tjtl
Posts: 232
Likes: 351
|
Post by tjtl on Apr 20, 2020 13:55:04 GMT
As a lot of the preceding posts have shown, there is a lot of heat, but not always a lot of light. While we can agree and disagree on a host of issues (including the legality of the Board's actions) we are all suffering from a lack of clarity around the Board and managements intent. Some have argued they are dishonest (I doubt that very much) or incompetent (again I doubt they are any less competent than the majority of posters- it is darned hard running a business facing these circumstances), some that they are doing a brilliant job (and here only time will tell, I think we all have some reservations).
What isn't clear to me is what, for want of a better phrase, is the Management's "Exit Strategy"- how do they intend to run the business from here on in (and I don't mean platitudes around "protecting employees, investors and clients")- what is the proposed use of cash- how much to fund future rounds of required funding in existing loans, how much for new loans , how much for redeeming requests for redemption from Access Accounts. I absolutely understand we are in a dynamic environment, things are changing, however I do think the management are making the classic mistake in a crisis of not communication appropriately or often enough. Anyone grown-up enough to have invested a material sum on the platform should be grown-up enough to be provided with some basic facts on the business, and most importantly what is the management's plans for running the business and spending their money. Maybe I have missed it, and maybe it is crystal clear to other posters what the plan is- I admit to being confused and thus sympathetic to those that are complaining.
I think AC is a decent business, I think it has decent management, I don't think it has a decent communications strategy.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 20, 2020 13:56:41 GMT
The title of this thread has elicited yet even more complaints! Maybe it should have solicited a YES or NO answer. Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer. There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES I think if AC made the withdraws proportional and had sort of mea culpa for promising funds they do not have, gave lenders information about how much of their repayments would have to used to fund future loans, kept lenders up to date with the state of repayments and returned money to lenders as and when they could, they might have a fighting chance of survival especially if we can see that the directors had some skin in the game by having a personal interest in the AAs.
However if they add fees for lenders, increase fees for borrowers, cause arguments between lenders and the only information you can get about repayments and future commitments is to use software tools to extract and process the data I am not that hopeful.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 20, 2020 14:06:13 GMT
If you are a small investor the answer is YES If you are a large investor the answer is NO. The current cash distribution system used by AC is hugely detrimental to any large investor. Large investors would be better off with an administrator running the platform down - that is the only way that large investors are ever likely to get any decent proportion of their investment back. Well I don't think you'll get much support on here for advocating the platform is placed into administration.
It sounds like the large investor would be better served had the rules never changed...perhaps that might be a more worthy cause to pursue?
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 14:13:27 GMT
If you are a small investor the answer is YES If you are a large investor the answer is NO. The current cash distribution system used by AC is hugely detrimental to any large investor. Large investors would be better off with an administrator running the platform down - that is the only way that large investors are ever likely to get any decent proportion of their investment back. Well I don't think you'll get much support on here for advocating the platform is placed into administration.
It sounds like the large investor would be better served had the rules never changed...perhaps that might be a more worthy cause to pursue?
Well yes I completely agree with you on that one. The trouble is there seems little chance of the current situation being reversed.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 20, 2020 15:02:37 GMT
The title of this thread has elicited yet even more complaints! Maybe it should have solicited a YES or NO answer. Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer.There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES Who are you to dictate to others how they should answer a question?
I think most people would accept that administration is the worst option, but that still leaves a number of options with AC running the show. Unfortunately to take a reasoned view on which path is the best you need to know the precise state of the platforms finances, and this is something that AC are unlikely to tell us. Without this knowledge how can you be so certain that allowing AC to try to weather this storm would be better than an orderly wind down with AC in charge.
I think a lot of P2P platforms will not be around in 12 months time, and the worst possible scenario would be if AC ignore the writing on the wall (al la LY & FS) and try to battle on while hemorrhaging lenders cash.
|
|
rogedavi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 129
|
Post by rogedavi on Apr 20, 2020 16:38:45 GMT
in a way it might be a blessing in disguise that AC have ripped up their T&Cs and are discriminating against larger investers. as an FCA regulated firm they've clearly ripped up the rulebook and the done it right under the FCAs nose. which means in about 5 years time we'll all be getting emails from claims lawyers for FSCS compensation once one case pays out they all will...
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 20, 2020 20:53:06 GMT
Not more complaints. Same ones repeated. Your comment has prompted me to ask a question that only needs a simple answer.There are 3 alternatives 1 An ordered run down, platform failure or AC continuing operate the platform. Will we get more money returned from our borrowers with AC running the platform? My answer is YES Who are you to dictate to others how they should answer a question?
I think most people would accept that administration is the worst option, but that still leaves a number of options with AC running the show. Unfortunately to take a reasoned view on which path is the best you need to know the precise state of the platforms finances, and this is something that AC are unlikely to tell us. Without this knowledge how can you be so certain that allowing AC to try to weather this storm would be better than an orderly wind down with AC in charge.
I think a lot of P2P platforms will not be around in 12 months time, and the worst possible scenario would be if AC ignore the writing on the wall (al la LY & FS) and try to battle on while hemorrhaging lenders cash.
Is this not what they are effectively doing now anyway? They are clearly running out of cash. They would have presumably gone to the wall already if they hadn't raided investors cash with the introduction of the "lender fee". How long can this keep them going for? Do they just keep ratcheting it up until there is nothing left?
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Apr 21, 2020 7:14:01 GMT
Ratesetter took approximately 1 month 5 days to release my entire investment.
I am wondering if assetz can beat that ?
Quality of loans in assetz should be better
than ratesetter (secured vs unsecured).
Dont need the money to be honest I just think I could move it into better investments created by this unusual environment.
|
|
withnell
Member of DD Central
Posts: 550
Likes: 491
|
Post by withnell on Apr 21, 2020 7:29:38 GMT
Quality of loans in assetz should be better than ratesetter (secured vs unsecured). Don't confuse quality with liquidity - security takes additional time to sell too, although the returns are likely to be better
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 7:36:31 GMT
If you are a small investor the answer is YES If you are a large investor the answer is NO. The current cash distribution system used by AC is hugely detrimental to any large investor. Large investors would be better off with an administrator running the platform down - that is the only way that large investors are ever likely to get any decent proportion of their investment back. Perhaps you should try to understand what is an administration and what are the conditions for that to happen?
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 21, 2020 7:47:42 GMT
If you are a small investor the answer is YES If you are a large investor the answer is NO. The current cash distribution system used by AC is hugely detrimental to any large investor. Large investors would be better off with an administrator running the platform down - that is the only way that large investors are ever likely to get any decent proportion of their investment back. Perhaps you should try to understand what is an administration and what are the conditions for that to happen? It happens when they can no longer continue to run a viable business. The fact that they are running low on cash (hence introduction of lender fees) is a worrying sign in this respect. They may also run out of cash to fund future loan commitments - would that also result in administration? I'm not sure, maybe it would depend on the loan contract specifics.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 8:03:13 GMT
Perhaps you should try to understand what is an administration and what are the conditions for that to happen? It happens when they can no longer continue to run a viable business. The fact that they are running low on cash (hence introduction of lender fees) is a worrying sign in this respect. They may also run out of cash to fund future loan commitments - would that also result in administration? I'm not sure, maybe it would depend on the loan contract specifics. Nope. A company goes into administration when it cannot reach an agreement with their creditors. A company can function with low cash, no cash or negative cash if their creditors are ok with it. In the case of AC, who are, in your expert view, the unhappy creditors?
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 21, 2020 8:13:59 GMT
It happens when they can no longer continue to run a viable business. The fact that they are running low on cash (hence introduction of lender fees) is a worrying sign in this respect. They may also run out of cash to fund future loan commitments - would that also result in administration? I'm not sure, maybe it would depend on the loan contract specifics. Nope. A company goes into administration when it cannot reach an agreement with their creditors. A company can function with low cash, no cash or negative cash if their creditors are ok with it. In the case of AC, who are, in your expert view, the unhappy creditors? They need to reach an agreement with creditors when they get to the point of not being able to pay creditors. At the moment the only reason they are able to keep the business going is by raiding investors funds via the introduction of the lender fee. If they are not using this to pay creditors then maybe they are just using it to line their own pockets. Whatever way you look at it, the business is running out of cash.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 8:33:32 GMT
Nope. A company goes into administration when it cannot reach an agreement with their creditors. A company can function with low cash, no cash or negative cash if their creditors are ok with it. In the case of AC, who are, in your expert view, the unhappy creditors? They need to reach an agreement with creditors when they get to the point of not being able to pay creditors. At the moment the only reason they are able to keep the business going is by raiding investors funds via the introduction of the lender fee. If they are not using this to pay creditors then maybe they are just using it to line their own pockets. Whatever way you look at it, the business is running out of cash. So I moved you from an assertive diatribe to a hesitant speculation. I rest my case.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 21, 2020 8:47:18 GMT
They need to reach an agreement with creditors when they get to the point of not being able to pay creditors. At the moment the only reason they are able to keep the business going is by raiding investors funds via the introduction of the lender fee. If they are not using this to pay creditors then maybe they are just using it to line their own pockets. Whatever way you look at it, the business is running out of cash. So I moved you from an assertive diatribe to a hesitant speculation. I rest my case. I'm not sure what your case is. AC have raided investors funds via the imposition of a lender fee, the clear implication is that they are running out of cash. Your solution to this is to stick your head in the sand and ignore it. Whatever works for you I suppose.
|
|
