ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 28, 2020 11:21:11 GMT
As investors I’m sure we all accept the world has changed and recognise the platform has to adapt in order to allow an orderly withdrawal of funds. We understand we can’t have immediate access to our cash. The decision however to remove the instruction "Withdraw All" from the Access Accounts without investors authority is both unfair, discriminatory, and may be illegal. Ultimately this forces investors to invest redeemed capital into increasingly risky loans which may default, against our wishes.
Initially, investors might consider writing to AC & give the explicit instruction that any capital repayment made into the access account on loans that they are a participant in should not be reinvested nor do AC have permission to do so.
Investors can explicitly disagree to be bounded by the amended terms. Expectation that we would be under an obligation to do so is unfair & may / will be actionable.
It is increasingly questionable as to wether they are acting in the best interests of all investors. It does appear that decisions may be being taken to ensure the platform continues to operate irrespective of the cost to investors.
Given AC refuse to engage with customers to address our concerns. You may wish to contact the FCA, and financial media in the hope that exposure of their discriminatory allocation of capital, might bring about an immediate change in their conduct.
Detailed below are some useful contact numbers.
The FCA
03005008082
Assetz FCA Reg Number 724996
The Telegraph
Sam Brodbeck
Personal finance Editor
sam.brodbeck@telegraph.co.uk
02079312000
The Times
James Coney
Money Editor at Times.
James.coney@thetimes.co.uk
02077825000
The Mail
Victoria Bischoff
Victoria.Bischoff@dailymail.co.uk
02079386000
The Sun
Helen Knapman
Digital Deputy Consumer Editor in London
Helen.knapman@the-sun.co.uk
02077924100
P2P Finance News
Suzie Neuwirth
Founder and Editor-in-Chief - P2P Finance news
suzie@p2pfinancenews.co.uk
07966180299
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Apr 28, 2020 12:10:05 GMT
As investors I’m sure we all accept the world has changed and recognise the platform has to adapt in order to allow an orderly withdrawal of funds. We understand we can’t have immediate access to our cash. The decision however to remove the instruction "Withdraw All" from the Access Accounts without investors authority is both unfair, discriminatory, and may be illegal. Ultimately this forces investors to invest redeemed capital into increasingly risky loans which may default, against our wishes. Given AC refuse to engage with customers to address our concerns. You may wish to contact the FCA, and financial media in the hope that exposure of their discriminatory allocation of capital, might bring about an immediate change in their conduct. Detailed below are some useful contact numbers. I'm gonna give this another crack. Imagine you have just 10 loans in your QAA, and have £100k in each loan for a total of £1m. Then, Loan 1 in your QAA completes, and could return you £100k immediately if you had your wish. Alternatively, that money could be used to fund the next tranche of your Loan 2 which would otherwise fail and return only 20% of the initial investment If you go for the money now, you'll get your £100k back immediately but lose £80k on the other investment. If half of your investments repay and you repeat the same behaviour, you end up losing £400k on your £1m. Alternatively, you can let the money be reinvested in future tranches of other loans in your portfolio and not lose any of that money, or far far less at least. Are you really this desperate for immediate cash as to sacrifice nearly half of your investment? If you are, well good news you can just wait for discounting to be allowed in the QAA and pay far less than that. If you're not, then what you're asking for is against your own interests. This is basically what you're petitioning the press for, and it makes no sense.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 623
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Apr 28, 2020 12:15:25 GMT
A few more useful contact numbers: Anxiety UKCharity providing support if you have been diagnosed with an anxiety condition.
Phone: 03444 775 774 (Monday to Friday, 9.30am to 10pm; Saturday to Sunday, 10am to 8pm) Website: www.anxietyuk.org.ukBipolar UKA charity helping people living with manic depression or bipolar disorder. Website: www.bipolaruk.org.ukCALM
CALM is the Campaign Against Living Miserably, for men aged 15 to 35. Phone: 0800 58 58 58 (daily, 5pm to midnight) Website: www.thecalmzone.netMind
Promotes the views and needs of people with mental health problems.Phone: 0300 123 3393 (Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm) Website: www.mind.org.ukNo Panic
Voluntary charity offering support for sufferers of panic attacks and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Offers a course to help overcome your phobia or OCD. Phone: 0844 967 4848 (daily, 10am to 10pm). Calls cost 5p per minute plus your phone provider's Access Charge Website: www.nopanic.org.ukOCD Action
Support for people with OCD. Includes information on treatment and online resources. Phone: 0845 390 6232 (Monday to Friday, 9.30am to 5pm). Calls cost 5p per minute plus your phone provider's Access Charge Website: www.ocdaction.org.uk |
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 28, 2020 12:32:45 GMT
As investors I’m sure we all accept the world has changed and recognise the platform has to adapt in order to allow an orderly withdrawal of funds. We understand we can’t have immediate access to our cash. The decision however to remove the instruction "Withdraw All" from the Access Accounts without investors authority is both unfair, discriminatory, and may be illegal. Ultimately this forces investors to invest redeemed capital into increasingly risky loans which may default, against our wishes. Given AC refuse to engage with customers to address our concerns. You may wish to contact the FCA, and financial media in the hope that exposure of their discriminatory allocation of capital, might bring about an immediate change in their conduct. Detailed below are some useful contact numbers. I'm gonna give this another crack. Imagine you have just 10 loans in your QAA, and have £100k in each loan for a total of £1m. Then, Loan 1 in your QAA completes, and could return you £100k immediately if you had your wish. Alternatively, that money could be used to fund the next tranche of your Loan 2 which would otherwise fail and return only 20% of the initial investment If you go for the money now, you'll get your £100k back immediately but lose £80k on the other investment. If half of your investments repay and you repeat the same behaviour, you end up losing £400k on your £1m. Alternatively, you can let the money be reinvested in future tranches of other loans in your portfolio and not lose any of that money, or far far less at least. Are you really this desperate for immediate cash as to sacrifice nearly half of your investment? If you are, well good news you can just wait for discounting to be allowed in the QAA and pay far less than that. If you're not, then what you're asking for is against your own interests. This is basically what you're petitioning the press for, and it makes no sense. If I do get £100k redeemed it should be my choice wether to fund additional tranches. Equally if my £100k is to be dispersed to investors, I should get £100k not £250 with 399 £250 allocations going to other investors.This is clearly discriminatory. Listen I respect your right to be happy with the changes. Equally you should respect the right of other investors to protect themselves against what they view as blatantly unfair practice. Ultimately the courts and public / investor opinion will prevail. If a change was actioned it should have been in line with current administration protocol. Regardless I sincerely hope we all get out of this relatively unscathed. Stay safe,
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,675
Likes: 2,999
|
Post by IFISAcava on Apr 28, 2020 13:59:07 GMT
ian I'm gonna give this another crack. Imagine you have just 10 loans in your QAA, and have £100k in each loan for a total of £1m. Then, Loan 1 in your QAA completes, and could return you £100k immediately if you had your wish. Alternatively, that money could be used to fund the next tranche of your Loan 2 which would otherwise fail and return only 20% of the initial investment If you go for the money now, you'll get your £100k back immediately but lose £80k on the other investment. If half of your investments repay and you repeat the same behaviour, you end up losing £400k on your £1m. Alternatively, you can let the money be reinvested in future tranches of other loans in your portfolio and not lose any of that money, or far far less at least. Are you really this desperate for immediate cash as to sacrifice nearly half of your investment? If you are, well good news you can just wait for discounting to be allowed in the QAA and pay far less than that. If you're not, then what you're asking for is against your own interests. This is basically what you're petitioning the press for, and it makes no sense. If I do get £100k redeemed it should be my choice wether to fund additional tranches. Equally if my £100k is to be dispersed to investors, I should get £100k not £250 with 399 £250 allocations going to other investors.This is clearly discriminatory. Listen I respect your right to be happy with the changes. Equally you should respect the right of other investors to protect themselves against what they view as blatantly unfair practice. Ultimately the courts and public / investor opinion will prevail. If a change was actioned it should have been in line with current administration protocol. Regardless I sincerely hope we all get out of this relatively unscathed. Stay safe, Rather than seeing it as "your" repayment, why don't you see it as a repayment to the depleted PF/cash reserve, from which your larger investment had previously benefited proportionately (though you decided not to take advantage of it when the market conditions were normal)? Now that market conditions are abnormal, the PF/cash fund has decided in its discretion to prioritise protecting your larger investment proportionally by funding future tranches. The cash repayments it has in its discretion decided to repay as a pool for now, as the best use of a small amount of remaining liquidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Apr 28, 2020 14:46:59 GMT
If I do get £100k redeemed it should be my choice wether to fund additional tranches. Equally if my £100k is to be dispersed to investors, I should get £100k not £250 with 399 £250 allocations going to other investors.This is clearly discriminatory. Listen I respect your right to be happy with the changes. Equally you should respect the right of other investors to protect themselves against what they view as blatantly unfair practice. Ultimately the courts and public / investor opinion will prevail. If a change was actioned it should have been in line with current administration protocol. Regardless I sincerely hope we all get out of this relatively unscathed. Stay safe, If you wanted the freedom to make that granularity of decision for yourself, then you should have invested directly into loans through the MLIA and not the access accounts. Your ability to access your investment in the access accounts was always governed by AC. This is self evident from e.g. the fact that the time to withdraw your investment was always subject to market conditions. With the AA you never had the option/control to choose which loans to invest in, nor which to sell, nor when that happened, nor what was done with monies redeemed on loans. The only thing you had was the right to invest money into the account, and the right to request a withdrawl - the timing and manner of the execution of, and the mechanism for achieving any withdrawl was at ACs discretion (and clearly flagged as being subject to market conditions). The fact that under the wrapper you directly held units in specific loans (at the same ratios as everyone else in the relevant account) is incidental. It didn't of itself give you any right to withdraw an associated sum as and when any individual allocated loan part resulted in an interest or principal payment. Looking under the covers at what you hold and what they may or may not be paying is leading to a specious conclusion that somehow you have the rights to withdraw "your" allocation in any resulting payments from a specific loan. Your loan holdings were always a case of constantly shifting sands, as loans paid out interest, paid off principal, money ebbed and flowed into the account, new loans were purchased or sold by the totality of the access account.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 28, 2020 14:57:54 GMT
If I do get £100k redeemed it should be my choice wether to fund additional tranches. Equally if my £100k is to be dispersed to investors, I should get £100k not £250 with 399 £250 allocations going to other investors.This is clearly discriminatory. Listen I respect your right to be happy with the changes. Equally you should respect the right of other investors to protect themselves against what they view as blatantly unfair practice. Ultimately the courts and public / investor opinion will prevail. If a change was actioned it should have been in line with current administration protocol. Regardless I sincerely hope we all get out of this relatively unscathed. Stay safe, Rather than seeing it as "your" repayment, why don't you see it as a repayment to the depleted PF/cash reserve, from which your larger investment had previously benefited proportionately (though you decided not to take advantage of it when the market conditions were normal)? Now that market conditions are abnormal, the PF/cash fund has decided in its discretion to prioritise protecting your larger investment proportionally by funding future tranches. The cash repayments it has in its discretion decided to repay as a pool for now, as the best use of a small amount of remaining liquidity. I will tell you why it is my repayment, because previously it was my capital that was exposed to the loan. If the borrower defaulted then I would be exposed to the loss (assuming they provision fund is exhausted). Conversely if the loan defaults and I’m still in it; are assetz going to get all the smaller Investors’s who have managed to get their funds out to make a contribution to my loss  If AC want larger investors to be increasingly exposed maybe they should introduce say a 10% rate for 12 month investments over £100k. Presently investors have paid by forsaking interest, for increased liquidity - this hasn’t been honoured. To then have other investors then access cash to which you had exposure is completely wrong and inequitable. As I said given were in exceptional circumstances & AC have abandoned their normal withdrawal process; administration protocol should prevail imho - Prorata. As regards using all funds for further tranches you make a good point - however it should be at the investors choice. There is access to government funds available - which is surprisingly easy to attain.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 28, 2020 15:03:27 GMT
Rather than seeing it as "your" repayment, why don't you see it as a repayment to the depleted PF/cash reserve, from which your larger investment had previously benefited proportionately (though you decided not to take advantage of it when the market conditions were normal)? Now that market conditions are abnormal, the PF/cash fund has decided in its discretion to prioritise protecting your larger investment proportionally by funding future tranches. The cash repayments it has in its discretion decided to repay as a pool for now, as the best use of a small amount of remaining liquidity. I will tell you why it is my repayment, because previously it was my capital that was exposed to the loan. If the borrower defaulted then I would be exposed to the loss (assuming they provision fund is exhausted). Conversely if the loan defaults and I’m still in it; are assetz going to get all the smaller Investors’s who have managed to get their funds out to make a contribution to my loss If AC want larger investors to be increasingly exposed maybe they should introduce say a 10% rate for 12 month investments over £100k. Presently investors have paid by forsaking interest, for increased liquidity - this hasn’t been honoured. To then have other investors then access cash to which you had exposure is completely wrong and inequitable. As I said given were in exceptional circumstances & AC have abandoned their normal withdrawal process; administration protocol should prevail imho - Prorata. As regards using all funds for further tranches you make a good point - however it should be at the investors choice. There is access to government funds available - which is surprisingly easy to attain. In Access Accounts (unlike the MLA) I can't see AC going with lenders having individual settings, only a group view. This poll showed lenders (who voted) held the opposite view to yours by 5:1
Re "I will tell you why it is my repayment" - when was that ever the case in Access Accounts?
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 2,468
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 28, 2020 15:07:36 GMT
< ...> Presently investors have paid by forsaking interest, for increased liquidity - this hasn’t been honoured. As regards using all funds for further tranches you make a good point - however it should be at the investors choice. There is access to government funds available - which is surprisingly easy to attain. Is that actually the case? From the Q&A (my underlining): As to Gov't funding, which sources are available to property developers?
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 28, 2020 15:14:15 GMT
< ...> Presently investors have paid by forsaking interest, for increased liquidity - this hasn’t been honoured. As regards using all funds for further tranches you make a good point - however it should be at the investors choice. There is access to government funds available - which is surprisingly easy to attain. Is that actually the case? From the Q&A (my underlining): As to Gov't funding, which sources are available to property developers? Someone in the QAA or cash that was swept, accepted 4.1% instead of 5.75% in order to be ahead of the 90day investors in the queue. Most SMEs with a reasonable financial background can get access to £250k interest free for 12 months. If banks deem them too high risk, assetz probably shouldn’t have advanced to them let alone advanced them more in these circumstances. Regardless that’s another matter. As I said ultimately the courts and public / investor opinion will determine if assetz are operating in a fair & proper way. Either way I think they’ve blown it with a good 70% of their investors (by value).
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 28, 2020 15:19:24 GMT
Is that actually the case? From the Q&A (my underlining): As to Gov't funding, which sources are available to property developers? Someone in the QAA or cash that was swept, accepted 4.1% instead of 5.75% in order to be ahead of the 90day investors in the queue. Which is surely still true. E.g. if you have money in the QAA and 90DAA, neither of which you've given notice on, then you give notice on each one, you'll get a pay-out on the QAA next time one is made, but you won't get one on the 90DAA for another 90 days.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 2,468
|
Post by iRobot on Apr 28, 2020 15:24:17 GMT
Is that actually the case? From the Q&A (my underlining): Someone in the QAA or cash that was swept, accepted 4.1% instead of 5.75% in order to be ahead of the 90day investors in the queue. Only if they (the QAA holders) joined the queue before the 90day'ers joined the queue (having given 90 days notice); once in queue the deli-counter system was strictly observed, I thought? As it stands for now, there is no queue, but 30- and 90-day'ers still have to give notice to join the pool.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Apr 28, 2020 15:28:08 GMT
Suggest you try Action Fraud. If that seems too tame there is always Interpol and we may still qualify for various European Crime Agencies which would be delighted to help.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 28, 2020 15:30:23 GMT
Someone in the QAA or cash that was swept, accepted 4.1% instead of 5.75% in order to be ahead of the 90day investors in the queue. Which is surely still true. E.g. if you have money in the QAA and 90DAA, neither of which you've given notice on, then you give notice on each one, you'll get a pay-out on the QAA next time one is made, but you won't get one on the 90DAA for another 90 days. No it isn’t all my withdrawal dates were up in March, however I get the same £1 allocated as someone who’s 90day access date was yesterday.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on Apr 28, 2020 15:34:33 GMT
Which is surely still true. E.g. if you have money in the QAA and 90DAA, neither of which you've given notice on, then you give notice on each one, you'll get a pay-out on the QAA next time one is made, but you won't get one on the 90DAA for another 90 days. No it isn’t all my withdrawal dates were up in March, however I get the same £1 allocated as someone who’s 90day access date was yesterday. I agree with that (though it's a different point to the one I made which is that 90DAA lenders who aren't in the queue can't get in the queue as fast as QAA people who aren't in the queue) and I'm in the same position, but the "fixed payments vs pro-rata payments vs FIFO queue" argument has been done to deaths on many other threads, so not much point us doing it again here.
|
|
