Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598 
Likes: 6,768
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 29, 2020 16:17:34 GMT
If AC had let the queue be a queue it would be stuck with some big lenders' withdrawals now. Some of the quick ones here may have got their treasures out before that. All others would be hit or complaining by now and that's many more. It may well have been fairer to repay according to funds invested, but that may not have avoided the previous point as wealth is exponentially distributed and given they now repay on a head count base as for trading in the MLA, that may just have been easier to implement. There may well still have been complaints - but those complaints would have had no justification. There would have been no breach of trust. There would be no bandwidth wasted on the impending deluge of complaints and subsequent referrals to the FOS.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Mar 29, 2020 17:01:37 GMT
There's no advantage to Assetz at all they have made decisions to the benefit of lenders and borrowers. No payments from borrowers means no income for Assetz. As to change of terms. UNDER NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS. After the debacle of the recent platform failures they would have made sure they were on sound legal ground before making the decisions. Complain as much as we like it's done and dusted and won't change. Would you have a similar attitude if I was to pull out a gun and shoot one of your family? I assume in that scenario the last thing on you mind would be to let sleeping dogs lie, and in fact you would be screaming for justice. Have you ever had a daughter kill herself? I have. That's Why I empathy . Keep on loving your money!
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Mar 29, 2020 17:03:31 GMT
If AC had let the queue be a queue it would be stuck with some big lenders' withdrawals now. Some of the quick ones here may have got their treasures out before that. All others would be hit or complaining by now and that's many more. It may well have been fairer to repay according to funds invested, but that may not have avoided the previous point as wealth is exponentially distributed and given they now repay on a head count base as for trading in the MLA, that may just have been easier to implement. There may well still have been complaints - but those complaints would have had no justification. There would have been no breach of trust. There would be no bandwidth wasted on the impending deluge of complaints and subsequent referrals to the FOS. Well said. To everyone who thinks this is a short term blip we shouid ride over: why are defending the AC change in operating? Just wait a bit, you are getting a geat rate on your money. To those that think that AC has made a systemic blunder: Where should we meet and plan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 29, 2020 17:25:07 GMT
Lots of emotions flying around here, it is quite upsetting to read some of it honestly. Everybody is having not such a great time right now all round the country, if not the world really.
My take on things has been in the middle, it be nice really if we saw some comms from AC on this board again. It doesnt' matter if AC think they were "right" alot of people are clearly upset and a bit of clousure or discussion from those in charge would go a long way right now for folk on here. Stuat has practically not replied to anything since the opening of the "pro-rata" system. It is sort of worrying. I'm fairly just sitting back on my investments as there isn't much more I can do.
Mark and others have brought up the role of institutional investors, many of what he has said across many threads even when strong worded is true in some contexts. Generally institutional investors are far easier to manage and "baby" than retail investors. What I'd like to know, is what are the figures on this. Like its all good acknoledging the role on them, but we do even know how much exposure they have. I read that arcticle from 2018 Mark posted but I can't ofc found any lead up. It be nice to know if the those institutional investors actually own a larger pie than retail investors combined.
My eyes are looking at if AC can meet the target interest rate for the access accounts. I for one can understand that very basic principle *if borrowers aren't making interest payments, then target rates might not be reached?*. Luckily the Tranch loans will continue to pay interest reguardless of the situation. But my God, this forum will EXPLODE if that happens.
I really hope AC sees itself though this, but I know many investors will also see themselves out at this point in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 29, 2020 17:49:50 GMT
The loans are backed by assets so if borrowers can't make repayments need to repossess and sell the assets to recoup the cash.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 29, 2020 17:58:54 GMT
The loans are backed by assets so if borrowers can't make repayments need to repossess and sell the assets to recoup the cash. If only life was that simple
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 29, 2020 18:02:39 GMT
The loans are backed by assets so if borrowers can't make repayments need to repossess and sell the assets to recoup the cash. Short of not being able to legally process the asset; this is the worst case result for any loan. Years of waiting, legal costs and sales. Borrowers are more likely to re-finance than simply allow a reprocession and in most cases AC are happy to allow them time to bridge this. Its in our best interests that they successfuly bridge too if it got to the point where they are in breach of contract. The security makes these types of investments attractive in normal circumstances, lets say 2 out of the 100 fail and we have to go ahead; its likely platform and lenders will come out making a return. Things get nasty when we see say more than 10, (in a ideal world of equal loan values ect ect). You get the point. Lets hope in 12 months time the borrowers abilities to sell their loans is back in normal conditions for everybody.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 29, 2020 18:09:38 GMT
Would you have a similar attitude if I was to pull out a gun and shoot one of your family? I assume in that scenario the last thing on you mind would be to let sleeping dogs lie, and in fact you would be screaming for justice. Have you ever had a daughter kill herself? I have. That's Why I empathy . Keep on loving your money! Ok, we'll try this from a different angle
You go into a supermarket and buy a bottle of wine. You give the cashier a £50 note but after she puts it in the till the cashier tells you that there is a new system in place, and that to minimise the amount of cash they are having to handle they are no longer giving anyone any change. Do you shrug your shoulders and accept it, or do you kick up merry hell?
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Mar 29, 2020 18:23:55 GMT
If AC had let the queue be a queue it would be stuck with some big lenders' withdrawals now. Some of the quick ones here may have got their treasures out before that. All others would be hit or complaining by now and that's many more. It may well have been fairer to repay according to funds invested, but that may not have avoided the previous point as wealth is exponentially distributed and given they now repay on a head count base as for trading in the MLA, that may just have been easier to implement. There may well still have been complaints - but those complaints would have had no justification. There would have been no breach of trust. There would be no bandwidth wasted on the impending deluge of complaints and subsequent referrals to the FOS. I'm sure there are/would have been complaints either way. Not keen to loose money either.. Reg justification or even justice, I don't know. It's not normal times. I am indeed concerned about the trust dimension. FC lost it so fast for similar changes in rules. They slice now as well instead of queue (+ those fees). What FC did wrong for me was their impertinence in implementing changes. AC is doing better. FOS? Waste of time and you above all should know. It's a bigger thing so would cost loads to enforce. And at what chance? I appreciate your legal expertise!
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 29, 2020 18:26:12 GMT
Chill people. We are where we are. Nothing wrong with the fifo queue becoming a pool in a distressed situation such as now. Where I don’t have much sympathy for AC is in the dropping of the weight of money pro-rata distribution in favour of rationing it in equal amounts per lender. Perhaps. a halfway house might have been a less contentious compromise. That is split any money to withdraw 50:50 and distribute half on the basis of every withdrawing lender gets the same from that half pot and distribute the second half pot pro-rata to weight of each money withdrawal-request. Lastly, anyone who thinks repossessing assets and selling them is plan A is doubly deluded. Firstly, some forbearance is expected and even mandated by the government. Secondly, there is neither a functioning market in any assets, let alone fire-sale ones, at the moment nor are any of the professions likely to be involved in the chain of activity required currently staffed. [ I have a relatively nominal three figure amount in a notice access account. ] The halfway house is just a way of moving from a gigantic mistake to a big mistake. The pool should be pro-rata. Thats that. There is no justification for it to be anything else. And by the way Assetz, when I say "pro rata" I mean proportional to the investment size (as the access accounts always have been) as opposed to however you are (incorrectly) defining it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Mar 29, 2020 18:29:47 GMT
Chill people. We are where we are. Nothing wrong with the fifo queue becoming a pool in a distressed situation such as now. Where I don’t have much sympathy for AC is in the dropping of the weight of money pro-rata distribution in favour of rationing it in equal amounts per lender. Perhaps. a halfway house might have been a less contentious compromise. That is split any money to withdraw 50:50 and distribute half on the basis of every withdrawing lender gets the same from that half pot and distribute the second half pot pro-rata to weight of each money withdrawal-request. Lastly, anyone who thinks repossessing assets and selling them is plan A is doubly deluded. Firstly, some forbearance is expected and even mandated by the government. Secondly, there is neither a functioning market in any assets, let alone fire-sale ones, at the moment nor are any of the professions likely to be involved in the chain of activity required currently staffed. [ I have a relatively nominal three figure amount in a notice access account. ] I'm not really following this debate - it was the lead up to this event as the proportion of cash gradually reduced day on day until the inevitable that was of interest (i.e. the point at which I still retained some control). But, I do understand why emotions are heightened at a time like this. Anyway, in hindsight the "equal amounts per lender" system should really come as no surprise to those with experience of the MLA, it's how the buying/selling algorithm divides up trades. AC have always strived to be equitable wrt (with respect to) the smaller fish. Whether you think that right or wrong is probably immaterial at this stage.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 29, 2020 18:30:56 GMT
Have you ever had a daughter kill herself? I have. That's Why I empathy . Keep on loving your money! Ok, we'll try this from a different angle
You go into a supermarket and buy a bottle of wine. You give the cashier a £50 note but after she puts it in the till the cashier tells you that there is a new system in place, and that to minimise the amount of cash they are having to handle they are no longer giving anyone any change. Do you shrug your shoulders and accept it, or do you kick up merry hell?
Actually its slightly different. They do give you some change but rather it being in cash they just give you all the other customers returned damaged goods and food that has gone past its sell by date.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Mar 29, 2020 18:31:27 GMT
A busy thread with lots of feeling! Going back to the title, which was about "behaviour" ... right now there aren't many choices for Access account investors. You can choose to press the "withdraw" button or not. And, er, ...... Which brings me to Chill people. We are where we are. ... Lastly, anyone who thinks repossessing assets and selling them is plan A is doubly deluded. Firstly, some forbearance is expected and even mandated by the government. Secondly, there is neither a functioning market in any assets, let alone fire-sale ones, at the moment nor are any of the professions likely to be involved in the chain of activity required currently staffed. ... This. Absolutely. There may be a number of variously distressed loans coming up for Lender Votes over the next 12 months, and I hope that there aren't too many rushes of blood to Lenders' heads insisting on immediate administration. Patience will be the order of the day, I think. |
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Mar 29, 2020 18:41:31 GMT
Firstly no one has lost any money/interest yet. What do countries and banks do when they have a run? without notice restrict outflows. My favourite analogy toilet rolls, they put a limit on to stop the greedy uncaring selfish idiots taking the lot>
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 29, 2020 19:29:21 GMT
It is called Assetz Capital not Ponzi capital......Borrowers who can't pay up need to be repossessed.
If AC can't do that then need to get rid of AC as the platform.
The management no longer seem to want to engage with people regularly on these boards whereas previously they were very active.
|
|
