|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 31, 2020 19:25:36 GMT
Seems a perfectly reasonable proposal to me, apart fron this aspect highlighted by bgWhat I will strongly object to is being charged a fee on loans that are defaulted and irrecoverable. #146 for example was written off many years ago and the security is sold. I still have a £27k balance sitting on the system however and if I am to be charged a 0.9% annual fee on that I do not think its acceptable. Ditto #227 or any other loan that's suspended. The charge should be based on the recently set capital valuations not the outstanding capital. stuartassetzcapital - there has been a longstanding need for AC to write many of these loans off our loanbooks, and the various excuses regarding software development time have worn rather thin. I fully support the general approach you've taken, but those of us in multiple of the early high risk loans that defaulted are being penalised here for our early support of AC before risk modelling was perfected. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 31, 2020 19:26:25 GMT
No I don't think it's supposed to be a forced vote, I'll double check and get that changed if appropriate My wife and I both had to pick an option to access out accounts and frankly didn't bother to read or consider this as we were both so annoyed at that point. Great way to go to get a considered view from your lenders! Just vote NO option B - Terms stay the same as before rather than read all the jibberish from AC.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 617
|
Post by dave4 on Mar 31, 2020 19:27:22 GMT
chris stuartassetzcapital is the vote supposed to be a forced response? Doesn't seem to be possible to access the site without voting which seems like an error given a response isn't required until 6 April. People will want time to consider. No I don't think it's supposed to be a forced vote, I'll double check and get that changed if appropriate Could a update on any change to the vote lockout status posted on here please if possible as there is no point logging on anymore at present. thankyou
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368 
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Mar 31, 2020 19:31:39 GMT
Seems a perfectly reasonable proposal to me, apart fron this aspect highlighted by bg What I will strongly object to is being charged a fee on loans that are defaulted and irrecoverable. #146 for example was written off many years ago and the security is sold. I still have a £27k balance sitting on the system however and if I am to be charged a 0.9% annual fee on that I do not think its acceptable. Ditto #227 or any other loan that's suspended. The charge should be based on the recently set capital valuations not the outstanding capital. stuartassetzcapital - there has been a longstanding need for AC to write many of these loans off our loanbooks, and the various excuses regarding software development time have worn rather thin. I fully support the general approach you've taken, but those of us in multiple of the early high risk loans that defaulted are being penalised here for our early support of AC before risk modelling was perfected. I have asked for clarification on this point and have been told that the fee is only charged if there is cash to pay it and as there is no cash from defaulted loans there is therefore no charge on them. This implies to me that the charge is done on a loan by loan basis and not on the total amount lent.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 31, 2020 19:32:37 GMT
No I don't think it's supposed to be a forced vote, I'll double check and get that changed if appropriate Could a update on any change to the vote lockout status posted on here please if possible as there is no point logging on anymore at present. thankyou I'll be sure to post an update here
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Mar 31, 2020 19:35:03 GMT
Vote no - businesses should have access to government funding, if lenders offer a 3 month payment holiday borrowers won’t be forced to access that cash & lenders will have access to zero cash over the next 6 months!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 31, 2020 19:37:11 GMT
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 31, 2020 19:37:51 GMT
Seems a perfectly reasonable proposal to me, apart fron this aspect highlighted by bg The charge should be based on the recently set capital valuations not the outstanding capital. stuartassetzcapital - there has been a longstanding need for AC to write many of these loans off our loanbooks, and the various excuses regarding software development time have worn rather thin. I fully support the general approach you've taken, but those of us in multiple of the early high risk loans that defaulted are being penalised here for our early support of AC before risk modelling was perfected. I have asked for clarification on this point and have been told that the fee is only charged if there is cash to pay it and as there is no cash from defaulted loans there is therefore no charge on them. This implies to me that the charge is done on a loan by loan basis and not on the total amount lent. Not that I don't believe you bg ('cos I do believe this is what you have been told), but ... stuartassetzcapital - please confirm the clarification referenced above, by email, to all lenders. (And here should you wish to respond to this and other question raised.)
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Mar 31, 2020 19:38:36 GMT
Asset Capital is Finished.....Well done stuartassetzcapital chris You have just totally destroyed everything you have worked on AC the past 7 years. Your platform is FINISHED - You have destroyed everything AC was known for. He knew this before he brought in the Fee, it just gives the Directors some more time to collect their Salaries and plan there next venture.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Mar 31, 2020 19:41:09 GMT
Perhaps the apoplectic expletively angry should stroll along to the RS forum. They would learn 1) RS (the business) is running low on cash 2) Withdrawal requests from the instant (Rolling) account are currently being processed from the 10th March A browse of the following site should make them think www.bidspotter.co.uk/en-gb (Liquidation Auctions) Assets are being sold at pennies in the £. Industrial and retail property assets are currently worthless. Clearly the vultures here would rather seek the self satisfied superiority of having money to waste to punish businesses closed down by Government Action. Yes Assets have made some terrible mistakes regarding a handful of loans (Green Loans, Scottish Golf Courses and Mineral Water Mines come to mind). In time there needs to be a reckoning and a resolution to these. Failed loans, with no chance of recovery need to be acknowledged and written off, the fantasy accrued interest needs to be revalued. All this is for the future. Most of the world is in real trouble. It is time for a measured and even handed debate. Perhaps the slavering Hyenas could quietly return to their nests. |
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Mar 31, 2020 19:43:08 GMT
And RS is actively looking for a buyer. Perhaps the apoplectic expletively angry should stroll along to the RS forum. They would learn 1) RS (the business) is running low on cash 2) Withdrawal requests from the instant (Rolling) account are currently being processed from the 10th March A browse of the following site should make them think www.bidspotter.co.uk/en-gb (Liquidation Auctions) Assets are being sold at pennies in the £. Industrial and retail property assets are currently worthless. Clearly the vultures here would rather seek the self satisfied superiority of having money to waste to punish businesses closed down by Government Action. Yes Assets have made some terrible mistakes regarding a handful of loans (Green Loans, Scottish Golf Courses and Mineral Water Mines come to mind). In time there needs to be a reckoning and a resolution to these. Failed loans, with no chance of recovery need to be acknowledged and written off, the fantasy accrued interest needs to be revalued. All this is for the future. Most of the world is in real trouble. It is time for a measured and even handed debate. Perhaps the slavering Hyenas could quietly return to their nests. |
|
oxdoc
Posts: 19
Likes: 20
|
Post by oxdoc on Mar 31, 2020 19:52:00 GMT
For the vote, I think we need more information about AC's financial position to tell if the new lender fee is proportionate. To agree, I want to see that AC and its senior staff are taking as big a hit to profits/payouts as lenders in relative terms and also that AC guarantees not to charge the fee once the profits/payouts have risen above that threshold again. What has AC's operating profit been over each of the past two months and over the preceding 12 months, both nominally and as a percentage of capital invested by its owners, for example? How is the total remuneration of each director changing in tandem with the imposition of this fee? I don't hold my breath for AC to tell us this as I'm sure they claim it's "commercially sensitive", but if they're changing the costs to lenders whilst they cannot easily leave, then they ought to be transparent.
Not that I think AC ought to wind up at the present time, but another question that seems pertinent is under what circumstances would AC do that rather than charge a fee on lenders' capital? A company shouldn't be able to charge a fee if it would be more in lenders' interests to wind it up, but it seems here if AC's directors get to make all the decisions, then their incentives would pull them towards charging lenders a fee, and there ought to be more independent oversight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 31, 2020 19:53:18 GMT
And RS is actively looking for a buyer. Perhaps the apoplectic expletively angry should stroll along to the RS forum. They would learn 1) RS (the business) is running low on cash 2) Withdrawal requests from the instant (Rolling) account are currently being processed from the 10th March A browse of the following site should make them think www.bidspotter.co.uk/en-gb (Liquidation Auctions) Assets are being sold at pennies in the £. Industrial and retail property assets are currently worthless. Clearly the vultures here would rather seek the self satisfied superiority of having money to waste to punish businesses closed down by Government Action. Yes Assets have made some terrible mistakes regarding a handful of loans (Green Loans, Scottish Golf Courses and Mineral Water Mines come to mind). In time there needs to be a reckoning and a resolution to these. Failed loans, with no chance of recovery need to be acknowledged and written off, the fantasy accrued interest needs to be revalued. All this is for the future. Most of the world is in real trouble. It is time for a measured and even handed debate. Perhaps the slavering Hyenas could quietly return to their nests. Is their a source for this active buying? Yes Dave you are very much spot on, even handed. Nobody is happy about paying a fee, but stick it to AC to keep it temp in the future. Last thing any of our investments want is the risk of platform failure due to complete lack of cash to keep anything moving. Administrative action of loans right now would be nothing short of pointless, cruel and fruitless.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Mar 31, 2020 19:54:58 GMT
What I will strongly object to is being charged a fee on loans that are defaulted and irrecoverable. #146 for example was written off many years ago and the security is sold. I still have a £27k balance sitting on the system however and if I am to be charged a 0.9% annual fee on that I do not think its acceptable. Ditto #227 or any other loan that's suspended. I see the logic of what is proposed by Assetz and I am generally supportive.
However, I see no contribution by Assetz, borrowers get a holiday, lenders get charged, and Assetz carry on as normal, nice.
I would find this much easier to digest if everyone in Assetz took a 10% pay cut and/or they sacked say 20 of their 120 staff or found some other way to dramatically cut their costs rather than simply squeezing lenders until the pips squeak.
"“We have offered all our employees the opportunity to volunteer for a temporary reduction in their contractual hours or a short-term sabbatical” - Grant Thornton 31-Mar-20
No I don't think it's supposed to be a forced vote, I'll double check and get that changed if appropriate My wife and I both had to pick an option to access out accounts and frankly didn't bother to read or consider this as we were both so annoyed at that point. Great way to go to get a considered view from your lenders! I'm incensed because of all of the above. Grossly unfair to lenders in my view.
I'm really glad I'm on my way out here, and have no regrets of my decision to wind down and exit taken last year, just wished I'd started discounting sooner. Voted I didn't agree just to get rid of the wretched forced vote which even applies to the Beta site, and withdrew my recent I** funds and sales. The arrogance and disregard for lenders views that AC has always displayed has gone too far this time. I don't think I would ever consider re-investing.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Mar 31, 2020 19:56:08 GMT
Interesting that withdrawl from the access accounts is on the basis that everyone is treated equally, but the impact of your vote is based on how much you have on the platform. Dual standards?
|
|
