alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Jun 25, 2020 13:40:45 GMT
•Where did it say in the T&Cs AC could make changes to create an SM in AAs?
Where did it say they would never allow you to transfer your AA holding to another investor?
That which is not prohibited can be done. Indeed. In fact, the T&Cs clearly state that Assetz are permitted to change the T&Cs at their total discretion, which lenders all agreed to when opening their accounts. No use agreeing to this when times are good and then bleating about it retrospectively. Assetz have a tough challenge balancing the needs and issues of both lenders and borrowers, and are doing a decent job of it IMO. Companies cannot change the T&Cs without both parties permission or allowing the other party to exit with full money, this is the FCA rules and is also part of contract law from what I understand. No contact/T&Cs can enforce a clause which states the terms can be changed by one party.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Jun 25, 2020 13:50:30 GMT
The MLA will just create a liquidity race to the bottom. How? Desperate lenders offering greater and greater discounts to get out. Nil cash will enter the access accounts when investors can buy loans at a discount
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jun 25, 2020 13:51:49 GMT
Why are these astounding claims
- I was told a number of times over the phone there was never any problems with getting money out and could not see any problems in the future, even Feb this year
- Where did it say in the T&Cs AC could make changes to create an SM in AAs?
Where did AC state in the event of a lockdown large investors would be disadvantaged? Where did AC state most of the capital repayments would be used to fund promises that AC made to future tranches with money AC does not have? Where did AC state that around the time of the AA SM opening AC would create a new MLA loans on more favourable terms in competition to AA SM?
So please tell me why these are astounding claims, investors behaviour lead to the lock but made worse as AC did not carry a large enough liquidity buffer but investors are responsible for the changes AC have made since the lockdown.
So you lock investors in not knowing how much they may get back of their money and when this may happen, reduce interest rates to investors and talk about painful and costly to do the right thing.
Answers below : I was told a number of times over the phone there was never any problems with getting money out and could not see any problems in the future, even Feb this year - Sounds like a straight answer to a straight question at the time yes, if that is what was asked and the information provided, and I'm sure you don't expect our lender desk to anticipate the economic impact of a global pandemic ahead of all the experts and our government. That doesn't change the clear terms of the accounts nor change that past performance doesn't indicate the future with certainty. Nonetheless, our Normal Market Conditions disclosure is directly applicable to the current circumstances. Where did it say in the T&Cs AC could make changes to create an SM in AAs? - It doesn't and doesn't need to - this is a new feature that is similar to the existing facility in the MLA and is intended to increase the options available to those wishing to release some of their funds as quickly as possible. Its an entirely optional service to use, existing withdrawals will be at par only so no discount. You are at liberty to just run down the account and await renewed par value liquidity, or if you need an exit now then you can consider offering a discount representing some of the recent interest earned perhaps. It is nothing more than a marketplace to further help investors buy and sell as the account terms state is the principal exit. Where did AC state in the event of a lockdown large investors would be disadvantaged? - this is only true if you are comparing to another potential new features we could have written that would have benefited you more than the one that was implemented. Most people would have received nothing if we had left the accounts running as before and that likely includes yourself. Where did AC state most of the capital repayments would be used to fund promises that AC made to future tranches with money AC does not have? - in the terms of the account it states that all investment in the account is automatic and that applies to new lending and any loans with outstanding future funding that has already been committed to by lenders under the account terms. All the cash required was always forecast to be available. As stated above we could look at cancelling those loans but the outcome for investors would be interesting for such a rash move and we therefore do not contemplate changing the terms of the account for that purpose. Where did AC state that around the time of the AA SM opening AC would create a new MLA loans on more favourable terms in competition to AA SM? - We aren't making that decision - we are a lender and market forces on a P2P platform can influence outcomes - if investors want to lend, and they do, and borrowers want to borrow, and they do, then our role is to facilitate that. Clearly cycles will influence interest rates. At some point participating in new lending on higher rates within the AA could bolster rates and also the provision fund and aid liquidity. That will be a decision to make at some point potentially. MLA lenders are different lenders to those in the Access Accounts as already stated. There will always be some other views but we must and do think of treating investors as a whole fairly. I hope this helps. Have you considered offering a secondary market on the GBBA and other investment accounts?
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Jun 25, 2020 14:01:56 GMT
Why are these astounding claims
- I was told a number of times over the phone there was never any problems with getting money out and could not see any problems in the future, even Feb this year
- Where did it say in the T&Cs AC could make changes to create an SM in AAs?
Where did AC state in the event of a lockdown large investors would be disadvantaged? Where did AC state most of the capital repayments would be used to fund promises that AC made to future tranches with money AC does not have? Where did AC state that around the time of the AA SM opening AC would create a new MLA loans on more favourable terms in competition to AA SM?
So please tell me why these are astounding claims, investors behaviour lead to the lock but made worse as AC did not carry a large enough liquidity buffer but investors are responsible for the changes AC have made since the lockdown.
So you lock investors in not knowing how much they may get back of their money and when this may happen, reduce interest rates to investors and talk about painful and costly to do the right thing.
Answers below : I was told a number of times over the phone there was never any problems with getting money out and could not see any problems in the future, even Feb this year - Sounds like a straight answer to a straight question at the time yes, if that is what was asked and the information provided, and I'm sure you don't expect our lender desk to anticipate the economic impact of a global pandemic ahead of all the experts and our government. That doesn't change the clear terms of the accounts nor change that past performance doesn't indicate the future with certainty. Nonetheless, our Normal Market Conditions disclosure is directly applicable to the current circumstances. Where did it say in the T&Cs AC could make changes to create an SM in AAs? - It doesn't and doesn't need to - this is a new feature that is similar to the existing facility in the MLA and is intended to increase the options available to those wishing to release some of their funds as quickly as possible. Its an entirely optional service to use, existing withdrawals will be at par only so no discount. You are at liberty to just run down the account and await renewed par value liquidity, or if you need an exit now then you can consider offering a discount representing some of the recent interest earned perhaps. It is nothing more than a marketplace to further help investors buy and sell as the account terms state is the principal exit. Where did AC state in the event of a lockdown large investors would be disadvantaged? - this is only true if you are comparing to another potential new features we could have written that would have benefited you more than the one that was implemented. Most people would have received nothing if we had left the accounts running as before and that likely includes yourself. Where did AC state most of the capital repayments would be used to fund promises that AC made to future tranches with money AC does not have? - in the terms of the account it states that all investment in the account is automatic and that applies to new lending and any loans with outstanding future funding that has already been committed to by lenders under the account terms. All the cash required was always forecast to be available. As stated above we could look at cancelling those loans but the outcome for investors would be interesting for such a rash move and we therefore do not contemplate changing the terms of the account for that purpose. Where did AC state that around the time of the AA SM opening AC would create a new MLA loans on more favourable terms in competition to AA SM? - We aren't making that decision - we are a lender and market forces on a P2P platform can influence outcomes - if investors want to lend, and they do, and borrowers want to borrow, and they do, then our role is to facilitate that. Clearly cycles will influence interest rates. At some point participating in new lending on higher rates within the AA could bolster rates and also the provision fund and aid liquidity. That will be a decision to make at some point potentially. MLA lenders are different lenders to those in the Access Accounts as already stated. There will always be some other views but we must and do think of treating investors as a whole fairly. I hope this helps. There were no caveats given when I was told they do not expect to be any problems, as I said the last time was in Feb when covid was well under way.
I reasonable person would expect anything that is not mentioned which will effect investors like the changes you have made are outside the T&Cs and should not be made without investors permission.
It is a matter of fact large investors were disadvantaged, does not matter one bit about new features etc. Why would I have received nothing as some interest and capital repayments have been made, this is our money.
Given the amount of money AC have committed to future loan tranches investors should have this information before investing especially given the devastating effect it has had on capital repayments, there never any mention of the scale of the promises AC made.
So if AC did not make the decision to have a AA SM and start new MLA lending who did?
|
|
|
|
Post by elf on Jun 25, 2020 14:23:28 GMT
Why are these astounding claims
- I was told a number of times over the phone there was never any problems with getting money out and could not see any problems in the future, even Feb this year
- Where did it say in the T&Cs AC could make changes to create an SM in AAs?
Where did AC state in the event of a lockdown large investors would be disadvantaged? Where did AC state most of the capital repayments would be used to fund promises that AC made to future tranches with money AC does not have? Where did AC state that around the time of the AA SM opening AC would create a new MLA loans on more favourable terms in competition to AA SM?
So please tell me why these are astounding claims, investors behaviour lead to the lock but made worse as AC did not carry a large enough liquidity buffer but investors are responsible for the changes AC have made since the lockdown.
So you lock investors in not knowing how much they may get back of their money and when this may happen, reduce interest rates to investors and talk about painful and costly to do the right thing.
Answers below : I was told a number of times over the phone there was never any problems with getting money out and could not see any problems in the future, even Feb this year - Sounds like a straight answer to a straight question at the time yes, if that is what was asked and the information provided, and I'm sure you don't expect our lender desk to anticipate the economic impact of a global pandemic ahead of all the experts and our government. That doesn't change the clear terms of the accounts nor change that past performance doesn't indicate the future with certainty. Nonetheless, our Normal Market Conditions disclosure is directly applicable to the current circumstances. Where did it say in the T&Cs AC could make changes to create an SM in AAs? - It doesn't and doesn't need to - this is a new feature that is similar to the existing facility in the MLA and is intended to increase the options available to those wishing to release some of their funds as quickly as possible. Its an entirely optional service to use, existing withdrawals will be at par only so no discount. You are at liberty to just run down the account and await renewed par value liquidity, or if you need an exit now then you can consider offering a discount representing some of the recent interest earned perhaps. It is nothing more than a marketplace to further help investors buy and sell as the account terms state is the principal exit. Where did AC state in the event of a lockdown large investors would be disadvantaged? - this is only true if you are comparing to another potential new features we could have written that would have benefited you more than the one that was implemented. Most people would have received nothing if we had left the accounts running as before and that likely includes yourself. Where did AC state most of the capital repayments would be used to fund promises that AC made to future tranches with money AC does not have? - in the terms of the account it states that all investment in the account is automatic and that applies to new lending and any loans with outstanding future funding that has already been committed to by lenders under the account terms. All the cash required was always forecast to be available. As stated above we could look at cancelling those loans but the outcome for investors would be interesting for such a rash move and we therefore do not contemplate changing the terms of the account for that purpose. Where did AC state that around the time of the AA SM opening AC would create a new MLA loans on more favourable terms in competition to AA SM? - We aren't making that decision - we are a lender and market forces on a P2P platform can influence outcomes - if investors want to lend, and they do, and borrowers want to borrow, and they do, then our role is to facilitate that. Clearly cycles will influence interest rates. At some point participating in new lending on higher rates within the AA could bolster rates and also the provision fund and aid liquidity. That will be a decision to make at some point potentially. MLA lenders are different lenders to those in the Access Accounts as already stated. There will always be some other views but we must and do think of treating investors as a whole fairly. I hope this helps. Stuart. Since you seem to be answering some questions today how about addressing the point I've been asking. You started this thread saying only new MLA lending would be taking place but are quoted in the p2p finance news article on 18th June saying: “We just want to get our investors back to sensible liquidity again. When that’s happening, I’d expect to go back to lending in our access accounts.” Please explain what you mean by "sensible" liquidity for access accounts. It sounds to me like it could just mean the act of setting up the SM. If so you are committing people to funding entirely new loans (not just future tranches of existing ones) whilst they are unable to release their money at par. This was not the case prior to 12th March when automatic funding of new loans as per the account terms of reference was coupled with the ability to withdraw at par. If this is the plan it is indefensible on two counts. First that you committing people (if they can only exit at say a 30%, 50%, 90% discount) to having to fund entirely new loans when they would wish the money directed to rebuild their liquidity exit pool. Secondly such new lending may compromise the ability to fund the existing tranches already committed to which in itself risks solvency of the entire access system (especially if new loans are themseves tranche based). Given the number of large tranche loans that were being issued in the immediate run up to the crisis I have concerns about Assetz risk managment model. The beneficiary of brand new loans funded from access accounts is the Assetz shareholders via the fees collected from continually recycling repaid capital into new loans. I cannot see how it can be argued as beneficial to lender involuntarily locked in. As always, I accept its possible my assessment is incorrect. But you appear to be gearing up to restart lending first from MLA (which is fine) and then arguing if that showed an appetite for retail lending its perfectly fine to start using the access money again without stating what liquidity conditions will have to apply for those wishing to exit. I imagine this definition will also be of interest to those who might consider investing via the access SM.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jun 25, 2020 16:18:07 GMT
The AC threads do tend do go round in circles these days and its difficult to break the ground hog day effect... I assume there are hardly any lenders who think AC should simply stop giving money to borrowers for existing development tranche drawdowns. There can be very few, perhaps zero examples where that is the right thing to do. It is what is right now. AC have no way of sourcing funds for these developer drawdowns apart from the access accounts. I assume MLA investors, underwriters, institutions are not interested. Happy to be corrected by stuartassetzcapital. This has been a potential risk for a long time pre covid. Hindsight is easy, but I sincerely hope that when AC open up new lending on the MLA, there is no suggestion that the Access accounts are solely the last point of call for funding new development loans or forebearance drawdowns for new loans. It is not in anyones interest to risk getting into this situation again.... I can totally see the need for cash in the Access accounts going to developers to continue their construction at the moment. Am less certain about the merit right now for cash in the Access accounts funding forbearance drawdowns for non development loans for example. An alternative is simply to give this spare access account cash back to access account holders and any interest, monitoring fees, enhanced monitoring fees, loan extension fees etc that a borrower can't afford right now simply rolling up and being paid on the redemption of the loan. It feels a bit weird to me right now having access account holders funding some interest payments going to MLA holders and enhanced fees to AC where forebearance has kicked in. In normal circumstances it is not so much of a problem. It seems like access account holders are being made to take additional risks. Perhaps there is nothing that can be done or I have misunderstood. Happy to be corrected. |
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Jun 25, 2020 16:22:57 GMT
Quite astounding claims and they cannot be left to mislead others. What you state is the opposite of our website risk warnings. The AA workings are directly affected by the investors' behavior, quite simply more investors wanting withdrawals than deposits for a period and that was always clearly stated and understood. This is investor behavior due to the situation, not AC changes. This behavior is, however, not surprising given the shock everyone got a few months ago but it is now diminishing again. We are not a bank account, you are invested in illiquid loans and always have been and need to hold to term unless there is enough buyer demand to buy off you early, which there always has been till March and will be again in the future we trust. We will continue to seek to create new solutions to a very difficult global problem and will not leave our AA investors to the mercy of the current situation, fail to make improvements and just move off to other things as you suggest. We could easily make decisions that just put the AAs into a 5 year run off or so and move on. It is far harder and painful and costly to do the right thing and that is what we are doing. Whilst lenders recognise the impact of a lack of inflows on liquidity, investors did not sign up to a commitment to fund never ending tranches of investment which are lent against increasingly spurious GDVs. All we ask is redeemed funds are directed to the cash account. If AC needs to bolster capital reserves possibly they should launch a 365 day access account, offering say 8% in order to equitably address the issue of capital flight. Yes we did! Spurious GDV's? Well as far as I know almost none have LTV's of greater than 70% and with the spread of risk over multiple loans coupled with 4% interest rates rather than 1.25% from the bank. We were all happy until the current crisis when NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS stopped. This has been said ad nauseoum.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 25, 2020 16:33:28 GMT
Indeed. In fact, the T&Cs clearly state that Assetz are permitted to change the T&Cs at their total discretion, which lenders all agreed to when opening their accounts. No use agreeing to this when times are good and then bleating about it retrospectively. Assetz have a tough challenge balancing the needs and issues of both lenders and borrowers, and are doing a decent job of it IMO. Companies cannot change the T&Cs without both parties permission or allowing the other party to exit with full money, this is the FCA rules and is also part of contract law from what I understand. No contact/T&Cs can enforce a clause which states the terms can be changed by one party. If that’s what you believe, why on earth did you agree to lend via a P2P platform with the following in its T&Cs? Surely it would have rung alarm bells when you read it? (you did read it, didn’t you?): 20. Altered Circumstances and Changes to The Terms If there is a change in circumstances or a change in the law, HM Revenue & Customs practice or regulations or the interpretation of them, or if any Assetz Capital Company wishes to make changes to the services which it provides on the Network or Website, the Assetz Capital Companies may amend these Terms from time to time as they think fit. Where a change to these Terms does not affect existing Micro Loans and does not disadvantage existing Lending Members or where the changes are reasonably believed by the Assetz Capital Companies to be in the interests of the Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies may make any amendments to these Terms at any time with immediate effect. Where it is necessary or desirable to make changes to these Terms which affect existing Micro Loans or may disadvantage existing Lending Members, the Assetz Capital Companies will endeavour to provide 30 days notice before any changes take effect. Any such notice shall be posted on the Website. Any amendments will be posted on the Website as soon as reasonably practicable. By continuing to use the Website, by either logging in or leaving investments within Investment Accounts or Access Accounts on a daily basis, each Lending Member agrees to be bound by the amended Terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 25, 2020 18:48:41 GMT
First and foremost many thanks to Stuart for your posts, every word reinforces real investor confidence, this helps us and AC even if it's painful for you. Please keep calm and carry on.
Trying not to laugh at some of the hate filled rants on this thread, suggesting that a SM doesn't bring new money in is such a twisted and absurd view, who cares if the total amount in the AAs stays the same, people who want to get out can and people who want to get in (like me, money waiting) can. The fact that a SM helps everyone, even those sellers that stick at par is obvious and if that can't penetrate people's anger then they need help, the fact that these people are attacking those that are trying to help is as low as it's possible to go.
Suggesting that the MLA will just cause a liquidity race to the bottom shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of market economics, it will behave like a market, just like all the other free markets on this planet.
Can we have some constructive sensible posts like; is the SM coming before new lending or has AC talked to the underwriters it used in the past to reduce the risk of MLA funds being drawn too much towards new loans instead of freeing AA investors who want to leave? Let's try and move forward instead of stupidly circling the same incurable liquidity problem endlessly.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Jun 25, 2020 19:03:51 GMT
Whilst lenders recognise the impact of a lack of inflows on liquidity, investors did not sign up to a commitment to fund never ending tranches of investment which are lent against increasingly spurious GDVs. All we ask is redeemed funds are directed to the cash account. If AC needs to bolster capital reserves possibly they should launch a 365 day access account, offering say 8% in order to equitably address the issue of capital flight. Yes we did! Spurious GDV's? Well as far as I know almost none have LTV's of greater than 70% and with the spread of risk over multiple loans coupled with 4% interest rates rather than 1.25% from the bank. We were all happy until the current crisis when NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS stopped. This has been said ad nauseoum. Doh .... I Quote you - “Spurious GDV's? Well as far as I know almost none have LTV's of greater than 70% and with the spread of risk over multiple loans” How much has the property market dropped as a result of THE MOVE AWAY FROM NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS - 70% LTV AS WAS is 100% ?? we will see - with 5m unemployed I think even the biggest assetz sycophant would agree the NON REVISED GDVs are toppy? As regards the spread; the good loans are being redeemed and spread over ever more risky loans as outlined above.
|
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 25, 2020 19:32:45 GMT
Yes we did! Spurious GDV's? Well as far as I know almost none have LTV's of greater than 70% and with the spread of risk over multiple loans coupled with 4% interest rates rather than 1.25% from the bank. We were all happy until the current crisis when NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS stopped. This has been said ad nauseoum. Doh .... I Quote you - “Spurious GDV's? Well as far as I know almost none have LTV's of greater than 70% and with the spread of risk over multiple loans” How much has the property market dropped as a result of THE MOVE AWAY FROM NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS - 70% LTV AS WAS is 100% ?? we will see - with 5m unemployed I think even the biggest assetz sycophant would agree the NON REVISED GDVs are toppy? As regards the spread; the good loans are being redeemed and spread over ever more risky loans as outlined above. Of course they are toppy, have you not heard of covid? Now everyone of sound mind knows that covid is all ACs fault, they created it just to annoy AA investors (btw, I'm joking). Show me an investment that hasn't taken a hit, there aren't many. Not sure what you are expecting, AC doesn't have a time machine or a magic wand so this post is utterly pointless, we are where we are not in some fantasy where AC just puts us all back in normal operating conditions and defeats covid single handed. Madness.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Jun 25, 2020 20:59:35 GMT
First and foremost many thanks to Stuart for your posts, every word reinforces real investor confidence, this helps us and AC even if it's painful for you. Please keep calm and carry on. Trying not to laugh at some of the hate filled rants on this thread, suggesting that a SM doesn't bring new money in is such a twisted and absurd view, who cares if the total amount in the AAs stays the same, people who want to get out can and people who want to get in (like me, money waiting) can. The fact that a SM helps everyone, even those sellers that stick at par is obvious and if that can't penetrate people's anger then they need help, the fact that these people are attacking those that are trying to help is as low as it's possible to go. Suggesting that the MLA will just cause a liquidity race to the bottom shows a breathtaking lack of understanding of market economics, it will behave like a market, just like all the other free markets on this planet. Can we have some constructive sensible posts like; is the SM coming before new lending or has AC talked to the underwriters it used in the past to reduce the risk of MLA funds being drawn too much towards new loans instead of freeing AA investors who want to leave? Let's try and move forward instead of stupidly circling the same incurable liquidity problem endlessly. The AA SM will not bring new money into the AAs, the total balance will remain the same no mater how much is traded on the SM. Without an AA SM those who invest in the AAs will add new money to the pot but who would do that now when they can wait and buy in at a discount, this SM will stop any chance of new money entering the AAs at the very least quite some time thereby increasing the lock down period or making it a permanent so I care.
The SM does not help everyone, I know this because it does not help me.
It is very simple if the new MLA loans on better terms than the old loans in the AA they will attract money that may otherwise have gone on the MLA SM or the preposed AA SM, less money means larger discounts.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Jun 25, 2020 21:39:48 GMT
Doh .... I Quote you - “Spurious GDV's? Well as far as I know almost none have LTV's of greater than 70% and with the spread of risk over multiple loans” How much has the property market dropped as a result of THE MOVE AWAY FROM NORMAL MARKET CONDITIONS - 70% LTV AS WAS is 100% ?? we will see - with 5m unemployed I think even the biggest assetz sycophant would agree the NON REVISED GDVs are toppy? As regards the spread; the good loans are being redeemed and spread over ever more risky loans as outlined above. Of course they are toppy, have you not heard of covid? Now everyone of sound mind knows that covid is all ACs fault, they created it just to annoy AA investors (btw, I'm joking). Show me an investment that hasn't taken a hit, there aren't many. Not sure what you are expecting, AC doesn't have a time machine or a magic wand so this post is utterly pointless, we are where we are not in some fantasy where AC just puts us all back in normal operating conditions and defeats covid single handed. Madness. Actually most equity funds I’m in are up significantly YoY; although admittedly I’m heavily in technology / biotechs / American / Japan stocks, however even a balanced portfolio I’ve put my boy in is up near 20% yoy. The point your missing is if you was a banker would you loan against an asset that has a net realisable value less than your loan .... imho assetz should seriously be haircutting their GDVs by a good 20 % which would bring the max LTVs down to 56% based on the original 70% ltv criteria. Personally on other platforms I won’t consider lending against anything with a LTV in excess of 60% with interest rate in excess of 9%.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Jun 25, 2020 21:53:12 GMT
The AA SM will not bring new money into the AAs, the total balance will remain the same no mater how much is traded on the SM. Without an AA SM those who invest in the AAs will add new money to the pot but who would do that now when they can wait and buy in at a discount, this SM will stop any chance of new money entering the AAs at the very least quite some time thereby increasing the lock down period or making it a permanent so I care.
The SM does not help everyone, I know this because it does not help me.
It is very simple if the new MLA loans on better terms than the old loans in the AA they will attract money that may otherwise have gone on the MLA SM or the preposed AA SM, less money means larger discounts.
I've been trying to resist the temptation, but I'm afraid I can't ... at the risk of feeding the you-know-whats, why won't the SM help you? You've been banging on for months about how iniquitous it is that you can't get your AA investment back, and this will be your chance. Or is nothing less than 100% good enough for you? (BTW, your other points are also nonsense but I really can't be bothered...)
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Jun 25, 2020 22:41:47 GMT
be nice if they could package all the junk that then could be punted off on this soon to be realised optional new feature -
be nice to lose the zombie accounts festering away.
Wonder how future tranches will be met when the missold AA accounts are defunct ?
|
|
