|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Mar 25, 2020 17:48:55 GMT
Mark I think you mis-understood Davee If not I did. I felt he was saying DIDUMS to the complainers Hi mikee That was my hoping to entertain 'Sarcasm' Fully supportive of Davee Okay I hear what you're saying, but sarcasm is very easily misunderstood on a written forum. It can be great aurally but here it's often not seen the way it's intended.
So everyone please keep it simple.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727 
Likes: 492
|
Post by jo on Mar 25, 2020 18:10:33 GMT
So everyone please keep it simple.
Here's a simple analogy: RS & Zopa are the Sherman Tank of platforms - simple, functional and reliable. AC are the Tiger Tank of platforms - peerless when functioning, but over-engineering makes them horrible to fix. When they come through this, I hope they will concentrate on the basics - especially recoveries. (hope I didn't invoke Godwin  ).
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Mar 25, 2020 18:56:30 GMT
So everyone please keep it simple.
Here's a simple analogy: RS & Zopa are the Sherman Tank of platforms - simple, functional and reliable. AC are the Tiger Tank of platforms - peerless when functioning, but over-engineering makes them horrible to fix. When they come through this, I hope they will concentrate on the basics - especially recoveries. (hope I didn't invoke Godwin ). Spot on. The Access accounts were a complex product designed to create the impression of liquidity in a normal market. They worked brilliantly for a long time as inflows matched outflows. The current collapse reflects a country at standstill and in recession. Savers want their cash protected. I think I understood how the accounts worked, I moved everything to QAA so I could be first out of the door in a crisis. Unfortunately things did not go to plan. I did however heed the warnings about P2P. Currently I have 10% of my Liquid Assets in A/C and a further 5% between Zopa and RS. This had been close to 40% a couple of years ago when greed got the better of me. I have every confidence that fiscal stimulus wil get things going in a few months time, I also accept there may be losses, but I do think Assetz has a very competent management and software team eho will get us through this.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 13, 2020 10:25:23 GMT
I don't know how to tag the moderators so can someone please tag them.
Mods It really is time to put a stop to the same few who are making the same complains constantly. We now have members that give great and true insight saying they may stop posting.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 13, 2020 11:34:35 GMT
I don't know how to tag the moderators so can someone please tag them. Mods It really is time to put a stop to the same few who are making the same complains constantly. We now have members that give great and true insight saying they may stop posting. Perhaps we could expand the list to include posters who make puerile comments such as 'diddums' and 'want a dummy'?
|
|
tjtl
Posts: 232
Likes: 351
|
Post by tjtl on Apr 13, 2020 12:45:31 GMT
I don't know how to tag the moderators so can someone please tag them. Mods It really is time to put a stop to the same few who are making the same complains constantly. We now have members that give great and true insight saying they may stop posting. Perhaps we could expand the list to include posters who make puerile comments such as 'diddums' and 'want a dummy'? I am not in favour of any bans, posters should be allowed to express their views- however with the "right" to free expression also comes some responsibilites- pretty blooming obvious ones really. The best advice I was ever given about positing on these types of Boards was to think what I would say if I was speaking in a public forum - almost certainly some of the (moderately) abusive language would be toned down, and if what I said caused offence I would seek to amend phraseology. And if I did drone on, and on, and on making the same point time and again I should not be surprised if someone told me to "shut up"! This board can be great- there are some very insightful posters. The downside is having to plough through some posts that frankly don't do the posters of those posts any favours- they appear to be just whining. That all been said- since a number of posters have been agitating for a cessation of the unpleasantness it strikes me that the most tedious and offensive posting has stopped- the power of crowds. So not in favour of any bans, am totally in favour of posters remembering that almost all posters on here are investors in Assetz, have the same desire (to see the company prosper, at least in so far as it allows us to get control over our investments).
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 13, 2020 17:35:21 GMT
If it gets too annoying, select the member and use the 'block' option. Good way to reduce your blood pressure, although it doesn't help others.
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Apr 13, 2020 18:01:51 GMT
To those who believe they have a genuine grievance, how about -make a formal complaint to AC -when that's exhausted, if the answer isn't to your satisfaction, make a formal complaint to the regulator -and/or start legal action against AC (nearly always a very costly and very risky move even if you're in the right)
Then come back and tell us the results, but in the meantime let's cool it on this (and other) threads?
Done almost 12 months ago. Regulator is a waste of space. AC repeatedly taking the piss and getting away with it. Glad I'm out.
|
|
rogedavi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 129
|
Post by rogedavi on Apr 13, 2020 18:04:46 GMT
They've done everything pretty much right, except for treating different sets of investors unfairly.
I still cant understand what the rationale for that decision could possibly be - its unfair and most probably illegal.
|
|
|
|
Post by investor01010101 on Apr 18, 2020 10:59:27 GMT
I don't know how to tag the moderators so can someone please tag them. Mods It really is time to put a stop to the same few who are making the same complains constantly. We now have members that give great and true insight saying they may stop posting. And remove people who are so easily 'triggered' by other people venting their frustration at what is in fact a total mess. Forum: a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. Would not be much of an 'exchange' if everyone agreed would it? Perhaps only let those with blonde hair and blue eyes post?
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 18, 2020 13:19:13 GMT
I don't know how to tag the moderators so can someone please tag them. Mods It really is time to put a stop to the same few who are making the same complains constantly. We now have members that give great and true insight saying they may stop posting. And remove people who are so easily 'triggered' by other people venting their frustration at what is in fact a total mess. Forum: a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. Would not be much of an 'exchange' if everyone agreed would it? Perhaps only let those with blonde hair and blue eyes post? I don't know why people who get so wound up bother involving themselves in discussions like this. If you are just going to throw a paddy every time someone disagrees with you and go running off to the teacher then you are probably better off spending your time doing something else.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 20, 2020 9:25:47 GMT
They've done everything pretty much right, except for treating different sets of investors unfairly. I still cant understand what the rationale for that decision could possibly be - its unfair and most probably illegal. Discriminating against larger investors may well be illegal. Choosing to invest redeemed capital in ever more risky loans against investors wishes, is verging on immoral, and demonstrates how the directors are doing what’s best for AC not it’s investors.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Apr 20, 2020 10:51:46 GMT
They've done everything pretty much right, except for treating different sets of investors unfairly. I still cant understand what the rationale for that decision could possibly be - its unfair and most probably illegal. Discriminating against larger investors may well be illegal. Choosing to invest redeemed capital in ever more risky loans against investors wishes, is verging on immoral, and demonstrates how the directors are doing what’s best for AC not it’s investors. Unfortunately AC have committed to drawdowns on current loans and I guess if they do not loan this money there can be legal action, from another thread 71 million (will be more if capital repayments since the lockdown are included) have been made in future commitments on the caveat that this is a figure taken from the data but cannot/has not be properly verified (probably a long task). Therefore AC have promised money that they do not have and have to rely on new investors, funding from other sources or investors keeping some of the interest and capital repayments in the platform.
As there is very little chance of much in the way of new investors or other sources of funding the only way AC can fund this is by locking up lenders capital repayments.
The question is can AC legally take lenders repayments to place in loans extensions especially as these loans are now higher risk than the original assessment. As this is advertised and sold as P2P this implies the lender owns the loans therefore owns the interest and capital repayments, I would guess that the capital repayments are the property of the lender so could well be illegal. It looks like AC actions of promising money they do not have left them open to legal action and or investigation from the FCA whatever they do.
AC can say they can change the T&Cs to allow this to happen however I believe T&Cs make up a contractual agreement between the lenders and the platform. I am not sure of the legality that one party can have an enforceable clause that states they can change the T&Cs without the other parties permission. When RS changed the T&Cs it gave its lenders the right to withdraw all of their funds from the platform and by not using this option the lenders accepted the new T&Cs.
We can now see the model AC created only works in the good times and cannot bear too much stress and has not had any or very little stress testing.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 20, 2020 11:07:34 GMT
Discriminating against larger investors may well be illegal. Choosing to invest redeemed capital in ever more risky loans against investors wishes, is verging on immoral, and demonstrates how the directors are doing what’s best for AC not it’s investors. Unfortunately AC have committed to drawdowns on current loans and I guess if they do not loan this money there can be legal action, from another thread 71 million (will be more if capital repayments since the lockdown are included) have been made in future commitments on the caveat that this is a figure taken from the data but cannot/has not be properly verified (probably a long task). Therefore AC have promised money that they do not have and have to rely on new investors, funding from other sources or investors keeping some of the interest and capital repayments in the platform.
As there is very little chance of much in the way of new investors or other sources of funding the only way AC can fund this is by locking up lenders capital repayments.
The question is can AC legally take lenders repayments to place in loans extensions especially as these loans are now higher risk than the original assessment. As this is advertised and sold as P2P this implies the lender owns the loans therefore owns the interest and capital repayments, I would guess that the capital repayments are the property of the lender so could well be illegal. It looks like AC actions of promising money they do not have left them open to legal action and or investigation from the FCA whatever they do.
AC can say they can change the T&Cs to allow this to happen however I believe T&Cs make up a contractual agreement between the lenders and the platform. I am not sure of the legality that one party can have an enforceable clause that states they can change the T&Cs without the other parties permission. When RS changed the T&Cs it gave its lenders the right to withdraw all of their funds from the platform and by not using this option the lenders accepted the new T&Cs.
We can now see the model AC created only works in the good times and cannot bear too much stress and has not had any or very little stress testing.
As usual you are probably correct however 1. I’m pretty sure it is illegal to loan redeemed funds against investors express wishes. 2. If AC have ‘force majure’ clauses for lenders only the incompetent would not back to back them with borrowers. As many say the world has changed - loans are riskier and deserve increased reward. All AC management are doing is feathering their own nest increasing margin at both ends - typical RBS bankers !
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 20, 2020 11:35:51 GMT
They've done everything pretty much right, except for treating different sets of investors unfairly. I still cant understand what the rationale for that decision could possibly be - its unfair and most probably illegal. Discriminating against larger investors may well be illegal. Choosing to invest redeemed capital in ever more risky loans against investors wishes, is verging on immoral, and demonstrates how the directors are doing what’s best for AC not it’s investors. I don't agree that they have been unfair. I have no evidence as no one other than AC know but my guess is that the total investment by smaller lenders far out weighs that of the larger ones,institutional excluded. If that were the case as intimated by AC themselves the fairest to all. The legality for that maybe as described here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_runIt would have been immoral for the larger investors to have taken all the available cash leaving smaller investors with just the loan assets and would for sure have been challenged in law. The law of the UK is governed by both justice and equity. The larger investors should have understood that they were investing in loans and liquidity was not guaranteed. Made clear on every page of their website. As for AC acting in their own interests I won't comment or judge. Time will tell that.We are all entitled to our opinion on the management of the platform However what is certain is that our money is best protected by AC keeping the platform running. We have all seen the disaster on other platforms when forced to close. I am expecting to have capital losses! Asset valuations, house prices,land prices and businesses are all being squeezed. House builders I think and hope that AC will be accepted to lend on behalf of the governments scheme and if they are for example able to refinance a loan here it will only be at the true valuation now. When I started this thread I was only trying to reduce the same complaints. Discuss yes but just make exactly the same complaining comments is fruitless. The decisions have been made and won't be changed by comments here but in the courts at some point in the future. I wish everyone one of you safety at this time
|
|
).
