|
|
Post by kazamx on Apr 2, 2020 21:43:46 GMT
Cross post from RS forum (scepticalinvestor and rhmc) "The financial regulator is set to order banks to take new steps to help customers hit financially by the coronavirus pandemic, offering interest-free overdrafts of up to £500 and allowing payment holidays on credit and store cards, loans and catalogue debt. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) unveiled the plans today and is holding a short consultation on them this week. If the proposals are approved, banks will be expected to start enacting the new measures from Thursday 9 April." www.fca.org.uk/publications/guidance-consultations/personal-loans-coronavirus-firmsThis guidance applies to regulated firms that issue personal loans. For the purposes of this guidance, personal loan refers to a regulated credit agreement, secured (other than on land) or unsecured, that is not a high-cost short term credit agreement, buy now pay later agreement, hire purchase agreement (including motor finance), credit card or overdraft. It also applies to firms that have acquired such loans. This guidance applies in the exceptional circumstances arising out of coronavirus (Covid-19) and its impact on the financial situation of personal loan customers. The guidance is not intended to have any relevance in circumstances other than those related to coronavirus. This guidance sets out our expectation that firms should provide, for a temporary period only, exceptional and immediate support to consumers facing payment difficulties due to circumstances arising out of coronavirus. It is intended to provide help to those who might be having temporary difficulty in making their personal loan payments due to a loss of or reduction in their income (or income of other members of their household) or to those who expect to experience such difficulties. This guidance applies where consumers are already experiencing or reasonably expect to experience temporary payment difficulties as a result of coronavirus. Where a customer was in pre-existing financial difficulty, our existing forbearance rules and guidance in CONC would continue to apply. These would include for example the firm considering suspending, reducing, waiving or cancelling any further interest or charges, deferring payment of arrears or accepting token payments for a reasonable period of time. We will review this guidance in the next 3 months in the light of developments regarding Covid-19 and may revise the guidance if appropriate. This guidance builds on Principle 6 ('A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly'). It sets out the FCA’s expectations for firms to provide coronavirus related support for customers who are experiencing or reasonably expect to experience temporary payment difficulties at the current time. When implementing this guidance, firms should take account of the particular needs of their vulnerable customers. The guidance is potentially relevant to enforcement cases and the FCA may take it into account when considering whether it could reasonably have been understood or predicted at the time that the conduct in question fell below the standards required by Principle 6. Payment deferrals In this guidance, ‘payment deferral’ means an arrangement under which a firm permits the customer to make no payments under their regulated credit agreement for a specified period without being considered to be in arrears. Where a customer is already experiencing or reasonably expects to experience temporary payment difficulties as a result of circumstances relating to Covid-19, and wishes to receive a payment deferral, a firm should grant the customer a payment deferral for 3 months. An example of a situation in which a payment deferral may be appropriate is where there is or will be a reduction in household income that would have otherwise been used to make loan payments. Firms can choose to make the enquiries they consider necessary in order to judge if a payment deferral serves the customer’s interests but there is no expectation under this guidance that the firm investigates the circumstances surrounding a request for a payment deferral. Firms should make clear in their communications, including websites, that payment deferrals are available as set out in the circumstances described above. In addition, if, during an interaction between the firm and the customer, the customer provides information suggesting that the customer may be experiencing or could reasonably expect to experience temporary payment difficulties as a result of circumstances relating to coronavirus, the firm should ask whether the customer wishes it to consider granting a payment deferral. Firms are not prevented from continuing to charge interest during the 3 month period. If the consumer is unable to resume payments at the end of this period because of payment difficulties at that time, they should contact the firm. The firm should work with the customer to resolve these difficulties in advance of payments being missed. Where a customer who received a payment deferral as a result of circumstances relating to Covid-19 is entitled to forbearance under our existing rules then, as part of this, we expect any interest accrued during the 3 month period to be waived. A firm may decide to put in place an option other than a 3 month payment deferral, if it is appropriate to do so in the individual circumstances of the case and the firm reasonably considers it needs to do this to treat the customer fairly. This could include a payment deferral of fewer than 3 months if, for example, the expected loss of income is for a shorter period, or accepting a sum below the normal payment due if, for example, the loss of income is partial. This guidance does not prevent firms from providing more favourable forms of assistance to the customer including a longer payment deferral if deemed appropriate. A firm should give customers adequate information to understand the implications of a payment deferral, including the consequences of interest that is accrued during this period and its effect on the balance due under the agreement and on future payments. Firms should ensure that there is no negative impact on the customer’s credit file because of the payment deferral. The payment deferrals described here should be regarded as being offered in exceptional circumstances outside of the customer’s control. In accordance with the relevant Steering Committee on Reciprocity (SCOR) Guidance, the account of the customer should not be recorded as having any form of detrimental arrears. A customer should have no liability to pay any charge or fee in connection with the permitting of a payment deferral under this guidance. Where statutory notice and statements are required to be sent under the CCA, firms should provide suitable explanations or context within these statutory notices and statements if they consider that they might otherwise lead to confusion. Firms will need to seek their own legal advice on matters relating to the CCA. Process and next steps We want to act quickly to protect consumers in these difficult times. We consider that the delay involved in publishing a formal consultation accompanied by a cost benefit analysis would be prejudicial to the interests of consumers. We are therefore not doing so. There is no statutory requirement to prepare a cost benefit analysis in relation to guidance. We are, however, giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft guidance. We will consider any feedback before finalising it. Consultation question: Do you have any comments on this draft guidance? |
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 3, 2020 9:23:58 GMT
Cross post from RS forum (scepticalinvestor and rhmc) "The financial regulator is set to order banks to take new steps to help customers hit financially by the coronavirus pandemic, offering interest-free overdrafts of up to £500 and allowing payment holidays on credit and store cards, loans and catalogue debt. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) unveiled the plans today and is holding a short consultation on them this week. If the proposals are approved, banks will be expected to start enacting the new measures from Thursday 9 April." www.fca.org.uk/publications/guidance-consultations/personal-loans-coronavirus-firmsThis guidance applies to regulated firms that issue personal loans. For the purposes of this guidance, personal loan refers to a regulated credit agreement, secured (other than on land) or unsecured, that is not a high-cost short term credit agreement, buy now pay later agreement, hire purchase agreement (including motor finance), credit card or overdraft. It also applies to firms that have acquired such loans. This guidance applies in the exceptional circumstances arising out of coronavirus (Covid-19) and its impact on the financial situation of personal loan customers. The guidance is not intended to have any relevance in circumstances other than those related to coronavirus. This guidance sets out our expectation that firms should provide, for a temporary period only, exceptional and immediate support to consumers facing payment difficulties due to circumstances arising out of coronavirus. It is intended to provide help to those who might be having temporary difficulty in making their personal loan payments due to a loss of or reduction in their income (or income of other members of their household) or to those who expect to experience such difficulties. This guidance applies where consumers are already experiencing or reasonably expect to experience temporary payment difficulties as a result of coronavirus. Where a customer was in pre-existing financial difficulty, our existing forbearance rules and guidance in CONC would continue to apply. These would include for example the firm considering suspending, reducing, waiving or cancelling any further interest or charges, deferring payment of arrears or accepting token payments for a reasonable period of time. We will review this guidance in the next 3 months in the light of developments regarding Covid-19 and may revise the guidance if appropriate. This guidance builds on Principle 6 ('A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly'). It sets out the FCA’s expectations for firms to provide coronavirus related support for customers who are experiencing or reasonably expect to experience temporary payment difficulties at the current time. When implementing this guidance, firms should take account of the particular needs of their vulnerable customers. The guidance is potentially relevant to enforcement cases and the FCA may take it into account when considering whether it could reasonably have been understood or predicted at the time that the conduct in question fell below the standards required by Principle 6. Payment deferrals In this guidance, ‘payment deferral’ means an arrangement under which a firm permits the customer to make no payments under their regulated credit agreement for a specified period without being considered to be in arrears. Where a customer is already experiencing or reasonably expects to experience temporary payment difficulties as a result of circumstances relating to Covid-19, and wishes to receive a payment deferral, a firm should grant the customer a payment deferral for 3 months. An example of a situation in which a payment deferral may be appropriate is where there is or will be a reduction in household income that would have otherwise been used to make loan payments. Firms can choose to make the enquiries they consider necessary in order to judge if a payment deferral serves the customer’s interests but there is no expectation under this guidance that the firm investigates the circumstances surrounding a request for a payment deferral. Firms should make clear in their communications, including websites, that payment deferrals are available as set out in the circumstances described above. In addition, if, during an interaction between the firm and the customer, the customer provides information suggesting that the customer may be experiencing or could reasonably expect to experience temporary payment difficulties as a result of circumstances relating to coronavirus, the firm should ask whether the customer wishes it to consider granting a payment deferral. Firms are not prevented from continuing to charge interest during the 3 month period. If the consumer is unable to resume payments at the end of this period because of payment difficulties at that time, they should contact the firm. The firm should work with the customer to resolve these difficulties in advance of payments being missed. Where a customer who received a payment deferral as a result of circumstances relating to Covid-19 is entitled to forbearance under our existing rules then, as part of this, we expect any interest accrued during the 3 month period to be waived. A firm may decide to put in place an option other than a 3 month payment deferral, if it is appropriate to do so in the individual circumstances of the case and the firm reasonably considers it needs to do this to treat the customer fairly. This could include a payment deferral of fewer than 3 months if, for example, the expected loss of income is for a shorter period, or accepting a sum below the normal payment due if, for example, the loss of income is partial. This guidance does not prevent firms from providing more favourable forms of assistance to the customer including a longer payment deferral if deemed appropriate. A firm should give customers adequate information to understand the implications of a payment deferral, including the consequences of interest that is accrued during this period and its effect on the balance due under the agreement and on future payments. Firms should ensure that there is no negative impact on the customer’s credit file because of the payment deferral. The payment deferrals described here should be regarded as being offered in exceptional circumstances outside of the customer’s control. In accordance with the relevant Steering Committee on Reciprocity (SCOR) Guidance, the account of the customer should not be recorded as having any form of detrimental arrears. A customer should have no liability to pay any charge or fee in connection with the permitting of a payment deferral under this guidance. Where statutory notice and statements are required to be sent under the CCA, firms should provide suitable explanations or context within these statutory notices and statements if they consider that they might otherwise lead to confusion. Firms will need to seek their own legal advice on matters relating to the CCA. Process and next steps We want to act quickly to protect consumers in these difficult times. We consider that the delay involved in publishing a formal consultation accompanied by a cost benefit analysis would be prejudicial to the interests of consumers. We are therefore not doing so. There is no statutory requirement to prepare a cost benefit analysis in relation to guidance. We are, however, giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft guidance. We will consider any feedback before finalising it. Consultation question: Do you have any comments on this draft guidance? Don’t necessarily think this should apply to AC as “Like all peer-to-peer lending platforms, they are not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). This means that, if they go out of business for any reason, our investors can't get their money back from the FSCS.” Stuart Law might have been better occupied pressing for an equivalent level of support for lenders prior to considering forbearance.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Apr 3, 2020 9:43:03 GMT
Hopefully you aren't invested in Funding Circle, Ratesetter and Zopa, they are far more exposed to personal loans.
Withdrawal pools, long delays, rising default rates, lender haircuts, selling discounts aren't exclusive to AC.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428 
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 3, 2020 9:45:48 GMT
Reality. It applies here. Forbearance gives both borrowers and lenders the best outcome. (Yes beware of the unscrupulous)
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Apr 3, 2020 12:46:02 GMT
Why would lenders need support when we are expecting to continue paying full or nearly full interest for at least the next 3 months? We have communicated that. Borrowers are still liable for their monthly payments too, even on a holiday, and will need to pay eventually.
This FCA guidance appears to purely relate to consumer lenders BTW, and yes likely P2P.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 3, 2020 13:06:36 GMT
Why would lenders need support when we are expecting to continue paying full or nearly full interest for at least the next 3 months? We have communicated that. Borrowers are still liable for their monthly payments too, even on a holiday, and will need to pay eventually. This FCA guidance appears to purely relate to consumer lenders BTW, and yes likely P2P. Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Secondly the way in which funds are allocated is verging on being corrupt. Within the access accounts loans are allocated to individual lenders when these are redeemed - £50 (example) is allocated to each lender irrespective of their original allocation or size of their total investment queued for withdrawal. In short this system prejudices larger investors who will end up with distressed loans, whilst smaller investors are able to exit. If you have £1000 invested your likely to get 100% return, of you have £100,000 you will be lucky to see a 10% return. If things resolve themselves as we all hope; one thing I can guarantee you is larger investors, who have been treated unfairly, will dessert you in droves, in essence making your business model unworkable. I strongly suggest you revisit your farcical withdrawal system before you cause the business irreparable damage.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 3, 2020 13:09:50 GMT
Why would lenders need support when we are expecting to continue paying full or nearly full interest for at least the next 3 months? We have communicated that. Borrowers are still liable for their monthly payments too, even on a holiday, and will need to pay eventually. This FCA guidance appears to purely relate to consumer lenders BTW, and yes likely P2P. Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Secondly the way in which funds are allocated is verging on being corrupt. Within the access accounts loans are allocated to individual lenders when these are redeemed - £50 (example) is allocated to each lender irrespective of their original allocation or size of their total investment queued for withdrawal. In short this system prejudices larger investors who will end up with distressed loans, whilst smaller investors are able to exit. If you have £1000 invested your likely to get 100% return, of you have £100,000 you will be lucky to see a 10% return. If things resolve themselves as we all hope; one thing I can guarantee you is larger investors, who have been treated unfairly, will dessert you in droves, in essence making your business model unworkable. I strongly suggest you revisit your farcical withdrawal system before you cause the business irreparable damage. FYI that topic has been covered in (massively repetitive) detail, including comments AC's Chris, in this thread.
If lenders need their funds for 'day to day issues', one wonders why they put it into P2P in the first place.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 3, 2020 13:13:55 GMT
Why would lenders need support when we are expecting to continue paying full or nearly full interest for at least the next 3 months? We have communicated that. Borrowers are still liable for their monthly payments too, even on a holiday, and will need to pay eventually. This FCA guidance appears to purely relate to consumer lenders BTW, and yes likely P2P. Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Secondly the way in which funds are allocated is verging on being corrupt. Within the access accounts loans are allocated to individual lenders when these are redeemed - £50 (example) is allocated to each lender irrespective of their original allocation or size of their total investment queued for withdrawal. In short this system prejudices larger investors who will end up with distressed loans, whilst smaller investors are able to exit. If you have £1000 invested your likely to get 100% return, of you have £100,000 you will be lucky to see a 10% return. If things resolve themselves as we all hope; one thing I can guarantee you is larger investors, who have been treated unfairly, will dessert you in droves, in essence making your business model unworkable. I strongly suggest you revisit your farcical withdrawal system before you cause the business irreparable damage. I think that decision will, in the fullness of time, be looked back upon as this company's Gerald Ratner moment
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 3, 2020 13:20:09 GMT
Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Secondly the way in which funds are allocated is verging on being corrupt. Within the access accounts loans are allocated to individual lenders when these are redeemed - £50 (example) is allocated to each lender irrespective of their original allocation or size of their total investment queued for withdrawal. In short this system prejudices larger investors who will end up with distressed loans, whilst smaller investors are able to exit. If you have £1000 invested your likely to get 100% return, of you have £100,000 you will be lucky to see a 10% return. If things resolve themselves as we all hope; one thing I can guarantee you is larger investors, who have been treated unfairly, will dessert you in droves, in essence making your business model unworkable. I strongly suggest you revisit your farcical withdrawal system before you cause the business irreparable damage. I think that decision will, in the fullness of time, be looked back upon as this company's Gerald Ratner moment Your right what they fail to recognise is we ALL WANT ASSETZ TO SUCCEED. If they carry on with this withdrawal format - ultimately the larger investors will be forced to take action which may ultimately lead to the unnecessary demise of the company.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Apr 3, 2020 13:20:15 GMT
It is as temporary as possible and given everyone is invested in a illiquid asset with the advantages and disadvantages that brings, how it reacts in a moment like this can be no surprise.
We are working hard to deliver new functionality that will address pretty much all suggestions on here as many of them are eminently sensible if executed well. The current changes are not the end of the changes - in a good way for lenders.
|
|
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 3, 2020 13:25:09 GMT
Why would lenders need support when we are expecting to continue paying full or nearly full interest for at least the next 3 months? We have communicated that. Borrowers are still liable for their monthly payments too, even on a holiday, and will need to pay eventually. This FCA guidance appears to purely relate to consumer lenders BTW, and yes likely P2P. Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Yes but not quite sure how forbearance changes that. The funds are unlikely to be available anyway as businesses with amortising loans are quite unlikely to be able to make capital repayments as the majority are in sectors in shutdown and refinances/redemptions will be delayed. Any borrower who can continue to repay you would assume would do so rather than incur increased costs associated with forbearance Insolvency, which one assumes would likely follow if borrowers that need forbearance don't get it, would have a similar effect, albeit likely to be considerably longer and potentially somewhat more permanent for part of the funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 3, 2020 13:33:24 GMT
Why would lenders need support when we are expecting to continue paying full or nearly full interest for at least the next 3 months? We have communicated that. Borrowers are still liable for their monthly payments too, even on a holiday, and will need to pay eventually. This FCA guidance appears to purely relate to consumer lenders BTW, and yes likely P2P. Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Secondly the way in which funds are allocated is verging on being corrupt. Within the access accounts loans are allocated to individual lenders when these are redeemed - £50 (example) is allocated to each lender irrespective of their original allocation or size of their total investment queued for withdrawal. In short this system prejudices larger investors who will end up with distressed loans, whilst smaller investors are able to exit. If you have £1000 invested your likely to get 100% return, of you have £100,000 you will be lucky to see a 10% return. If things resolve themselves as we all hope; one thing I can guarantee you is larger investors, who have been treated unfairly, will dessert you in droves, in essence making your business model unworkable. I strongly suggest you revisit your farcical withdrawal system before you cause the business irreparable damage. If there are any investors on this board who have more than 250k invested who are in the *will leave in droves* I'd like to hear from them. Your speculating again, clearly there are people wishing to withdraw; but thats normal in this climate. Stocks down 30%, people sell for 30% less, AC you can't sell for 30% less (unless your a MLA which some have), thats the liquidty issue. It isn't solely that everybody is running; its just a handful of investors want out knowing the risk level has risen OR over exposed themselves. (Just like you can in shares and leads to panic selling) Honestly, how can it be AC fault that a business needs the money for VAT, why would a company being holding VAT custody funds in a PEER TO PEER COMPANY? Where is the logic in that; I have 20% of my assets in AC, which is a tad over exposed to be frank (I've been invested since 2016 late). However I've always have a counter balance of instant access cash for things like Tax, rent and VAT. If anybody invested those much needed funds into a Peer to Peer site, thats their problem not the platforms to then capitulate all other investors over. Makes no sense to be frank. DiversficationThe allocation of funds at the moment is benefiting anybody who has below 85k invested funds in the retail area. We don't know how institions are treated, we dont' have that information only AC does so thats also speculation. I think individals who are investing beyond that 85k mark understand this is the risk of investing in a asset that has no market valution for discounting in the closed pooled funds. This is almost obvious to be honest, I am not a fan of the confusion caused by AC, but much of that confusion has been a result of mis-information in this board. If not out right spam by some individals. Interest is being paid for 3 months, if its not and we are still being charged; then ill agree with the view that AC has lost the plot. But currently it seems like they are reacting adaptly as they can in this situation. I'm sorry that didn't return 100% of your capital in the world worst downfall in history yet.  I think investors should keep the pressure on two simple points: Get rid of the lender fee as soon as it is possible in the current climate.
Start chasing borrowers religiously once the UK returns to working order (Govt say 3 months, but nobody really knows its just a guideline.)
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 3, 2020 13:53:14 GMT
Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Secondly the way in which funds are allocated is verging on being corrupt. Within the access accounts loans are allocated to individual lenders when these are redeemed - £50 (example) is allocated to each lender irrespective of their original allocation or size of their total investment queued for withdrawal. In short this system prejudices larger investors who will end up with distressed loans, whilst smaller investors are able to exit. If you have £1000 invested your likely to get 100% return, of you have £100,000 you will be lucky to see a 10% return. If things resolve themselves as we all hope; one thing I can guarantee you is larger investors, who have been treated unfairly, will dessert you in droves, in essence making your business model unworkable. I strongly suggest you revisit your farcical withdrawal system before you cause the business irreparable damage. If there are any investors on this board who have more than 250k invested who are in the *will leave in droves* I'd like to hear from them. Your speculating again, clearly there are people wishing to withdraw; but thats normal in this climate. Stocks down 30%, people sell for 30% less, AC you can't sell for 30% less (unless your a MLA which some have), thats the liquidty issue. It isn't solely that everybody is running; its just a handful of investors want out knowing the risk level has risen OR over exposed themselves. (Just like you can in shares and leads to panic selling) Honestly, how can it be AC fault that a business needs the money for VAT, why would a company being holding VAT custody funds in a PEER TO PEER COMPANY? Where is the logic in that; I have 20% of my assets in AC, which is a tad over exposed to be frank (I've been invested since 2016 late). However I've always have a counter balance of instant access cash for things like Tax, rent and VAT. If anybody invested those much needed funds into a Peer to Peer site, thats their problem not the platforms to then capitulate all other investors over. Makes no sense to be frank. DiversficationThe allocation of funds at the moment is benefiting anybody who has below 85k invested funds in the retail area. We don't know how institions are treated, we dont' have that information only AC does so thats also speculation. I think individals who are investing beyond that 85k mark understand this is the risk of investing in a asset that has no market valution for discounting in the closed pooled funds. This is almost obvious to be honest, I am not a fan of the confusion caused by AC, but much of that confusion has been a result of mis-information in this board. If not out right spam by some individals. Interest is being paid for 3 months, if its not and we are still being charged; then ill agree with the view that AC has lost the plot. But currently it seems like they are reacting adaptly as they can in this situation. I'm sorry that didn't return 100% of your capital in the world worst downfall in history yet. I think investors should keep the pressure on two simple points: Get rid of the lender fee as soon as it is possible in the current climate.
Start chasing borrowers religiously once the UK returns to working order (Govt say 3 months, but nobody really knows its just a guideline.)The lender fee of 0.9% really doesn't have a great deal of relevance for the guy in the QAA who is going to lose 90% of his investment does it? I was perfectly happy with Assetz and would have left my investment with them as I have with Ratesetter for example. The move from the queue to pool changed that in an instant and I have put everything up for sale - QAA,MLA - the lot. If you dont think people are leaving in droves then maybe you could explain why 40% of the entire MLA is up for sale, much a double digit %age discounts? Or why the disbursements from the access accounts are so small unless there are thousands of people in the queue? At the same time, in Stuarts defence, we are told there are some changes on the way to address some of these issues. Thats great, but the sooner the better because actions speak louder than words and the decisions made to date have set the company on a very dangerous trajectory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Apr 3, 2020 14:00:15 GMT
I just explained all of what you just asked, there isn't even a point replying then.
Nobody can tell you the loss of the QAA, if there even is going to be one. But as of right now there is no Capital Loss, so qouting 90% out of thin air is speculation.
Have you seen the news, and you wounder why people are putting up 40% on loans from Pubs, Leisure?? This is exactly the reason QAA is illquid, because it cannot market itself in non-normal conditions. Kinda stright forward.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 3, 2020 14:10:20 GMT
Stuart - lenders may have need to access their investments as well as interest. This is not just capital flight, funds may be needed for day to day issues - tax. Vat, mortgage payments. Forbearance stops lenders having access to these funds & lenders may in turn have to borrow to pay these bills Secondly the way in which funds are allocated is verging on being corrupt. Within the access accounts loans are allocated to individual lenders when these are redeemed - £50 (example) is allocated to each lender irrespective of their original allocation or size of their total investment queued for withdrawal. In short this system prejudices larger investors who will end up with distressed loans, whilst smaller investors are able to exit. If you have £1000 invested your likely to get 100% return, of you have £100,000 you will be lucky to see a 10% return. If things resolve themselves as we all hope; one thing I can guarantee you is larger investors, who have been treated unfairly, will dessert you in droves, in essence making your business model unworkable. I strongly suggest you revisit your farcical withdrawal system before you cause the business irreparable damage. If there are any investors on this board who have more than 250k invested who are in the *will leave in droves* I'd like to hear from them. Your speculating again, clearly there are people wishing to withdraw; but thats normal in this climate. Stocks down 30%, people sell for 30% less, AC you can't sell for 30% less (unless your a MLA which some have), thats the liquidty issue. It isn't solely that everybody is running; its just a handful of investors want out knowing the risk level has risen OR over exposed themselves. (Just like you can in shares and leads to panic selling) Honestly, how can it be AC fault that a business needs the money for VAT, why would a company being holding VAT custody funds in a PEER TO PEER COMPANY? Where is the logic in that; I have 20% of my assets in AC, which is a tad over exposed to be frank (I've been invested since 2016 late). However I've always have a counter balance of instant access cash for things like Tax, rent and VAT. If anybody invested those much needed funds into a Peer to Peer site, thats their problem not the platforms to then capitulate all other investors over. Makes no sense to be frank. DiversficationThe allocation of funds at the moment is benefiting anybody who has below 85k invested funds in the retail area. We don't know how institions are treated, we dont' have that information only AC does so thats also speculation. I think individals who are investing beyond that 85k mark understand this is the risk of investing in a asset that has no market valution for discounting in the closed pooled funds. This is almost obvious to be honest, I am not a fan of the confusion caused by AC, but much of that confusion has been a result of mis-information in this board. If not out right spam by some individals. Interest is being paid for 3 months, if its not and we are still being charged; then ill agree with the view that AC has lost the plot. But currently it seems like they are reacting adaptly as they can in this situation. I'm sorry that didn't return 100% of your capital in the world worst downfall in history yet. I think investors should keep the pressure on two simple points: Get rid of the lender fee as soon as it is possible in the current climate.
Start chasing borrowers religiously once the UK returns to working order (Govt say 3 months, but nobody really knows its just a guideline.)People are entitled to use the platform as they see fit. What annoys lenders most is whilst we appreciate the world has changed all the assistance is going to borrowers to the detriment of lenders. Additionally the present pool system is unfair and prejudicial. Those are the key issues the increased costs to all parties are actually incidental however given they stretch borrowers and reduce returns to investors they only serve to increase ACs margin!!! Very customer centric.
|
|
