|
Post by kyle1873 on Jul 15, 2019 16:54:33 GMT
I’ve just sent the following in reply. Will report back on their response. “I write formally to notify Property Partner that I DO NOT ACCEPT these new Terms and Conditions, given that they are proposed to be applied retroactively to investments I made in good faith under the T&Cs applicable at the time. I most certainly will not be investing any further funds via Property Partner and will be withdrawing all cash as and when it becomes available. Please can you clarify exactly what you mean by “You will be deemed to have accepted these new terms by continuing to use our platform on and after 5 August 2019”. Specifically: A) how will I be able to withdraw payments of interest and capital each month without being deemed to have accepted these new terms? B) if my holdings are offered for sale on the Secondary Market prior to 5th August, will they be removed from sale on that date or will they remain there?” I hope you don't mind but I have basically copied and pasted this and put it in their "live chat" and emailed it to them. I'm willing to escalate to the ombudsman also.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 15, 2019 17:08:57 GMT
I emailed to complain.
I have 100k with PP, and had more previously. I invested in their first property and miss the enthusiastic days when Dan was in charge. The initial vision was great, but they are a very different company now.
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Jul 16, 2019 10:20:19 GMT
Also, after property moose I see this as a death of equity crowdfunding for property. The new comer British pearl will probably go the same way so I’ll be avoiding Yes, I see British Pearl as being too similar to pm and pp and I'll avoid, too (likewise assetz and uown). I still have high hopes for brickowner, though as their approach is a bit different.
|
|
rick24
Member of DD Central
Posts: 244
Likes: 138
|
Post by rick24 on Jul 16, 2019 10:44:51 GMT
It may well be that the platform requires these changes in order to pay its way, unless the equity investors are willing to pump in money. Whether the cost/return is worthwhile will be for individual investors to decide.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,830
Likes: 1,586
|
Post by benaj on Jul 16, 2019 10:58:51 GMT
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 16, 2019 11:10:15 GMT
It may well be that the platform requires these changes in order to pay its way, unless the equity investors are willing to pump in money. Whether the cost/return is worthwhile will be for individual investors to decide.That decision took me about 30 seconds. I've no problem with a platform changing its fee structure for future new business, and I've no doubt PP screwed up their business modelling and now realise they must charge more if they're ever to cover their costs. But applying new recurring monthly fees to investments they sold years ago is unjustifiable. Imagine having bought your freehold house some years back (paying all the upfront survey / mortgage / legal fees at the time) and now being told you must start paying a monthly ground-rent as well. Farcical.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 16, 2019 11:43:51 GMT
I’m selling out on SM or at 5 year mark whichever is possible first.
I may invest if there is a spectacular deal in future but the new AUM fee is ridiculous.
If PP want income they should set up a rental agency and earn the standard 10% of rental income for managing the properties instead of outsourcing it
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jul 16, 2019 11:52:21 GMT
It may well be that the platform requires these changes in order to pay its way, unless the equity investors are willing to pump in money. Whether the cost/return is worthwhile will be for individual investors to decide.That decision took me about 30 seconds. I've no problem with a platform changing its fee structure for future new business, and I've no doubt PP screwed up their business modelling and now realise they must charge more if they're ever to cover their costs. But applying new recurring monthly fees to investments they sold years ago is unjustifiable. Imagine having bought your freehold house some years back (paying all the upfront survey / mortgage / legal fees at the time) and now being told you must start paying a monthly ground-rent as well. Farcical. This is where I am - changing the fee structure for new investments is understandable (although obviously makes the investments less appealing), but retroactively changing the fee structure for existing investments is ridiculous.
As for the "account fee" itself, well, the less said about that the better. A pretty clear attempt to force out smaller investors, but I suppose to be expected given their clear preference for fewer, larger, investors over the last few years.
I'd been looking to reduce my direct exposure to property, anyway, so at least PP have made my choice of what to drop easier. I certainly won't be investing any further (barring, as hazellend mentions, spectacular offers coming along), and I'll sell out of existing investments (assuming the SM doesn't crash too far as a result of the changes, anyway...)
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,830
Likes: 1,586
|
Post by benaj on Jul 16, 2019 14:39:47 GMT
I’m selling out on SM or at 5 year mark whichever is possible first. I may invest if there is a spectacular deal in future but the new AUM fee is ridiculous. If PP want income they should set up a rental agency and earn the standard 10% of rental income for managing the properties instead of outsourcing it That's less than than AUM I think. Asset under management is 144Mil.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Jul 16, 2019 16:56:37 GMT
I’m selling out on SM or at 5 year mark whichever is possible first. I may invest if there is a spectacular deal in future but the new AUM fee is ridiculous. If PP want income they should set up a rental agency and earn the standard 10% of rental income for managing the properties instead of outsourcing it That's less than than AUM I think. Asset under management is 144Mil. Yes it is less but that is a more reasonable charge
|
|
jester
Member of DD Central
Posts: 161
Likes: 203
|
Post by jester on Jul 16, 2019 18:13:42 GMT
I realise (up to this point) Property Partner's fees have been front loaded, but due to constant devaluations my stated rate of return over the previous 2.5yrs is 1.8%
Introducing an ongoing charge which wipes out more than 50% of my historic performance is catastrophic!
|
|
|
Post by sayyestocress on Jul 17, 2019 7:45:28 GMT
Introducing an ongoing charge which wipes out more than 50% of my historic performance is catastrophic! Indeed, but I suspect it's a better scenario than the catastrophic failure of the business. That's the alternative that the cynic in me reads into the following quote from their blog page: "These changes will make Property Partner a significantly stronger business, that is better able to deliver returns for our clients." In my mind this reads as: These changes are needed because property partner could not continue as a business without them and hence wouldn't be able to deliver any returns
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Jul 17, 2019 8:04:40 GMT
Introducing an ongoing charge which wipes out more than 50% of my historic performance is catastrophic! Indeed, but I suspect it's a better scenario than the catastrophic failure of the business. That's the alternative that the cynic in me reads into the following quote from their blog page: "These changes will make Property Partner a significantly stronger business, that is better able to deliver returns for our clients." In my mind this reads as: These changes are needed because property partner could not continue as a business without them and hence wouldn't be able to deliver any returns Putting the business into "run-off" mode (by ceasing new property origination, stopping all SM trading / platform nice-to-haves and simply managing the existing portfolio for profitable exit over 3-5 years) should be a perfectly viable approach. But it wouldn't satisfy the profit aspirations of the equity investors who've backed PP's growth to date.
|
|
|
Post by shootingstar on Jul 17, 2019 10:19:35 GMT
im also not happy about these changes. Has anyone had a decent response from the company as yet after complaining?
|
|
rick24
Member of DD Central
Posts: 244
Likes: 138
|
Post by rick24 on Jul 17, 2019 10:23:39 GMT
Merely that they are going to try and make the secondary market as efficient as possible....so no.
|
|