Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598 
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 10:42:12 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. The issue of underlying loan exposure is separate to my claim on T+C breaches so I don't have a comment on that.
As for the definition of the word "Some" no proper construction of that contract term could be interpreted as allowing AC to hold onto that "idle cash". I interpret it to mean that if for instance a £1m loan was repaid it would not allow full withdrawal of my £100,000 access account - only a portion of that.
In a circumstance of ambiguity Contra proferentem applies ie "If a term in a contract could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail"
Another contact term AC purport to abide by is "We do not impose any minimum term on your investment" and by holding onto "idle cash" this is a de facto minimum term.
Access have had every opportunity to allocate that "idle cash" to an existing loan but have chosen to keep it as cash.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 10:45:17 GMT
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 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. Not every angry investor wants administration!
It's important for AC to succeed in the long-term which is why it's so important they stick to their own rules. It's the destruction of investor trust that will be their demise not requests on an internet forum for withdrawals.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 21, 2020 10:54:42 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 I did. I must have missed the bit where it said they could take money off large investors and force them to buy out the loans of smaller investors thereby allowing them to exit whilst simultaneously locking the large investor in for years. Maybe you could point that part out?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 21, 2020 11:08:24 GMT
Yes I did. I must have missed the bit where it said they could take money off large investors and force them to buy out the loans of smaller investors thereby allowing them to exit whilst simultaneously locking the large investor in for years. Maybe you could point that part out? Happy to. See clause 20.2, which specifically addresses " necessary or desirable" changes in " altered circumstances" that " may disadvantage existing Lending Members". It should be obvious why their undertaking to " endeavour to provide 30 days notice" was impractical in the event of a global pandemic-triggered run on withdrawal requests! In any case, I dare say AC would point to 20.1 and their belief that the " changes are reasonably believed by the Assetz Capital Companies to be in the interests of the Lending Members" (as a whole, as opposed to every member individually) 20. Altered Circumstances and Changes to The Terms
1. If there is a change in circumstances or a change in the law, HM Revenue & Customs practice or regulations or the interpretation of them, or if any Assetz Capital Company wishes to make changes to the services which it provides on the Network or Website, the Assetz Capital Companies may amend these Terms from time to time as they think fit.
2. Where a change to these Terms does not affect existing Micro Loans and does not disadvantage existing Lending Members or where the changes are reasonably believed by the Assetz Capital Companies to be in the interests of the Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies may make any amendments to these Terms at any time with immediate effect. Where it is necessary or desirable to make changes to these Terms which affect existing Micro Loans or may disadvantage existing Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies will endeavour to provide 30 days notice before any changes take effect. Any such notice shall be posted on the Website.
3. Any amendments will be posted on the Website as soon as reasonably practicable. By continuing to use the Website, by either logging in or leaving investments within Investment Accounts or Access Accounts on a daily basis, each Lending Member agrees to be bound by the amended Terms.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 11:11:36 GMT
Yes I did. I must have missed the bit where it said they could take money off large investors and force them to buy out the loans of smaller investors thereby allowing them to exit whilst simultaneously locking the large investor in for years. Maybe you could point that part out? Happy to. See clause 20.2, which specifically addresses " necessary or desirable" changes that " may disadvantage existing Lending Members". It should be obvious why their undertaking to " endeavour to provide 30 days notice" was impractical in the event of a global pandemic-triggered run on withdrawal requests! 20. Altered Circumstances and Changes to The Terms
1. If there is a change in circumstances or a change in the law, HM Revenue & Customs practice or regulations or the interpretation of them, or if any Assetz Capital Company wishes to make changes to the services which it provides on the Network or Website, the Assetz Capital Companies may amend these Terms from time to time as they think fit.
2. Where a change to these Terms does not affect existing Micro Loans and does not disadvantage existing Lending Members or where the changes are reasonably believed by the Assetz Capital Companies to be in the interests of the Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies may make any amendments to these Terms at any time with immediate effect. Where it is necessary or desirable to make changes to these Terms which affect existing Micro Loans or may disadvantage existing Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies will endeavour to provide 30 days notice before any changes take effect. Any such notice shall be posted on the Website.
3. Any amendments will be posted on the Website as soon as reasonably practicable. By continuing to use the Website, by either logging in or leaving investments within Investment Accounts or Access Accounts on a daily basis, each Lending Member agrees to be bound by the amended Terms.You're making the same mistake again.
What use is claiming "It really would be worth your while reading the AC lender T&Cs, their "how P2P works" guide and their Key Investor Information warnings." if everything can get changed on a whim.
A "global pandemic-triggered run on withdrawal requests" is also no different to a no-deal-brexit triggered run on withdrawals" just so you know.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 21, 2020 11:20:05 GMT
Yes I did. I must have missed the bit where it said they could take money off large investors and force them to buy out the loans of smaller investors thereby allowing them to exit whilst simultaneously locking the large investor in for years. Maybe you could point that part out? Happy to. See clause 20.2, which specifically addresses " necessary or desirable" changes in " altered circumstances" that " may disadvantage existing Lending Members". It should be obvious why their undertaking to " endeavour to provide 30 days notice" was impractical in the event of a global pandemic-triggered run on withdrawal requests! In any request, I dare say AC would point to 20.1 and their belief that the " changes are reasonably believed by the Assetz Capital Companies to be in the interests of the Lending Members" (as a whole, as opposed to every member individually) 20. Altered Circumstances and Changes to The Terms
1. If there is a change in circumstances or a change in the law, HM Revenue & Customs practice or regulations or the interpretation of them, or if any Assetz Capital Company wishes to make changes to the services which it provides on the Network or Website, the Assetz Capital Companies may amend these Terms from time to time as they think fit.
2. Where a change to these Terms does not affect existing Micro Loans and does not disadvantage existing Lending Members or where the changes are reasonably believed by the Assetz Capital Companies to be in the interests of the Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies may make any amendments to these Terms at any time with immediate effect. Where it is necessary or desirable to make changes to these Terms which affect existing Micro Loans or may disadvantage existing Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies will endeavour to provide 30 days notice before any changes take effect. Any such notice shall be posted on the Website.
3. Any amendments will be posted on the Website as soon as reasonably practicable. By continuing to use the Website, by either logging in or leaving investments within Investment Accounts or Access Accounts on a daily basis, each Lending Member agrees to be bound by the amended Terms.So on that basis they have carte blanche to do absolutely anything they like and there is nothing whatsoever that anyone can do about it. How about "we have decided to reassign all lenders loan entitlements to the directors of the company"? And then the best bit - as soon as you log in you have "agreed to be bound by the amended terms". Brilliant. I doubt it would be possible to write a more one sided set of terms and conditions. Whether they actually stand up in a court of law is another thing entirely.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Apr 21, 2020 11:31:35 GMT
What use is claiming "It really would be worth your while reading the AC lender T&Cs, their "how P2P works" guide and their Key Investor Information warnings." if everything can get changed on a whim.
So that lenders appreciate that typical P2P platform T&Cs are drawn so widely that pretty much NOTHING can be relied upon to remain unchanged in all circumstances (P2P really is the Wild West of financial services). Unless a lender is happy to trust a P2P platform to make decisions on their behalf, and willing to accept the explicit risk that T&Cs may be changed against their interests with very little scope to reject them, they really ought to be investing their money somewhere safer (at very much lower rates, of course). Caveat Emptor.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Apr 21, 2020 11:42:38 GMT
What use is claiming "It really would be worth your while reading the AC lender T&Cs, their "how P2P works" guide and their Key Investor Information warnings." if everything can get changed on a whim.
So that lenders appreciate that typical P2P platform T&Cs are drawn so widely that pretty much NOTHING can be relied up to remain unchanged in all circumstances (P2P really is the Wild West of financial services). Unless a lender is happy to trust a P2P platform to make decisions on their behalf, and willing to accept the explicit risk that T&Cs may be changed against their interests with very little scope to reject them, they really ought to be investing their money somewhere safer (at very much lower rates, of course). Caveat Emptor. I'm glad you understand the premise of our complaints.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 617
|
Post by dave4 on Apr 21, 2020 11:46:15 GMT
Regarding all the above, my 2 pence worth,
1. The .75% charge, Not happy with this, but maybe a breakdown /explanation on what the ""extra costs involved"" are would smooth things on this subject.
2. The new normal that will appear after this, is anybody's guess.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 21, 2020 12:00:53 GMT
I wrote this on the 11th March
Today we are seeing the start of not normal market conditions. I would love to be a fly on the wall in the boardroom of AC. It is in no ones interest to have a run on AC I hope that they are considering :-
A restriction on withdrawals. I would do that today!
A restriction on selling loan parts.
I was wrong in saying this as MLA operates on an individual basis
Looking at ways to help borrowers in what will be difficult times.
Making sure unscrupulous borrowers can't take advantage of the current happenings.
My feeling is that if action is taken now our short term pain will be worth the long term gain.
Deliberately controversial in the hope that lenders will enter into constructive discussion.
With savings rates (building societies etc.) almost certainly to be reduced, why would people rush to withdraw from P2P that pays a higher rate? I could see that some lenders might want to put their money into assets like equities and properties, which tend to go up as a result of lower rates, but not sure I see a mass stampede for the exit.
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Mikeme Avatar
Posts: 311Male
Likes: 267
Member is Online
Mar 11, 2020 at 12:37pm QuoteEditlikePost OptionsPost by Mikeme on Mar 11, 2020 at 12:37pm
**** name deleted Toilet roll buying people!!
For This read the I WANT MY MONEY BACK BRIGADE
Part of my point is that many honest borrowers will need support and if too much "surplus cash" is removed it might cause problems for those borrowers as they struggle to cope with lack of workers, slow down in sales, pressure from lack of supplies. The list goes on.
WE ARE LENDERS not savers. We need borrowers to survive for their sake and ours. We need AC to continue any other option would be financially disastrous. Therefore they need income so by paying a fee we save losses. They took action to stop a "run" not on their money but our money and rightly stopped the big investors taking out all the money leaving none for the many small ones. Protection on the many is is the right way.
Not eloquently or legalistically correct maybe. However realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 21, 2020 12:08:15 GMT
No new loans underwriting, fewer loans repaying. Less actual cash income to the AC company profits. (A classic P2P platform issue btw)
Also will be a increase I imagine in administrative costs for keeping a eye on the loanbook and handling what is likely to be a very high amount of borrower commuication once things begin to re-open in the UK & world.
Stuat said that they reduce operating costs by about 50%, other than his word I have no evidence of course.
I really doubt they would implement lendership fees unless they really had to. It shows how the dire situation could of become (hopefully not now that we are paying fees.) Not like anybody here is happy to be paying fees, but many lenders point out the fee is better than possible platform issues due to lack of actual funding directly to AC. In the long run it is benefical.
AC are fully aware that fees will turn off alot of investor cash, they do not plan on keeping them for any extended period of time, its being reviewed again once that forebarance period is up.
|
|
tjtl
Posts: 232
Likes: 351
|
Post by tjtl on Apr 21, 2020 12:12:05 GMT
I haven’t been following the debate for the last couple of days, work kind of got in the way. But reading through some of the recent whining posts I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Legal action? Really? In my 60 odd years on the planet the one truth I am certain of is the only winners in legal actions are the lawyers.
Is it really in any of our interests to have the management distracted dealing with threats of frivolous legal actions rather than, I don’t know, maybe managing the business in he face of the worst depression since 1709?
I am one of the larger investors/ mugs/ losers with over £200k on the platform- so am (apparently) one of those disadvantaged by the decision to prefer the small investors- and you know what, I am cool with that. The amount of money that I would get if it was done pro-rata is tiny- this is a row over a tiny amount of cash- and frankly if the small investors, who may be financially squeezed, have need of their money then I am not going to stand in their way, just like I am delighted when those older than me can go straight t the front of the queue at my supermarket.
Allegations that the management are dishonest strike me as over-stating it, the fees they are charging aren’t’ "to line their pockets” - I suspect they are to keep the lights on (as I do think the business is financially vulnerable, another reason I want the management focussed 100% on the day job. If the platform goes over then it is lights out for all). I am sure they have made mistakes- that what comes in managing a business in these awful circumstances.
Criticism of the company is all to the good- but never ending moaning just becomes tedious.
I think I will go back to work.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Apr 21, 2020 12:20:15 GMT
I haven’t been following the debate for the last couple of days, work kind of got in the way. But reading through some of the recent whining posts I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Legal action? Really? In my 60 odd years on the planet the one truth I am certain of is the only winners in legal actions are the lawyers. Is it really in any of our interests to have the management distracted dealing with threats of frivolous legal actions rather than, I don’t know, maybe managing the business in he face of the worst depression since 1709? I am one of the larger investors/ mugs/ losers with over £200k on the platform- so am (apparently) one of those disadvantaged by the decision to prefer the small investors- and you know what, I am cool with that. The amount of money that I would get if it was done pro-rata is tiny- this is a row over a tiny amount of cash- and frankly if the small investors, who may be financially squeezed, have need of their money then I am not going to stand in their way, just like I am delighted when those older than me can go straight t the front of the queue at my supermarket. Allegations that the management are dishonest strike me as over-stating it, the fees they are charging aren’t’ "to line their pockets” - I suspect they are to keep the lights on (as I do think the business is financially vulnerable, another reason I want the management focussed 100% on the day job. If the platform goes over then it is lights out for all). I am sure they have made mistakes- that what comes in managing a business in these awful circumstances. Criticism of the company is all to the good- but never ending moaning just becomes tedious. I think I will go back to work. Well put. As much as a doomed legal bid with the aim of taking down the platform in a pyrrhic blaze of glory leading to the very hottest of firesales of half-finished buildings is an interesting concept, how about we just let them get on with it whilst the global economy is on pause? When there's actual money to be returned, then resume a constructive debate about how and when larger investors are going to be recompensed at a reasonable rate. Or perhaps they will even address those concerns before then - they're certainly aware of them now! 
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 21, 2020 13:28:09 GMT
I haven’t been following the debate for the last couple of days, work kind of got in the way. But reading through some of the recent whining posts I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Legal action? Really? In my 60 odd years on the planet the one truth I am certain of is the only winners in legal actions are the lawyers. Is it really in any of our interests to have the management distracted dealing with threats of frivolous legal actions rather than, I don’t know, maybe managing the business in he face of the worst depression since 1709? I am one of the larger investors/ mugs/ losers with over £200k on the platform- so am (apparently) one of those disadvantaged by the decision to prefer the small investors- and you know what, I am cool with that. The amount of money that I would get if it was done pro-rata is tiny- this is a row over a tiny amount of cash- and frankly if the small investors, who may be financially squeezed, have need of their money then I am not going to stand in their way, just like I am delighted when those older than me can go straight t the front of the queue at my supermarket. Allegations that the management are dishonest strike me as over-stating it, the fees they are charging aren’t’ "to line their pockets” - I suspect they are to keep the lights on (as I do think the business is financially vulnerable, another reason I want the management focussed 100% on the day job. If the platform goes over then it is lights out for all). I am sure they have made mistakes- that what comes in managing a business in these awful circumstances. Criticism of the company is all to the good- but never ending moaning just becomes tedious. I think I will go back to work. Well put. As much as a doomed legal bid with the aim of taking down the platform in a pyrrhic blaze of glory leading to the very hottest of firesales of half-finished buildings is an interesting concept, how about we just let them get on with it whilst the global economy is on pause? When there's actual money to be returned, then resume a constructive debate about how and when larger investors are going to be recompensed at a reasonable rate. Or perhaps they will even address those concerns before then - they're certainly aware of them now! They need to revert to the queuing system immediately - not say they might do it at some future date dependent on some "MOL" acronym which they have declined to define properly. The sooner they do it, the better their chance of still having a business to run at the end of this. In the meantime those investors watching their money being siphoned off are hardly likely to stop complaining or bringing legal actions against the company are they?
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Apr 21, 2020 13:57:42 GMT
I haven’t been following the debate for the last couple of days, work kind of got in the way. But reading through some of the recent whining posts I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Legal action? Really? In my 60 odd years on the planet the one truth I am certain of is the only winners in legal actions are the lawyers. Is it really in any of our interests to have the management distracted dealing with threats of frivolous legal actions rather than, I don’t know, maybe managing the business in he face of the worst depression since 1709? I am one of the larger investors/ mugs/ losers with over £200k on the platform- so am (apparently) one of those disadvantaged by the decision to prefer the small investors- and you know what, I am cool with that. The amount of money that I would get if it was done pro-rata is tiny- this is a row over a tiny amount of cash- and frankly if the small investors, who may be financially squeezed, have need of their money then I am not going to stand in their way, just like I am delighted when those older than me can go straight t the front of the queue at my supermarket. Allegations that the management are dishonest strike me as over-stating it, the fees they are charging aren’t’ "to line their pockets” - I suspect they are to keep the lights on (as I do think the business is financially vulnerable, another reason I want the management focussed 100% on the day job. If the platform goes over then it is lights out for all). I am sure they have made mistakes- that what comes in managing a business in these awful circumstances. Criticism of the company is all to the good- but never ending moaning just becomes tedious. I think I will go back to work. Well said! I said something similar a while back on another thread but as is the way with this little band of AC haters they just keep creating more threads saying the same thing over and over and over again, never really supporting their ridiculous assertions of all manner of dubious practices by the platform or the dire state of its financial situation with any verifiable facts. I feel many of their statements are actually getting very close to what could comfortably be defended in court and as this is all in the public domain could well be viewed in a very unfavourable light by any judge who was to preside over their potential future case. Smacks of coercion to me. There will be little by way of repayments in the coming 3-6 months to give these big boys their money back even if they were all at the front of the queue so survival of the platform is the only way out here for us all to get our (or most of our) money back one day. This handful of bully boys are looking at fire-sale pence in the pound on their and our investments if they drag this through the courts and bring down the platform as a result. Who knows what the other 99.9% of AC investors who don't agree with them could choose to do then to recover their money then, these boys might be big but I bet there are a fair few bigger boys around who will be none too pleased to see their investments put in peril. They have obviously taken leave of their senses, cannot see the wood for the trees, should take up Yoga and start to see the big picture, oh yes, and actually they should have put their money in a building society savings account. Fancy thinking P2P was a liquid asset class. Nothing to see here folks, move on........
|
|
