cb25
Posts: 3,528 
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 30, 2020 11:08:22 GMT
Has any money been taken out of your account? I'm waiting on a reasonable sum of money, but it hasn't gone anywhere, it's just sitting in the queue/pool. I suggest you read the other posts on the forum. Assetz are using the funds of large investors to bail out small investors, thereby locking them into the so called access accounts for years whilst at the same time allocating them a larger and larger percentage of non-performing loans. Not going to answer the question then?
I have a 5-figure sum past its 30DAA withdrawal dates. Much as I'd prefer a pro-rata scheme, so I don't get the same withdraw 'dribble' as (say) somebody with a 3-figure sum pending, the point remains - AC have not taken money out of my account to give to them.
We can debate this endlessly, but unless somebody forces a change on AC (e.g. via legal action, isn't going to involve me) or they voluntarily change it, this is a sterile debate.
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Mar 30, 2020 11:15:11 GMT
I suggest you read the other posts on the forum. Assetz are using the funds of large investors to bail out small investors, thereby locking them into the so called access accounts for years whilst at the same time allocating them a larger and larger percentage of non-performing loans. Not going to answer the question then?
I have a 5-figure sum past its 30DAA withdrawal dates. Much as I'd prefer a pro-rata scheme, so I don't get the same withdraw 'dribble' as (say) somebody with a 3-figure sum pending, the point remains - AC have not taken money out of my account to give to them.
We can debate this endlessly, but unless somebody forces a change on AC (e.g. via legal action, isn't going to involve me) or they voluntarily change it, this is a sterile debate.
No, AC have not taken money out of your account to give to the small guys, but they are using the funds of large investors to bail out small investors. The small investor who had less than £43 invested now has it all back, it's been given to them and they have zero platform risk. The big investor is taking that risk, so they have used the funds of large investors to bail out small investors.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 30, 2020 11:18:46 GMT
There is a huge lack of understanding of whats going on here and it is best demonstrated by a simplified example.
Lets say 100 investors put £100 into the QAA and 1 investor puts in £10000, giving a total of £20000 in the QAA.
This £20000 is invested into 2 loans of £10000 each.
At this point, if anyone looked at their QAA holdings it would show 50% of their investment in each loan (£50 each for the small investors, £5000 in each for the large)
One of the loans pays back in full, the other loan defaults.
At this point, if anyone looked at their QAA holdings it would show 50% cash and 50% in the defaulted loan (£50 cash/£50 defaulted loan for the small investor, £5000 cash/£5000 loan for the large).
So far so good, except that now Assetz pay out the cash, not proportionally but at a flat rate per investor of £10000/101investors = £99 each.
So whats the net result?:
Small investors walk away with £99 out of their original £100 in cash
The large investor gets £99 cash and the remainder of his £5000 cash is replaced by all the small investors defaulted loan holdings. His £10000 investment now consists of a £99 cash disbursement and a £9901 defaulted loan. Virtually all of his proportional cash entitlement has been taken away from him and replaced with a defaulted loan. The small investors retain virtually all of their original investment. The large investor has virtually a 100% loss.
|
|
savernake
Member of DD Central
Posts: 174
Likes: 142
|
Post by savernake on Mar 30, 2020 11:18:56 GMT
Hopefully in the next week or so AC will introduce the new functionality to allow people with money stuck in the QAA to re-invest in the other accounts. It wont solve the problem completely but it should make some difference. Even if it brings forward the day when the proper 'queue' returns then that can only be a good thing.
Maybe a new marketing promotion on the 30DAA and 90DAA accounts will help bring more money in too?
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 30, 2020 11:23:25 GMT
Hopefully in the next week or so AC will introduce the new functionality to allow people with money stuck in the queue to leave QAA and re-invest in the other accounts. It wont solve the problem completely but it should make some difference. Even if it brings forward the day when the proper 'queue' returns then that can only be a good thing. Maybe a new marketing promotion on the 30DAA and 90DAA accounts will help bring more money in too? They have to be very careful on the wording given lenders currently can't get their money out at 30/90 days notice.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Mar 30, 2020 11:33:35 GMT
There is a huge lack of understanding of whats going on here and it is best demonstrated by a simplified example. Lets say 100 investors put £100 into the QAA and 1 investor puts in £10000, giving a total of £20000 in the QAA. This £20000 is invested into 2 loans of £10000 each. At this point, if anyone looked at their QAA holdings it would show 50% of their investment in each loan (£50 each for the small investors, £5000 in each for the large) One of the loans pays back in full, the other loan defaults. At this point, if anyone looked at their QAA holdings it would show 50% cash and 50% in the defaulted loan (£50 cash/£50 defaulted loan for the small investor, £5000 cash/£5000 loan for the large). So far so good, except that now Assetz pay out the cash, not proportionally but at a flat rate per investor of £10000/101investors = £99 each. So whats the net result?: Small investors walk away with £99 out of their original £100 in cash The large investor gets £99 cash and the remainder of his £5000 cash is replaced by all the small investors defaulted loan holdings. His £10000 investment now consists of a £99 cash disbursement and a £9901 defaulted loan. Virtually all of his proportional cash entitlement has been taken away from him and replaced with a defaulted loan. The small investors retain virtually all of their original investment. The large investor has virtually a 100% loss. The small investors get only 50. The overhang goes back in the pool and as there will then be only the big buyer, she will get it. I think you find this in the FAQ
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 30, 2020 11:37:06 GMT
There is a huge lack of understanding of whats going on here and it is best demonstrated by a simplified example. Lets say 100 investors put £100 into the QAA and 1 investor puts in £10000, giving a total of £20000 in the QAA. This £20000 is invested into 2 loans of £10000 each. At this point, if anyone looked at their QAA holdings it would show 50% of their investment in each loan (£50 each for the small investors, £5000 in each for the large) One of the loans pays back in full, the other loan defaults. At this point, if anyone looked at their QAA holdings it would show 50% cash and 50% in the defaulted loan (£50 cash/£50 defaulted loan for the small investor, £5000 cash/£5000 loan for the large). So far so good, except that now Assetz pay out the cash, not proportionally but at a flat rate per investor of £10000/101investors = £99 each. So whats the net result?: Small investors walk away with £99 out of their original £100 in cash The large investor gets £99 cash and the remainder of his £5000 cash is replaced by all the small investors defaulted loan holdings. His £10000 investment now consists of a £99 cash disbursement and a £9901 defaulted loan. Virtually all of his proportional cash entitlement has been taken away from him and replaced with a defaulted loan. The small investors retain virtually all of their original investment. The large investor has virtually a 100% loss. The small investors get only 50. The overhang goes back in the pool and as there will then be only the big buyer, she will get it. I think you find this in the FAQ No. What you are describing is what SHOULD be happening. What is actually happening is the flat amount per investor as described above. Everyone gets the same £ amount regardless of investment size.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Mar 30, 2020 11:44:38 GMT
The small investors get only 50. The overhang goes back in the pool and as there will then be only the big buyer, she will get it. I think you find this in the FAQ No. What you are describing is what SHOULD be happening. What is actually happening is the flat amount per investor as described above. Everyone gets the same £ amount regardless of investment size. If I can help somebody, as I travel along If I can help somebody, with a word or song If I can help somebody, from doing wrong No, my living shall not be in vain No, my living shall not be in vain No, my living shall not be…
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Mar 30, 2020 11:58:34 GMT
The small investors get only 50. The overhang goes back in the pool and as there will then be only the big buyer, she will get it. I think you find this in the FAQ No. What you are describing is what SHOULD be happening. What is actually happening is the flat amount per investor as described above. Everyone gets the same £ amount regardless of investment size. How do you know? So, if I open a new account, invest 1p into the QAA, which I withdraw right away, at some point I'll get back loads of money?
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 30, 2020 12:11:44 GMT
No. What you are describing is what SHOULD be happening. What is actually happening is the flat amount per investor as described above. Everyone gets the same £ amount regardless of investment size. How do you know? So, if I open a new account, invest 1p into the QAA, which I withdraw right away, at some point I'll get back loads of money? No. You don't get back more than you have invested.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Mar 30, 2020 12:43:17 GMT
How do you know? So, if I open a new account, invest 1p into the QAA, which I withdraw right away, at some point I'll get back loads of money? No. You don't get back more than you have invested. I see what you mean. We were told funds equivalent to defaulted loans were ring fenced. Wonder if that still holds. If so, the big lenders subsidize nobody; they just have to wait longer to get their money back (also not nice I guess). The problem also in a way existed in the past. When somebody left the access accounts, they left behind a share of the problem loans.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 30, 2020 13:07:21 GMT
No. You don't get back more than you have invested. I see what you mean. We were told funds equivalent to defaulted loans were ring fenced. Wonder if that still holds. If so, the big lenders subsidize nobody; they just have to wait longer to get their money back (also not nice I guess). The problem also in a way existed in the past. When somebody left the access accounts, they left behind a share of the problem loans. Ring fencing is immediate for defaulted loans or even loans where AC think the borrower is unlikely to pay without enforcing secuirity, as per the PF policy terms and if there is insufficient money in the PF then the loan would no longer be tradeable in the Access Accounts. This may mean some non defaulted loans may also have PF money ring fenced immediately, this may be much more likely in the current situation. To be fair to all lenders it is important that ring fencing continues to be immediate for each individual loan. All defaulted loans in the Access Accounts must already have an appropriate level of PF money ring fenced as deemed fit by AC. As far as I know to date AC have never made any loans in the Access Accounts untradeable. There is significantly less un ring fenced cash in the 90DAA at the last update, vs the 30DAA and QAA. Below is an extract from the PF policy terms. “Ring-fencing” in the Provision Funds relating to the Access Accounts
The Assetz Capital Access Accounts prioritise liquidity and consistency of interest payments and seek to avoid, where possible, situations where lenders are unable to withdraw their funds in normal market conditions. For this reason, all loans remain tradeable within the Access Accounts and all Access Account users participate equally in every loan held within the relevant account. This means that lenders will own parts of loans which may be in difficulty or even in default. To treat lenders fairly and to avoid situations where a lender might join a loan which may already be facing a loss, the discretionary decision for Access Account loans is taken immediately once: • the loan defaults, or; • Assetz Capital considers that the borrower is unlikely to pay its obligations under the P2P agreement in full, without the firm enforcing any relevant security interest or taking other steps with analogous effect If there is sufficient money within the relevant Provision Fund to fully cover the assessment of the Loss Given Default (“LGD”) on such a loan the discretionary decision to cover that loss is taken immediately and the LGD amount is “ring-fenced” (i.e.: set aside specifically to cover any actual loss arising from that loan). “Ring-fenced” amounts are not included in the available funds for the Provision Funds as they are no longer available, having been allocated to cover the loan in question. Should the loan recover and become a performing loan again (perhaps because the borrower corrects the issues which caused the loan to default) the “ring-fenced” funds can be released and become available funds within the Provision Fund once more. If there is not sufficient money within the relevant Provision Fund to fully cover the assessment of the Loss Given Default then the loan will not be allowed to trade within the Access Accounts, thereby preventing lenders from gaining or increasing a holding in a loan which is in difficulty and which may ultimately face a loss.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 30, 2020 14:47:44 GMT
Hmmmm...I don't ever recall banks taking all the money out of the large investors accounts and doling it out to all the smaller ones. Presumably this is illegal and there are regulations in place to stop it happening at a bank? A typical limit for a run on the bank is to set daily withdrawal limits.
Under the definition you're using, that takes money out of the large investors accounts and doles it out to the small ones - the people with the very smallest bank balances would be able to withdraw the lot, whilst a millionaire can only withdraw a tiny fraction of their wealth, so is potentially left stuck with a stake in the illiquid assets of the bank rather than with cash.
Anyway, I had my £0.15 from the QAA ages ago. I'm sure it would have made the world of difference to you if I'd instead been allowed only £0.01 and you'd got an appropriate pro-rata fraction of the remaining £0.14.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 30, 2020 15:47:36 GMT
Hmmmm...I don't ever recall banks taking all the money out of the large investors accounts and doling it out to all the smaller ones. Presumably this is illegal and there are regulations in place to stop it happening at a bank? A typical limit for a run on the bank is to set daily withdrawal limits.
Under the definition you're using, that takes money out of the large investors accounts and doles it out to the small ones - the people with the very smallest bank balances would be able to withdraw the lot, whilst a millionaire can only withdraw a tiny fraction of their wealth, so is potentially left stuck with a stake in the illiquid assets of the bank rather than with cash.
Anyway, I had my £0.15 from the QAA ages ago. I'm sure it would have made the world of difference to you if I'd instead been allowed only £0.01 and you'd got an appropriate pro-rata fraction of the remaining £0.14.
Assetz ARE allowing the small investors to withdraw the lot and passing on all of their share of the assets to the larger investors. Thats exactly whats happening. And as you say, the big guy is then left taking on all this risk rather than receiving his proportionate share of the cash in the access account. So rather than receiving their money the big investors get all loan default risk plus all the risk that Assetz go completely belly up. On your second point then I agree - if thats the case we have all had it. Ratesetter returned investors £10 million over the past 2 weeks. Assetz gave you 15p.
|
|
alexk
Posts: 17
Likes: 26
|
Post by alexk on Mar 30, 2020 18:21:27 GMT
Today the repaid #1194 has been proccesed.
I am keeping daily records.
Fact: Out of my principal in #1194 I received less than 17%, meaning AC kept more than 83% of my money without my consent (repaid and given back borrower). This is practically bailing out small investors (large number of them), as people in the forum have described earlier. This is also going against my option to withdraw both principal and interest on repayment (which AC changed without my consent).
Let people have phylosophical discussions and so on. I am stating the fact of today simply. Beyond unfair and never written in T&C.
|
|
