iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Apr 2, 2020 15:11:29 GMT
While not a time to enforce property security, it is a time to be speaking with borrowers, understanding their finances and obtaining whatever financial information is available, ensuring as far as possible that money is not exiting businesses through other routes while AC is left out of the picture; ascertaining how businesses are coping with the situation, and what their plans are to run/progress/adapt their business. By the time we’re back to “normal”, albeit what may be a new normal, AC would then have an idea who is able, and committed, to maintain a viable business and who is not.
My concern is that AC will use an A vote to cease to pay attention to the existing loans, provide us with blanket information so that we don’t notice (already seen in boilerplate updates: the one on 330 being a classic example of an update bearing zero relation to the loan concerned), and focus their attention on making new loans using the government funds.
|
|
mark
Posts: 163
Likes: 166
|
Post by mark on Apr 2, 2020 15:13:40 GMT
Assezt Capital lender fees.
There is a misconception by some that Assetz Capital is breaching the terms and conditions that we all agreed to when applying to open an account with them.
This is incorrect.
This facilty to apply lender fees has always been in their/your terms and conditions, just not applied to date.
Assetz Capital are making use of a previously unused clause that I, and a guess all lenders agreed to as part of the lender application process, to permit them the possibilty to introducing a loan servicing fee.
Not used before I agree but it is in the terms and condition along with 'normal market conditions' for withdrawals.
So they are complying to their T&Cs. I would not be surprised that once the dust settles the use of fees will be reviewed.
I do not like the idea of paying fees, who would ! but on balance on a reason and logical basis I am willing to support the company with this action until a period of financial normality has returned.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Apr 2, 2020 15:26:04 GMT
I think AC should reduce the QAA rate from 4.1% to 2.5%. The 30 day from 5.1% to 3%, and the 90 day from 5.75% to 3.5%. Then introduce a 180 day at 4% and 360 day at 4.5%.
Introducing a lender fee just adds another layer of complexity.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 2, 2020 16:16:06 GMT
While not a time to enforce property security, it is a time to be speaking with borrowers, understanding their finances and obtaining whatever financial information is available, ensuring as far as possible that money is not exiting businesses through other routes while AC is left out of the picture; ascertaining how businesses are coping with the situation, and what their plans are to run/progress/adapt their business. By the time we’re back to “normal”, albeit what may be a new normal, AC would then have an idea who is able, and committed, to maintain a viable business and who is not. My concern is that AC will use an A vote to cease to pay attention to the existing loans, provide us with blanket information so that we don’t notice (already seen in boilerplate updates: the one on 330 being a classic example of an update bearing zero relation to the loan concerned), and focus their attention on making new loans using the government funds. I think AC are concentrating all their effort in changing the system and T&Cs to suit themselves while looking for new business as has been reported on this forum. The current lenders are so bruised that AC know they will lose a lot of them and just keep a few loyal fans who believe they can do no wrong. They don't want to spend time dealing with current loans so vote A gives them the legitimacy to stop doing due diligence on these loans so they can spend more time and effort in building up a new business area (if they survive).
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 2, 2020 16:50:03 GMT
Wish there was an unlke tab
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 2, 2020 17:18:07 GMT
Wish there was an unlke tab Be careful what you wish for!
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Apr 2, 2020 17:19:42 GMT
I think AC should reduce the QAA rate from 4.1% to 2.5%. The 30 day from 5.1% to 3%, and the 90 day from 5.75% to 3.5%. Then introduce a 180 day at 4% and 360 day at 4.5%. Introducing a lender fee just adds another layer of complexity. Lets keep it really simple - just put a minus sign in front of the interest rates to lenders. Should do the trick for AC.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 2, 2020 17:59:17 GMT
I'm not really sure how you are arriving at these figures. If we take the first one; that 0.075% per month compounded for 12 months is 0.93%annually. I make it 0.9037%. Perhaps you just missed a digit. My working is: ( 1.00075 ^ 12 ) - 1 ) * 100 = 0.9037 So, rounding to two decimal places, the monthly fee compounds to 0.90% per year for non taxpayers. Used Excel compand interest rate calculations (func ACCRINT or IPMT) and get these results, month are calander months 1 - Jan, 2 - Feb ....
Interest rate 4.1%
Month Total Interest 0 £100.00 1 £100.34 0.33525 2 £100.67 0.336374 3 £101.01 0.337502 4 £101.35 0.338633 5 £101.69 0.339768 6 £102.03 0.340907 7 £102.37 0.34205 8 £102.71 0.343197 9 £103.06 0.344348 10 £103.40 0.345502 11 £103.75 0.34666 12 £104.10 0.347823
Interest rate 4.1%, monthly fee 0.075%
Month Total Fee Interest 0 £100.00 1 £100.26 0.07525144 0.33525 2 £100.52 0.07544709 0.336122 3 £100.78 0.07564325 0.336996 4 £101.04 0.07583992 0.337872 5 £101.31 0.07603711 0.33875 6 £101.57 0.07623480 0.339631 7 £101.83 0.07643301 0.340514 8 £102.10 0.07663174 0.341399 9 £102.36 0.07683098 0.342287 10 £102.63 0.07703074 0.343177 11 £102.90 0.07723101 0.344069 12 £103.16 0.07743181 0.344964
Difference £104.10 - £103.16 = 0.94 but extract figure is £0.9330271355 displays as 0.93 as this is rounded as amounts only displayed to 2dp.
Plug in rate of 5.75% to get results in same table to get 0.95 rounded
This isn't really my area of expertise, so I'm half expecting to be told I'm wrong, but I think there are a couple of errors: 1) The first fee payment looks to be too high. I think you've applied the fee to the capital and interest rather than just the capital. I.e. if the fee rate is 0.075% for January then the fee for January should be £0.075 exactly. This will then have knock-on effects for the following rows. Also, I suspect that the fee rate for January won't be exactly 0.075% because AC tends to use exact daily rates rather than monthly rates, I.e. months with 31 days will receive higher interest and fees than months with fewer days. 2) As chris has said, the interest for their accounts is stated as simple interest, so needs to be compounded to get the actual rate. Again, I suspect this is done on a daily basis, so the actual compounded yearly rate for the QAA would be (((0.041/365 + 1) ^ 365) - 1) * 100 = 4.18497...%. Please correct me if I've misunderstood chris .
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 2, 2020 19:50:11 GMT
Well spotted, to be honest I do not know what base amount used for the fee calculation we will have to wait to find out, if it is an interest rate reduction this will be applied to the capital of the previous month so in effect what you stated
I have redone using the previous months total for the fee calculation, the table is now with 10 dp
Month Total Fee Interest 0 100.0000000000 1 100.2602500000 0.0750000000 0.3352500000 2 100.5211773006 0.0751951875 0.3361224881 3 100.7827836646 0.0753908830 0.3369972469 4 101.0450708590 0.0755870877 0.3378742822 5 101.3080406559 0.0757838031 0.3387536001 6 101.5716948318 0.0759810305 0.3396352063 7 101.8360351676 0.0761787711 0.3405191069 8 102.1010634491 0.0763770264 0.3414053079 9 102.3667814667 0.0765757976 0.3422938152 10 102.6331910155 0.0767750861 0.3431846349 11 102.9002938951 0.0769748933 0.3440777729 12 103.1680919100 0.0771752204 0.3449732353 Rate is £0.9299224192 slightly lower, difference from previous calculation is 0.0031047163, however this would be rounded by any sensible person to 0.93 so not real change but worth doing to as we did not know this until it was checked
For point 2 I do not know the exact way AC calculates interest but I am using a rate which gives an apr of 4.1% if there are any differences it will be so small to be insignificant for our purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on Apr 2, 2020 21:27:27 GMT
Dear all I would like to address the questions, incorrect statements and wild speculation on this thread and also thank those who see what we are seeking to achieve here with these regrettable, but necessary, actions. We can of course confirm that we are no different to the vast majority of the companies in the world's economy, excepting perhaps food retailers and hand sanitiser companies and similar, in that we have seen income and sales lower during the lockdown and we are therefore also taking all the same measures as pretty much every other company in this country and indeed the rest of the world. Anyone that denies that this pandemic is happening, or that these actions are not absolutely necessary, when even the most cash rich of companies are having to take cost reduction measures, perhaps does not yet realise the seriousness of the situation or not yet have hospitalised relations and friends. Our actions, like pretty much every other company, include directors having salaries reduced very substantially, very substantial overhead cuts across the board, and I mean everything, meaning that we have brought down monthly costs by a huge 50%. This, combined with temporary changes to our charging structures, puts us in a sustainable position during the worst of this period over the next few months. The costs of servicing the loan book have increased substantially and we have addressed that. In a situation that has no certain endpoint yet, nor any predictable economic recovery trajectory at present, not taking the action that we have taken would be a gross dereliction of duty in looking after our stakeholders, including you, our investors. We are not short of cash ourselves but how long does this situation continue? Three months is the initial Government timeframe but who has the data yet to say its not six months, one year, longer? These actions protect the team who in turn protect your money. Our team is also working very long hours protecting your capital and we have not shuttered like many other investments such as property funds, nor have we cancelled your income as listed companies cancelling their dividends left right and centre have done. Please give our team the space to do the best for you in this difficult time. I don't mind people casting insults and other poorly judged comments at me, as time will judge if I made the right decisions for you all with the benefit of hindsight, but please do not criticise the team who are also working tirelessly for you and not necessarily as thick skinned. I can also confirm that the new lender servicing fee only applies to loans not presently in default/ recovery so no, you are not charged for those. If loans aren't paying or have no retentions then you still accrue interest and we accrue the small fee. Borrowers are not let off one penny of interest, it is still due and secured but we are recommending giving them time to manage themselves out of this to avoid certain loan losses otherwise. Borrowers have no current access to the Government backed loans' cash because they have barely announced the terms, never mind have any banks processed any material number of applications yet. The Government salary support scheme does not exist, there is no way to process a claim for that and it seems weeks away, probably next month at the earliest. Our proposed support gives them time to get that done. And our loans have property security, how would you feel if you'd lent unsecured to micro businesses with no reserves and no sales, consumers with no jobs now or self employed with no work any more? I've been through many cycles of all sorts of types and this is by far the worst and fastest that I and our team have seen. I trust that this makes sense. At least you have had the decency to address people on this board rather than completely gone into hiding for the past 2 weeks or so...…..We need to see your presence more often on these boards daily addressing investors.....leaving people in the lurch with loads of uncertainty is not a good idea. stuartassetzcapital Let them get on with their jobs. They cannot read every one of the ridiculous posts on here.
|
|
nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Apr 3, 2020 11:31:21 GMT
stuartassetzcapitalchrisI trust you will consider the tax implications of any fee charged to lender to minimize tax leakage. Any fees charged direct to lenders will not be tax-deductible and thus represent an additional reduction on returns. Most platforms avoid this by structuring any fees as a charge direct against a borrower's repayment as a servicing fee - the net cost to the borrower is the same but lenders aren't lumbered with an additional tax burden. Its an easy win, but sometimes overlooked by some platforms when they have implemented fees in the past.
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Apr 3, 2020 12:42:59 GMT
stuartassetzcapitalchrisI trust you will consider the tax implications of any fee charged to lender to minimize tax leakage. Any fees charged direct to lenders will not be tax-deductible and thus represent an additional reduction on returns. Most platforms avoid this by structuring any fees as a charge direct against a borrower's repayment as a servicing fee - the net cost to the borrower is the same but lenders aren't lumbered with an additional tax burden. Its an easy win, but sometimes overlooked by some platforms when they have implemented fees in the past. Yes we were the company that principally drove that policy change on what was deductible or not through with HM Treasury originally - I was in that room! You should seek advice as this is an interest rate reduction from paid interest coming from the borrower and we can’t provide advice but it specifically is not a flat rate to be a member each month for example. Not one for us to answer but we have done our best in this difficult time.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Apr 3, 2020 13:11:26 GMT
stuartassetzcapitalchrisI trust you will consider the tax implications of any fee charged to lender to minimize tax leakage. Any fees charged direct to lenders will not be tax-deductible and thus represent an additional reduction on returns. Most platforms avoid this by structuring any fees as a charge direct against a borrower's repayment as a servicing fee - the net cost to the borrower is the same but lenders aren't lumbered with an additional tax burden. Its an easy win, but sometimes overlooked by some platforms when they have implemented fees in the past. Yes we were the company that principally drove that policy change on what was deductible or not through with HM Treasury originally - I was in that room! You should seek advice as this is an interest rate reduction from paid interest coming from the borrower and we can’t provide advice but it specifically is not a flat rate to be a member each month for example. Not one for us to answer but we have done our best in this difficult time. Thanks for the clarification. Just to be clear I assume from your note that no money will ever be taken from any capital repayments on loans for this purpose, only from interest repayments if they occur. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Apr 3, 2020 13:16:46 GMT
We’ve said it before and I can confirm that again. This is only a reduction on borrower interest for as little and as short a time as is practical.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Apr 3, 2020 13:19:20 GMT
We’ve said it before and I can confirm that again. This is only a reduction on borrower interest for as little and as short a time as is practical. Very helpful. Thanks.
|
|