victors
Member of DD Central
Posts: 157 
Likes: 86
|
Post by victors on May 21, 2020 10:45:18 GMT
AC need to hurry up and get the SM working on the AAs, that's the huge problem with the platform, CBILS is just a sideshow.
Agreed 100%.
You read the MLA is working fine and it just increases the frustration that you're stuck in the AAs and can't sell your loan holdings.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on May 21, 2020 11:12:46 GMT
AC need to hurry up and get the SM working on the AAs, that's the huge problem with the platform, CBILS is just a sideshow. Agreed 100%. You read the MLA is working fine and it just increases the frustration that you're stuck in the AAs and can't sell your loan holdings. No, AC need to as long as necessary to ensure that the new system works perfectly and has been comprehensively tested. Squidgy coding might be OK in some areas, but not for a financial transaction between two lenders which cannot be reversed if it goes wrong. Unfortunately the word 'soon' has many different meanings when used by AC, it could be next week, next month or next year, so continued patience is needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on May 21, 2020 12:01:44 GMT
AC need to hurry up and get the SM working on the AAs, that's the huge problem with the platform, CBILS is just a sideshow. Agreed 100%. You read the MLA is working fine and it just increases the frustration that you're stuck in the AAs and can't sell your loan holdings. No, AC need to as long as necessary to ensure that the new system works perfectly and has been comprehensively tested. Squidgy coding might be OK in some areas, but not for a financial transaction between two lenders which cannot be reversed if it goes wrong. Unfortunately the word 'soon' has many different meanings when used by AC, it could be next week, next month or next year, so continued patience is needed. Agree with both points but meanwhile my money is drifting out of the MLA at par and getting locked up in corporate bonds for many years to come. If there were discounts on the Access accounts then I would diversify a little (not sure if anyone noticed, I'm not a fan of 'black box' accounts) into them. Instead it looks like AC are spending lots of time and resources getting the new website to work half as well as the old one, that surely is a great example of fiddling whilst Rome burns. IMO if the resources allocated to the new website had been re purposed to getting the AA SM it would have been here already. I'm not sure about contractual obligations, could be that AC have paid a contractor to develop the new site in which case fair enough but right now it looks like a very badly timed vanity project.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on May 21, 2020 12:24:05 GMT
So that would be no sources apart from your own opinion and bias that simply isn't worth responding to. I doubt Stuart will bother. T he fact that borrowers still have to pay interest (deferred) on their existing AC loans will push the ones with a positive IQ to pay off the AC loan first and if possible use their CBIL loan to pay off the AC loan as much as the CBILS rules allow. Having a hissy fit just because you spectacularly misunderstood access accounts is no way to influence anyone, the opposite is probably true. AC are more likely to prefer you to never invest with them again as you evidently belong in a FSCS account. 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.. It doesn’t really pal - CBILS is designed to enable SMEs meet their obligations - wages, creditors and financial obligations to lenders. ACs stance as regards forbearance will probably result in secured creditors like us, seeing little of borrowers new source of funds. Lets face it if you was in their shoes you would pay off anyone with a 2nd charge rather than assetz who take a 1st charge.
|
|
|
|
Post by oppsididitagain on May 23, 2020 7:50:36 GMT
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.. It doesn’t really pal - CBILS is designed to enable SMEs meet their obligations - wages, creditors and financial obligations to lenders. ACs stance as regards forbearance will probably result in secured creditors like us, seeing little of borrowers new source of funds. Lets face it if you was in their shoes you would pay off anyone with a 2nd charge rather than assetz who take a 1st charge. My thoughts entirely Ian, great publicity / Spin - II get looked after and the retail side will still have a liquidity problem, but the platform is still alive to lend and not pay us back our money on time
|
|
k6
Posts: 266
Likes: 161
|
Post by k6 on Jun 2, 2020 8:22:45 GMT
Sorry , Could not find the relevant chat but it seems like AC is raising forth Seedrs Equity round.
Don't know how much cope / paste I can do in here so just will leave as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by shanghaiscouse on Jun 2, 2020 12:31:03 GMT
Hmmm, FT headline yesterday was 50% of CBILS loans expected to go bad. means platforms will spend inordinate amount of time chasing bad debts.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jun 2, 2020 12:41:02 GMT
Hmmm, FT headline yesterday was 50% of CBILS loans expected to go bad. means platforms will spend inordinate amount of time chasing bad debts. Well, maybe just 20% of that 'inordinate amount of time' 
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Jun 2, 2020 13:33:23 GMT
Hmmm, FT headline yesterday was 50% of CBILS loans expected to go bad. means platforms will spend inordinate amount of time chasing bad debts. I believe that was nothing to do with commenting on the careful process around CBILS loans but instead referred to the quick application process BBLS loans only. We have no expectation of such defaults on CBILS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Jun 2, 2020 16:57:28 GMT
Hmmm, FT headline yesterday was 50% of CBILS loans expected to go bad. means platforms will spend inordinate amount of time chasing bad debts.
I think I read that article too in the FT, it was the BBL ones which were thought by some to hit 40 or 50% default rate. (I see these more as grants not loans)
Anyone have any ideas about the CBILS though?
|
|
|
|
Post by shanghaiscouse on Jun 2, 2020 20:43:44 GMT
Well, based on my experience of funding circle who lent to...ahem....SMEs (very few of them, only 1 in my case, have refinanced during this period which I find strange as there is money falling from the sky, or maybe they are just grabbing as much as they can while it is being handed out), then I was getting 15-20% defaults on 2018 and 2019 vintages, and that was before coronavirus..... so if the CBILS will default faster, say 30%, and BBS even faster, say 40-50% as FT quoted, then the moral hazard will be through the roof. Why should anyone pay back any loan? Would you not be a mug to do so when half the people around you aren't? Frankly I think the chancellor is out of his depth and is utterly reckless with MY money.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 2, 2020 20:55:48 GMT
... Frankly I think the chancellor is out of his depth and is utterly reckless with MY money. Why stop at the Chancellor...I think the entire cabinet is out of its depth...big time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Aug 4, 2020 9:43:41 GMT
Are you trying to start a turf war?
Sorry, couldn't resist it 🙃
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 617
|
Post by dave4 on Aug 19, 2020 12:18:17 GMT
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 631
Likes: 772
|
Post by m2btj on Aug 20, 2020 7:39:42 GMT
|
|
