Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598 
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2020 13:58:56 GMT
Assetz will have no doubt seen the issues that faced Lendy when they failed to continue lending and should have made contingency plans. Eg as we approached the threat of a no deal brexit last year. Plans could have included raising the entire value of the loan and only releasing it on a tranche by tranche basis. It would be surprising if they hadn't considered this.
Another option would be increasing the interest rate at the sacrifice of the platform fees. But on loans that require further funding they have not done this. It's all well and good saying AC should have done things differently but that doesn't help anyone and its our money that is invested, its our money on the line. Well I suggest you raise that issue with Assetz. Certainly not my responsibility.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 31, 2020 14:03:03 GMT
Another thread to bang on about the same thing. It isn't changing, wait for your withdrawal and there we go. As for the uninvested cash, the figure that is cash in the account is not a large amount; it be paid out to investors would be seriously dangerous to those who are not panicing and waving arms around wanting to run away from a investment they never understood in the first place. If it were paid out, you would get most likely 3.9% if your investment at best. Then the rest of your investments will be worthless because the platform will topple unable to pay lenders interest, unable to fufill contracts and drawdown new loans in the future.
Not rocket science.
That cash is ear marked for drawdowns, to cover what will likely be shortfall for failed target interest rate in the access accounts over the next few months additionally. I cannot fathom that people are seriously making threads now to complain about abnormal market conditions require a adaptive response from AC. Yes, I'm not exactly thrilled about my 4.1% liquid investment when I made it now being illquid greatly reducing its value. But I'm certainly not going to shoot myself in the foot by just repeating the same things again and again on a online board.AC will pull though, or they won't and you will lose all your capital and all your complaining reguardless will have been invain. Just sit on your investment and await for the payouts that are coming though slowly, eventually the system will be switched to a que and then entirely back to normal conditions. If it doesn't, then your investments is gone. Thats how it is, those are the risks. I'm expecting the peer to peer market to be in this state for at least 12 months, so you have alot of complaining ahead of you, hope your ready. Qoute with whatever remark I won't be replying back into a argument. Mods should probs remove this, as its just a anger thread, being a echo chamber between the same members on this board, who reply on every thread wheather its related to the OP topic or not.
Maybe we can keep the echo contained to here.A laughable complete lack of understanding of the situation. You say you would get back 3.9% of your investment at best? Absolutely not. If you are a small investor you would get back much more, the smallest would get back 100% of their investment. If you are a large investor you would get much less - a few hundredths of a percent in some cases. This is the misappropriation of cash that is leading to a collapse of trust in the platform. Its not so much about the amounts being paid out but rather they way in which they have decided to pay it out.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 31, 2020 14:08:32 GMT
But on loans that require further funding they have not done this. It's all well and good saying AC should have done things differently but that doesn't help anyone and its our money that is invested, its our money on the line. Well I suggest you raise that issue with Assetz. Certainly not my responsibility.
No but its your money that you will lose if you stop developments being funded.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Mar 31, 2020 14:15:52 GMT
Well I suggest you raise that issue with Assetz. Certainly not my responsibility.
No but its your money that you will lose if you stop developments being funded. If Assetz want me to invest in further tranches they should ask me. Assetz have multiple sources of funds aside from taking what I have uninvested in the Access accounts.
Assetz was formed before the Access Accounts were created so I don't accept that Assetz continuation is dependant on them
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 31, 2020 14:22:09 GMT
Another thread to bang on about the same thing. It isn't changing, wait for your withdrawal and there we go. As for the uninvested cash, the figure that is cash in the account is not a large amount; it be paid out to investors would be seriously dangerous to those who are not panicing and waving arms around wanting to run away from a investment they never understood in the first place. If it were paid out, you would get most likely 3.9% if your investment at best. Then the rest of your investments will be worthless because the platform will topple unable to pay lenders interest, unable to fufill contracts and drawdown new loans in the future.
Not rocket science.
That cash is ear marked for drawdowns, to cover what will likely be shortfall for failed target interest rate in the access accounts over the next few months additionally. I cannot fathom that people are seriously making threads now to complain about abnormal market conditions require a adaptive response from AC. Yes, I'm not exactly thrilled about my 4.1% liquid investment when I made it now being illquid greatly reducing its value. But I'm certainly not going to shoot myself in the foot by just repeating the same things again and again on a online board.AC will pull though, or they won't and you will lose all your capital and all your complaining reguardless will have been invain. Just sit on your investment and await for the payouts that are coming though slowly, eventually the system will be switched to a que and then entirely back to normal conditions. If it doesn't, then your investments is gone. Thats how it is, those are the risks. I'm expecting the peer to peer market to be in this state for at least 12 months, so you have alot of complaining ahead of you, hope your ready. Qoute with whatever remark I won't be replying back into a argument. Mods should probs remove this, as its just a anger thread, being a echo chamber between the same members on this board, who reply on every thread wheather its related to the OP topic or not.
Maybe we can keep the echo contained to here.A laughable complete lack of understanding of the situation. You say you would get back 3.9% of your investment at best? Absolutely not. If you are a small investor you would get back much more, the smallest would get back 100% of their investment. If you are a large investor you would get much less - a few hundredths of a percent in some cases. This is the misappropriation of cash that is leading to a collapse of trust in the platform. Its not so much about the amounts being paid out but rather they way in which they have decided to pay it out. I fully understand that, infact I was one of the first on the site to bring that issue up. That is why it is critical AC move onto the que system as soon as they are able too. The only thing laughble on this forum is peoples clear panic that is from that over exposure to this industry and shedding it across other investors who are sitting on hands that is still and always has been a fairly illquid asset. Small investors could receive 100% of their investment back if they only had 1 GBP invested, I get it. Its something I agree on and I've kept repeating I agree on it. It is like people on this site are so inside there own imagine of justice that they forget that others may agree half way. My point is that, not funding drawdowns would mean your 3.9% payout to investors is ALL you will likely be getting for years to come as AC would be unable to fund drawdowns, tranches. I don't see why this is being denied.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 31, 2020 14:23:34 GMT
No but its your money that you will lose if you stop developments being funded. If Assetz want me to invest in further tranches they should ask me. Assetz have multiple sources of funds aside from taking what I have uninvested in the Access accounts.
Assetz was formed before the Access Accounts were created so I don't accept that Assetz continuation is dependant on them
Its fine for you not to accept it but if AC can't fund it from other sources then your money is lost. These are exceptional times. If you are happy with that then fair enough.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Mar 31, 2020 14:29:41 GMT
I almost wish ALMOST wish that the complainers would get paid. The bleating is like listening to a spoilt child whose not getting his own way. If the moaners send me your address I will send you a dummy.
Only time will tell if AC are right in law or not.
|
|
mark
Posts: 163
Likes: 166
|
Post by mark on Mar 31, 2020 14:31:04 GMT
With all due respect, not 'everyone' is rushing for the door.
There are 38,000+ retail investors along side multi national institutional investors, whose hundreds of millions of pounds dwarf our retail funding.
So views of pessimitic posters, who ir seems can only see the worst aspect of all things Assetz Capital or believe that the worst will happen, and all the positive posters for that matter, are a tiny minuscule percentage of 'Everyone' as far as Assetz Capital's funding and investor base.
This discussion forum is an interesting but small bubble. A small echo chamber where negative posters can read other negative posts who all have pre judged Assetz Capital's future with assumption based on nothing other than their opinion and unfounded assumptions.
I fully understand and appreciate investor concern but it seems that some posters who at worse have only 'suffered' a delay in access to their funds, (that's all), are that frustrated, with the company that they were very happy to invest with before, in the middle of a global
unprecedented event causing global financial chaos, they will not even allow that company the time and space to put contingency business planning into effect to protect all parties.
From the nonsensical case legal action to the impractical financial approach of immediate default repossessions, as a suggestion, maybe it would be wise and savvy to sit on our hands and do ' nothing' to enable AC management to have a period to do what we all want and that is for them to address the numerous interconnected issues and advise us of their strategy and plans at the right time and action those plans.
No one can anticipate of forecast the future. Assetz Capital may emerge from this period, when business funding will be key, as a stronger company than before.
That would REALLY p*ss some investors off !!!
( A lighthearted moment )
I am going to support in Assetz Capital, keep calm, allow AC time, assess the updates and the action they take then make any informed decisions on my funds in 'months' not 'madness'
Stay healthy all
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 31, 2020 14:48:04 GMT
With all due respect, not 'everyone' is rushing for the door. There are 38,000+ retail investors along side multi national institutional investors, whose hundreds of millions of pounds dwarf our retail funding. Not sure that makes sense. If total retail investment is dwarfed by institutional funding, and it's only some of the (dwarfed) retail money that's trying to exit, then AC should have no problem making the payments.
Only figures will say whether this is true/not, but AC haven't provided AFAIK
-total amount invested by institutions vs retail -amount of withdrawals requested and still pending
-shortfall on the withdrawal amounts
Up to the challenge chris ?
|
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Mar 31, 2020 14:51:30 GMT
With all due respect, not 'everyone' is rushing for the door. There are 38,000+ retail investors along side multi national institutional investors, whose hundreds of millions of pounds dwarf our retail funding. Whilst I agree that the choice of word 'everyone' could of been chosen more accurately, the knock on effect of liquidity is much larger than you are playing it. If what you are saying is true, then there would be absolutely no need for AC to pause withdrawing from these so called "retailer funding" accounts which are, as you say, "dwarfed" by the multi national investors. Evidently all investors play a huge role in keeping the platform alive otherwise they could of just selectively prevented the multi national investors from liquiding their funds rather than Mrs Dorris with her 3k investment. The truth is it doesn't take much to cause a platform to start to have liquidity issues, so whilst it may not be 'everyone' even if it's just half that's still a significant amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 31, 2020 15:02:28 GMT
With all due respect, not 'everyone' is rushing for the door. There are 38,000+ retail investors along side multi national institutional investors, whose hundreds of millions of pounds dwarf our retail funding. Not sure that makes sense. If total retail investment is dwarfed by institutional funding, and it's only some of the (dwarfed) retail money that's trying to exit, then AC should have no problem making the payments.
Only figures will say whether this is true/not, but AC haven't provided AFAIK
-total amount invested by institutions vs retail -amount of withdrawals requested and still pending
-shortfall on the withdrawal amounts
Up to the challenge chris ? Nope, I'm only permitted to (unofficially) answer any technical questions. Sorry.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 31, 2020 15:06:47 GMT
Not sure that makes sense. If total retail investment is dwarfed by institutional funding, and it's only some of the (dwarfed) retail money that's trying to exit, then AC should have no problem making the payments.
Only figures will say whether this is true/not, but AC haven't provided AFAIK
-total amount invested by institutions vs retail -amount of withdrawals requested and still pending
-shortfall on the withdrawal amounts
Up to the challenge chris ? Nope, I'm only permitted to (unofficially) answer any technical questions. Sorry. Fair enough, but as a Director you might want to feed back to the board that AC are (imho) lagging the likes of RS in terms of communications with lenders, daily in the case of RS (who've returned £thousands to me in regular payments, meaning I felt happy to cancel my scheduled withdrawals with them).
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 31, 2020 15:08:39 GMT
Nope, I'm only permitted to (unofficially) answer any technical questions. Sorry. Fair enough, but as a Director you might want to feed back to the board that AC are (imho) lagging the likes of RS in terms of communications with lenders, daily in the case of RS (who've returned £thousands to me in regular payments, meaning I felt happy to cancel my scheduled withdrawals with them). I know that there's another lender updated due in the next 24 / 48 hours.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 31, 2020 15:16:19 GMT
A laughable complete lack of understanding of the situation. You say you would get back 3.9% of your investment at best? Absolutely not. If you are a small investor you would get back much more, the smallest would get back 100% of their investment. If you are a large investor you would get much less - a few hundredths of a percent in some cases. This is the misappropriation of cash that is leading to a collapse of trust in the platform. Its not so much about the amounts being paid out but rather they way in which they have decided to pay it out. I fully understand that, infact I was one of the first on the site to bring that issue up. That is why it is critical AC move onto the que system as soon as they are able too. The only thing laughble on this forum is peoples clear panic that is from that over exposure to this industry and shedding it across other investors who are sitting on hands that is still and always has been a fairly illquid asset. Small investors could receive 100% of their investment back if they only had 1 GBP invested, I get it. Its something I agree on and I've kept repeating I agree on it. It is like people on this site are so inside there own imagine of justice that they forget that others may agree half way. My point is that, not funding drawdowns would mean your 3.9% payout to investors is ALL you will likely be getting for years to come as AC would be unable to fund drawdowns, tranches. I don't see why this is being denied. I don't disagree with your drawdown point. The money in the access accounts - currently £9 million ish - should be used by Assetz in our best interests. If they deem that providing funding to existing half finished developments is the best way forward then so be it. I fully appreciate that there is often little value in a half finished development as others are loathe to take it over or else they come in with a preposterous lowball bid. We investors aren't in any position to decide on these issues so must leave it to Assetz who hopefully have some expertise in this area. My issue is with the way they distribute the cash (which all investors own, proportional to their investment size). It cannot be right, or indeed legal, to take large investors share of the cash and simply give it all to small investors. It is critical that they move back to the queue system, or at least a proportional distribution system as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 31, 2020 15:21:36 GMT
I fully understand that, infact I was one of the first on the site to bring that issue up. That is why it is critical AC move onto the que system as soon as they are able too. The only thing laughble on this forum is peoples clear panic that is from that over exposure to this industry and shedding it across other investors who are sitting on hands that is still and always has been a fairly illquid asset. Small investors could receive 100% of their investment back if they only had 1 GBP invested, I get it. Its something I agree on and I've kept repeating I agree on it. It is like people on this site are so inside there own imagine of justice that they forget that others may agree half way. My point is that, not funding drawdowns would mean your 3.9% payout to investors is ALL you will likely be getting for years to come as AC would be unable to fund drawdowns, tranches. I don't see why this is being denied. I don't disagree with your drawdown point. The money in the access accounts - currently £9 million ish - should be used by Assetz in our best interests. If they deem that providing funding to existing half finished developments is the best way forward then so be it. I fully appreciate that there is often little value in a half finished development as others are loathe to take it over or else they come in with a preposterous lowball bid. We investors aren't in any position to decide on these issues so must leave it to Assetz who hopefully have some expertise in this area. My issue is with the way they distribute the cash (which all investors own, proportional to their investment size). It cannot be right, or indeed legal, to take large investors share of the cash and simply give it all to small investors. It is critical that they move back to the queue system, or at least a proportional distribution system as soon as possible. Without knowing specfically why they are holding the cash (other than my speculation of drawdowns, which is what it is or at least partially speculation at best) and your own speculation I cant' argue back or forth with meaning. But I agree I hope they move to a queue system or a more proportional system as soon as possible.
|
|
