|
Post by bikeman on May 9, 2018 18:42:19 GMT
AC are just paying out pennies to try to curb the dissent from investors in these loans. Don't expect any more interest payments.
These loans have been suspended for months, the borrower has no intention of making any further repayments, yet there is no sign of AC starting recovery - why not?
I for one am upset that I am still unable to declare these investments as loses in recovery.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 23, 2018 16:54:11 GMT
Its working perfectly on QAA and 30daa. There's never a problem with withdrawals. so that suggest the provision fund (or some other half way house) is taking some losses. I cant quite work out this is done with Assetz saying the provision fund hasnt been used. Having played around with Gbba etc i sold out pretty quickly as holdings were far to big. Even the new algorithms dont seem to reduce holdings to a sensible size. The MLIA is the only sensible option while using QAA and 30 day to hold money while i wait for loans to come through the pipeline. Fingers crosssed that none of the big loans held in 30 day and QAA go badly wrong. And isn't that the crux of the problem, the PF seems to work differently for the QAA & 30D vs the GBBA & GEIA. Now where is that explained?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 23, 2018 16:52:38 GMT
No, it’s intended to cover shortfalls in capital (for those lending via managed accounts), once all available recovery avenues are exhausted. A fit for purpose PF would cover capital and be replenished when recovery completes (like RS et al), thereby providing incentive to AC's recovery process. In it's current operation the PF is marketing smoke and mirrors
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 23, 2018 16:46:00 GMT
I've received 4 x interest payments for each of the IL* windmill loans in the GEIA, well 3 out of the 4 that have gone bad. Nothing for #437, so I assume payments for this will be forthcoming when the hamster wakes up from his afternoon nap. At least it's a start. Is there a reason that the PF interest payments haven't been paid out for #437 does anybody know? I've rung AC to ask them when they'll be made and they told me it could take up to 48 hours to get back to me about it ... Esmeralda I am guessing you didn't get that reply in 48 hours? Here is what I have been told: The reason the #437 loan was not covered by the provision fund at this point is due to the fact that the borrower had defaulted on the loan and the loan was suspended before any missed interest payments occurred. That's right, you read right, the loan was suspended BEFORE the borrower defaulted so you get nothing from the PF. Yo couldn't make this up. Best advise is to cash out at the first sign of a late payment.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 23, 2018 16:33:16 GMT
The PF is pointless:
1. It's supposed to cover capital yet it wont payout until the capital is recovered. If it's covering my capital, why can't I have the capital, why do I have to wait for recovery?
2. It covers interest payments but only late payments where receipt is imminent. Once the borrower actually defaults (or AC arbitrarily suspends the loan) the PF doesn't pay. As loans are suspended as soon as a borrower late pays and in some cases well before they default, the PF is only ever expected to cover pennies.
3. The PF is discretionary. That means AC can choose if they even use it so the rules above are 'discretionary'. As they like to market that the PF has never had to payout, likelihood is they wont ever use it.
Assetz Capital attract lenders with the promise of the backup of a provision fund but make damm sure it will never have to payout.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 23, 2018 9:40:02 GMT
My max GBBA1 holding is currently ~20% of the total . GBBA2 is ~11% of the total. Maybe it's not got round to me yet? You should get that out before AC screw you if it 'deems it necessary' to suspend those loans
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 18, 2018 17:18:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 17, 2018 19:28:52 GMT
The fact that many of us were expecting to receive missed interest payments on 437 suggests that AC have not made it sufficiently clear. They need to spell out what is or is not considered a default for the provision fund to pay the interest. I would have thought that if default interest is not being charged and enforcement of security has not commenced then it is not in default and the PF should pay the interest. Neither of these apply for this loan. Loans can be suspended for many reasons but it doesn't automatically mean that they are in default. Judging by the varied responses people are receiving from AC support it appears they can't work it out either So, I received an email today telling me that all four are in default but #437 went into default earlier than the other three and there were no missed interest payments at that date so there's no PF interest due. As (supposedly) tThe other three didn't go into default until a later date and they had missed interest payments when they went into default that's why the PF paid out on those. If all four are in default why does the header on each of their pages say "monitoring event" rather than "credit event"? I cannot see a sentence anywhere that says that any of them are in default and that's the question I asked AC - show me the sentence - but they didn't or maybe they can't. I'm pretty sure the GEIA turbine loan I am in was suspended several months before the borrower went into arrears. I'm also pretty sure that during that time AC kept the payments and never passed on any interest to me. Nor did the PF pay me anything. Meanwhile my capital gets lost indefinitely despite being covered by the PF. Seems pretty bloody convenient that loans not in default can be suspended with no cover from the PF.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 17, 2018 19:22:47 GMT
Exactly what happened to me. Lack of diversification, over exposure, poor due diligence in assessing borrowers etc etc It's all going in my complaint to the FOA. It's far too easy for AC to suspend a loan even before it goes into default. Lenders get no interest, the PF doesn't payout and there's little incentive for them to recover our losses. The GEIA and GBBA are an incompetent failure which Assetz Capital are attempting to step away from. I hope they are enjoying the bad publicity they are getting. I am in the same boat with loan 437 in the GEIA....I sold the rest of my holding and was left with this one. I have been in email conversation with AC about 437 and am hopeful that they will eventually pay out any capital shortfall from the PF but reckon it will take about 3 to 5 years to go through attempted recovery process. I have some money invested via the manual account but am resigned to loosing this.
If the PF is designed to cover capital then I see no reason why it can't payout on request to lenders who want to walk and AC replenish the PF if or when they recover. Then they might have some incentive to pull their finger out.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 17, 2018 19:18:12 GMT
Have things changed at Ratesetter?
I set my rolling rate at 3.7% (example) and ended up with unmatched funds.
So I change my rolling reinvestment rate to 3.5% but this only seems to apply to lent funds and these unmatched funds seem to stay at 3.7%.
Now I'm pretty sure that I could previously also change the rate for these unmatched funds but now it seems RS will only let me change the rate for unmatched funds to the current rolling market rate and not to any rate I choose.
I don't want my unmatched funds to languish at an unrealistic high rate but neither do I want to fall right down to the current market rate. What is going on?
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 13, 2018 12:34:48 GMT
#437 I** loan which I'm in is not paying out from the PF. As it's not in default. Last interest payment received 20/09/17 I'm confused My GEIA is 100% invested in loan 437. In summary 20% was quickly invested in this loan when I first allocated funds to the GEIA. Then nothing else at all. After a few weeks I got fed up of waiting and withdrew the other 80% of non invested cash. However loan 437 had already been suspended and could not be withdrawn. Thus I have received no interest at all on my GEIA for the past 5 months and was expecting the missing interest to be paid from the provision fund. I logged in after receiving that email yesterday and nothing has been paid, not even nanopence My understanding is this loan is suspended but not formally defaulted. The FAQ state that the provision fund does not cover default interest. So if this loan is not in default why isn't it covered? Exactly what happened to me. Lack of diversification, over exposure, poor due diligence in assessing borrowers etc etc It's all going in my complaint to the FOA. It's far too easy for AC to suspend a loan even before it goes into default. Lenders get no interest, the PF doesn't payout and there's little incentive for them to recover our losses. The GEIA and GBBA are an incompetent failure which Assetz Capital are attempting to step away from. I hope they are enjoying the bad publicity they are getting.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 12, 2018 20:01:03 GMT
No email , no payments - I am invested in the four suspended I** turbine loans via the GEA.
So let me get this right. The PF is designed to cover capital loss yet it is now paying some late interest payments, how does that work?
Meanwhile my capital wasn't diversified as promised and has been tied up in suspended loans for 9 months and the PF isn't paying me my capital let alone any interest due (despite the borrower initially keeping up with payments and AC pocketing it). The loans are not in recovery so I should be getting interest from the PF?
If the PF is supposed to protect my capital why isn't it 'buying' my suspended loans so I can get my capital back?
AC is making a cheap gesture to get some of it's lenders off it's back. For investors in the GEA stuck with suspended loans this is not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 4, 2018 16:30:51 GMT
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. The 20% per loan limit is not “folklaw” (sic), it’s simply how the buying algorithms of the GBBA and GEIA operate, and have done for years. I’ve moved money into new GBBA accounts on a couple of occasions and both times it put 20% chunks into a couple of individual loans. The FAQs describe the process clearly enough, IMO The faqs do not say 20% per loan limit. There is no mention of a limit. They give two examples but set no limits. They might as well say 'we can invest 100% in a single loan and not diversify your funds at all if we choose'. 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. Lets face it ACs t&cs are written in such a way as to keep things as fluid as possible for them. What they do say though is ..the actual extent of the automatic diversification may be limited unless/ until new loans become available. But I've not seen any evidence that they reallocate investments as new loans become available.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 4, 2018 16:25:28 GMT
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. From the AC website in reference to the GEA, but I expect the GBBA was/is similar "How the account works Find out more about interest rates, protection and access times on this account by clicking here. If you’ve not opened an Assetz investment account before, we recommend you read this first."
This is the link I think you probably have to be logged in for it www.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/green-energy-income-account/how-it-works"The GEA 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 GEA will aim to invest approximately 2% of account funds into each loan. Likewise, with only five suitable loans, the GEA will aim to invest approximately a fifth (20%) of account funds into each loan." There is nothing in that statement that says 20% is a maximum. And so if only one loan is available it will invest 100% in a single loan? It also goes on to say ..the actual extent of the automatic diversification may be limited unless/until new loans become available.. So the exposure will be reduced as more loans become available. In my case this did not happen. My investment stayed at 20% in a single loan. Basically they aim to invest 2% in a single loan but it may be 100% - UNACCEPTABLE
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 4, 2018 16:18:06 GMT
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. I think your first post summed things up quite well. So: - No guarantee on the actual level of diversification,
- No guarantee that diversification will match you own specific risk profile, and
- No moratorium on defaults when your money is invested.
If you had a loan suspended just after you invested it's not incompetence, it's just bad luck (in the same way that a loan bought on the SM via the MLIA could default the day after you purchased it). Such is the life of a P2P investor. If you can't accept that you need to sell up and move on
Not quite. I accepted a lower rate of return in the GEA in return for AC using some competence in choosing where to invest my money and providing the backup of their PF. As to selling up an moving on, believe me I wish I could but thanks to ACs excellent choice of loans my entire investment is now locked.
|
|