mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 28, 2014 21:55:11 GMT
andrewholgate Thank you! Just to be clear, as of now it's not the tax statements that need correcting (we don't have them yet), it's the transaction statements. If the transaction statements are fixed, and if you can confirm that the tax statements, and AC's returns of interest paid to HMRC, will show only the 7% then we are done. : It's not quite as simple as that, I'm afraid. While I accept that nothing has been sent yet to HMRC that reflects our earnings during the 2014-15 tax year, among the 'reports' available on the website, one of the options is a 'Tax Statement'. When first arriving at that report, the default dates result in a display of my earnings for the 2013-14 tax year, but it is possible to change the dates for the report. An an experiment, I requested a 'Tax Statement' for the period from 25/Nov/14 to 25/Nov/14. That's the day I had some Aberdeenshire WT interest paid and the related PF contribution debited to my GEIA. In my MLIA, in addition to a bit more of Aberdeenshire WT, I also hold two other loans that paid interest on 25/Nov (CC Hotel and the UUS BL). While the total interest earned that day is reported on the Tax Statement to the penny, like many other places on the website, hovering over the number showed it more accurately to 20 decimal places. So I made a note of that total, and compared it to the grand total of the three credits in my MLIA plus the credit in my GEIA. I expected the totals to match, but they didn't. The Tax Statement total was less than the total of the credits in my accounts. My first thought was that AC had anticipated the situation we've been discussing in this thread, and had included only the net amount of the credit and debit in my GEIA. No such luck! Unfortunately, what I discovered was that the activity in my GEIA had been omitted entirely from the Tax Statement! Which, of course means that the Tax Statements being produced by the system now are wrong for any lender with GEIA holdings.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,189 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Nov 29, 2014 7:47:23 GMT
andrewholgate Thank you! Just to be clear, as of now it's not the tax statements that need correcting (we don't have them yet), it's the transaction statements. If the transaction statements are fixed, and if you can confirm that the tax statements, and AC's returns of interest paid to HMRC, will show only the 7% then we are done. : It's not quite as simple as that, I'm afraid. While I accept that nothing has been sent yet to HMRC that reflects our earnings during the 2014-15 tax year, among the 'reports' available on the website, one of the options is a 'Tax Statement'. When first arriving at that report, the default dates result in a display of my earnings for the 2013-14 tax year, but it is possible to change the dates for the report. An an experiment, I requested a 'Tax Statement' for the period from 25/Nov/14 to 25/Nov/14. That's the day I had some Aberdeenshire WT interest paid and the related PF contribution debited to my GEIA. In my MLIA, in addition to a bit more of Aberdeenshire WT, I also hold two other loans that paid interest on 25/Nov (CC Hotel and the UUS BL). While the total interest earned that day is reported on the Tax Statement to the penny, like many other places on the website, hovering over the number showed it more accurately to 20 decimal places. So I made a note of that total, and compared it to the grand total of the three credits in my MLIA plus the credit in my GEIA. I expected the totals to match, but they didn't. The Tax Statement total was less than the total of the credits in my accounts. My first thought was that AC had anticipated the situation we've been discussing in this thread, and had included only the net amount of the credit and debit in my GEIA. No such luck! Unfortunately, what I discovered was that the activity in my GEIA had been omitted entirely from the Tax Statement! Which, of course means that the Tax Statements being produced by the system now are wrong for any lender with GEIA holdings. Thanks for that. Hopefully chris is aware. There is plenty of time to fix it as the end of the tax year is a few months away.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Nov 30, 2014 8:10:30 GMT
I would like to finish by saying to date no investor has lost a penny using AC
Based on the figures provided to me and other lenders by AC I can prove otherwise: As of 08:00 on 30/11/2014 The repayment figures for Loan #127 clearly state that on the 27th November repayment of £38,783.34 was made by the borrower. Looking at my CA statement (I do mean my CA statement and not my MLIA statement because I have my MLIA set to withdraw) I have received a repayment of £42.14. Based on my original holding of £500 a repayment of £42.14 resolves as being a distribution of £38,769 amongst lenders. Subtracting what was paid to lenders from what was paid by the borrower we get a difference of £14.43 Thus proving using your figures that you are wrong and lenders has a whole have lost at least £14.43.
Proof 1: Image taken on 30/11/2014 of the Loan #127 repayments clearly showing a repayment of £38,783.34 and that after a distribution of £42.14 my holding is £457.86 meaning I had a holding of £500.  Proof 2: Image taken on 30/11/2014 of my CA statement clearly showing a repayment distribution of £42.14. 
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Nov 30, 2014 8:57:36 GMT
I would like to finish by saying to date no investor has lost a penny using AC
Based on my original holding of £500 a repayment of £42.14 resolves as being a distribution of £38,769 amongst lenders. I think the site is sloppy and needs explaining and clarifying, but it isn't proof of a loss of money. You claim your calculation shows a repayment of £38,769. The email I received had the repayment of £38,769. And if I subtract the capital outstanding from the initial loan size on your image I see £38,769 as the repayment. So the amount you are owed would seem to be correct. Why the repayment tab has a different number I don't know... I would agree with you that AC need to start doing a lot better on this sort of number if they are going to maintain confidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Nov 30, 2014 9:09:13 GMT
Based on my original holding of £500 a repayment of £42.14 resolves as being a distribution of £38,769 amongst lenders. I think the site is sloppy and needs explaining and clarifying, but it isn't proof of a loss of money. You claim your calculation shows a repayment of £38,769. The email I received had the repayment of £38,769. And if I subtract the capital outstanding from the initial loan size on your image I see £38,769 as the repayment. So the amount you are owed would seem to be correct. Why the repayment tab has a different number I don't know... I would agree with you that AC need to start doing a lot better on this sort of number if they are going to maintain confidence. Without actually having the physical stuff to count the only way you can show losses and etc is through accounting for it using the numbers provided, and the numbers provided by AC show that the there was a under distribution to lenders of £14.43 and thus as of the 27/11/2014 lenders have lost funds. What an email may or may not have said is nether here nor there, it is the actual figures shown within the AC platform that are importance.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 30, 2014 9:24:57 GMT
The bizarre explanation of the £14.34 on the loan page does not fill me with any confidence. The question re reducing accrued interest has not been addressed yet. No interest has been paid yet so how can it be reducing?
I think what Andrew means is that no-one has actually lost any money yet, but that what is shown by AC accounting on the site is inaccurate and is not to be trusted, so we can not possibly know we have not lost (or gained) anything.
When all this has been corrected and is "fit for purpose" I would like Andrew (and Stuart) to announce that. In the meantime, I regard the situation as farcical. It has gone on too long. My final (and most substantial) tranche of C&G stepped bond comes up in the next month. Oh dear .... what to do with it ....
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Nov 30, 2014 9:33:43 GMT
The bizarre explanation of the £14.34 on the loan page does not fill me with any confidence. The question re reducing accrued interest has not been addressed yet. No interest has been paid yet so how can it be reducing? I think what Andrew means is that no-one has actually lost any money yet, but that what is shown by AC accounting on the site is inaccurate and is not to be trusted, so we can not possibly know we have not lost (or gained) anything. When all this has been corrected and is "fit for purpose" I would like Andrew (and Stuart) to announce that. In the meantime, I regard the situation as farcical. It has gone on too long. My final (and most substantial) tranche of C&G stepped bond comes up in the next month. Oh dear .... what to do with it .... But I would come back to the point, because we don't deal with physical money we deal with numbers, the numbers currently show that in terms of actual payments (i.e. disregarding accruals) to lenders if I sold up and left the site today I would have lost money to the tune of my proportion of £14.34.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 30, 2014 9:38:22 GMT
Correct. I wonder if anyone has actually fully cashed out and lost, left and consequently cannot take advantage of future adjustments. Unlikely, because full access to funds immediately is impossible, therefore I presume none of our accounts can be closed until every loan in them has been closed, one way or another. Mmmmm!
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Nov 30, 2014 10:00:26 GMT
Correct. I wonder if anyone has actually fully cashed out and lost, left and consequently cannot take advantage of future adjustments. Unlikely, because full access to funds immediately is impossible, therefore I presume none of our accounts can be closed until every loan in them has been closed, one way or another. Mmmmm! No, not correct (at least as far as the share of £14.34 is concerned). It is clear that the repayment was £38,769 (as shown in the original email), which is all it could be because that is what was in escrow and available to be repaid. If you sold up today you would get your remaining principal of £457.86 which when added to your repayment of £42.14 equals your original principal of £500.00. Why IT chose to fix the [apparent] error on two lenders' accounts by overstating the repayment, instead of putting through a separate adjustment on their accounts before processing the repayment is beyond me, but it has not caused you to lose out. As regards "none of our accounts can be closed until every loan in them has been closed, one way or another", well yes. But that's true of most p2p sites. I sold out of FC some time ago but I expect my account to stay open for years to come as they collect (or not) my bad debts.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 30, 2014 10:30:54 GMT
I stand corrected there, but for lack of clarity on the £14.34 bit; I was lumping it in with my following remarks  |
|
|
|
Post by Come_on_Grandad on Nov 30, 2014 10:33:19 GMT
Based on my original holding of £500 a repayment of £42.14 resolves as being a distribution of £38,769 amongst lenders. I think the site is sloppy and needs explaining and clarifying, but it isn't proof of a loss of money. You claim your calculation shows a repayment of £38,769. The email I received had the repayment of £38,769. And if I subtract the capital outstanding from the initial loan size on your image I see £38,769 as the repayment. So the amount you are owed would seem to be correct. Why the repayment tab has a different number I don't know... I would agree with you that AC need to start doing a lot better on this sort of number if they are going to maintain confidence. Why the repayment tab has a different number is explained in a "recent activity" update to the loan overview page, dated 28th Nov. Basically, AC chose this method to implement a correction to an earlier error that happened as the loan was drawndown. The claim that no lenders have lost money still stands. I'm in the camp that think that there have been too many teething errors but firmly believe, based on AC's track record, that they will all get sorted out.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Nov 30, 2014 11:45:24 GMT
I think the site is sloppy and needs explaining and clarifying, but it isn't proof of a loss of money. You claim your calculation shows a repayment of £38,769. The email I received had the repayment of £38,769. And if I subtract the capital outstanding from the initial loan size on your image I see £38,769 as the repayment. So the amount you are owed would seem to be correct. Why the repayment tab has a different number I don't know... I would agree with you that AC need to start doing a lot better on this sort of number if they are going to maintain confidence. Why the repayment tab has a different number is explained in a "recent activity" update to the loan overview page, dated 28th Nov. Basically, AC chose this method to implement a correction to an earlier error that happened as the loan was drawndown. The claim that no lenders have lost money still stands. I'm in the camp that think that there have been too many teething errors but firmly believe, based on AC's track record, that they will all get sorted out. Greater faith hath no man than he who lays down his hard earned cash on a bunch of promises! Hope you will be just as happy after the next "enhancement" to the system!
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Nov 30, 2014 11:51:29 GMT
My final (and most substantial) tranche of C&G stepped bond comes up in the next month. Oh dear .... what to do with it .... Looks nice here...
|
|
|
|
Post by reeknralf on Nov 30, 2014 12:16:45 GMT
I realise it has been said that if you look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves, but a (possible) loss of 1.6p on a £500; seriously, who cares? It does not suggest Assetz are either incompetent or dishonest. And how many of the people on here actually plan to invest in the GEIA, given investing directly in the underlying loans is very likely to be more profitable, irrespective of the tax position? It's clearly pitched to bring in new more passive, risk-aversed clients, not appeal to existing clients. I get the impression that there are a whole lot of TL; DR posts whose over-riding motivation is to be right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Come_on_Grandad on Nov 30, 2014 12:30:19 GMT
Why the repayment tab has a different number is explained in a "recent activity" update to the loan overview page, dated 28th Nov. Basically, AC chose this method to implement a correction to an earlier error that happened as the loan was drawndown. The claim that no lenders have lost money still stands. I'm in the camp that think that there have been too many teething errors but firmly believe, based on AC's track record, that they will all get sorted out. Greater faith hath no man than he who lays down his hard earned cash on a bunch of promises! Hope you will be just as happy after the next "enhancement" to the system! My hard earned cash is diversified across 73 borrowers and secured on their assets. I'm certainly comfortable with that aspect of the platform. Happiness with the software can be deferred until things get sorted. Between us we've reported many bugs and given valuable suggestions as to how AC should proceed. But IMO we are in danger of swamping them with too much feedback. Recently, we haven't been saying much new, just saying it over and over and louder and louder. We have been assured that they are listening, so let's give them time to get on with it.
|
|
