dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Oct 16, 2020 7:48:04 GMT
Yes, most of mine is at higher rates but I got some at 8%. My 8.5%+ bids remained unfilled. Hmm, not sure I'm tempted to get back in the water quite yet.
Buy at 8%+ and hope for an AC email which sheds light on a fair valuation for the AAs and moves the discount down to 5.6% maybe?
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Oct 16, 2020 8:53:52 GMT
Yes, most of mine is at higher rates but I got some at 8%. My 8.5%+ bids remained unfilled. Hmm, not sure I'm tempted to get back in the water quite yet.
Buy at 8%+ and hope for an AC email which sheds light on a fair valuation for the AAs and moves the discount down to 5.6% maybe?
My order @8% was filled at
15/10/2020, 23:11 [currently 16.10.2020 10.00 market rate is '6.8%]
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 985 
Likes: 687
|
Post by alender on Oct 16, 2020 9:59:47 GMT
Yes, most of mine is at higher rates but I got some at 8%. My 8.5%+ bids remained unfilled. Hmm, not sure I'm tempted to get back in the water quite yet.
Buy at 8%+ and hope for an AC email which sheds light on a fair valuation for the AAs and moves the discount down to 5.6% maybe?
Wouldn't that be nice, we can only dream.
However there continues to be a deafening silence with no real data/information from AC but long on rhetoric. Not once have they given any data/information that I and others have requested about the AAs which would help to properly analyse the state of the accounts, it is our money we have the right to know. However they did send the email about making loans untradable which increased the discount, a piece of information which was no doubt required by the FCA and should have been released before the accounts became tradable and people bought in but was not as it was one of those things they had not thought about before creating the SM.
It will be interesting to know what the FCA makes of such a complex tradable product sold to the retail sector with scant unaudited information supplied by AC.
The one thing that Stuart did say is that the SM had little effect on the repayments, from the info we can see this is not the case, I asked for the data but again nothing. The one piece of information we do have is that some posters are using the repayments/interest to buy back in at discount rather than leaving the money in the account (as I predicted), why not it makes sense. Therefore the only real information we have is showing the SM has slowed repayments which is born out by the facts and is at odds with the rhetoric from Stuart. Stuart please give us the data so we can make up out own minds! Remember when AC stated some numbers on the amount invested to be better of with pro rata repayments rather than flat rate, when asked for the data they refused to give it and from all the information we have they were out by a huge margin.
From the way AC are acting and past experience I would expect AC only to send emails and publish real data/information when forced and these are more likely to be bad news and increase the discount. The lack of proper information is probably one of the factors increasing the discount, no one likes uncertainty in the financial markets.
Remember the videos (hopefully we will not get any more), these added very little or no information, did not reassure investors but wasted our time being told general facts/opinions about the the sate of covid and the economy that we all already knew. For a suggestion why not an investors video conference with questions and answers.
As it says above the door Facts not Opinions, those of you with an engineering background may be familiar with this term but it really does apply in the case of the AAs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 16, 2020 13:44:25 GMT
Deliberate not quoted but alender ended with.... As it says above the door Facts not Opinions, those of you with an engineering background may be familiar with this term but it really does apply in the case of the AAs. Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic? I have no idea if people were questioning it before that, and arguably it is irrelevant anyway. Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite) would that be the level of discount that would be offered? The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble. Apologies if this sounds like trying to up the price, its not. If I was invested I would just ride it out and be content with 4%ish interest for doing it. |
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Oct 16, 2020 14:14:41 GMT
Deliberate not quoted but alender ended with.... As it says above the door Facts not Opinions, those of you with an engineering background may be familiar with this term but it really does apply in the case of the AAs. Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic? I have no idea if people were questioning it before that, and arguably it is irrelevant anyway. Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite) would that be the level of discount that would be offered? The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble. Apologies if this sounds like trying to up the price, its not. If I was invested I would just ride it out and be content with 4%ish interest for doing it. Not sure lenders would trust such a valuation, given Stuart and AC have been telling lenders for the last 3 years that loan #227 would turn out OK, but the latest offer (which many question whether it'll ever be delivered) is for only 2/3 of capital to be returned by the Borrower in the first instance. If they can't call one loan correctly, how could they do it for a whole loan book?
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 985
Likes: 687
|
Post by alender on Oct 16, 2020 15:03:09 GMT
Deliberate not quoted but alender ended with.... As it says above the door Facts not Opinions, those of you with an engineering background may be familiar with this term but it really does apply in the case of the AAs. Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic? I have no idea if people were questioning it before that, and arguably it is irrelevant anyway. Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite) would that be the level of discount that would be offered? The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble. Apologies if this sounds like trying to up the price, its not. If I was invested I would just ride it out and be content with 4%ish interest for doing it. Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic?
In response to Stuarts comparison of selected dates for the stock market my nearest comparable investment is PSSL (as I have said before) a listed lending company which has performed better for me than AC pre covid and significantly better post covid, the only problem is that I believed them to be more risky than AC so I placed a lot more funds with AC, yes it was my mistake to trust AC.
Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite)
Would be nice if Stuart would bite the bullet and give out some useful information however I am sure Stuart would not give out any more useful information than he absolute has to which has been born out over the last 6 1/2 months. He has been asked many times by many people for information but we only get opinions never facts i.e. where is the data.
The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble.
There are many factors which will set the discount level and the recovery level no doubt would be very important but the point is AC refuse to tell us anything useful. If AC would publish the facts we would all be able to decide for ourselves the acceptable level of discount not be left guessing like both of us.
As you say you are not invested so have no skin in the game but as an investor I want to know, you could well be right that it is best to sit it out and if I had not got a significant investmenst I might well feels the same but it feels a lot different from this side of the fence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on Oct 16, 2020 15:27:35 GMT
Deliberate not quoted but alender ended with.... As it says above the door Facts not Opinions, those of you with an engineering background may be familiar with this term but it really does apply in the case of the AAs. Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic? I have no idea if people were questioning it before that, and arguably it is irrelevant anyway. Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite) would that be the level of discount that would be offered? The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble. Apologies if this sounds like trying to up the price, its not. If I was invested I would just ride it out and be content with 4%ish interest for doing it. Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic?
In response to Stuarts comparison of selected dates for the stock market my nearest comparable investment is PSSL (as I have said before) a listed lending company which has performed better for me than AC pre covid and significantly better post covid, the only problem is that I believed them to be more risky than AC so I placed a lot more funds with AC, yes it was my mistake to trust AC.
Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite)
Would be nice if Stuart would bite the bullet and give out some useful information however I am sure Stuart would not give out any more useful information than he absolute has to which has been born out over the last 6 1/2 months. He has been asked many times by many people for information but we only get opinions never facts i.e. where is the data.
The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble.
There are many factors which will set the discount level and the recovery level no doubt would be very important but the point is AC refuse to tell us anything useful. If AC would publish the facts we would all be able to decide for ourselves the acceptable level of discount not be left guessing like both of us.
As you say you are not invested so have no skin in the game but as an investor I want to know, you could well be right that it is best to sit it out and if I had not got a significant investmenst I might well feels the same but it feels a lot different from this side of the fence.
I didn't quote you as I understood you argument and didn't want it to seem like disagreement (so that clearly worked well) just more that there are no Facts at this point in time. And you may be surprised how many 'other sides of the fence' I currently have on my CV, but yes my side of this particular fence is the better location and I will just stay quiet.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 985
Likes: 687
|
Post by alender on Oct 16, 2020 15:35:27 GMT
Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic?
In response to Stuarts comparison of selected dates for the stock market my nearest comparable investment is PSSL (as I have said before) a listed lending company which has performed better for me than AC pre covid and significantly better post covid, the only problem is that I believed them to be more risky than AC so I placed a lot more funds with AC, yes it was my mistake to trust AC.
Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite)
Would be nice if Stuart would bite the bullet and give out some useful information however I am sure Stuart would not give out any more useful information than he absolute has to which has been born out over the last 6 1/2 months. He has been asked many times by many people for information but we only get opinions never facts i.e. where is the data.
The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble.
There are many factors which will set the discount level and the recovery level no doubt would be very important but the point is AC refuse to tell us anything useful. If AC would publish the facts we would all be able to decide for ourselves the acceptable level of discount not be left guessing like both of us.
As you say you are not invested so have no skin in the game but as an investor I want to know, you could well be right that it is best to sit it out and if I had not got a significant investmenst I might well feels the same but it feels a lot different from this side of the fence.
I didn't quote you as I understood you argument and didn't want it to seem like disagreement (so that clearly worked well) just more that there are no Facts at this point in time. And you may be surprised how many 'other sides of the fence' I currently have on my CV, but yes my side of this particular fence is the better location and I will just stay quiet. Thanks for the explanation and I am sorry I misunderstood what you have said.
There is no need for you to stay quiet, you were honest enough to give your position, all opinions should be expressed and we can then make up our own minds.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Oct 16, 2020 16:15:06 GMT
Deliberate not quoted but alender ended with.... As it says above the door Facts not Opinions, those of you with an engineering background may be familiar with this term but it really does apply in the case of the AAs. Would the current position not be that (much the same as any comparable holding) the realisable asset value would be a fraction of its value before most of the World was gripped by a pandemic? I have no idea if people were questioning it before that, and arguably it is irrelevant anyway. Now if stuartassetzcapital was to say this and attach a value (Its bait, he will bite) would that be the level of discount that would be offered? The level of discount would sensibly be based on a recovery level someway down the road, that may be full and wholesome or non existent. Its above my pay grade to guess what it would be. I do have a figure I would buy at and take a punt but know it would simply be a gamble. Apologies if this sounds like trying to up the price, its not. If I was invested I would just ride it out and be content with 4%ish interest for doing it. Not sure lenders would trust such a valuation, given Stuart and AC have been telling lenders for the last 3 years that loan #227 would turn out OK, but the latest offer (which many question whether it'll ever be delivered) is for only 2/3 of capital to be returned by the Borrower in the first instance. If they can't call one loan correctly, how could they do it for a whole loan book?Surely its a lot easier to call a valuation for a whole loan book than it is for a single loan, because any one loan is going to be subject to unpredictable events? I don't hold any 227 (apart from any that might be in the AAs) but I can say that, for most of the distressed loans that I do hold, AC's management and predictions have been pretty good - whether its a complete wipe out (very rare), 100% recovery (much more common) or something in between.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Oct 17, 2020 6:56:06 GMT
A good point, ceejay. With a few (notable) exceptions AC are reasonable recoverers. But there are a few corkers.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 17, 2020 7:44:50 GMT
One other major issue in assessing the value of the AAs is nobody knows when investors will be able to access their capital. Firstly AC have demonstrated they change the rules of engagement on a whim. Therefore they might close the secondary market at any time.
Secondly, AC management are determined to continue with the access accounts regardless of investors desire to access capital. There is no commitment to a cut off point when redeemed capital is used to fund new tranches or new loans.
From a legal point of view the Directors of Assetz capital have a duty to the shareholders of the business, not its customers; investors like ourselves. So actually if they continue to attract little or no new capital, they may need to hang onto our capital for the next 20 years to keep the business alive. The situation is further complicated given institutional capital is likely to be borrowed on a fixed term.
Actually IF AC have acted legally so far - there is nothing to stop AC dropping our interest rate to 0.25% and holding our capital for ever.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 17, 2020 11:51:39 GMT
One other major issue in assessing the value of the AAs is nobody knows when investors will be able to access their capital. Firstly AC have demonstrated they change the rules of engagement on a whim. Therefore they might close the secondary market at any time. Secondly, AC management are determined to continue with the access accounts regardless of investors desire to access capital. There is no commitment to a cut off point when redeemed capital is used to fund new tranches or new loans. From a legal point of view the Directors of Assetz capital have a duty to the shareholders of the business, not its customers; investors like ourselves. So actually if they continue to attract little or no new capital, they may need to hang onto our capital for the next 20 years to keep the business alive. The situation is further complicated given institutional capital is likely to be borrowed on a fixed term. Actually IF AC have acted legally so far - there is nothing to stop AC dropping our interest rate to 0.25% and holding our capital for ever.
"Series 1 of the QAA has a capped, target lender return which is currently 3.75% p.a. gross (before tax and any losses and protected by a discretionary Provision Fund). This cap may vary from time to time, but we will never reduce the capped, target interest rate below 3.75% a year (before tax and any losses) in this account Series. "
For me the logical next move would be to launch a series 2 account, and to fund all new loans from that (as well as buying chunks of loans from the current loan book to ensure sensible diversification from day 1, and thus indirectly providing better liquidity for the series 1 accounts).
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 17, 2020 12:35:17 GMT
One other major issue in assessing the value of the AAs is nobody knows when investors will be able to access their capital. Firstly AC have demonstrated they change the rules of engagement on a whim. Therefore they might close the secondary market at any time. Secondly, AC management are determined to continue with the access accounts regardless of investors desire to access capital. There is no commitment to a cut off point when redeemed capital is used to fund new tranches or new loans. From a legal point of view the Directors of Assetz capital have a duty to the shareholders of the business, not its customers; investors like ourselves. So actually if they continue to attract little or no new capital, they may need to hang onto our capital for the next 20 years to keep the business alive. The situation is further complicated given institutional capital is likely to be borrowed on a fixed term. Actually IF AC have acted legally so far - there is nothing to stop AC dropping our interest rate to 0.25% and holding our capital for ever.
"Series 1 of the QAA has a capped, target lender return which is currently 3.75% p.a. gross (before tax and any losses and protected by a discretionary Provision Fund). This cap may vary from time to time, but we will never reduce the capped, target interest rate below 3.75% a year (before tax and any losses) in this account Series. "
For me the logical next move would be to launch a series 2 account, and to fund all new loans from that (as well as buying chunks of loans from the current loan book to ensure sensible diversification from day 1, and thus indirectly providing better liquidity for the series 1 accounts). That is reassuring however could they introduce a lender fee of 3.5% ??
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 985
Likes: 687
|
Post by alender on Oct 17, 2020 12:36:10 GMT
One other major issue in assessing the value of the AAs is nobody knows when investors will be able to access their capital. Firstly AC have demonstrated they change the rules of engagement on a whim. Therefore they might close the secondary market at any time. Secondly, AC management are determined to continue with the access accounts regardless of investors desire to access capital. There is no commitment to a cut off point when redeemed capital is used to fund new tranches or new loans. From a legal point of view the Directors of Assetz capital have a duty to the shareholders of the business, not its customers; investors like ourselves. So actually if they continue to attract little or no new capital, they may need to hang onto our capital for the next 20 years to keep the business alive. The situation is further complicated given institutional capital is likely to be borrowed on a fixed term. Actually IF AC have acted legally so far - there is nothing to stop AC dropping our interest rate to 0.25% and holding our capital for ever. For me the logical next move would be to launch a series 2 account, and to fund all new loans from that (as well as buying chunks of loans from the current loan book to ensure sensible diversification from day 1, and thus indirectly providing better liquidity for the series 1 accounts). This what I predicted could happen months ago, the series 1 account holders would be left out to dry, AC have got form in this area, PSA, GEIA, GBBA1, GBBA2. However the one piece of evidence against this is the rising levels cash in the AA, this seems to be above the level required to finance future loan tranches (but without info from AC we can only guess) so the only reason I can think of to hold this cash is to restart lending thereby giving AC an income stream. Perhaps the plan is to build up a war chest and start re-lending after the CBILs has ended. However this does not stop AC creating a new set of accounts and getting commission from new loans in the AAs.
There is also the question is who would invest in the AA series 2, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I believe they will try and create different types of accounts to the AAs as these are now so toxic. I am not sure AC could attract many large lenders in any any access type accounts because of the poor treatment they received under the flat rate payment system so AC would have to rely on a large number of small lenders.
I believe it is ACs current intention to keep the AA holders locked in perpetuity and the SM was created so AC can say there is a way out to the FCA, there are various reasons for this, one is that they are used as lender of last resort by AC for future tranches where the loans are split between AAs and MLA and another is if new lending is restarted it is a nice little earner for AC, also if the accounts were liquidated then AC would need to come clean on the liabilities and not fob of lenders with bland statements.
There is no excuse to keep these accounts locked for a greater period than the longest loan when the lock down occurred. I think the time will come when FOM and the FCA will take action.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Oct 18, 2020 8:37:55 GMT
Whilst the Access Account discounts may have bounced a little higher recently after trying to mount a break through the 6% barrier the MLA discounts do seem to be showing less volatility and still continuing a gentle downwards trend in terms of number of loans discounted, £s listed and % discount. Unfortunately whilst the good loans in the MLA might have small discounts or trade at par, the actual demand for them at that price is minimal.
In the 'before times' I could list loans at par and sell the same day, now I've had good loans up for sale at par for months with no takers.
So either there's no net in-flow of new money to MLA or it shows how much the access accounts used to suck up MLA loans offered for sale when they had a net in-flow of funds.
With the current out-flow of funds and wind-down of accounts I believe sales at par will be slow at best.
|
|
