teddy
Posts: 214 
Likes: 90
|
Post by teddy on Jan 19, 2018 22:23:47 GMT
I feel it is unhelpful to readers to suggest that the PF wouldn't kick in when it already has. Recoveries with secured loans can take a while if done well and treating all parties fairly. For example we have always funded the recovery and legal costs on problem loans to date ourselves and so that certainly should be recognised as a pay out as we have not asked investors to cover these costs (considerable in some cases) in advance of any recoveries. Frankly, I'm stunned that you have the gall to say this on a public forum populated by your lenders, many of whom, myself included, haven't had loan or capital repayments for months on suspended loans, and who are looking at hundreds, if not thousands of Pounds of losses because the advertised Mythical AC Unicorn Fund won't pay out a single penny to lenders because it's "discretionary", a word which seemingly means, "you ain't seeing a penny". Interesting to note that the customer information pages for the various accounts on the AC website no longer mention they're covered by a provision fund.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Jan 19, 2018 22:39:15 GMT
The Provision Fund is still referenced on the product pages ? For example - www.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/property-secured-investment-account/how-it-works 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. |
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Jan 20, 2018 10:44:10 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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Feb 4, 2018 16:15:10 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." And it actually goes on to say: "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 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
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 4, 2018 16:52:15 GMT
In my case this did not happen. My investment stayed at 20% in a single loan. If the account didn't work the way you anticipated, and diversification stayed at a level you were uncomfortable with, why did you keep your funds invested? Given that you said the loan was suspended just after you acquired it, to what extent did you expect the diversification to alter in such a short period of time?
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Feb 4, 2018 17:47:38 GMT
There is no need for diversification if there is a functioning Provision Fund. Sadly the AC provision fund is legendary for its opacity, unclear pay out policy, lack of clear rules and its hesitant policy to paying out any money. My understanding is that AC diversification and PF issues are being addressed this month.
See RS for a platform where diversification is irrelevant and the PF functions seamlessly, the only issue (admittedly a major one) being the coverage ratio. AC's compliance people consider that model to be inappropriate for their interpretation of the law...
Compare and contrast. In the meantime I use only the QAA account.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 789
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 4, 2018 18:08:37 GMT
See RS for a platform where diversification is irrelevant and the PF functions seamlessly, the only issue (admittedly a major one) being the coverage ratio. AC's compliance people consider that model to be inappropriate for their interpretation of the law... The problem with RS imo is it is a bit of a black box from the perspective of an investor. You could argue that it is closer to a traditional bank where you just deposit your money and have no idea where it ends up or who is paying what and where. The problem with this is P2P doesnt have the regulation or capital levels of the banking industry. AC's approach is alot more transparent and is something that I think is more suited to a high risk investment like P2P - the risk of this type of lending is very visible to the investor when they see defaults and losses directly.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Feb 4, 2018 19:37:00 GMT
Yes it’s horses for courses, angry. I just want a simple fire and forget account, covered by a PF but acknowledging I am exposed to unanticipated bad debt. And that’s what I like about RS and dislike about AC (QAA excepted). I do like analysis and due diligence but I can earn more in shares doing the hard work. P2p I use to park my cash .
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 4, 2018 22:31:21 GMT
Yes it’s horses for courses, angry. I just want a simple fire and forget account, covered by a PF but acknowledging I am exposed to unanticipated bad debt. And that’s what I like about RS and dislike about AC (QAA excepted). I do like analysis and due diligence but I can earn more in shares doing the hard work. P2p I use to park my cash . IIRC, one of the original USP's of the GEIA and GBBA was for the passive investor, lower return but protection with a PF. For those more hands on it was the MLIA without any PF.
The continual failure of AC to make good on the PF regarding the GEIA and GBBA thereby locking savers in is unsavory to say the least. I can accept (just) the delaying of formalised defaults with MLIA - can kicking for goodness knows how long. We (AC) may close the case one year in the future and default it but in the meantime claim no one has ever lost a penny, but to apply the same to GEIA And GBBA holders who have already accepted a lower rate is not good IMO and frankly stinks.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Feb 12, 2018 12:42:32 GMT
Interesting question. My thoughts for what it is worth. I assumed the recovery costs came out of the AC fees in order to treat everyone fairly. Every lender benefits from the recovery process equally I would have thought ie. the manual and automated account lenders both benefit. The fee taken by AC is the same I thought for both the manual and automated accounts from previous posts from AC. If AC in the future took money out of the PF to fund recoveries it may be seen that manual lenders are being supported by the PF at the same time. Unless of course the PF funded the contribution from automated lenders and the manual lenders were somehow asked to contribute in some way to a particular recovery. This sounds like it would be very messy to implement. Yes as you have spotted there are some challenges, complexities and nuances to handle with this to be fair to all and rest assured those concerns and others have been fully considered in how we have structured this. It isn't all that simple, for sure. Thanks as usual stuartassetzcapital It would be good if you could publish these challenges, nuances and complexities you are aware of, together with how they are addressed on the AC website so lenders can make an informed judgement on the risks themselves based on their own risk appetite.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 12, 2018 13:29:26 GMT
Yes as you have spotted there are some challenges, complexities and nuances to handle with this to be fair to all and rest assured those concerns and others have been fully considered in how we have structured this. It isn't all that simple, for sure. Thanks as usual stuartassetzcapital It would be good if you could publish these challenges, nuances and complexities you are aware of, together with how they are addressed on the AC website so lenders can make an informed judgement on the risks themselves based on their own risk appetite. The only way this is going to be resolved is to actually see the PF paying out or not. The apparent '....challenges, complexities and nuances....' should have been resolved prior to the commitment that the GEIA and GBBA were 'covered' by a PF at launch. This continual can kicking blaming this that and the other well......... Sorry guys but enough is enough. In the interests of transparency then when the PF pays out full details should be published. If (as it is discretionary) payment is not going to be made then the reasoning should also be published.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Feb 12, 2018 14:01:41 GMT
I agree that the PF strategy with regard to the packaged accounts was never really thought through. To be fair, AC never publshed the PF pay out policy and procedures, something that still mystifies me.
However, I think it is now best to wait on the forthcoming announcement which should clarify matters. Roll on month end...
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Feb 12, 2018 14:10:01 GMT
I agree that the PF strategy with regard to the packaged accounts was never really thought through. To be fair, AC never publshed the PF pay out policy and procedures, something that still mystifies me. However, I think it is now best to wait on the forthcoming announcement which should clarify matters. Roll on month end... "To be fair, AC never publshed the PF pay out policy and procedures..." - imo there's nothing remotely 'fair' about AC stating they have a provision fund, yet not stating clearly if/how it'll be used.
|
|
