|
|
Post by kazamx on Apr 2, 2020 8:51:33 GMT
Voted A,
Anyone voting B just doesn't have a clue. You will get more money back in the long run through A than you would through B.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 2, 2020 9:11:47 GMT
Voted A, Anyone voting B just doesn't have a clue. You will get more money back in the long run through A than you would through B. Can you prove that?
The argument for voting B is that when a company is in trouble and probably going down you want to be the most difficult creditor so moved to the top of the queue for payments, if they believe you will take legal action they will usually pay you the money if they have it and leave other debtors out to dry. I have found this from my own experiences.
If B wins I believe there is no automatic action, it will be dealt with on a case by case basis with a vote.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 2, 2020 9:21:32 GMT
Voted A, Anyone voting B just doesn't have a clue. You will get more money back in the long run through A than you would through B. Can you prove that?
The argument for voting B is that when a company is in trouble and probably going down you want to be the most difficult creditor so moved to the top of the queue for payments, if they believe you will take legal action they will usually pay you the money if they have it and leave other debtors out to dry. I have found this from my own experiences.
If B wins I believe there is no automatic action, it will be dealt with on a case by case basis with a vote.
Can you expound on the that argument by presenting context for your experiences, please? - Industry sector(s)
- Economic background
- Sums involved (To a factor of 10 will suffice - ie £100's / £1,000's / £100,000's / £millions)
Thank you.
|
|
mrsb
Posts: 196
Likes: 102
|
Post by mrsb on Apr 2, 2020 9:37:24 GMT
Voted A, Anyone voting B just doesn't have a clue. You will get more money back in the long run through A than you would through B. Can you prove that?
The argument for voting B is that when a company is in trouble and probably going down you want to be the most difficult creditor so moved to the top of the queue for payments, if they believe you will take legal action they will usually pay you the money if they have it and leave other debtors out to dry. I have found this from my own experiences.
If B wins I believe there is no automatic action, it will be dealt with on a case by case basis with a vote.
I agree with alender - we had some bad debts back in time (Electronics Industry). We were very aggressive, and got paid. On one of the accounts, we had un-shipped [bespoke] product, and wrote it off in the books. We eventually sold it - via the receivers - to the phoenix'ed company - and got paid again. (with blessing of the receiver!) However - I voted A in this case. Just hope AC don't use it to relax and write-off recoverable money.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 2, 2020 9:49:31 GMT
Can you prove that?
The argument for voting B is that when a company is in trouble and probably going down you want to be the most difficult creditor so moved to the top of the queue for payments, if they believe you will take legal action they will usually pay you the money if they have it and leave other debtors out to dry. I have found this from my own experiences.
If B wins I believe there is no automatic action, it will be dealt with on a case by case basis with a vote.
Can you expound on the that argument by presenting context for your experiences, please? - Industry sector(s)
- Economic background
- Sums involved (To a factor of 10 will suffice - ie £100's / £1,000's / £100,000's / £millions)
Thank you.
Some was in the IT/Finance sector, was owed money by a company and was advised to hold back (by some people associated with the company) as it could put them in administration if I took legal action, had a friend who is a solicitor with his help threaten them with legal action, I got my money company folded not long after.
I had a retail/wholesale fruit and veg business and supplied to restaurants etc. these go over on a regular basis so always chased money owed, never lost out, other people I know lost out due to giving slack on debts.
Saw this a number of times with wholesalers who did not chase debts as they were afraid they would lose business, at lot of these wholesalers went out of business when conditions got tight as they were owed a lot of money but people/companies that had gone bankrupt. In effect they thought they could carry on the same in poor market condition as they had when it was normal, a lot went over.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 2, 2020 9:51:14 GMT
However - I voted A in this case. Just hope AC don't use it to relax and write-off recoverable money. They won't do that. Just like the governments blanket help,get it underway for the needy then work on the rogues.
|
|
mrsb
Posts: 196
Likes: 102
|
Post by mrsb on Apr 2, 2020 10:19:35 GMT
Mark,
It may be a reflection of my own flawed character - but I nevertheless don't share your optimism.
The alignment of AC's interests with those of lenders is only minimal.
EDIT : By 'lenders' i mean those invested in the current loan book
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 2, 2020 10:35:48 GMT
Voted A, Anyone voting B just doesn't have a clue. You will get more money back in the long run through A than you would through B. Don't you just love it when a new instant expert comes along claiming they know more that anyone else.
My understanding of the P2P industry is that it was struggling long before Coronavirus arrived. Several major platforms have gone bust, some are in orderly wind down, and one of the biggest (RS) is trying to sell itself. Even without the virus the outlook for P2P was not rosy, and over the last month things have only gone one way.
It isn't possible to say that A will be better than B, as we don't know what follows on from B. However, if you look at other platforms then the options for AC appear to be:
- Try to battle through the current crisis and come out the other side with a meaningful business still in tact
- Try to battle through the current crisis, hemorrhage money and go bust (like LY and FS)
- Arrange an orderly wind down of the platform (as did MT and BM)
We don't have sufficient details of AC's finances (or that of their borrowers) to understand the likelihood of option one succeding. Additionally, you could vote for option one and find yourself diverted to option 2 part way through the process. Even if option one was sucessful, there is no guarantee that it would result in a better outcome for lenders than option 3. Bottom line is nobody knows.
So by all means express an opinion, but suggesting that all those that disagree are idiots is unlikely to provide support for your argument.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 2, 2020 10:46:01 GMT
Can you expound on the that argument by presenting context for your experiences, please? - Industry sector(s)
- Economic background
- Sums involved (To a factor of 10 will suffice - ie £100's / £1,000's / £100,000's / £millions)
Thank you.
Some was in the IT/Finance sector, was owed money by a company and was advised to hold back (by some people associated with the company) as it could put them in administration if I took legal action, had a friend who is a solicitor with his help threaten them with legal action, I got my money company folded not long after. I had a retail/wholesale fruit and veg business and supplied to restaurants etc. these go over on a regular basis so always chased money owed, never lost out, other people I know lost out due to giving slack on debts. Saw this a number of times with wholesalers who did not chase debts as they were afraid they would lose business, at lot of these wholesalers went out of business when conditions got tight as they were owed a lot of money but people/companies that had gone bankrupt. In effect they thought they could carry on the same in poor market condition as they had when it was normal, a lot went over. OK, so some detail, but the sums involved and the economic background are critical to the decision being made here, and I suspect they had at least a significant bearing on the efficacy of your approach at the time. Respectfully, I suggest apples are being compared to oranges, to some extent. For completeness, I'm all for metaphorically 'tightening the thumb-screws' on errant borrowers, but only when the time is right and the outcome is likely to be favourable. My view on things right now is that the timing is awful and the outcome - the forced defaulting and associated activities which follow - will likely lead to a worse outcome for all parties. Except Insolvency Practitioners, Lawyers, and opportunistic asset buyers, of course. I've voted A. Again in my view, moth-balling the whole thing (as far as is practicably possible) will give all parties - and this includes the Gov't, who will play a significant role in the fate of our investments - the necessary time to take the best course of action. There will be losses. Financial ones. But, as investments go, these should least of our worries considering the health of individuals, communities and nations, physical as well as financial. Voting A isn't a silver bullet but, as I see it, it is the least worse option. One caveat I would add - and tagging stuartassetzcapital - is that there should be reasonably frequent reviews with attendant votes where required on the policies this action will implement. I think three- or perhaps even two-monthly wouldn't be too frequent, although I suspect this situation to have a much longer-lasting impact. A potential option is, as mrclondon suggested, opening an SM for the QAA. My concern here is that, unlike MLA accounts, this is effectively a 'black box' account with a fixed (maximum) return and the FCA may take a different view on it, insisting AC are responsible for setting 'fair value' based on risk-modelling and likelihood of achieving the target rate (even though it's variable). Again, tagging stuartassetzcapital for comment, maybe chris , too.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 2, 2020 10:52:09 GMT
Some was in the IT/Finance sector, was owed money by a company and was advised to hold back (by some people associated with the company) as it could put them in administration if I took legal action, had a friend who is a solicitor with his help threaten them with legal action, I got my money company folded not long after. I had a retail/wholesale fruit and veg business and supplied to restaurants etc. these go over on a regular basis so always chased money owed, never lost out, other people I know lost out due to giving slack on debts. Saw this a number of times with wholesalers who did not chase debts as they were afraid they would lose business, at lot of these wholesalers went out of business when conditions got tight as they were owed a lot of money but people/companies that had gone bankrupt. In effect they thought they could carry on the same in poor market condition as they had when it was normal, a lot went over. OK, so some detail, but the sums involved and the economic background are critical to the decision being made here, and I suspect they had at least a significant bearing on the efficacy of your approach at the time. Respectfully, I suggest apples are being compared to oranges, to some extent. For completeness, I'm all for metaphorically 'tightening the thumb-screws' on errant borrowers, but only when the time is right and the outcome is likely to be favourable. My view on things right now is that the timing is awful and the outcome - the forced defaulting and associated activities which follow - will likely lead to a worse outcome for all parties. Except Insolvency Practitioners, Lawyers, and opportunistic asset buyers, of course. I've voted A. Again in my view, moth-balling the whole thing (as far as is practicably possible) will give all parties - and this includes the Gov't, who will play a significant role in the fate of our investments - the necessary time to take the best course of action. There will be losses. Financial ones. But, as investments go, these should least of our worries considering the health of individuals, communities and nations, physical as well as financial. Voting A isn't a silver bullet but, as I see it, it is the least worse option. One caveat I would add - and tagging stuartassetzcapital - is that there should be reasonably frequent reviews with attendant votes where required on the policies this action will implement. I think three- or perhaps even two-monthly wouldn't be too frequent, although I suspect this situation to have a much longer-lasting impact. A potential option is, as mrclondon suggested, opening an SM for the QAA. My concern here is that, unlike MLA accounts, this is effectively a 'black box' account with a fixed (maximum) return and the FCA may take a different view on it, insisting AC are responsible for setting 'fair value' based on risk-modelling and likelihood of achieving the target rate (even though it's variable). Again, tagging stuartassetzcapital for comment, maybe chris , too. SM for QAA is the only way of (potentially) alleviating the massive logjam of people trying to exit.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 2, 2020 11:11:21 GMT
Only allow the small investors to exit. They will spend the money supporting business rather than just trying to make money that they can never spend because they have so much.
In addition for some borrowers stop charging interest. The borrowers need to have an incentive to make their business work when this passes. Given an incentive to save their business and stop us losing so much of our capital.
We are all in this together and in my opinion losing some interest to keep people afloat is sound economic sense. Come on vultures and tell me how stupid I am.
Well I am laughing as I write this thinking of how my stupidity is fuelling your anger and your desire to make more money.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 2, 2020 11:48:07 GMT
Only allow the small investors to exit. They will spend the money supporting business rather than just trying to make money that they can never spend because they have so much. In addition for some borrowers stop charging interest. The borrowers need to have an incentive to make their business work when this passes. Given an incentive to save their business and stop us losing so much of our capital. We are all in this together and in my opinion losing some interest to keep people afloat is sound economic sense. Come on vultures and tell me how stupid I am. Well I am laughing as I write this thinking of how my stupidity is fuelling your anger and your desire to make more money. It's not a question of being stupid, more misguided. You proposals may be well intentioned but consider the following:
- an ederly person had to go into residential care, which meant selling their house. The proceeds were put in a p2p platform and the interest used to help pay for the care home fees. In your scenario this person would be at the back of the queue for payment as they had a large 6 figure sum invested.
- somebody puts their life savings into a p2p account and uses the interest to suplement their pension. In your scenario this person would be at the back of the queue for payment as they had a large 6 figure sum invested.
Also, I'm all in favour of adopting the altruistic approach to helping borrowers survive, but in reality the number of peopele supported by AC is minute
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 2, 2020 12:02:33 GMT
Only allow the small investors to exit. They will spend the money supporting business rather than just trying to make money that they can never spend because they have so much. In addition for some borrowers stop charging interest. The borrowers need to have an incentive to make their business work when this passes. Given an incentive to save their business and stop us losing so much of our capital. We are all in this together and in my opinion losing some interest to keep people afloat is sound economic sense. Come on vultures and tell me how stupid I am. Well I am laughing as I write this thinking of how my stupidity is fuelling your anger and your desire to make more money. It's not a question of being stupid, more misguided. You proposals may be well intentioned but consider the following:
- an ederly person had to go into residential care, which meant selling their house. The proceeds were put in a p2p platform and the interest used to help pay for the care home fees. In your scenario this person would be at the back of the queue for payment as they had a large 6 figure sum invested.
- somebody puts their life savings into a p2p account and uses the interest to suplement their pension. In your scenario this person would be at the back of the queue for payment as they had a large 6 figure sum invested.
Also, I'm all in favour of adopting the altruistic approach to helping borrowers survive, but in reality the number of peopele supported by AC is minute
The complainers are not those. None of us should have put more than 10% of savings into P2P . it was invested not saved in a bank account and even banks warn you rate can go up and down
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,043
Likes: 4,437
|
Post by agent69 on Apr 2, 2020 12:44:37 GMT
It's not a question of being stupid, more misguided. You proposals may be well intentioned but consider the following:
- an ederly person had to go into residential care, which meant selling their house. The proceeds were put in a p2p platform and the interest used to help pay for the care home fees. In your scenario this person would be at the back of the queue for payment as they had a large 6 figure sum invested.
- somebody puts their life savings into a p2p account and uses the interest to suplement their pension. In your scenario this person would be at the back of the queue for payment as they had a large 6 figure sum invested.
Also, I'm all in favour of adopting the altruistic approach to helping borrowers survive, but in reality the number of peopele supported by AC is minute
The complainers are not those. None of us should have put more than 10% of savings into P2P . it was invested not saved in a bank account and even banks warn you rate can go up and down So compassion doesn't extended to people who have been stupid?
Does this mean that we don't offer forebearance borrowers who have been similarly stupid (for example by borrowing more than they can realistically repay, or by borrowing money for a business venture that was badly planned)?
|
|
andy5
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
|
Post by andy5 on Apr 2, 2020 13:07:06 GMT
May I ask you folks a seemingly dumb question?
How do you know about this?
I already have a case pending, prompted by an email that starts "As you may know ..." I didn't know, because there was no previous notification.
Was there an email notification about what you're talking about now, and/or where is there information on the Assetz website?
Thanks
|
|
