sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Sept 2, 2020 20:09:05 GMT
The communications were clear but we can see that some people wish to interpret it differently. The emails, one quoted above, stated the target rates would remain the same in June, July and August for payments made in those months and they have done, although not fully achieved as anticipated. This fourth payment since the announcement is as always paid in September and it isn't delayed. Notice was given more than 90 days prior to this payment and target rate change. The target rate change is to allow greater sums to go into the provision fund and is expected to come back to you that way in any case so you are all the recipients of this cash and we do not receive any of that rate reduction as it is for the benefit of the PF. I hope that helps. With the greatest respect, you are wrong.
The higher capped rate was still being shown to eligible investors right up until the end of August, and the hover-over text clearly states: Note the key word *from 1st September 2020", and the future tense "will".
All interest accrued up to the 1st September 2020 is clearly and unambiguously capped only the rate advertised at the time. There is not even any ambiguity about it, the communication as in the screenshot above explicitly states that the lower rate applies only from 1st September, and most importantly was still advertising the higher rate to eligible investors for new investment during August.
It is clearly understood that the higher capped rate would be unlikely to be met, but any interest the account was able to pay up to the capped rate would still be due to investors.
Alternatively, if you're somehow going to claim that the interest didn't accrue during August, but occurred all at once on 1 Sept, I want 1/12 of 4.1% on the full balance as of 1 Sept, rather than an amount equivalent to 1/12 of 1.75% that implies interest was accruing at 4.1% during the whole of August whilst the account was still advertising a higher rate (I was chucking thousands into the account before advertised date on which the rate would reduce).
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Sept 2, 2020 21:01:42 GMT
A path towards normality?
The Access Accounts need to re-start investment in new loans. Many loans provide cover for repayments and interest in advance and this would help the pf to recover and reduce the sinking swamp effect of a build up of defaulted/untradeable loans.
If AC were to use a small percentage of redemptions to add new loans there would, of course, be a ****storm from some of the posters here who want their money NOW, along with a pound of flesh. Perhaps they could have their own Forum.
I doubt the discount could be eliminated, but perhaps a steady low value would emphasize the benefits offered by the current interest rates.
And AC need to stop shooting themseves in the foot. Wriggling over the 90 day Interest Account Payments is an Ugly look and has offended many investors. If interest is paid in arrears then they are plain wrong over the August payment.
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490 
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Sept 2, 2020 21:14:18 GMT
A path towards normality? The Access Accounts need to re-start investment in new loans. Many loans provide cover for repayments and interest in advance and this would help the pf to recover and reduce the sinking swamp effect of a build up of defaulted/untradeable loans. If AC were to use a small percentage of redemptions to add new loans there would, of course, be a ****storm from some of the posters here who want their money NOW, along with a pound of flesh. Perhaps they could have their own Forum. I doubt the discount could be eliminated, but perhaps a steady low value would emphasize the benefits offered by the current interest rates. And AC need to stop shooting themseves in the foot. Wriggling over the 90 day Interest Account Payments is an Ugly look and has offended many investors. If interest is paid in arrears then they are plain wrong over the August payment.But they are not wrong over the target... Just a bit misleading that we all expected higher interest for August.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 2, 2020 21:26:09 GMT
AC stated in an email on 1st June:
I'm generally an AC supporter, but to claim that the 90 day notice was somehow served between 1st June and 1st August is utterly preposterous. The statement is clear that the old rate would apply for 90 days from the 1st June. When the interest is actually paid is neither stated nor relevant. The actual value of the difference is trivial for me, but the principle of honouring a commitment is important. Let's hope, for the sake of trust, that they are big enough to admit when they have got it so obviously wrong.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Sept 2, 2020 21:42:40 GMT
The communications were clear but we can see that some people wish to interpret it differently. The emails, one quoted above, stated the target rates would remain the same in June, July and August for payments made in those months and they have done, although not fully achieved as anticipated. This fourth payment since the announcement is as always paid in September and it isn't delayed. Notice was given more than 90 days prior to this payment and target rate change. The target rate change is to allow greater sums to go into the provision fund and is expected to come back to you that way in any case so you are all the recipients of this cash and we do not receive any of that rate reduction as it is for the benefit of the PF. I hope that helps. With the greatest respect, you are wrong.
The higher capped rate was still being shown to eligible investors right up until the end of August, and the hover-over text clearly states:
Note the key word *from 1st September 2020", and the future tense "will".
All interest accrued up to the 1st September 2020 is clearly and unambiguously capped only the rate advertised at the time. There is not even any ambiguity about it, the communication as in the screenshot above explicitly states that the lower rate applies only from 1st September, and most importantly was still advertising the higher rate to eligible investors for new investment during August.
It is clearly understood that the higher capped rate would be unlikely to be met, but any interest the account was able to pay up to the capped rate would still be due to investors.
Alternatively, if you're somehow going to claim that the interest didn't accrue during August, but occurred all at once on 1 Sept, I want 1/12 of 4.1% on the full balance as of 1 Sept, rather than an amount equivalent to 1/12 of 1.75% that implies interest was accruing at 4.1% during the whole of August whilst the account was still advertising a higher rate (I was chucking thousands into the account before advertised date on which the rate would reduce).
Unfortunately stuartassetzcapital I have to agree. I received this notification on 1 June: '... the new rates for the QAA and the 30DAA will apply from 1st June 2020 and will be reflected in the 1st July payment. For the 90DAA, historically we had said that we would provide ninety days of notice of any change to the target rate. We will honour that commitment, even though it no longer appears in the disclosures relating to the 90DAA. ' Now I find that you have changed the target rate with effect from 1 August - sixty days after the notice. Never mind when you paid it (in arrears) the rate changed on 1 August, contrary to any reasonable understanding of your commitment. This is unacceptable to me. The actual amount of the cash is not important: it is a matter of trust in what is said.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 983
Likes: 685
Member is Online
|
Post by alender on Sept 2, 2020 22:55:02 GMT
A path towards normality? The Access Accounts need to re-start investment in new loans. Many loans provide cover for repayments and interest in advance and this would help the pf to recover and reduce the sinking swamp effect of a build up of defaulted/untradeable loans. If AC were to use a small percentage of redemptions to add new loans there would, of course, be a ****storm from some of the posters here who want their money NOW, along with a pound of flesh. Perhaps they could have their own Forum. I doubt the discount could be eliminated, but perhaps a steady low value would emphasize the benefits offered by the current interest rates. And AC need to stop shooting themseves in the foot. Wriggling over the 90 day Interest Account Payments is an Ugly look and has offended many investors. If interest is paid in arrears then they are plain wrong over the August payment. Once the SM was opened there was never going to be a path towards normality at least for a very long time as no new money will enter the AAs, so unless the SM reaches par (a long time or probably never) these are locked in accounts and bear no resemblance to the names of the accounts. The flat rate repayments were guaranteed to see a number of the larger investors head for the door even if it is locked as they know they are not wanted by AC and could easily become second class investors again at anytime AC decide to change the rules. If AC believe they can function without these investors that's fine but then the AAs must shrink or AC need to find another source of funds. These accounts cannot stay locked forever, I am not sure the FCA will allow this, therefore the only other option is a resolution event which will probably not end well but may see more of the lenders money back than selling on the the SM the way it is heading.
If AC have any chance to regain lender confidence in the AAs they must increase the repayments and if possible increase interest rates, if investors know that they can at least get a decent part of their money out in a reasonable time some will stay, some will increase holdings and perhaps some new investors but the current lock in and interest rates does not justify the risk. These AAs are not meant to be like PIBs, these accounts must function like their names suggests ACCESS ACCOUNTS, not permanently locked in tradable instruments otherwise there is no chance of normality. AC should concentrate their efforts to try to gain investors confidence. At present all investors have to look forward to is untradeable loans, decreasing capital value due to increasing discounts, decreasing repayments if new lending starts, the next bombshell email from AC because they did not think through the changes like the SM and of course a non ending set of changes to the T&Cs which are made for AC's benefit. Given AC current track record new loans looks like good money after bad, will these new loans come with the added trap of future tranches thereby committing more money AC do not have except to permanently lock in lenders and use the AAs as the lender of last resort for AA borrowers.
I agree AC must stick to their word on the 90d interest paymenst otherwise there is no chance of confidence from lenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by gobuchul on Sept 3, 2020 6:15:30 GMT
Unfortunately stuartassetzcapital I have to agree. I received this notification on 1 June: '... the new rates for the QAA and the 30DAA will apply from 1st June 2020 and will be reflected in the 1st July payment. For the 90DAA, historically we had said that we would provide ninety days of notice of any change to the target rate. We will honour that commitment, even though it no longer appears in the disclosures relating to the 90DAA. ' Now I find that you have changed the target rate with effect from 1 August - sixty days after the notice. Never mind when you paid it (in arrears) the rate changed on 1 August, contrary to any reasonable understanding of your commitment. This is unacceptable to me. The actual amount of the cash is not important: it is a matter of trust in what is said.
I also agree. I suspect this is more careless communication than manipulation as it was a target rate and AC could have left it at 5.75% until 1/10/2020 and still paid 4.1%, but careless communication really matters and is probably why the SM discounts are so high. The loss of trust in what is being said is spooking people. I appreciate AC's attempts as communication and engagement but they need to be more careful about accuracy and precision. If the announcement was misunderstood that is the fault of AC, not the readers. This leads me on to a related point; a little less arrogance towards the customers would be good too. "The communications were clear but we can see that some people wish to interpret it differently". This implies that people are deliberately misreading the communications for their own gain. Sorry, but this attitude is poor. AC please take a little ownership when people misunderstand you.
|
|
mrsb
Posts: 196
Likes: 102
|
Post by mrsb on Sept 3, 2020 7:18:57 GMT
Unfortunately stuartassetzcapital I have to agree. I received this notification on 1 June: '... the new rates for the QAA and the 30DAA will apply from 1st June 2020 and will be reflected in the 1st July payment. For the 90DAA, historically we had said that we would provide ninety days of notice of any change to the target rate. We will honour that commitment, even though it no longer appears in the disclosures relating to the 90DAA. ' Now I find that you have changed the target rate with effect from 1 August - sixty days after the notice. Never mind when you paid it (in arrears) the rate changed on 1 August, contrary to any reasonable understanding of your commitment. This is unacceptable to me. The actual amount of the cash is not important: it is a matter of trust in what is said.
I also agree. I suspect this is more careless communication than manipulation as it was a target rate and AC could have left it at 5.75% until 1/10/2020 and still paid 4.1%, but careless communication really matters and is probably why the SM discounts are so high. The loss of trust in what is being said is spooking people. I appreciate AC's attempts as communication and engagement but they need to be more careful about accuracy and precision. If the announcement was misunderstood that is the fault of AC, not the readers. This leads me on to a related point; a little less arrogance towards the customers would be good too. "The communications were clear but we can see that some people wish to interpret it differently". This implies that people are deliberately misreading the communications for their own gain. Sorry, but this attitude is poor. AC please take a little ownership when people misunderstand you. Indeed. There is some danger here, shooting yourself in the foot - whilst the foot is in the mouth. It's the sum of errors that does damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradley02 on Sept 3, 2020 7:41:53 GMT
The email dated 5th Aug, the last email on the subject of interest rates, stated
"To recap, the updated target rates are as follows:
Quick Access Account - 3.75% p.a.
30 Day Access Account - 4.00% p.a.
90 Day Access Account - 4.10% p.a. (effective as of 1st September 2020 and remaining at 5.75% for the monthly interest payments made in June, July and August)"
That email went on to inform investors that it could not meet the 90DAA target rate of 5.75% for July and retrospectively paid 5.1% for July.
Since then, the only other communication was the message from Stuart on 1st September on this forum stating that some have chosen to misinterpreted the email.
An email prior to taking decisions like this would have assisted in avoiding any issues.
An explanation rather than accusation on 1st September's message, or since then, would have helped.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Sept 3, 2020 7:51:18 GMT
A path towards normality? The Access Accounts need to re-start investment in new loans. Many loans provide cover for repayments and interest in advance and this would help the pf to recover and reduce the sinking swamp effect of a build up of defaulted/untradeable loans. If AC were to use a small percentage of redemptions to add new loans there would, of course, be a ****storm from some of the posters here who want their money NOW, along with a pound of flesh. Perhaps they could have their own Forum. I doubt the discount could be eliminated, but perhaps a steady low value would emphasize the benefits offered by the current interest rates. And AC need to stop shooting themseves in the foot. Wriggling over the 90 day Interest Account Payments is an Ugly look and has offended many investors. If interest is paid in arrears then they are plain wrong over the August payment. Once the SM was opened there was never going to be a path towards normality at least for a very long time as no new money will enter the AAs, so unless the SM reaches par (a long time or probably never) these are locked in accounts and bear no resemblance to the names of the accounts. The flat rate repayments were guaranteed to see a number of the larger investors head for the door even if it is locked as they know they are not wanted by AC and could easily become second class investors again at anytime AC decide to change the rules. If AC believe they can function without these investors that's fine but then the AAs must shrink or AC need to find another source of funds. These accounts cannot stay locked forever, I am not sure the FCA will allow this, therefore the only other option is a resolution event which will probably not end well but may see more of the lenders money back than selling on the the SM the way it is heading.
If AC have any chance to regain lender confidence in the AAs they must increase the repayments and if possible increase interest rates, if investors know that they can at least get a decent part of their money out in a reasonable time some will stay, some will increase holdings and perhaps some new investors but the current lock in and interest rates does not justify the risk. These AAs are not meant to be like PIBs, these accounts must function like their names suggests ACCESS ACCOUNTS, not permanently locked in tradable instruments otherwise there is no chance of normality. AC should concentrate their efforts to try to gain investors confidence. At present all investors have to look forward to is untradeable loans, decreasing capital value due to increasing discounts, decreasing repayments if new lending starts, the next bombshell email from AC because they did not think through the changes like the SM and of course a non ending set of changes to the T&Cs which are made for AC's benefit. Given AC current track record new loans looks like good money after bad, will these new loans come with the added trap of future tranches thereby committing more money AC do not have except to permanently lock in lenders and use the AAs as the lender of last resort for AA borrowers.
I agree AC must stick to their word on the 90d interest paymenst otherwise there is no chance of confidence from lenders.
alender you are absolutely spot on and have seen this coming for a long time. The so called access accounts now seem well on the way to becoming the next set of zombie AC accounts to add to the previous list. The question is - why don't you just sell up and get out? There is currently an exit door and AC have flagged up the fact that lock ins are coming. It seems to be slowly dawning on people what they have actually got themselves into here so would it not be best to cut your losses before it gets worse?
|
|
marky
Posts: 21
Likes: 60
|
Post by marky on Sept 3, 2020 7:56:43 GMT
I think we all agree that there was no misinterpretation of the August target interest rate in the 90DAA. It was supposed to be 5.75%.
I would like to see an apology from AC.
If they only had funds to cover 4.1% then fine.
If they wanted to divert more funds into the PF to offset future impairment then fine.
But to suggest that the INVESTORS have somehow misunderstood is preposterous and explains why so many investors are heading for the exit.
I'm very deeply invested in AC and I want them to succeed. It's in all our interest for them to succeed.
But I think a little humility from AC over what has happened (to the reduced August 90DAA interest payment) would be far better than suggesting your supporters / investors are in the wrong (when they are patently not).
It reminds me of the restaurants on TripAdvisor who, in response to a genuine customer complaint, attack the complainant rather than remedy the error.
Assetz Capital should remember that the sign of a good business is how it deals with customer complaints!
And, in this instant, it has not scored very well and if you don't believe me - take a look at the sell discounts in the SM.
It is not too late to do the right think Stuart!
Marky
|
|
mrsb
Posts: 196
Likes: 102
|
Post by mrsb on Sept 3, 2020 8:03:18 GMT
I think we all agree that there was no misinterpretation of the August target interest rate in the 90DAA. It was supposed to be 5.75%. I would like to see an apology from AC. If they only had funds to cover 4.1% then fine. If they wanted to divert more funds into the PF to offset future impairment then fine. But to suggest that the INVESTORS have somehow misunderstood is preposterous and explains why so many investors are heading for the exit. I'm very deeply invested in AC and I want them to succeed. It's in all our interest for them to succeed. But I think a little humility from AC over what has happened (to the reduced August 90DAA interest payment) would be far better than suggesting your supporters / investors are in the wrong (when they are patently not). It reminds me of the restaurants on TripAdvisor who, in response to a genuine customer complaint, attack the complainant rather than remedy the error. Assetz Capital should remember that the sign of a good business is how it deals with customer complaints! And, in this instant, it has not scored very well and if you don't believe me - take a look at the sell discounts in the SM. It is not too late to do the right think Stuart! Marky Very apt (bold) - typo or deliberate?
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Sept 3, 2020 8:11:30 GMT
I think we all agree that there was no misinterpretation of the August target interest rate in the 90DAA. It was supposed to be 5.75%. I think it was supposed to be 4.1% but the communication was ambiguous. When the payment came in, I hoped for 5.75% but didn't really expect it, and was unsurprised by 4.1% To a large extent debating this is moot - I suspect it would have been highly unlikely the target of 5.75% would have been reached in any case. I do think the attitude of Stuart has been poor and dismissive - he has also displayed this on a recent Seedrs post: re the P2P article on suitability of Access Accounts.
|
|
victors
Member of DD Central
Posts: 157
Likes: 86
|
Post by victors on Sept 3, 2020 8:26:21 GMT
Back to discount tracking.
I've finally given in and invested at 10%. Clicked mouse hesitantly though.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Sept 3, 2020 8:37:27 GMT
Back to discount tracking. I've finally given in and invested at 10%. Clicked mouse hesitantly though. Yep, buying at 10% plus and then selling at 8% or less around the emb and flow of AC missteps.
|
|
