Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428 
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Jan 6, 2019 12:04:00 GMT
As BG commented in the D******d M****N thread
"Personally I would rather AC made the decision. They are supposed to be the experts and if they were making bad decisions consistently their lenders (retail and institutional) would soon withdraw funds. It's not to their long term benefit to act against the lenders best interests"
AC are the experts and have the resources and access to much more information than us lenders. I am sure many lessons have been learnt after the GBBA1 and GEA accounts formation. GBBA about diversification and GEA, well that's another story. My guess is that if many of us had not been saddled with as much in that loan we might be a little less upset. issues
That leads on to votes. One thing having a vote does is to focus on a problem loan rather than trawling through our own loans to see which have serious issues. Generally when we are asked to vote it is reasonably clear which way we should vote. For me instead of a vote or comment in the activity tab a resume of what action is being taken,in these situations only might be better. GEA aside at least we have physical asset backing even if realisation values are lower than valuation.
I would value others opinions and maybe some input from AC.
None of this will matter much unless this Brexit mess is sorted
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jan 6, 2019 12:26:05 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. For example, I have seen loans where the vote result is as follows:- option A 9% option B 7% option C 2% no vote 82% AC then say a clear majority of people voted for option A so that is how we will proceed. I do not see that as a majority and there are a whole host of reasons why people may not vote (not seen the email, too busy, too small a holding, on holiday etc etc). If you have a well diversified portfolio, most people do not want to be bogged down in the nitty gritty. What I would prefer is what is stated above by Mikeme. AC make the decision and clearly set out the reasons for it and the expected time frames involved. If there must be a vote then I would rather it was driven by a significant number of lenders voicing their disapproval....and for the AC course of action to be halted a clear majority (ie over 50% of lenders) to want to change the course of action. One way this could be set up is to have a 'disapproval' button on each distressed loan that investors could press as and when they become unhappy that things are dragging on too long - when 50% of lenders (by value) voice their dissatisfaction then recovery action should be enforced. I also think there are far too many votes. I have a lot of loans and i'm inundated with vote emails - often for really minor things like allowing the borrower to take a second charge loan behind our security. I know these things matter but really I would rather AC just made the decision that is right given the circumstances of the loan rather than bombard me with several emails a week. I think the very low participation rate of many of the votes suggests many other lenders feel similar. |
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 6, 2019 12:40:33 GMT
I'd be quite happy for AC to make the decisions, but a long way before that in my list of priorities is for AC to limit exposure to any single loan to something less (ideally much less) than 1% rather than the current 20% (that's caused my massive unwanted involvement with DM in GBBA1).
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderchild on Jan 29, 2019 21:18:34 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammertime on Jan 30, 2019 15:23:04 GMT
You have to vote.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jan 30, 2019 19:23:51 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. Voting on loans on AC is in no way comparable to a general election. We have to vote for someone to make political decisions for our country if we want to continue living in a democracy. As far as I am aware, turnout in these elections is around 70% which gives a fair reflection of the nations view. They are welled flagged and advertised (with constant media coverage) and so there is not the same issue of people not being aware the vote is happening, not checking their email for a couple of days, being on holiday etc. One of the key decisions people make when deciding to invest on a platform is confidence in the platform - and that includes resolving problem loans. They are the experts and have credit assessment and recovery teams, that is why I invest with them. Not so they can defer the important decisions on a pool of people who generally have no idea (and think they are investing in a quasi bank account). If you are asking about concerns regarding referedums - then I don't think we should have them at all....and if we do have one about something that is a vote to change the status quo (as opposed to voting on something new) then yes I think the rule should be that to make such a dramatic change then over 50% of those eligible to vote should have to vote to make the change (which would save a load of bickering). I do not believe you left FC because you were not allowed to vote on loans. I imagine you got out because you were not allowed to choose what loans you could invest in, or what loans you could sell. That is a much bigger issue and lack of control than the running of selective non binding votes that 10-15% of loan holders vote on.
|
|
|
|
Post by investor01010101 on Feb 1, 2019 15:12:54 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. For example, I have seen loans where the vote result is as follows:- option A 9% option B 7% option C 2% no vote 82% AC then say a clear majority of people voted for option A so that is how we will proceed. I do not see that as a majority and there are a whole host of reasons why people may not vote (not seen the email, too busy, too small a holding, on holiday etc etc). If you have a well diversified portfolio, most people do not want to be bogged down in the nitty gritty. What I would prefer is what is stated above by Mikeme . AC make the decision and clearly set out the reasons for it and the expected time frames involved. If there must be a vote then I would rather it was driven by a significant number of lenders voicing their disapproval....and for the AC course of action to be halted a clear majority (ie over 50% of lenders) to want to change the course of action. One way this could be set up is to have a 'disapproval' button on each distressed loan that investors could press as and when they become unhappy that things are dragging on too long - when 50% of lenders (by value) voice their dissatisfaction then recovery action should be enforced. I also think there are far too many votes. I have a lot of loans and i'm inundated with vote emails - often for really minor things like allowing the borrower to take a second charge loan behind our security. I know these things matter but really I would rather AC just made the decision that is right given the circumstances of the loan rather than bombard me with several emails a week. I think the very low participation rate of many of the votes suggests many other lenders feel similar. it could be interpreted as 82% of people are happy to go with the majority. I personally wouldn't leave it to AC they would just leave it and pray (I dont share the view they should know what they are doing, that would only apply if it was THEIR money) but if you want to let AC decide its no different from not voting and letting the other investors decide on a majority.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Feb 2, 2019 8:08:36 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. For example, I have seen loans where the vote result is as follows:- option A 9% option B 7% option C 2% no vote 82% AC then say a clear majority of people voted for option A so that is how we will proceed. I do not see that as a majority and there are a whole host of reasons why people may not vote (not seen the email, too busy, too small a holding, on holiday etc etc). If you have a well diversified portfolio, most people do not want to be bogged down in the nitty gritty. What I would prefer is what is stated above by Mikeme . AC make the decision and clearly set out the reasons for it and the expected time frames involved. If there must be a vote then I would rather it was driven by a significant number of lenders voicing their disapproval....and for the AC course of action to be halted a clear majority (ie over 50% of lenders) to want to change the course of action. One way this could be set up is to have a 'disapproval' button on each distressed loan that investors could press as and when they become unhappy that things are dragging on too long - when 50% of lenders (by value) voice their dissatisfaction then recovery action should be enforced. I also think there are far too many votes. I have a lot of loans and i'm inundated with vote emails - often for really minor things like allowing the borrower to take a second charge loan behind our security. I know these things matter but really I would rather AC just made the decision that is right given the circumstances of the loan rather than bombard me with several emails a week. I think the very low participation rate of many of the votes suggests many other lenders feel similar. it could be interpreted as 82% of people are happy to go with the majority. I personally wouldn't leave it to AC they would just leave it and pray (I dont share the view they should know what they are doing, that would only apply if it was THEIR money) but if you want to let AC decide its no different from not voting and letting the other investors decide on a majority. I strongly disagree. AC have a team of recovery and credit specialists (most of whom have many years experience of working in banks or similar organisations). In my opinion a lot of the 'other investors' don't know the basics when it comes to distressed debt, valuations, ranking of charges, administration etc (read some of the pages of this forum!). They think it's just a case of pressing a button and the asset is realised for its valuation. I do not want a small group of such individuals making a decision on my behalf. You have to remember that AC come up with the voting options. If they would prefer to leave it and do nothing why take the pro active decision to commence a vote? If that is your real opinion of them then I would really recommend not investing at all with them.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammertime on Feb 4, 2019 14:28:50 GMT
They ask me to vote even when i have only 0.01p in a loan whats the point.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Feb 5, 2019 7:48:57 GMT
They ask me to vote even when i have only 0.01p in a loan whats the point. Your vote would count for way more than 1000 other investors with 0.000000000001p in the loan - it could be critical!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 5, 2019 9:17:01 GMT
They ask me to vote even when i have only 0.01p in a loan whats the point. I am new to Assetz, and as a refugee from FC, the lending bank, I find the voting most refreshing. I use the MLA because I wish to make my own choices of loans, which I consider true p2p, and the voting procedure also shows a real commitment to p2p from the platform. I am only going to spend a few minutess max on each decision, and so I hope that the options presented represent the considered opinion of a professional advisor. But it leaves me believing that I have some sort of control, as the principal in the loan agreement, even though in truth it is very diluted. If we do not value these elements of engagement and control of our investments they are soon gone, and forever. If you do not wish to vote, you do not have to. Personally, I value it, and would be sad to see any changes which make the platform less like p2p and more like a black-box bank. My only regret is that I did not move from FC to Assetz a year earlier.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Feb 5, 2019 9:38:17 GMT
They ask me to vote even when i have only 0.01p in a loan whats the point. I am new to Assetz, and as a refugee from FC, the lending bank, I find the voting most refreshing. I use the MLA because I wish to make my own choices of loans, which I consider true p2p, and the voting procedure also shows a real commitment to p2p from the platform. I am only going to spend a few minutess max on each decision, and so I hope that the options presented represent the considered opinion of a professional advisor. But it leaves me believing that I have some sort of control, as the principal in the loan agreement, even though in truth it is very diluted. If we do not value these elements of engagement and control of our investments they are soon gone, and forever. If you do not wish to vote, you do not have to. Personally, I value it, and would be sad to see any changes which make the platform less like p2p and more like a black-box bank. My only regret is that I did not move from FC to Assetz a year earlier.
I understand your sentiments but I think the point is if people do not want to vote (which can be for a whole variety of reasons) then they may well not want you to make the decision for them. They would prefer AC to make their decision (rightly or wrongly). As discussed previously, most people just do not vote, this means that the small minority that do, make the decision. So in an extreme example, if everyone apart from you decided not to vote and you didn't even read the voting options and just clicked 'C' then C it is. Personally I would rather AC made the decision and would prefer the option to delegate my vote to them. As it is I am effectively delegating my vote to other investors who likely have no experience. In my view this should also happen with the pooled investment accounts. I don't think the small minority of MLIA investors who decide to vote should make the decision on behalf of the majority.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 5, 2019 10:11:22 GMT
I agree, bg, that you should be able to appoint Assetz as your proxy by choice, but not by an automatic default. I would also be happy with Assetz making an explicit recommendation. It seems to me that there is an implicit recommendation which I usually follow (or think I do). One thing to put to you, is that if the voting did not exist, then we would not have that analysis and options put to us. Rather we would tend to get 'we are dong this' and we would not have the same certainty that time has been spent on a proper evaluation. I am far from convinced that FC have the resources to manage each default properly, and the notes are a mostly a selection from a standard set. Another platform has or had a policy of just believing the borrower until that belief became untenable - very efficient of the platform's time. I suppose that I value the report I receive as much as the opportunity to vote. It gives me confidence. I do not wish to make your vote, bg, but that is the normal consequence of people not voting in elections.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Feb 5, 2019 10:30:18 GMT
I agree, bg, that you should be able to appoint Assetz as your proxy by choice, but not by an automatic default. I would also be happy with Assetz making an explicit recommendation. It seems to me that there is an implicit recommendation which I usually follow (or think I do). One thing to put to you, is that if the voting did not exist, then we would not have that analysis and options put to us. Rather we would tend to get 'we are dong this' and we would not have the same certainty that time has been spent on a proper evaluation. I am far from convinced that FC have the resources to manage each default properly, and the notes are a mostly a selection from a standard set. Another platform has or had a policy of just believing the borrower until that belief became untenable - very efficient of the platform's time. I suppose that I value the report I receive as much as the opportunity to vote. It gives me confidence. I do not wish to make your vote, bg, but that is the normal consequence of people not voting in elections. I don't think the analysis necessarily follows on from the vote. Check out the detailed credit reports AC produce for each loan - they don't need to do these as most of the loans are taken up by the managed accounts. We also often get detailed updates with no votes. I think the information/updates is one of AC's strengths. FC - I think they manage defaults fine, leaving aside the property loans they have now withdrawn from. For unsecured loans its a fairly straightforward process that should be similar for each case.
|
|
