Assetz Capital approved for CBILS

So if AC have the final tranche of a development loan to fill, what pressure is there on AC to ensure there is a realistic chance of the development completing and the loans repaying? It looks like AC are taking zero risk and the tax payer takes 80% of the risk for little (if any) reward.

Will this mean redeemed capital in the access accounts will now be returned to lenders rather than be invested in tranches which investors do not wish to participate in?

Thanks for replying, its appreciated that you engage with us.

Unfortunately I don't see how this will benefit the retail investors.  Yes it may make the platform more stable, however we want our money back, you know the money in the quick access account. We  also want the original Interest rate you said you would give us. 

The CBILS loans should be used to free up liquidity , restore the interest rates you said you would pay and help the platform out for the future.
 Im not sure how the mix of loans is going to do that. Maybe expand on how they will help , rather than just say what they are ?

With the limited refinancing of existing loans, I would suggest a stipulation of any refinancing with an external CBILS has an element of repaying the original loan, to free up liquidity etc. Why even ask us to vote on approvals of CBILS loans if our security will change yet no repayments will be made to original loans. 
Its a NO from me every time until you free up our money.

1. I doubt AC have any power to dictate to 3rd party lenders. I assume in each case outcomings will be taken into consideration but there is no point a borrower using a CBIL to pay down borrowing at the expense of other ongoing costs, the non payment of which result in the business going bust.
2. Yes, so hopefully where AC is the provider it wont be required.
3. As per 1. 

Borrower & platform stability clearly benefits lenders as well. As I said at the moment to early to tell.

More than happy to respond. From my own experience Borrowers can now access between £50,000 & £250,000 of funding over 6 years 1st year interest free & with a full capital holiday. Rates going forward are presently significantly below the 3.75% AC pay to lenders. (Those terms may not be afforded to all borrowers). Additional funding is available if required with greater exposure to the borrower.

As you will be aware a borrower can access this from any number of lenders. A current Assetz Capital borrower might borrow from Funding Circle and vica versa. 

As AC seem reluctant to ensure Borrowers meet their obligations as regards timely capital and interest payments, ACs present borrowers may be less likely to seek secondary/CBIL funding. Indeed if they do attain CBIL funding given ACs forbearance stance they are less likely to channel this secondary funding towards repayments to AC.

In short - Developers should be directed to take advantage of this cost effective source of funds. Forbearance should no longer be required by creditworthy borrowers. If CBIL funding is not available to borrowers, this clearly is an indication the borrower presents an increased / unacceptable risk.
In such circumstances AC might be deemed be negligent in lending further funds or delaying actions to recover any defaul. By continuing to loan to parties unable to access CBIL funding, you expose retail investors to a portfolio of loans which have increased risk. 

I would contend the primary reason AC refuse to give Access account holders full access redeemed capital is AC need these funds to continue to loan out, at an ever increasing margin (given you've reduced lenders returns), is purely to keep AC in business. That is not necessary the same acting in the lenders best interests. 

Investors are not saying you should pull the plug on existing investments, however your refusal to give Access account holders full access redeemed capital, is compounded by you subsequently investing those funds in new loan tranches; I reiterate, without the investors consent; potentially, in loans which investors do not wish to participate in. These ‘new loans’ clearly expose investors to increased risk, given the significant forecast movement in property markets & general economy, what's more they are probably being advanced to borrowers at levels far exceeding the advertised loan to values, given there appears to have been no reassessment of the net realisable values of projects post lockdown!

PS THANKYOU FOR RESPONDING

This is why I asked the question in the 1st place. As this is not happening.  Why do you think the new CBILS issuers are asking for part of our security ?
If they were repaying the AC loans/transferring it to a CBILS then the security wouldn't matter - the new lender would be 1st in line.
AC don't want this to happen either, as they lose margin income etc.  AC are running a business and will do what is best for them, and use your money to do that.

People need to understand what  'the right thing to do' doesn't happen in the real world.  Thats why there are so many defaults across the P2P platforms.  People should pay off their CC in full at the end of each month but thousands dont.. 
Some one with a big IQ will just forget about the AC loan, put the demand letters in the bin, after the 3months forbearance AC granted.  They have new funding from the Govt - a clean slate.. 

We are saying AC needs to free up its liquidity and repay the retail investors.  Demand that a part of the new funds pays down the AC loans, NOT fund existing new loan tranches.

The original question was - how does this benefit the retail investors. Apart from keeping the platform alive, you still think you have hope.
You can keep the platform alive for another 5 years, lend another billion Quid via the institutional channels, the facts is -  AC will still have your money.
The hamster wheel keeps on turning..