alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 6, 2020 9:45:40 GMT
In case you hadn't noticed the plane that is crashing is called "Assetz Capital" and the ones getting their bags off first are all the small investors. All thats left of everyone else is a charred skeleton in a melted seat. No an engine has failed (Corvic 19 world economy) and they have to use one engine to keep cruising until they can reach a safe landing. It's at this time that the crew have to stop the fools panicking and trying to exit with their own parachute. . Then when they have landed safely those that don't want to continue can leave the rest keep going. What AC are doing is making the larger investors carry all the small investors bags off the plan while watching their own go up in smoke.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 6, 2020 9:49:27 GMT
No an engine has failed (Corvic 19 world economy) and they have to use one engine to keep cruising until they can reach a safe landing. It's at this time that the crew have to stop the fools panicking and trying to exit with their own parachute. . Then when they have landed safely those that don't want to continue can leave the rest keep going. Isn't that what they are doing with the new fees, perhaps they are out buying toilet rolls with these NO Extending my analogy just for you. After an engine failure the pilot slowly descends and the gravitational energy it gets (AC fees) helps it coast to a safe landing. Left to you and a few others there would be no loo roll left.
|
|
mrsb
Posts: 196
Likes: 102
|
Post by mrsb on Apr 6, 2020 9:52:11 GMT
In case you hadn't noticed the plane that is crashing is called "Assetz Capital" and the ones getting their bags off first are all the small investors. All thats left of everyone else is a charred skeleton in a melted seat. No an engine has failed (Corvic 19 world economy) and they have to use one engine to keep cruising until they can reach a safe landing. It's at this time that the crew have to stop the fools panicking and trying to exit with their own parachute. . Then when they have landed safely those that don't want to continue can leave the rest keep going. Ah - but a fan blade from the failed engine has punctured a fuel tank, the pax who paid the lowest fare are getting to jump - but have they had parachute training? The reality is we're all pax, no idea how many chutes there are (if any), no idea of the fuel load or rate of burn. No idea what other damage there is from the failed engine, perhaps cut thru some hydraulics so gear won't lower, no lift augmentation systems on approach, no spoilers - no brakes - the extent of the disaster is no known, but obviously the flight crew have a good idea - if they're still alive behind the 911 proof door. All said in the best of humour! (Lockdown fever here, i'm off to the park where there's no wi-fi)
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 6, 2020 9:52:22 GMT
Isn't that what they are doing with the new fees, perhaps they are out buying toilet rolls with these NO Extending my analogy just for you. After an engine failure the pilot slowly descends and the gravitational energy it gets (AC fees) helps it coast to a safe landing. Left to you and a few others there would be no loo roll left. Or perhaps locking in the large investors in a burning plan and then charging them a fee for the privilege, while letting small investors off with all their luggage.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 6, 2020 10:00:00 GMT
NO Extending my analogy just for you. After an engine failure the pilot slowly descends and the gravitational energy it gets (AC fees) helps it coast to a safe landing. Left to you and a few others there would be no loo roll left. Or perhaps locking in the large investors in a burning plan and then charging them a fee for the privilege, while letting small investors off with all their luggage. You shouldn't have put your VAT and wages in the account then. 2 months ago you thought AC were the best since sliced bread that's why you put your money there. . What Changed? A world wide catastrophe which you think should exclude you. I am not meaning to be rude or personal but those are facts.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 6, 2020 10:20:27 GMT
Or perhaps locking in the large investors in a burning plan and then charging them a fee for the privilege, while letting small investors off with all their luggage. You shouldn't have put your VAT and wages in the account then. 2 months ago you thought AC were the best since sliced bread that's why you put your money there. . What Changed? A world wide catastrophe which you think should exclude you. I am not meaning to be rude or personal but those are facts. The coronavirus has affected all platforms but no others have fallen into the abyss like Assetz. They introduced a set of rules overnight that gave preferential treatment to one subset of investors to the detriment of the rest, thereby setting up an enormous internal conflict. On one hand you have the small investors benefitting from the bailout and able to walk away completely unscathed as long as they keep saying on here that Assetz are the best thing since sliced bread. On the other hand you have the larger investors who may well stand a better chance of getting their money back via liquidation than through any minimal distribution Assetz may, at their discretion, hand out. Expected return via administration 50%? 70%? who knows Expected return to largest investors on AC who end up with all the defaulted loans virtually zero All they have achieved so far is create infighting amongst all the vested interests.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 6, 2020 10:41:00 GMT
Or perhaps locking in the large investors in a burning plan and then charging them a fee for the privilege, while letting small investors off with all their luggage. You shouldn't have put your VAT and wages in the account then. 2 months ago you thought AC were the best since sliced bread that's why you put your money there. . What Changed? A world wide catastrophe which you think should exclude you. I am not meaning to be rude or personal but those are facts. Who said VAT. I said HMRC.
I glad you know what I thought 2 months ago because I cannot remember saying that, also not that keen on sliced bread, too many additives.
The main thing that has changed is AC promising a Pro Rata system and implementing a pool.
For the record
Every year I request funds from P2P usually at the beginning of Feb to pay salary, expenses and HMRC as I did this year, if there are any issues at that time I have plenty of time to make alternative arrangements. I checked with AC and they said they do not expect any problems and were showing a lot of confidence saying lock downs had never happened and was no expectation one happening. Money went in a few days before the lock down into my cash account tried to get it out, AC would not pay to my nominated bank account as they said it was not verified (strange as my other 2 AC accounts had verified bank accounts and remember doing all 3 together) I immediately sent verification proof, AC so slow they locked down before they verified the account. I thought no problem as it was in my cash account, went to withdraw and found AC would not release my funds. Phoned AC who informed me that the option of invest idle funds was causing all my requested funds to be lock in. I do not remember setting this option, I have never used this option as it was the first time I have taken money out of this account and not used the QAA for this company. In previous years I took this from Landbay but after Landbay closed to non institutional investors I moved my funds to AC, what a mistake.
So in brief my funds that I have requested to be withdrawn well in advance for business reasons (not trying to get out the door first) were locked in by a delay in verification caused by AC and then by an option I had not used and had no knowledge of, I am now really up against it because of the time remaining. Sure if I had known all AC T&Cs in detail (though not sure how this helps because they change them with the weather) , known that my bank account was not verified (as far as I was concerned it was), all options on the AC website I could have avoided this. AC are totally disinterested in my problem.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 7, 2020 7:54:44 GMT
I haven't seen the results of the Forbearance Vote but I'm guessing Option A prevailed due to this update in loan #969 "Following the blanket Lender Vote which closed on 6 April 2020, Lenders have approved a 3 months extension to the repayment date for this loan to allow time for the refinance of this loan to another lender to be completed."
|
|
mrsb
Posts: 196
Likes: 102
|
Post by mrsb on Apr 7, 2020 8:09:20 GMT
Ha! - I'd happily take my bags (held carefully so as to prevent damage to the slide) when exiting the crashed aircraft - problem is that my bags - along with everyone else's - are in the hold. Therefore my best interests (which are paramount to me) are to do what I can to facilitate, and certainly not to frustrate, the efforts of the crew who are trying to stop the wreck catching fire. Other analogies are welcome :-) Ha The Angry I want my money back are the ones at the carousel pushing in front of everyone else because they want to get out first. Or my favourite one here. I'm rich and first in the queue for toilet roll and everything else going, whilst others only take what is needed for the near future. Thank goodness that AC took swift sensible and compassionate decisions to try to save the ship. Nope - "Annoyed" and would "like" my money back. You sound a whole lot more angry than most!
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 7, 2020 10:51:06 GMT
I haven't seen the results of the Forbearance Vote but I'm guessing Option A prevailed due to this update in loan #969 "Following the blanket Lender Vote which closed on 6 April 2020, Lenders have approved a 3 months extension to the repayment date for this loan to allow time for the refinance of this loan to another lender to be completed." Judging from the end of the loan update comment, (And despite what some people were again, spreading mis-information) they are reviewing every single borrower and deciding on the best course of action, as well allowing lenders to know the what the exit strategy is after forebarance (or still during it). The A option just gave them the ability to go though the loan book without spamming 100's of votes our way. Something that makes sense in normal conditions when we would see 1-2 votes a month. But this is saving AC time to complete the review of one loan and move onto the next, rather than getting bogged down on waiting for lender results. (Which will all come out as agree with A anyway, lets be honest.)
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 7, 2020 10:58:39 GMT
I haven't seen the results of the Forbearance Vote but I'm guessing Option A prevailed due to this update in loan #969 "Following the blanket Lender Vote which closed on 6 April 2020, Lenders have approved a 3 months extension to the repayment date for this loan to allow time for the refinance of this loan to another lender to be completed." Judging from the end of the loan update comment, (And despite what some people were again, spreading mis-information) they are reviewing every single borrower and deciding on the best course of action, as well allowing lenders to know the what the exit strategy is after forebarance (or still during it). The A option just gave them the ability to go though the loan book without spamming 100's of votes our way. Something that makes sense in normal conditions when we would see 1-2 votes a month. But this is saving AC time to complete the review of one loan and move onto the next, rather than getting bogged down on waiting for lender results. (Which will all come out as agree with A anyway, lets be honest.) I don't believe Option B would have lead to 100s of votes. I used to but ilmoro kindly pointed me to this in the Proposal section of the vote " In order to deal with those requests expediently we are presenting this blanket vote to every single Lender currently invested with Assetz Capital and will then proportionally apply those votes to each loan ensuring we know Lenders’ position on each of those too. This will avoid numerous votes hitting Inbox’s as occurred with the recent updates, although at that time we felt it important to present you with a holding communication."
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 7, 2020 11:02:26 GMT
One point that seems to have been overlooked is that the application of lenders indicated preference to individual loans will probably only include MLA/GBBA holdings as per standard.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 7, 2020 11:04:45 GMT
One point that seems to have been overlooked is that the application of lenders indicated preference to individual loans will probably only include MLA/GBBA holdings as per standard. Can you expand on what you mean by that point please (as a lot of lenders will hold the same loan in MLA and access account(s))
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 7, 2020 11:13:30 GMT
One point that seems to have been overlooked is that the application of lenders indicated preference to individual loans will probably only include MLA/GBBA holdings as per standard. Can you expand on what you mean by that point please (as a lot of lenders will hold the same loan in MLA and access account(s)) Yes, if a loan is 50% held by the QAA and 50% by MLA investors, the 50% held by the QAA doesn't count, so the outcome will be determined by the preferences of the MLA holder only based solely on their MLA holding. So if 40% of those voted B in the blanket vote, and 60% A, then forbearance will be given, if its the other way round then it wont. Even if a lender holds 1% of a loan in the MLA and 20% in the QAA, his vote only counts for 1% and is outweighed by someone who holds 5% in the MLA and 1% in the QAA. That's how a normal vote works. Not seen anything to indicate current votes are being treated differently.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 7, 2020 11:50:51 GMT
Can you expand on what you mean by that point please (as a lot of lenders will hold the same loan in MLA and access account(s)) Yes, if a loan is 50% held by the QAA and 50% by MLA investors, the 50% held by the QAA doesn't count, so the outcome will be determined by the preferences of the MLA holder only based solely on their MLA holding. So if 40% of those voted B in the blanket vote, and 60% A, then forbearance will be given, if its the other way round then it wont. Even if a lender holds 1% of a loan in the MLA and 20% in the QAA, his vote only counts for 1% and is outweighed by someone who holds 5% in the MLA and 1% in the QAA. That's how a normal vote works. Not seen anything to indicate current votes are being treated differently. Yet the vote text says "Given the wide-reaching nature of this vote, all Lenders, including those invested via the Access Accounts will be approached."
If you're correct, that sounds as though AC canvassed but then ignored the votes of access account holders.
|
|
