|
Post by bikeman on Feb 14, 2019 21:08:22 GMT
Just my opinion, but looking at the logs, there seems to be fairly steady progress. Considering there are probably lawyers involved I would have expected much longer delays. You are aware that this log refers only to my complaint that has been upheld? I wouldn't expect to be advised repeatedly of a delay in offering a settlement after having upheld the complaint. The loan itself has been suspended since October 2017 - again AC's efforts to recover have amounted to little more than 'we'll update you next month'.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 8, 2019 21:14:55 GMT
I want people to know how my complaint is being handled by Assetz Capital regarding this loan.
On 20 October 2018 I made a complaint regarding my investment in loan #437 I** N****** via the GEIA on the following grounds:
1. Negligence on the part of Assetz Capital by failure to adequately diversify my investment. That there was a lack of transparency because details of the diversification methodology and provision fund was disseminated across multiple sources
2. Misleading marketing of the GEIA and specifically it's backing by a Provision Fund which would protect my capital and interest. Notwithstanding Assetz Capital's subsequent redefinition of the purpose of the PF.
3. That Assetz Capital mismanaged the release of loan money as defined within the loan agreement. Specifically Assetz Capital failed to set up an escrow account pending completion of the construction works and advanced to the Borrower in stages as construction progressed.
Activity Log
22 Oct 2018 - AC promised a response in 7 days
26 Oct 2018 - AC advised that a further 4 weeks would be required
12 Nov 2018 - AC stated that they would conclude the matter by 11 Dec
11 Dec 2018 - AC upheld my complaint in part and asked for further time to discuss a settlement for ALL lenders with the FCA.
24 Dec 2018 - AC advised that they had met with the FCA to discuss their proposal.
4 Jan 2019 - AC wrote to lenders to advise that the loan guarantor had placed themselves into liquidation.
17 Jan 2019 - AC advised that they were preparing a redress proposal letter for lenders.
8 Feb 2019 - AC advised that preparation of their proposal was not yet ready. An update will be given on 28 Feb 2019.
I can't say that I am happy how this is constantly being delayed.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 8, 2019 21:12:35 GMT
Straight comparison between AC (secured) and FC (essentially unsecured beyond PGs) doesn’t mean a lot. But AC's loans are not secured - often the security is based upon the value of the completed project and a guarantor who has nothing (or quickly moves it). Borrowers get the loan upfront, make one payment and then default. There's no security because work never started, the borrower has no assets and the guarantor runs off. Loaning to Ltd companies who create a web of cross guarantees with their other companies, none of whom have any trading history is a mugs game. I'm only surprised that the loans pass due diligence. Such as it was with the I** loans.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 8, 2019 19:57:28 GMT
Can kicked again - next report Feb 28. How much longer are we going to put up with Assetz Capita us about on this?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 6, 2019 17:17:19 GMT
The amount lent has steadily increased as I added more funds. I don't think I have ever lent less than 0.5% of my total at the time the loan was formed. Every new loan part is always 0.5% never any less.
BUT my maximum exposure any one business is now 0.6%
I have never made a withdrawal.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 5, 2019 21:54:09 GMT
I drip fed in my investment and for a while enjoyed hundreds of loans, with minimal exposure to each and negligible losses.
However, as loans were repaid, they were reinvested at a rate of 0.5% of my increasing total. Over time the number of loans are falling - I guess this will continue towards 200 loans, each with 0.5% of the total invested.
With a rate of 5.3% it doesn't take much more than a handful of loan defaults and all profits will be wiped out.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 30, 2019 17:39:38 GMT
My view is stated but another thing I really don't like about these votes is the low participation level that could lead to a course of action being taken that the majority of lenders do not agree with and may not be in their interest. i take it you have similar concerns on political votes? Clearly most people just want the interest and think this is a bank account. It is not. We the lenders own the risk and are the stakeholders, that is P2P therefore we should maybe decide on our own financial affairs. I always take the votes and everyone has one. I expect that the majority of the non voters are the protected account users that treat AC as a high interest bank account. I do sometimes struggle to grasp the situation and make a decision (ADHD does not help with long complicated explanations) and if all else fails I have found that option A is generally the safe option. AC always make option A the "safe" one. As to if you should be asked to vote? if you don't like it go to funding circle where you get no say, low rates and you foot the bill, I got out of there because of the lack of control. I think voting should be restricted to those that 'invested' via the manual account. Where the investment is via GEIA, GBBA etc the investment decision was initially made by AC so they should accept responsibility for ongoing decisions. In my view AC are constantly divorcing their responsibility behind an ever changing interpretation of their investment terms and faqs. Regardless, in my view AC provide insufficient detail about the borrowers and loans so it's not really investing anyway, it's just gambling.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 21, 2019 21:31:18 GMT
With so many defaults how are these promotions being funded? Mr Ponzi?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 12, 2019 19:32:54 GMT
I would say your criticism is unduly harsh. .... My mantra remains diversify diversify A shame that AC don't share your mantra with the GBBA and GEIA accounts. In respect of these accounts Assetz Capital were woefully incompetent. I stand by my criticism of them.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 11, 2019 19:11:40 GMT
News is imminent, watch this space. @stuartasseztcapital - been over 3 months now - usual BS from AC then?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Jan 6, 2019 15:55:45 GMT
The updates from yesterday's emails dont look promising. Im in all of these loans via the MLA and GEA. Whats the chances the PF will cover these? (either all or some of the loam amounts). Since 23rd November AC have stated that in the case of loan #437 they expect no recovery value - so why hasn't the GEIA PF paid out yet? The update this week once again states that they are they are preparing a letter of action against the monitoring surveyor - this must be some letter as it's been in preparation for months! The loan guarantor has now 'placed itself into liquidation'. It wouldn't surprise me if the guarantor is also the borrower such is the lack of diligence carried out by AC in respect of these loans. As to those of us who have filed complaints - so far I've seen nothing but a weekly update which says 'we will update you next week'. AC once again playing for time I think.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Dec 19, 2018 18:44:14 GMT
Poor due diligence by A/C more like. There's no need to be diligent when you're lending other people's money and repeatedly cover your arse with multiple 'invest at your own risk...' statements. There weren't so many of those when they suckered me to invest in the GEIA two years ago - then it was all 'we minimise losses by diversifying across loans and back your investment with our provision fund etc etc'. What a cock of that was. AC is the only P2P platform where I lost 40% of my investment within weeks because AC saw fit to diversify across two loans to the same borrower - incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Dec 17, 2018 22:55:58 GMT
Yes F/C was good until they changed there system then i got out as soon as i could. Lots of other investers left to.Im more than happy with my 10.88% interest in the MLA. Are you as happy with your losses on the I** loans? How much is that exactly?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Dec 17, 2018 22:30:13 GMT
A smart answer. GBBA misled early clients with their homespun assurances of diversification and then shafted many with the percentage of investment pot get out when they had large loan books to match . Its caused many investors to doubt the credence of the site and leave . It must give you a warm glow to be so astute.
Well said, since I was shafted by AC (19k in one loan ) I have been trying to remove funds and re invest in more credible and transparent p2p sites, unfortunately this is going to take years with possibly substantial losses. I agree with hammertimes comments but in my naivety I expected a more professional approach from AC. As they say, an old fool etc. .
AC have a track record of repeatedly fking up diversification and you would be wise to avoid them. Hammertime is the only person here who has anything good to say about AC - one wonders if he is an employee.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Dec 1, 2018 20:55:38 GMT
So if A/C have paid out all the investors money in one go rather than in stages. And then the I** loan goes into default have they not broken the contract . Therefore they are negligent and should return the money to the investors. Indeed. And in a few days time AC's 8 week 'investigation' into my complaint will be up and I will refer their incompetence to the FCA.
|
|