Article: FCA Pushes Funds To Return Uninvested Customer Cash

Assetz are not an investment company.

Your question is, however, perfectly valid.

If you want to know what Assetz are doing with uninvested cash, perhaps you could ask them, I'm sure we would all like to know.

I think our money stuck in the access accounts isn't uninvested cash.  Unfortunately, it remains very much invested in a basket of loans.

Of course some/much of this cash is earmarked to complete their commitments to ongoing existing projects (rather than new ones), which is understandable.

Not to say they're off the hook though - have we seen detail of the outstanding planned commitment versus cash reserves? I think that's quite important, so we can understand exactly where we're headed in the QAA now given that new loans are on hiatus. I don't necessarily feel the need to demand our cash back if it's going to be detrimental to the overall investment performance.

The good news (probably) is that that outstanding planned commitment number should be decreasing all of the time. Firstly because some loans are being refinanced away or completed, and secondly because (as with the loan I just happen to be looking at right now -1088), in some cases all future tranche drawdowns are being funded by CBILS and  should no longer be a burden on the access accounts.

I do think though that we are at the point where QAA investors deserve some further (simplified, collated) information in this area, so we can get at least a vague idea of how much actual cash is likely to be released to investors and when. 

As it stands, I have no idea what the delta is between spare cash in the QAA and forthcoming tranche requirements. Anyone else know?

I imagine it would still look like a rather scary discrepancy at the moment (too much need for too little cash), but again, that may be misleading if there are ongoing efforts to refinance loans elsewhere and separately to restructure them into institutional CBILS loans on an ongoing basis. That could very quickly tip the balance back, with multi-£m reqs disappearing overnight.

edit: reading your post again, I'm basically parroting it Mousey . Oh well. I agree, anyway!   

I'm not sure that we aren't arguing for the same thing Mousey ?  First, transparency. Second, our investment returned in good order i.e. without damaging it through leaving half-finished shells for a firesale. As part of that, our cash should be returned as soon as is possible (on a basis that is transparent to all).

Or are you of the view that they should be returning it all immediately? But what then of the remaining tranche requirements that, left unfulfilled, could impact our investment?

I totally agree with your first sentence.

Re: the 2nd: So, if Assetz allocated that spare cash into future tranche requirements, would that be ok with you?  The thing is, given that future tranche requirements are all over the shop what with refinances/CBILS/whatever, that would probably look very volatile/messy even if Assetz could show it.

I think we're on the same page with the basic point of "what exactly are you doing with this cash you're holding onto, what is the plan?". After that, well, personally I guess I'm reserving judgement.  When we know what exactly is going on, it'll be much easier to take an informed view as to the speed with which Assetz should be returning that uninvested balance.

Ratesetter  contacted me asking what I wanted to do with funds held  in my ISA holding account so they seem to be taking note