alexk
Posts: 17
Likes: 26
|
Post by alexk on Mar 24, 2020 13:49:51 GMT
At this rate it will take a lot of investors a lot longer than 2 years to get their money out. The facts of the matter are that whilst companies such as Ratesetter are returning anything up to a million pounds PER DAY to investors and being open and truthful about what they are doing, Assetz have decided to say nothing nothing and pay out dribs and drabs of a pound here and there with a £49 payment a few days ago. They are operating a totally hopeless and flawed system and the longer it goes on the little remaining trust in the platform will totally evaporate. They will not keep the system in place for two years, once market conditions stabilise it will be lifted. Again, it is very clear why. RS has reduced its lending amount in favour of exiters. AC has not reduced its operational business margin to borrowers. If it isn't able to fund loans, your 3% payout won't matter much when the business is in administration. These loans are 1-5 years, it should not be surprising that if AC allow only new cash to pay exiters, yes it might very well take the term of the loans to exit.Btw, I did a quick calculation on the date of the £41 withdrawal, as 100k went from QAA that day, the number was in the ball park of 2300-2500 ACCOUNTS (Not individal investors) It is not factual but it certainly was interesting.Personally I think the que is smaller than people are thinking it really is, as AC pointed out. Massive lenders tried to exit, including some companies. Due to needing funds to either invest in the stock market or help cash flow during the coming weeks/months. Many lenders aren't even going for the exit, they simply trying to get funds from the QAA into the 90daa, ISA & MLA accounts. AC were quite low on cash to begin with as they drew down alot of loans during Feb, another poster pointed this out (one of the mods I think). Good afternoon to everyone from me. I have been following this forum of a couple of years but have never been active. Decided though during these hard times to make an account. No, these loans will unfortunately not take 1-5 years, as many will default. But the worst part is: They have changed the repayment options, you can only choose to withdraw interest on repayments, not withdraw capital on repayment. I had the option to withdraw everything on repayment and it is gone! So it does not matter, they hold our capital to fund new loans, forcing us to lend our repaid capital without our approval of said loans (most of which, given economic state, will be high risk...) Have spoken to a friend of mine, he is a lawyer. Forcing someone to invest without consent is definitely illegal. Actually the retrospective change of Terms & Conditions on the pooling system should require approval as well... In short, Manual Lending accounts yield the highest returns, and AC is not really profiting from that. Then it is the Access Accounts (and older ones which are gone). AC makes profit from the difference of those AA and actual rates (minus PF - optional). So, in short the "smaller the interest rate to us" the bigger their profit. Thus, they have decided to literally hold our capital hostage. Literally, QAA is paying the highest %difference in profit to AC but being locked indefinitely. As others have mentioned, other platforms had problems as well, but they are giving back to investors their capital on repayment. It is understandable that there is no cash-flow to withdraw. But they cannot keep capital on repayment and force us to invest. As such I am considering my legal options.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 24, 2020 13:54:20 GMT
QAA = Quick Access Account
It hardly does what it says on the tin. The manner in which AC have treated their investors is a disgrace, they will never go back to what they were - trust is easily lost. It will be a distant memory. I NEVER signed up to the revised terms and conditions.
I find it insulting having to log in to withdraw £1 on a regular basis - Does it make sense to have thousands of investors logging in several times a day to do something with £1?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 24, 2020 13:56:13 GMT
They will not keep the system in place for two years, once market conditions stabilise it will be lifted. Again, it is very clear why. RS has reduced its lending amount in favour of exiters. AC has not reduced its operational business margin to borrowers. If it isn't able to fund loans, your 3% payout won't matter much when the business is in administration. These loans are 1-5 years, it should not be surprising that if AC allow only new cash to pay exiters, yes it might very well take the term of the loans to exit.Btw, I did a quick calculation on the date of the £41 withdrawal, as 100k went from QAA that day, the number was in the ball park of 2300-2500 ACCOUNTS (Not individal investors) It is not factual but it certainly was interesting.Personally I think the que is smaller than people are thinking it really is, as AC pointed out. Massive lenders tried to exit, including some companies. Due to needing funds to either invest in the stock market or help cash flow during the coming weeks/months. Many lenders aren't even going for the exit, they simply trying to get funds from the QAA into the 90daa, ISA & MLA accounts. AC were quite low on cash to begin with as they drew down alot of loans during Feb, another poster pointed this out (one of the mods I think). Good afternoon to everyone from me. I have been following this forum of a couple of years but have never been active. Decided though during these hard times to make an account. No, these loans will unfortunately not take 1-5 years, as many will default. But the worst part is: They have changed the repayment options, you can only choose to withdraw interest on repayments, not withdraw capital on repayment. I had the option to withdraw everything on repayment and it is gone! So it does not matter, they hold our capital to fund new loans, forcing us to lend our repaid capital without our approval of said loans (most of which, given economic state, will be high risk...) Have spoken to a friend of mine, he is a lawyer. Forcing someone to invest without consent is definitely illegal. Actually the retrospective change of Terms & Conditions on the pooling system should require approval as well... In short, Manual Lending accounts yield the highest returns, and AC is not really profiting from that. Then it is the Access Accounts (and older ones which are gone). AC makes profit from the difference of those AA and actual rates (minus PF - optional). So, in short the "smaller the interest rate to us" the bigger their profit. Thus, they have decided to literally hold our capital hostage. Literally, QAA is paying the highest %difference in profit to AC but being locked indefinitely. As others have mentioned, other platforms had problems as well, but they are giving back to investors their capital on repayment. It is understandable that there is no cash-flow to withdraw. But they cannot keep capital on repayment and force us to invest. As such I am considering my legal options. Access accounts could never withdraw capital repayments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 24, 2020 13:59:27 GMT
As I said, I am no longer going to be replying to lots of angry posts on these forums, only to helping users. I can't pay you back your money, so its no use having a go at me. I just dont' want mis-information thread titles, but I guess thats too much to ask now days too.  |
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302 
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Mar 24, 2020 14:05:09 GMT
They will not keep the system in place for two years, once market conditions stabilise it will be lifted. Again, it is very clear why. RS has reduced its lending amount in favour of exiters. AC has not reduced its operational business margin to borrowers. If it isn't able to fund loans, your 3% payout won't matter much when the business is in administration. These loans are 1-5 years, it should not be surprising that if AC allow only new cash to pay exiters, yes it might very well take the term of the loans to exit.Btw, I did a quick calculation on the date of the £41 withdrawal, as 100k went from QAA that day, the number was in the ball park of 2300-2500 ACCOUNTS (Not individal investors) It is not factual but it certainly was interesting.Personally I think the que is smaller than people are thinking it really is, as AC pointed out. Massive lenders tried to exit, including some companies. Due to needing funds to either invest in the stock market or help cash flow during the coming weeks/months. Many lenders aren't even going for the exit, they simply trying to get funds from the QAA into the 90daa, ISA & MLA accounts. AC were quite low on cash to begin with as they drew down alot of loans during Feb, another poster pointed this out (one of the mods I think). Good afternoon to everyone from me. I have been following this forum of a couple of years but have never been active. Decided though during these hard times to make an account. No, these loans will unfortunately not take 1-5 years, as many will default. But the worst part is: They have changed the repayment options, you can only choose to withdraw interest on repayments, not withdraw capital on repayment. I had the option to withdraw everything on repayment and it is gone! So it does not matter, they hold our capital to fund new loans, forcing us to lend our repaid capital without our approval of said loans (most of which, given economic state, will be high risk...) Have spoken to a friend of mine, he is a lawyer. Forcing someone to invest without consent is definitely illegal. Actually the retrospective change of Terms & Conditions on the pooling system should require approval as well... In short, Manual Lending accounts yield the highest returns, and AC is not really profiting from that. Then it is the Access Accounts (and older ones which are gone). AC makes profit from the difference of those AA and actual rates (minus PF - optional). So, in short the "smaller the interest rate to us" the bigger their profit. Thus, they have decided to literally hold our capital hostage. Literally, QAA is paying the highest %difference in profit to AC but being locked indefinitely. As others have mentioned, other platforms had problems as well, but they are giving back to investors their capital on repayment. It is understandable that there is no cash-flow to withdraw. But they cannot keep capital on repayment and force us to invest. As such I am considering my legal options. I agree. MLIA provides the direct relationship with a loan, allowing you to make your own choices as you progress on whether to reinvest capital and interest, or to trade on the secondary market to release the capital. QAA was supposed to offer a greater level of accessibility over and above that provided by the underlying loans. It’s understandable that this cannot function as intended in present market conditions. But that cannot be an excuse for the arbitrary imposition of a lower level of access to capital than is provided by the underlying loans.
|
|
alexk
Posts: 17
Likes: 26
|
Post by alexk on Mar 24, 2020 14:12:15 GMT
As I said, I am no longer going to be replying to lots of angry posts on these forums, only to helping users. I can't pay you back your money, so its no use having a go at me. I just dont' want mis-information thread titles, but I guess thats too much to ask now days too. Not having a go with anyone. I am simply stating the fact that upon repayment, you could withdraw that amount and only that amount. Not talking about capital still invested, only repaid loans. Capital still invested, is invested. Once finished loans are repaid, there used to be an option to withdraw that, look at lower left corner "On Repayment". I have gotten confirmation from AC that this used to be the case and has now changed to interest only. They also confirmed that repaid capital will automatically be reinvested (but people have not authorized to reinvest to new loans...). Again stating the difference with other platforms, returning capital to repaid loan, unless investors choose to reinvest. Which is the legal thing to do...
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 24, 2020 14:15:42 GMT
Fair enough, I can understand that and I do agree.
Only AC can do anything now, and I'm refraining from posting information that isnt' factually backed (the OP of this thread title is what im refering to)
I certainly think AC has a long way to go to regain investor confidence, what a conundrum has been created over these few weeks.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 24, 2020 14:35:11 GMT
They will not keep the system in place for two years, once market conditions stabilise it will be lifted. Again, it is very clear why. RS has reduced its lending amount in favour of exiters. AC has not reduced its operational business margin to borrowers. If it isn't able to fund loans, your 3% payout won't matter much when the business is in administration. These loans are 1-5 years, it should not be surprising that if AC allow only new cash to pay exiters, yes it might very well take the term of the loans to exit.Btw, I did a quick calculation on the date of the £41 withdrawal, as 100k went from QAA that day, the number was in the ball park of 2300-2500 ACCOUNTS (Not individal investors) It is not factual but it certainly was interesting.Personally I think the que is smaller than people are thinking it really is, as AC pointed out. Massive lenders tried to exit, including some companies. Due to needing funds to either invest in the stock market or help cash flow during the coming weeks/months. Many lenders aren't even going for the exit, they simply trying to get funds from the QAA into the 90daa, ISA & MLA accounts. AC were quite low on cash to begin with as they drew down alot of loans during Feb, another poster pointed this out (one of the mods I think). Good afternoon to everyone from me. I have been following this forum of a couple of years but have never been active. Decided though during these hard times to make an account. No, these loans will unfortunately not take 1-5 years, as many will default. But the worst part is: They have changed the repayment options, you can only choose to withdraw interest on repayments, not withdraw capital on repayment. I had the option to withdraw everything on repayment and it is gone! So it does not matter, they hold our capital to fund new loans, forcing us to lend our repaid capital without our approval of said loans (most of which, given economic state, will be high risk...) Have spoken to a friend of mine, he is a lawyer. Forcing someone to invest without consent is definitely illegal. Actually the retrospective change of Terms & Conditions on the pooling system should require approval as well... In short, Manual Lending accounts yield the highest returns, and AC is not really profiting from that. Then it is the Access Accounts (and older ones which are gone). AC makes profit from the difference of those AA and actual rates (minus PF - optional). So, in short the "smaller the interest rate to us" the bigger their profit. Thus, they have decided to literally hold our capital hostage. Literally, QAA is paying the highest %difference in profit to AC but being locked indefinitely. As others have mentioned, other platforms had problems as well, but they are giving back to investors their capital on repayment. It is understandable that there is no cash-flow to withdraw. But they cannot keep capital on repayment and force us to invest. As such I am considering my legal options. A friend of mine is a lawyer with a substantial amount invested and he is doing the same. Assetz have 38000 investors according to the website. How many are lawyers? Having come up with a scheme to take the cash entitlement of the largest investors and give it away to everyone else I am sure there are many others that are not going to just take this lying down. The fact that there will be an exodus of investors who will never come back is one thing, but my main concern for the future of the platform is the potential number of legal proceedings they are going to have to fight to try and somehow justify what they have done. I don't see how they win that argument at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 24, 2020 14:56:32 GMT
A friend of mine is a lawyer with a substantial amount invested and he is doing the same. Assetz have 38000 investors according to the website. How many are lawyers? Having come up with a scheme to take the cash entitlement of the largest investors and give it away to everyone else I am sure there are many others that are not going to just take this lying down. The fact that there will be an exodus of investors who will never come back is one thing, but my main concern for the future of the platform is the potential number of legal proceedings they are going to have to fight to try and somehow justify what they have done. I don't see how they win that argument at all. Legal case indeed for mis-selling a financial product. QAA = Quick Access account It has been anything but quick, they have mis-sold a product to investors, the agreement was AC offer a lower rate for quick access, they can't keep their side of the agreement so the way to deal with this is to take them to court for mis-seling, just like the banks mis-sold on PPI. They need to scrap the access accounts as they are no longer fit for propose and switch to the funding circle model where investors can sell loans as and when liquidity is available etc and for investors to get the full interest on all loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 24, 2020 15:01:05 GMT
A friend of mine is a lawyer with a substantial amount invested and he is doing the same. Assetz have 38000 investors according to the website. How many are lawyers? Having come up with a scheme to take the cash entitlement of the largest investors and give it away to everyone else I am sure there are many others that are not going to just take this lying down. The fact that there will be an exodus of investors who will never come back is one thing, but my main concern for the future of the platform is the potential number of legal proceedings they are going to have to fight to try and somehow justify what they have done. I don't see how they win that argument at all. Legal case indeed for mis-selling a financial product. QAA = Quick Access account It has been anything but quick, they have mis-sold a product to investors, the agreement was AC offer a lower rate for quick access, they can't keep their side of the agreement so the way to deal with this is to take them to court for mis-seling, just like the banks mis-sold on PPI. They need to scrap the access accounts as they are no longer fit for propose and switch to the funding circle model where investors can sell loans as and when liquidity is available etc and for investors to get the full interest on all loans. I don't want to be rude, but just a simple glance at the site, without even entering the terms of service screams the same phrase. Access times cannot be guaranteed. It's repeated again and again, I'm not ever gonna waste my time listing all the times this is repeated in the Terms of Service.
I'm sorry its not a instant cash savings account. Why are you even posting this, like its just out right wrong. Of course its not a QAA right now in name, because we are in non-normal market conditions. This is the first time AC has ever implemented this situation because todays economy is nothing short than sureal. The only arguments I agree with in this whole thread is the reinvestment of capital without any real consent. As well as it would be nice if a AC representive actually just answered some of the questions here so we can stop this echo chamber of nonsense.
|
|
alexk
Posts: 17
Likes: 26
|
Post by alexk on Mar 24, 2020 15:03:47 GMT
I can make a small example for people.
Assume a 60m total invested on current loans, in various loans, up to 5 years term. Some are due in 1 month, some in 5 months, some in 30, some in 60 (5*12).
For simplification assume that around 1m is repaid every month. From my current QAA I can see that defauls in monetary terms are close to 10%.
- Most loans to mature in short term do not carry the weight of the crisis, so should be "safe", future ones are much more likely to default.
For the current situation to be over, we are talking about 2 conditions, 1. virus treatment and 2. companies getting back to normal afterwards. Then assume confidence in the platform (regarding on how lenders have been treated) to return. I personally do not see a lot of people rushing to invest in P2P IFISA in 2021...
Platform A that repays capital:
- Out of 1m, 0.9m repaid, 0.1 defaulted (obviously people cannot get access to that 0.1m, and it will take looong for that 0.1m, which will have a much lower value)
- In 1st year, 10.8m will be repaid(12*0.9), aka 18% of capital return, plus interest (4-5% of that), 11.23-11.34m at best, aka 18.71-18.9% of capital returned.
- In 2nd year, with higher defaults (unless the current crisis results in less defaults...), will be below that. Make your own estimates on that... and so on.
Meaning, even in platforms where repaid capital is returned to investors, at best for portfolios of 1-5 years you are looking at a fraction of capital returned in 1 year. If defaults increase rapidly, then see other platforms with high defaults, to estimate %of capital lost.
Platform B that re-invests capital (without investors' approval):
- Out of 1m, 0.9m repaid, 0.1 defaulted. 0.9m re-invested, part of which goes to "endless non-defaulting loans", as MLA will not be picking them. You can check
the forum re those.
- In 1st year, interest repaid, 4-5% only (and a £5 every few days?), aka forget any good fraction of capital.
More capital accumulates in high risk, defaulting and defaulted loans, without approval or people deciding in which loans to invest.
- In 2nd year, the model keeps going...
I would have more confidence in platform A to invest in P2P in the future. Definitely not one that changes rules (illegally potentially), whenever it sees fits. It means that the Terms & Conditions you sign up for have no value.
I do not want to cause panic, but rather state the difference between A and B platform approach.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 24, 2020 15:12:06 GMT
What about the other side of the coin, with less informed investors being lulled into a false sense of security by 'fake news' posted by those that continually shout in praise of AC. Could less informed investors be misled by the fact that AC are still advertising accounts as 30 / 90 day access when they are nothing of the sort, and are unlikely to be for some considerable time.
The access accounts were great at providing liquidity for AC in normal times, but I suspect that at present they just a large millstone dragging them down.
Yes AC 30 / 90 day access accounts with great returns AND with terms and conditions !!! Reading of the small print is always advised prior to ticking the box confirming you do accept and understand. CONFESSION I do the same from time to time. You state 'access accounts were great in normal times'. This s key and the main point here. The whole financial world is reacting as required to the current turmoil. This will take time, months not days. So be it. Apart from a delay to a access to your funds, what is your problem? what have you lost? Maybe a chance to gamble on a extremely volatile stock market? Look, this situation is far from perfect, that is agreed by all but in all honesty where would you have preferred to have your money invested recently ? the stock market? bank or building society 0.25% pa interest accounts? bonds? In my opinion, reading between the lines there are a vocal minority of FOMOs on this forum. Fear of missing out maybe on investing somewhere else. I also have funds queued for withdrwal as with many other AC investors for non investment reasons.I fully accept current liquidity difficulties throughout the industry. In the meantime, I sleep peacefully at night knowing my Assetz Capital funds are in a low risk investment class. To misquote a phrase ... No use crying over UN-spilt milk. and a Buddhist quote Breathe in, breathe out, nothing is permanent, this will pass, Smile. You are missing the point. Everyone can accept the fact that conditions are "not normal" and so there is now a delay to withdraw money from the access accounts. That is fine, or at least its the situation we are all now in. The problem lies in the fact that: 1. Assetz have scrapped the queue and put everything into a pool 2. Rather than pay out everyone's proportional entitlement within that pool from time to time they have decided to misappropriate money from large investors to bail out small investors I doubt that even John McDonnell could have come up with such a scheme. The net result of all this is that smaller investors walk away with all their cash and larger investors remain totally locked in receiving a pittance of their investment back once every so often. Assetz in another thread talked about a £2 million investor trying to withdraw their money. If he gets £49 per week then that will take 784 years and in the meantime everyone with less invested than him gets paid off ahead of him. I don't know how many investors Assetz have with that kind of money invested but I seriously doubt they will be sitting there saying "oh thats OK then". A complete change of rules without any consent from anyone as opposed to other platforms dealing with withdrawals exactly as they described. Trust of this platform has been completely smashed to pieces.
|
|
alexk
Posts: 17
Likes: 26
|
Post by alexk on Mar 24, 2020 15:12:58 GMT
Legal case indeed for mis-selling a financial product. QAA = Quick Access account It has been anything but quick, they have mis-sold a product to investors, the agreement was AC offer a lower rate for quick access, they can't keep their side of the agreement so the way to deal with this is to take them to court for mis-seling, just like the banks mis-sold on PPI. They need to scrap the access accounts as they are no longer fit for propose and switch to the funding circle model where investors can sell loans as and when liquidity is available etc and for investors to get the full interest on all loans. I don't want to be rude, but just a simple glance at the site, without even entering the terms of service screams the same phrase. Access times cannot be guaranteed. It's repeated again and again, I'm not ever gonna waste my time listing all the times this is repeated in the Terms of Service.
I'm sorry its not a instant cash savings account. Why are you even posting this, like its just out right wrong. Of course its not a QAA right now in name, because we are in non-normal market conditions. This is the first time AC has ever implemented this situation because todays economy is nothing short than sureal. The only arguments I agree with in this whole thread is the reinvestment of capital without any real consent. As well as it would be nice if a AC representive actually just answered some of the questions here so we can stop this echo chamber of nonsense. Agree with Harland Kearny. 100% accurate. Jasonnewman, this was stated clearly, unfortunately. The retrospective change to pooling (meaning QAA, which yields the highest %profit to AC is delayed equally to 30AA and 90AA which yield lower %profit) is borderline illegal. The "we hold repaid capital" and not return it, without investors' approval, is illegal: 1. so AC can keep reinvesting in defaulting loans that MLA does not touch 2. and use lower QAA, 30AA, 90AA rates% than MLA, for their own profit 3. and if they default lenders lose their capital, who cares, AC keeps making the % difference as profit Seriously, you cannot keep someone's repaid (putting in capital, referring to repaid loans and capital only) and invest it without their consent. Will take more legal advice on the matter and proceed.
|
|
marky
Posts: 21
Likes: 60
|
Post by marky on Mar 24, 2020 15:32:26 GMT
Hi,
I didn't mean to shock or scare anyone - when I posted this thread a few hours ago - so I have changed the subject to reflect I was simply sharing my experience of what happened when I invested the money into the ISA.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the investment of 2 x £10,000's in the ISA triggered a repayment of 2 x £1's from the QAA. How that got triggered - no idea (because AC have shared very little information on this) ...... but a triggered repayment definitely occured.
I have changed the title of this thread accordingly.
GLA
Marky
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 24, 2020 15:35:27 GMT
Hi, I didn't mean to shock or scare anyone - when I posted this thread a few hours ago - so I have changed the subject to reflect I was simply sharing my experience of what happened when I invested the money into the ISA. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the investment of 2 x £10,000's in the ISA triggered a repayment of 2 x £1's from the QAA. How that got triggered - no idea (because AC have shared very little information on this) ...... but a triggered repayment definitely occured. I have changed the title of this thread accordingly. GLA Marky You are likely spot on, and thank you. It would make sense for them to use partially new cash coming into repay investors in the que. But which other methods they use I am not sure, it would be speculation for me to predict.
|
|
