SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875 
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 21, 2020 9:23:40 GMT
The handful of "incessant complainers" on here (and it's notable that it's still only the same handful) clearly:
a) formally accepted (but failed to read) AC's lender terms & conditions, in which lenders grant AC management very wide powers to restructure loans and/or accounts as situations deem necessary
b) lent their money in AC's Access accounts without reading and understanding where and on what it would be lent (ie. typically medium-high risk 2-5 year property development schemes)
c) ignored the various risk warnings splashed across the AC website, especially those about "normal market conditions"
d) ticked the required correct answers in AC's "lender appropriateness" test without even taking on board the meaning of the answers they were giving (hilarious!)
Idle threats of legal action are therefore doomed to fail.
The phrase "Fools and their money ..." seems appropriate here, although I dare say that, through AC's diligence, they'll likely get most of it back eventually (perhaps all). Blinded by headline % returns some 40x higher than a typical FSCS-protected instant access deposit account, they apparently ploughed 6-figure sums into black-box accounts that they couldn't even be bothered to understand.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 21, 2020 9:36:49 GMT
The handful of "incessant complainers" on here (and it's notable that it's still only the same handful) clearly: a) formally accepted (but failed to read) AC's lender terms & conditions, in which lenders grant AC management very wide powers to restructure loans and/or accounts as situations deem necessary b) lent their money in AC's Access accounts without reading and understanding where and on what it would be lent (ie. typically medium-high risk 2-5 year property development schemes) c) ignored the various risk warnings splashed across the AC website, especially those about "normal market conditions" d) ticked the required correct answers in AC's "lender appropriateness" test without even taking on board the meaning of the answers they were giving (hilarious!) Idle threats of legal action are therefore doomed to fail. The phrase "Fools and their money ..." seems appropriate here, although I dare say that, through AC's diligence, they'll likely get most of it back eventually (perhaps all). Blinded by headline % returns some 40x higher than a typical FSCS-protected instant access deposit account, they apparently ploughed 6-figure sums into black-box accounts that they couldn't even be bothered to understand. Lets put it simply: Assetz Capital are misappropriating investors money, therefore there will be complaints and legal action Other platforms have similar T&C's etc and yet they are not in the same position. Why? Because they are not misappropriating investors money.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Apr 21, 2020 9:40:41 GMT
Makes you wonder if some of the of nastier minded negative posters aren't trying to engineer platform failure in order to snap up bargain properties in the follow up sell off by the Administrators. Perhaps though it is simply a mixture of greed and fear that is driving some to ignore the reality that we are all in the middle of a global financial meltdown that will leave the poorest in communities facing starvation and the wealthy just a little poorer.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 9:44:47 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? Nope. An FCA registered company can also be placed into administration when it fails to meet the so-called "Threshold Conditions". You appear to be ignorant to these so to assist you the FCA states:
"2.4.4 (2) Relevant matters to which the FCA may have regard when assessing whether a firm will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, this threshold condition may include but are not limited to: b) whether there are any indications that the firm will not be able to meet its debts as they fall due;
2.7.8 In deciding how they will satisfy and continue to satisfy the threshold conditions set out in paragraphs 2F and 3E of Schedule 6 to the Act, firms should consider matters including (but not limited to) the following:
(2) the rationale for the business the firm proposes to do or continues to do, its competitive advantage, viability and the longer-term profitability of the business;"
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 9:47:38 GMT
Makes you wonder if some of the of nastier minded negative posters aren't trying to engineer platform failure in order to snap up bargain properties in the follow up sell off by the Administrators. Perhaps though it is simply a mixture of greed and fear that is driving some to ignore the reality that we are all in the middle of a global financial meltdown that will leave the poorest in communities facing starvation and the wealthy just a little poorer. It appears to be more simple minded than nastier minded. They are unable to grasp even the most commonplace irony, so go figure how that are going to understand anything else.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 9:50:13 GMT
The handful of "incessant complainers" on here (and it's notable that it's still only the same handful) clearly: a) formally accepted (but failed to read) AC's lender terms & conditions, in which lenders grant AC management very wide powers to restructure loans and/or accounts as situations deem necessary b) lent their money in AC's Access accounts without reading and understanding where and on what it would be lent (ie. typically medium-high risk 2-5 year property development schemes) c) ignored the various risk warnings splashed across the AC website, especially those about "normal market conditions" d) ticked the required correct answers in AC's "lender appropriateness" test without even taking on board the meaning of the answers they were giving (hilarious!) Idle threats of legal action are therefore doomed to fail. The phrase "Fools and their money ..." seems appropriate here, although I dare say that, through AC's diligence, they'll likely get most of it back eventually (perhaps all). Blinded by headline % returns some 40x higher than a typical FSCS-protected instant access deposit account, they apparently ploughed 6-figure sums into black-box accounts that they couldn't even be bothered to understand. In relation to a, b and c you openly admit in your post that "AC management [have used] very wide powers to restructure loans and/or accounts"
So it's irrelevant then whether we "read and understood where and on what it would be lent" as since that moment in time you loudly admit the rules have been changed.
You can't make both arguments as they contradict each other.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 21, 2020 9:52:06 GMT
Lets put it simply: Assetz Capital are misappropriating investors money, therefore there will be complaints and legal action No, they're not. It really would be worth your while reading the AC lender T&Cs, their "how P2P works" guide and their Key Investor Information warnings.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 21, 2020 9:55:33 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? Nope. An FCA registered company can also be placed into administration when it fails to meet the so-called "Threshold Conditions". You appear to be ignorant to these so to assist you the FCA states:
"2.4.4 (2) Relevant matters to which the FCA may have regard when assessing whether a firm will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, this threshold condition may include but are not limited to: b) whether there are any indications that the firm will not be able to meet its debts as they fall due;
2.7.8 In deciding how they will satisfy and continue to satisfy the threshold conditions set out in paragraphs 2F and 3E of Schedule 6 to the Act, firms should consider matters including (but not limited to) the following:
(2) the rationale for the business the firm proposes to do or continues to do, its competitive advantage, viability and the longer-term profitability of the business;"
Nope. You appear to be ignorant of the claims I was responding too. All what you point out is clear but irrelevant to the alleged insolvency of AC and the mix up between the concept of investor and creditor that some individuals are showing.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 9:58:24 GMT
Lets put it simply: Assetz Capital are misappropriating investors money, therefore there will be complaints and legal action No, they're not. It really would be worth your while reading the AC lender T&Cs, their "how P2P works" guide and their Key Investor Information warnings. Yes, they are. "The repayment of loans should continue to create some capital which would be available for withdrawal by investors regardless of market conditions being abnormal."
That "idle cash" isn't being made available for withdrawal though is it?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 10:02:56 GMT
Nope. An FCA registered company can also be placed into administration when it fails to meet the so-called "Threshold Conditions". You appear to be ignorant to these so to assist you the FCA states:
"2.4.4 (2) Relevant matters to which the FCA may have regard when assessing whether a firm will satisfy, and continue to satisfy, this threshold condition may include but are not limited to: b) whether there are any indications that the firm will not be able to meet its debts as they fall due;
2.7.8 In deciding how they will satisfy and continue to satisfy the threshold conditions set out in paragraphs 2F and 3E of Schedule 6 to the Act, firms should consider matters including (but not limited to) the following:
(2) the rationale for the business the firm proposes to do or continues to do, its competitive advantage, viability and the longer-term profitability of the business;"
Nope. You appear to be ignorant of the claims I was responding too. All what you point out is clear but irrelevant to the alleged insolvency of AC and the mix up between the concept of investor and creditor that some individuals are showing. The claims you replied to included: "It happens when they can no longer continue to run a viable business."
"They may also run out of cash to fund future loan commitments - would that also result in administration?"
My reply stands.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 21, 2020 10:03:43 GMT
In relation to a, b and c you openly admit in your post that "AC management [have used] very wide powers to restructure loans and/or accounts"
So it's irrelevant then whether we "read and understood where and on what it would be lent" as since that moment in time you loudly admit the rules have been changed.
You can't make both arguments as they contradict each other.
AFAIK, there's been no change in the type of loans that the black-box Access Accounts lend to (please correct me if I'm wrong). Indeed, there have been very few new loans at all since the coronavirus pandemic began. Where's the contradiction?
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 10:13:46 GMT
In relation to a, b and c you openly admit in your post that "AC management [have used] very wide powers to restructure loans and/or accounts"
So it's irrelevant then whether we "read and understood where and on what it would be lent" as since that moment in time you loudly admit the rules have been changed.
You can't make both arguments as they contradict each other.
AFAIK, there's been no change in the type of loans that the black-box Access Accounts lend to (please correct me if I'm wrong). Indeed, there have been very few new loans at all since the coronavirus pandemic began. Where's the contradiction? I think the contradiction between the two statements is clear.
You are correct regarding the type of loans not changing. What AC has done is change the fundamental operation of the accounts. Ie how money is allocated for withdrawal and how idle cash is treated.
|
|
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 Apr 21, 2020 10:14:19 GMT
Yes, they are. "The repayment of loans should continue to create some capital which would be available for withdrawal by investors regardless of market conditions being abnormal."
That "idle cash" isn't being made available for withdrawal though is it?
Some is. 'some capital' ie not all & not in anyway defined. £1 is 'some'
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 21, 2020 10:19:09 GMT
Yes, they are. "The repayment of loans should continue to create some capital which would be available for withdrawal by investors regardless of market conditions being abnormal."
That "idle cash" isn't being made available for withdrawal though is it?
I assure you, I did. Which is why I invested no significant funds in these Access Accounts, preferring to continue holding AC loans directly via the MLA. I decided that, if I'm exposed to underlying loan risk (which Access Account lenders certainly are), I'd rather receive lender interest in full versus giving much of it up for "quick access" that may cease at any moment and a non-guaranteed provision fund. As to the sentence you quote, the operative words are "... should continue to create some capital ...". It certainly doesn't state that all borrower capital repayments will be directed to lender withdrawals. Doing so (and therefore ceasing to fund further tranche draw-downs on existing loans) would be suicidal, bringing down otherwise viable property developments and hugely increasing the prospects for capital losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 21, 2020 10:40:08 GMT
Yes, they are. "The repayment of loans should continue to create some capital which would be available for withdrawal by investors regardless of market conditions being abnormal."
That "idle cash" isn't being made available for withdrawal though is it?
I assure you, I did. Which is why I invested no significant funds in these Access Accounts, preferring to continue holding AC loans directly via the MLA. I decided that, if I'm exposed to underlying loan risk (which Access Account lenders certainly are), I'd rather receive lender interest in full versus giving much of it up for "quick access" that may cease at any moment and a non-guaranteed provision fund. As to the sentence you quote, the operative words are "... should continue to create some capital ...". It certainly doesn't state that all borrower capital repayments will be directed to lender withdrawals. Doing so (and therefore ceasing to fund further tranche draw-downs on existing loans) would be suicidal, bringing down otherwise viable property developments and hugely increasing the prospects for capital losses. I agree with every single post you made so far. I still cannot believe that those investors who are angry (who appear to have over-allocated investments to AC specfically, I wouldn't put close to 50%+ past them) want Administration/legal action. My God, just look at COL, thats FCA wind down for you. Not a single penny in 2 years. If AC fails for whatever reasons. ITS YOU THE LARGE INVESTOR, who will take the blunt. Reguardless of the pro-rate argument in the long run. Once loans begin repaying after this crisis in the coming months, you will se the return of capital and a return the MOL, you'll get your money back, assuming AC is still standing after all the crying ofc. 50% capital return would be a dream for some of the folks in COL/Lendy at this point, within the next 5 years of course. Many loans on FC are looking at 100% capital loss because said borrowers have very simply avoided the "administrators" and disappeared. Allow AC to take its course. But taking down AC is a very annoyance for everybody including yourself. Also, really wish people wouldn't comment about the liquidity issue as of recent weeks. Like is it a surprise or news?? Do you think any commercial SME's or property are going to be paying those million back any day now? Like really? Do you think many investors are flooding money into the site (some clearly are still investing btw, by the small payouts). Its the same story for RS, and more close to home other SME/property developers besides from ABL who seem to have investors in the board who aren't instant cash savers, or mis-understanding how long 18-5 years is (not 4 weeks guys!) The investor fee "lines the pockets" of the AC staff to keep the platform functioning during these times. I'm happy to pay 0.9% per year (and I don't think it be lasting a whole year from their own comms, they seem set on only the next 90 days from 1st of May from the comms when they talked about the news letter) to ensure the company stays healthy. Unless ofc you want your 0.9% cash back now, and then the administrators to take the other 50% though capital loss and fees?
|
|
