|
|
Post by gothteteeshirt on Apr 1, 2020 16:41:20 GMT
Before I vote or more likely not is there an argument that not having capital payments for three months (or longer) should mean that whatever access account you are sitting in the return should be equal to that of 90 day account? Also, on the basis that the queue system has/has not not been working (?) to date and investors have been getting an equal share of what cash is available regardless of holding size what is the benefit of not putting your money into 90 Day and submitting an immediate request to withdraw. I can understand the well worn assertion that you goto the back of queue but i can't see what will change in what you will actually get as it is 'pro rata' based on past history. Is there some clever psychology I am missing?
|
|
lara
Posts: 345
Likes: 300
|
Post by lara on Apr 1, 2020 16:50:00 GMT
Before I vote or more likely not... An abstention counts as a vote for A.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 1, 2020 16:56:50 GMT
BUSINESS Secretary tonight warned banks it was their turn to repay the favour and bail out taxpayers - more than a decade on after they were saved during the financial crisis. In a stern warning Alok Sharma said it would be "unacceptable" if they didn't come to rescue Brits in their "time of need".
HE DIDNT SAY LENDERS LIKE OURSELVES SHOULD FORSAKE PAYING OUR MORTGAGES OR NOT FUND OUR OWN BUSINESSES. What gives AC the right to determine borrowers access to capital is more important than that of its investors.
He also said the banks should determine which Good businesses should have access to funds
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528 
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 1, 2020 17:03:12 GMT
BUSINESS Secretary tonight warned banks it was their turn to repay the favour and bail out taxpayers - more than a decade on after they were saved during the financial crisis. In a stern warning Alok Sharma said it would be "unacceptable" if they didn't come to rescue Brits in their "time of need". HE DIDNT SAY LENDERS LIKE OURSELVES SHOULD FORSAKE PAYING OUR MORTGAGES OR NOT FUND OUR OWN BUSINESSES. What gives AC the right to determine borrowers access to capital is more important than that of its investors. He also said the banks should determine which Good businesses should have access to funds They haven't done that, they've asked us - the lenders - to vote on whether/not we agree with that position.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 1, 2020 19:06:27 GMT
BUSINESS Secretary tonight warned banks it was their turn to repay the favour and bail out taxpayers - more than a decade on after they were saved during the financial crisis. In a stern warning Alok Sharma said it would be "unacceptable" if they didn't come to rescue Brits in their "time of need". HE DIDNT SAY LENDERS LIKE OURSELVES SHOULD FORSAKE PAYING OUR MORTGAGES OR NOT FUND OUR OWN BUSINESSES. What gives AC the right to determine borrowers access to capital is more important than that of its investors. He also said the banks should determine which Good businesses should have access to funds They haven't done that, they've asked us - the lenders - to vote on whether/not we agree with that position. Good solid businesses should be able to get funding from the banks now. If they require funding / deferral from AC they are business us as investors & AC should not be deferring payments 
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781 
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Apr 1, 2020 23:53:38 GMT
They haven't done that, they've asked us - the lenders - to vote on whether/not we agree with that position. Good solid businesses should be able to get funding from the banks now. If they require funding / deferral from AC they are business us as investors & AC should not be deferring payments Well said. AC have often had bottom-tier borrowers and now bailing them out at our considerable expense (three months payment holidays will become six months which will then become nine months) makes little sense. I have known these kind of folk for decades and the majority (not all) will use payment holidays to their lenders as an excuse to become even more carefree in how they run their lives and businesses. The payment holidays will encourage them to prioritise funding their summer 2021 beach holidays. Plus you will never hear even a single word of gratitude from them ever, because their default thinking is "all lenders are evil monsters".
|
|
|
|
Post by danielbird193 on Apr 2, 2020 5:24:41 GMT
Good solid businesses should be able to get funding from the banks now. If they require funding / deferral from AC they are business us as investors & AC should not be deferring payments Well said. AC have often had bottom-tier borrowers and now bailing them out at our considerable expense (three months payment holidays will become six months which will then become nine months) makes little sense. I have known these kind of folk for decades and the majority (not all) will use payment holidays to their lenders as an excuse to become even more carefree in how they run their lives and businesses. The payment holidays will encourage them to prioritise funding their summer 2021 beach holidays. Plus you will never hear even a single word of gratitude from them ever, because their default thinking is "all lenders are evil monsters". If you think the typical AC borrower is a "bottom-tier borrower" who is "carefree in how they run their lives and businesses", why did you lend on the platform in the first place?!?! That's quite a shocking generalisation...
|
|
|
|
Post by gothteteeshirt on Apr 2, 2020 6:18:38 GMT
Before I vote or more likely not... An abstention counts as a vote for A. An abstention is what it is and no matter how AC want to dress it up for the 'audience' that it is intended for or for what they believe it will legitimize/get them off the hook by inserting such a clause it will remain an abstention. I don't recall in lender votes for individual loans this aspect ever being highlighted (maybe I missed it ) when they continually put off defaulting loans. Interested to know what contributors thoughts on why they have done this and what its true purpose for inclusion is so that I can make an 'informed decision' on voting A or B. Lets hope it is not another Brexit vote narrow margin outcome otherwise the next few years will be spent arguing the toss!
|
|
lara
Posts: 345
Likes: 300
|
Post by lara on Apr 2, 2020 6:30:57 GMT
An abstention counts as a vote for A. An abstention is what it is and no matter how AC want to dress it up for the 'audience' that it is intended for or for what they believe it will legitimize/get them off the hook by inserting such a clause it will remain an abstention. I don't recall in lender votes for individual loans this aspect ever being highlighted (maybe I missed it ) when they continually put off defaulting loans. Interested to know what contributors thoughts on why they have done this and what its true purpose for inclusion is so that I can make an 'informed decision' on voting A or B. Lets hope it is not another Brexit vote narrow margin outcome otherwise the next few years will be spent arguing the toss! I think it's pretty clear that they have done it that way because they want A to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Apr 2, 2020 7:04:14 GMT
They haven't done that, they've asked us - the lenders - to vote on whether/not we agree with that position. Good solid businesses should be able to get funding from the banks now. If they require funding / deferral from AC they are business us as investors & AC should not be deferring payments Are flights still available to planet fantasy? Get real and stop moaning. It is cashflow which is critical. If a pub, restaurant etc has no cash coming in, it cannot pay its debts - however much Shylock expects them to.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 2, 2020 7:29:24 GMT
Good solid businesses should be able to get funding from the banks now. If they require funding / deferral from AC they are business us as investors & AC should not be deferring payments Are flights still available to planet fantasy? Get real and stop moaning. It is cashflow which is critical. If a pub, restaurant etc has no cash coming in, it cannot pay its debts - however much Shylock expects them to. The only people acting like Shylock is AC adding fees to both borrowers & lenders to boost its margin. If it was that concerned about its borrowers it would not be increasing their interest burden. We entered into an agreement with AC & lenders which is fundamentally being changed. We are being penalised for this change and the payment holiday imho will see us placed at the back of the queue in terms of repayment with businesses that are ultimately going to fail. What you fail to consider also is lenders may have businesses too that they need to support their businesses, make their mortgage payments etc. AC should concentrate on attempting to get government support to prop up its borrowers. Final thing is do you think ACs institutional investors are accepting the revised terms and repayment holidays - NO IT WILL BE US THAT ARE FUNDING THEIR PAYMENTS
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 2, 2020 7:31:50 GMT
I have asked the direct question here and tried to find the answer in the T&Cs (Are AC compelled to accept the result of a lenders vote?) Various answers and nothing I can find that says They must accept the results.
AC obviously want us lenders to go along with their way in every vote. It's been commented many times that that was obvious. However in the end I hope that they do not legally have to accept any vote but act on the best interests of ALL parties.
Come on angry brigade.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 2, 2020 7:39:26 GMT
Are flights still available to planet fantasy? Get real and stop moaning. It is cashflow which is critical. If a pub, restaurant etc has no cash coming in, it cannot pay its debts - however much Shylock expects them to. The only people acting like Shylock is AC adding fees to both borrowers & lenders to boost its margin. If it was that concerned about its borrowers it would not be increasing their interest burden. We entered into an agreement with AC & lenders which is fundamentally being changed. We are being penalised for this change and the payment holiday imho will see us placed at the back of the queue in terms of repayment with businesses that are ultimately going to fail. What you fail to consider also is lenders may have businesses too that they need to support their businesses, make their mortgage payments etc. NO What has fundamentally changed is Corvic 19 causing financial crisis. Borrowers need our help, I accept some are unscrupulous,. If they feel it's not worth it they will walk away and the assets will be next to valueless. As to your point about some being business owners Etc they borrowed mainstream which most of our borrowers couldn't. That is why we get the rates we do. Its called Peer to Peer. REALITY as I see it
|
|
|
|
Post by gothteteeshirt on Apr 2, 2020 8:10:01 GMT
An abstention is what it is and no matter how AC want to dress it up for the 'audience' that it is intended for or for what they believe it will legitimize/get them off the hook by inserting such a clause it will remain an abstention. I don't recall in lender votes for individual loans this aspect ever being highlighted (maybe I missed it ) when they continually put off defaulting loans. Interested to know what contributors thoughts on why they have done this and what its true purpose for inclusion is so that I can make an 'informed decision' on voting A or B. Lets hope it is not another Brexit vote narrow margin outcome otherwise the next few years will be spent arguing the toss! I think it's pretty clear that they have done it that way because they want A to win. I get that argument and by inference you have voted B but even if Vote B prevails does it really change anything or like the Brexit vote those voting A including AC will call for a 'second referendum' and third etc because Vote B did not know what they were voting for (really). This I would suggest will in reality lead to further votes on individual loans where proposals (big carrots) will be dangled in front of investors to sway their opinion yet again and the default is deferred. From my own experiences on some quite well known 'large loans' it amazed me the outcome of the vote when the actions of the borrower were acts of desperation and more excuses on the inevitable outcome. Whilst AC reasons for not defaulting these loans are easily deduced and understandable the investors seem to be 'eternal optimists' and could not accept writing it off as a bad debt which in itself tells you something about investors. Similar behaviour exists in Stock Market trading where some investors cannot bring themselves to act on Stop Loss even though all the professionals tell novice investors (that somehow believe they are overnight sophisticated investors) that you cannot win all the time. Which brings me back to my question of any 'not obvious' alternative reasons and why is it so important for AC as you suggest to win. For me me voting serves no purpose other than someone convinces me otherwise and I am sure that an abstention is not a new phenomenom because of all the lender votes to date I struggle to believe that everyone (you know potentially all 38000 investors) bothered to log on from the email flag of a pending vote. I eventually switched off notifications because I suffered from 'voter fatigue'. For those who Vote A or B or abstain because the scenario is a 'fait accompli' then good for you. I am looking outside the bubble at the world outside and thinking Hmmm! - trying to convince myself why i was you know not taking heed of the 'writing on the wall' but then perfection is something that we must all aspire to
|
|
lara
Posts: 345
Likes: 300
|
Post by lara on Apr 2, 2020 8:16:45 GMT
I think it's pretty clear that they have done it that way because they want A to win. I get that argument and by inference you have voted B... I voted A.
|
|
