p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781 
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Jul 2, 2019 11:44:02 GMT
I am rather concerned, like quite a few other people have also reported on review sites in terms of how Assetz Capital deal with loans towards non-payers:
The process is as follows in case of a default:
"if a loan records a default and progresses towards recovery we will appoint the relevant specialists to negotiate sale of the security and to achieve as a full a repayment of the outstanding debt as possible. If a loan enters recovery we suspend trading in that loan to protect investors within automated accounts and with bulk buying instructions from inadvertently buying defaulted loans. Trading suspensions usually stay in place until the loan is recovered."
So, apparently, if you are on automated lending, you will still be lending to people who have defaulted? It's only when "a loan enters recovery we suspend trading in that loan".
A few people who have commented on review sites that their money has been lent to borrowers who have defaulted. Shouldn't the ability for that loan to be funded suspend immediately upon the first default, not God-knows how much later when it enters "recovery"?
Any thoughts?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875 
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 2, 2019 13:20:05 GMT
Assuming you're talking about the Access accounts (QAA / 30DAA / 90DAA), this has been asked and answered MANY times. I suggest you read some of the related threads for those accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Jul 2, 2019 15:14:31 GMT
p2pfan You appear to be posting many new threads across this forum site with out of context and isolated negative quotes about us but without any attempt to read up on the many answers correcting and explaining these past comments ?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jul 2, 2019 15:32:06 GMT
Assuming you're talking about the Access accounts (QAA / 30DAA / 90DAA), this has been asked and answered MANY times. I suggest you read some of the related threads for those accounts. for p2pfan - e.g. "Trading in suspended loans is only allowed in the access accounts whilst the provision fund has ring fenced funds to cover any expected losses of capital in those loans, i.e. the discretionary decision has been taken and the funds set aside." entry Feb 22, 2019 at 1:46pm by AC's Chris on page 3 of this thread
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 2, 2019 16:00:01 GMT
I wish people would not end statements with a question mark?
|
|
r1200gs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,336
Likes: 1,883
|
Post by r1200gs on Jul 2, 2019 16:06:59 GMT
I wish people would not end statements with a question mark? Perhaps they are Australian?
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Jul 2, 2019 20:29:09 GMT
I think we should not have a go at anyone who shows concern regarding a platform. Freedom of speech is what this forum is about.
|
|
lobster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 636
Likes: 467
|
Post by lobster on Jul 3, 2019 6:14:57 GMT
I think we should not have a go at anyone who shows concern regarding a platform. Freedom of speech is what this forum is about. Freedom of speech is not the issue here. As alluded to above, the issue is that you have raised a number of concerns about the AC platform, all of which have been answered in some depth elsewhere within this forum. As a suggestion, prior to posting, you may wish to scan the forum, either manually or by using the search facility, to check whether or not your query has already been addressed.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jul 3, 2019 9:43:54 GMT
Assuming you're talking about the Access accounts (QAA / 30DAA / 90DAA), this has been asked and answered MANY times. I suggest you read some of the related threads for those accounts. The question about how those accounts will operate within the new FCA guidelines regarding loans being exchanged at fair value has not been answered by AC so far. They remain quiet. What do you consider "fair value" for a loan where the expected losses are fully covered by ringfenced funds in a provision fund, and all interest together with further losses beyond the "expected" level are adequately covered by the common pool shared with all other such loans?
If this is less than 100%, please explain your rationale.
NB in the event that funds are NOT available to be ringfenced to cover new expected losses on a particular loan, or the residual amount of the Provision Fund is no longer adequate to cover interest and expected losses for the rest of the loan book, this would represent an end to "normal market conditions" and different rules would apply (yet to be explained in detail, but involving at least some loans no longer being eligible to be transferred between access account customers at 100% of face value).
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jul 3, 2019 10:20:36 GMT
I wish people would not end statements with a question mark? Huh? Aah!
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Jul 3, 2019 10:28:46 GMT
The question about how those accounts will operate within the new FCA guidelines regarding loans being exchanged at fair value has not been answered by AC so far. They remain quiet. What do you consider "fair value" for a loan where the expected losses are fully covered by ringfenced funds in a provision fund, and all interest together with further losses beyond the "expected" level are adequately covered by the common pool shared with all other such loans?
If this is less than 100%, please explain your rationale.
NB in the event that funds are NOT available to be ringfenced to cover new expected losses on a particular loan, or the residual amount of the Provision Fund is no longer adequate to cover interest and expected losses for the rest of the loan book, this would represent an end to "normal market conditions" and different rules would apply (yet to be explained in detail, but involving at least some loans no longer being eligible to be transferred between access account customers at 100% of face value).
Ring-fencing does not look like what the FCA wants. (Who knows why?) Underperforming loans may soon have to be broken out of the pool and allocated to individuals. Anybody has a better idea, let AC know.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 3, 2019 11:46:01 GMT
What do you consider "fair value" for a loan where the expected losses are fully covered by ringfenced funds in a provision fund, and all interest together with further losses beyond the "expected" level are adequately covered by the common pool shared with all other such loans?
If this is less than 100%, please explain your rationale.
NB in the event that funds are NOT available to be ringfenced to cover new expected losses on a particular loan, or the residual amount of the Provision Fund is no longer adequate to cover interest and expected losses for the rest of the loan book, this would represent an end to "normal market conditions" and different rules would apply (yet to be explained in detail, but involving at least some loans no longer being eligible to be transferred between access account customers at 100% of face value).
If two people request a withdrawal from the QAA and one gets out unscathed having sold his bad loans to the second and that second hits the end of normal market conditions and is stuck with the bad loans then I think it would be difficult to argue that the the loans were exchanged at a “fair price”. I’m really just confused and disappointed that AC has has not commented in detail on the impact of these changes on their multitude of accounts. Makes me worried they haven’t come up with anything clever enough yet. Or there isnt any impact. What response have you had to your enquiries to AC support?
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jul 3, 2019 12:19:23 GMT
If two people request a withdrawal from the QAA and one gets out unscathed having sold his bad loans to the second and that second hits the end of normal market conditions and is stuck with the bad loans then I think it would be difficult to argue that the the loans were exchanged at a “fair price”. The moment the "fair price" falls below 100% the current rules for transferring loans no longer apply. Yes, there has to be a moment at which this occurs (e.g. due to a newly defaulted loan being unable to have its expected losses covered).
It is a matter of speculation exactly what process will be used once the fair value falls below 100% (e.g. initially to 99.9%), as this hasn't happened yet, but this doesn't mean that transfers BEFORE the triggering event were at anything less than full value based on the information available before that triggering event.
If I buy shares in company X today, and they're suspended from trading tomorrow due to some event that occurs AFTER I bought them, that surely doesn't affect the fair value today?
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Jul 6, 2019 19:18:41 GMT
Acting as devils advocate and with a dangerous lack of knowledge here,it seems to me the vital words are "expected losses are ring fenced within the provision fund". Well how are the expected losses judged, based on the professional valuation of the recovery value of a property asset as judged by our respected rics valuers. Oh dear, oh dear me.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Jul 7, 2019 10:39:50 GMT
If two people request a withdrawal from the QAA and one gets out unscathed having sold his bad loans to the second and that second hits the end of normal market conditions and is stuck with the bad loans then I think it would be difficult to argue that the the loans were exchanged at a “fair price”. The moment the "fair price" falls below 100% the current rules for transferring loans no longer apply. Yes, there has to be a moment at which this occurs (e.g. due to a newly defaulted loan being unable to have its expected losses covered).
It is a matter of speculation exactly what process will be used once the fair value falls below 100% (e.g. initially to 99.9%), as this hasn't happened yet, but this doesn't mean that transfers BEFORE the triggering event were at anything less than full value based on the information available before that triggering event.
If I buy shares in company X today, and they're suspended from trading tomorrow due to some event that occurs AFTER I bought them, that surely doesn't affect the fair value today? Unless someone or......... had more information than the buyer.
|
|
