Neil
Posts: 40
Likes: 70
|
Post by Neil on Nov 30, 2014 13:20:38 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. *Deleted* Anyway, carry on ...
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Nov 30, 2014 14:08:41 GMT
This thread is now in danger of generating more heat than light, and caricaturing those who hold AC to high standards doesn't help. Perhaps you would like to reconsider its use Neil?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 30, 2014 14:14:51 GMT
I don't look like Linda La Hughes's brother, do I?
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Nov 30, 2014 15:39:19 GMT
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. Speaking as a software engineer myself, I've been impressed with the speed of implementation of many of AC's fixes so far, and I'm confident they are working on shorter and longer term solutions to most of the issues we've raised.
|
|
Neil
Posts: 40
Likes: 70
|
Post by Neil on Nov 30, 2014 16:02:15 GMT
This thread is now in danger of generating more heat than light, and caricaturing those who hold AC to high standards doesn't help. Perhaps you would like to reconsider its use Neil? Fine, it's gone. Was merely an attempt at light-hearted Sunday afternoon "banter". I may be the only one but it seems almost every thread descends into more AC bashing and moaning - quite a bit of it being unjustified in my opinion. I have no issue with holding AC to high standards, far from it. We should also acknowledge though when AC are actually doing things right. As has already been said, they cleared up this WT repayment issue 2 days ago. We should applaud them for that. I'm going to get into further trouble if I say anymore, so I won't.
|
|
Neil
Posts: 40
Likes: 70
|
Post by Neil on Nov 30, 2014 16:04:10 GMT
I don't look like Linda La Hughes's brother, do I? If Linda La Hughe's brother looks like a gorilla, then yes, you do!
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 30, 2014 16:15:04 GMT
I don't look like Linda La Hughes's brother, do I? If Linda La Hughe's brother looks like a gorilla, then yes, you do! Here's the lovely Linda on a good day. I'd better not show the picture of (one of her) "sons" ..... don't want to start a "P.C." furore. I don't suppose many of the cultured and sophisticated correspondents on this forum will be too knowledgeable about her track record. Attachments:
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Nov 30, 2014 20:37:16 GMT
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. I agree and whilst the numbers on the site are not good enough I do not show a loss. When I download the csv and add my initial position to all of my transactions in that loan, my final number is within 1p of my currently displayed position. I state again that it seems to me that the error is the number displayed on the repayment tab. Again I state that this isn't good enough, we shouldn't be having this debate as there shouldn't be any contradictory numbers on the site. Also I am not 100% satisfied that there is any difference in my reconciled position and my displayed position, but I can not find a way of seeing my position to a higher precision than 2dp, which is also a little disappointing. But this is not a problem of the magnitude that you claim it to be.
|
|
spockie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 299
Likes: 84
|
Post by spockie on Nov 30, 2014 21:43:14 GMT
I'm going to get into further trouble if I say anymore, so I won't. You've already added dark glasses and a hugely bushy beard. Can I suggest a hat now?
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Nov 30, 2014 22:26:44 GMT
I'm going to get into further trouble if I say anymore, so I won't. You've already added dark glasses and a hugely bushy beard. Can I suggest a hat now? Would that be one like mine?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 30, 2014 23:30:05 GMT
AC may be making an effort to sort out the issues raised here, and I'm happy to wait patiently for them to do so. But some of the issues were pointed out quite some time ago -- for instance, the fact that nearly all of the WT loan repayment schedules are wrong because they do not include the 5% of capital bullet payment at the end of the first year -- and clearly some people's patience is being stretched to the limit. (And that includes mine.)
It's in AC's best interest to start showing evidence of fixing some of the long list of issues -- and possibly deferring some of their plans to introduce new features/options until the existing situation clearly is under control.
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 1, 2014 9:41:27 GMT
AC may be making an effort to sort out the issues raised here, and I'm happy to wait patiently for them to do so. But some of the issues were pointed out quite some time ago -- for instance, the fact that nearly all of the WT loan repayment schedules are wrong because they do not include the 5% of capital bullet payment at the end of the first year -- and clearly some people's patience is being stretched to the limit. (And that includes mine.) It's in AC's best interest to start showing evidence of fixing some of the long list of issues -- and possibly deferring some of their plans to introduce new features/options until the existing situation clearly is under control. Noted and we are working on these. They are taking some time to work through but we are not ignoring them. batchoy - We think this relates to the previous system and a glitch there. You should not be out of pocket and I am sure the problem will be found and resolved. Please bear with us while we rectify it. chris and his team are looking at it. chris - please see further up the post for more detail.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 1, 2014 11:38:45 GMT
No lender is out of pocket. There was an earlier bug in the aftermarket, shortly after launch, whereby when a loan unit was split it wasn't always creating the correct amount of principal remaining for the seller. This has long since been fixed but has left a couple of loans, with Falmouth and K*** Plus being particularly affected, with too many investors for the size of the loan. For Falmouth the principal held by lenders is £155.8444078... too high, for K*** Plus its £12.66, and for a handful of other loans it's in the pennies. We as a platform need to buy up loan units to those totals and effectively destroy them to make the system fully balance again, something that is currently going through the admin team to make sure our methodology is compliant and correct.
In the interim to make this payment we had to scale up the amount of principal repaid in order to account for the loan being £155 bigger than it should be, taking the amount out of the AC fee, with all lenders then receiving their correct portion of the total. No lenders have lost money in this transaction.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Dec 2, 2014 9:19:41 GMT
Thank you for this important and helpful explanation and for the transparency in admitting and rectifying the error.
|
|