.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 4, 2018 16:05:59 GMT
We have confirmed a few times recently that the late interest payment system fix will be going live imminently and is in testing now and have apologised for the delay, and confirmed several times that any expected losses of capital on loans in accounts covered by the PF, as per the last calculation, are more than fully covered by the cash held in the PF. But that's not the problem, the problem as I see it is the prospectus promises no more than 20% in any loan and that action will be taken in effect to reduce exposure by trading loan parts between members to obtain a figure of risk in any individual loan much lower than 20%. AC have singularly failed in this, I have windged on about this for over 2 years now and promise after promise of a fix in a couple of months came went with no action. Chris appears to have diverted to internal system changes probably producing stupid stats and growth projection graphs , not putting keeping the site compliant to the offer statement to the investors first. I hoped the new hardware and software would appear in time to correct all this before any defaults rocked the boat but that bus has left the station,with the windmills and I suspect the Scottish golf course/ housing deve!opment. One would have thought the new isa gbba would be attracting vast new sums of investment, sucking up the available units on the sm ,well I see no evidence. I suspect new members are reading this and being put off in droves. The bottom line , in my opinion,an investor should reasonable expect to have capital locked, maybe for a long time, until recovery in a default has been exhausted. But never 20% of their funds or even more. This is not going to go away and it's hurting AC. It needs a resolution but what that is now i don't know. Twee Where is it promised that up to 20% can be at risk in a single loan? This often quoted % seems to be in the imagination of the members of this forum and is not corrected by Assetz Capital and is not in their T&Cs. When investing in the GEA and GBBA I never agreed to any such exposure in a single loan. What I did agree to was a lower return in exchange for the security of a provision fund - that seems to be BS as well.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 4, 2018 15:50:00 GMT
I found this in FAQs (https://www.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/faqs), 1 - Investors, D - Assetz Capital Investment Accounts "What happens if there aren't enough loans to allocate my funds to? When you transfer funds into an investment account, the system will automatically diversify your account funds across many matching loans at any given time, with the aim of doing so in an equal and proportionate way and subject to loan availability. For example, if 50 suitable loans are available, the account will aim to invest approximately 2% of account funds into each loan. Likewise, with only five suitable loans, the account will aim to invest approximately a fifth (20%) of account funds into each loan." But that only mentions 20% as an example, not a maximum. It then goes on to say ..the actual extent of the automatic diversification may be limited unless/ until new loans become available.. I take this to mean that the investment will then diversify across new loans thus reducing the amount exposed to any single loan towards the 1% target. In my case 20% of my investment went into a single loan, which within a few weeks this loan was suspended so my investment was never diversified. A COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE SITUATION AND BASICALLY INCOMPETENCE ON THE PART OF ASSETZ CAPITAL.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 4, 2018 15:37:03 GMT
So my original question was 'where in AC's t&cs does it say that I agreed that an acceptable level of diversification form my investment in the GEA and GBBA to be 20% of my investment in a single loan'.
No one has answered this question (and neither have AC) so I conclude that the t&cs never actually stated this, I was not made aware of it and I never agreed to it.
As such I feel that my next course of action is to formally lodge a complaint that my investment in the GEA and GBBA have been exposed to an unacceptable level of risk which constitutes negligence on the part of Assetz Capital.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 3, 2018 18:53:31 GMT
When there is dissent against AC is it the best solution to move the tread to the restricted access forum?
Wouldn't it be preferable to instead have mods remove/edit posts that don't comply with the forums guidelines so that the general sentiment remains public?
I am concerned that AC have a say in how they are represented in this 'independent' forum which they no longer 'officially support'.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 3, 2018 18:47:36 GMT
Since AC no longer support this forum why do they get a say in who can access the restricted forum?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 29, 2018 22:48:39 GMT
It often get quoted here that ACs target diversification for the investment accounts is a max of 20% in a single loan but where does it say so. It's not in the T&Cs and the FAQs states:
How many loans will my portfolio be diversified across?
When using our Investment Accounts, the system will automatically diversify your portfolio for you. The platform will attempt to diversify your portfolio down to 1% of your total holdings in any loan, provided there are at least 100 loans matching the account criteria. Please note that in situations where the number of loans matching the account criteria is low, diversification is only possible across the matching loans – this may mean that the actual extent of the automatic diversification may be limited unless/until new loans become available. In such a scenario the percentage invested in any one loan may rise.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 16, 2018 21:04:06 GMT
grahamreeds , have you considered Assetz Capital? Returns not disimilar to the projected new autobid offerings on FC, and all loans are secured. Nothing like the same volume as FC, of course, but not too bad. My impression of Assetz is that they are a professional bunch. ... you are sadly mistaken p2pindependentforum.com/thread/11214/recommend-ac?page=4
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 15, 2018 20:16:39 GMT
You wont get any answers, as usual once we start asking for details stuartassetzcapital has no answers. Put your money elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 10, 2018 21:40:09 GMT
Thanks to a lack of diversification a substantial amount of my money was locked into bad loans almost immediately after investing in ACs 'black box' accounts. I think that it is appalling that individual investors are overexposed in these accounts: losses in these accounts should be equally shared across all investors not levied against individuals who had no choice within which loans AC invests their money. I had no choice in the selection of these loans, was fed a lie that investments were diversified and protected by the reassurance of a 'provision fund' which in my experience AC do not use, preferring to lock in lenders funds indefinitely without interest paid. AC are apparently quick to suspend loans but are not very good at managing those suspensions or providing updates to lenders. For months I have been fed a series of updates, usually along the lines of 'meeting with the borrower was cancelled or we met the borrower and nothings changed, we'll provide further update next month'. Asking questions of AC just gets a referral to the latest non-update. I have to question AC's due diligence in setting up loans which within a matter of weeks they suspended indefinitely. I have pulled out everything I can from AC and certainly would never recommend them. Hi, just to address your points, all expected losses within the automated investment accounts (eg QAA,30DAA, GBBA, PSA, GEA), post completion of any recovery action, are well covered by the provision funds’ existing cash balances. Equally yes the loans are locked for trading until recovered or until a suspension event is cleared. The diversification is close to or better than the targeted diversification in most account’s cases and the new algorithm in February will permanently improve this going forwards also. It is true there is no choice on the loans in these accounts as investment is not managed but automatic according to the mandate for that account. I think you may find different views nowadays on our recovery skills and results, now that we have completed several and with predominantly good to excellent results. I would really endorse our recovery skills as a strong relative strength in the industry. I don’t think you will find many, if any, loans that are suspended for any material period or at all shortly after launch. It is true we are a bit trigger happy on loan suspensions versus many platforms but you will probably find this is due to wanting to treat customers fairly and ensure people know there may be an upcoming issue on a loan rather than let people freely trade oblivious to known issues which I’m sure people would be most unhappy about. It’s a fine balance but the right approach we feel. I hope this helps any readers and would welcome people’s agreement or otherwise on my comments. Many thanks. Please explain how existing investments will be altered by "the new algorithm in February will permanently improve this going forwards". Loan 437 was suspended 1st June 2017, within 2 months of being formed - I'd question due diligence when forming this loan. Read the activity log, there's been bugger all progress, the client has fobbed AC off for 6 months, cancelling or failing to attend meetings. 20% of my rather substantial investment was put in this loan and suspended within a matter of days without my having any sayso. I get no interest and cannot recover it. What you say about suspending loans rather than continuing to allow others to invest might make sense were it not for the fact that AC seem happy to invest GEA investors money in bad loans on their behalf. Additionally as an investor in the GEA I don't see why my investment is locked into a single loan whilst other investors in the GEA aren't invested in this loan - why isn't exposure to loans shared equally by all GEA investors?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Dec 29, 2017 15:03:19 GMT
Thanks to a lack of diversification a substantial amount of my money was locked into bad loans almost immediately after investing in ACs 'black box' accounts.
I think that it is appalling that individual investors are overexposed in these accounts: losses in these accounts should be equally shared across all investors not levied against individuals who had no choice within which loans AC invests their money.
I had no choice in the selection of these loans, was fed a lie that investments were diversified and protected by the reassurance of a 'provision fund' which in my experience AC do not use, preferring to lock in lenders funds indefinitely without interest paid.
AC are apparently quick to suspend loans but are not very good at managing those suspensions or providing updates to lenders. For months I have been fed a series of updates, usually along the lines of 'meeting with the borrower was cancelled or we met the borrower and nothings changed, we'll provide further update next month'. Asking questions of AC just gets a referral to the latest non-update.
I have to question AC's due diligence in setting up loans which within a matter of weeks they suspended indefinitely.
I have pulled out everything I can from AC and certainly would never recommend them.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Nov 29, 2017 19:31:18 GMT
I've been watching suspended loans just drift along for months with little change. Meetings with borrowers cancelled or suspended time and time again.
Meanwhile interest payments stop - even if the borrower continues to make payments.
Does AC ever lift suspended loans or payout from that PF they claim to have?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Oct 2, 2017 13:28:26 GMT
I don't think AC provide me with that level of information. They usually do in the credit report. In this case there is no reference to funds being retained by AC to cover interest payments or a buffer so I think the borrower is paying the interest. Certianly they are for one of the other loans as the CR mentions DD collection. Borrower seems to have a fair amount of resources as they ponied up 125k in July. The notes do say something about that £125k being held back from the original loan by AC so its not come from the borrower. I think AC could be explaining more like clarifying who is making the payments and what is the purpose of suspending the loan if there are no arrears. It looks like they perhaps didn't ask the right questions at the outset and got nervous when they found out something they didn't like because they very quickly suspended the loan and locked us lenders in.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Oct 1, 2017 20:17:23 GMT
Despite that the borrower has met all their payments so why suspend the loan? Is the borrower making the payments? Or are they being paid by AC out of investors' funds retained at drawdown? I don't think AC provide me with that level of information.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Oct 1, 2017 20:16:25 GMT
|
|