ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2020 3:12:28 GMT
Hopefully you would agree, investors in the access accounts are entitled to their money back and funds invested in, Quick, 30 & 90 day access accounts, should not be treated as had they been invested in perpetuity. Given the longest term loan on the platform is 56 months; What is the absolute drop dead date all redeemed capital will be returned to investors rather than used to fund further tranches.
Clearly you will have modelled this based on projected redemptions - please share the answer with the forum.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 22, 2020 6:58:43 GMT
Hopefully you would agree, investors in the access accounts are entitled to their money back and funds invested in, Quick, 30 & 90 day access accounts, should not be treated as had they been invested in perpetuity. Given the longest term loan on the platform is 56 months; What is the absolute drop dead date all redeemed capital will be returned to investors rather than used to fund further tranches. Clearly you will have modelled this based on projected redemptions - please share the answer with the forum. You might want to re-read Stuart's post earlier in this thread: " As and when we are comfortable that future commitments are addressed then new lending can be reconsidered in order to keep the loan book fresh and old redemptions replaced as we are not in any kind of run off situation. That’s what the accounts say they will do and people expect. " i.e. new loans are currently possibly going to start again at some point, hence there's not going to be a defined end date.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Oct 22, 2020 8:37:08 GMT
Hopefully you would agree, investors in the access accounts are entitled to their money back and funds invested in, Quick, 30 & 90 day access accounts, should not be treated as had they been invested in perpetuity. Given the longest term loan on the platform is 56 months; What is the absolute drop dead date all redeemed capital will be returned to investors rather than used to fund further tranches. Clearly you will have modelled this based on projected redemptions - please share the answer with the forum. You might want to re-read Stuart's post earlier in this thread: " As and when we are comfortable that future commitments are addressed then new lending can be reconsidered in order to keep the loan book fresh and old redemptions replaced as we are not in any kind of run off situation. That’s what the accounts say they will do and people expect. " i.e. new loans are currently possibly going to start again at some point, hence there's not going to be a defined end date. It may be what people expect but I think you will find there are number of people who do not want this, these accounts are meant to be Access Accounts not locked forever accounts, these accounts should return to access accounts before there is any new lending, after all we signed up for Access Accounts. At some point I think the FOM/FCA will have something to say if these accounts are changed permanently to very little/no access accounts while AC do what they wish with our money for all time.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 22, 2020 8:48:53 GMT
You might want to re-read Stuart's post earlier in this thread: " As and when we are comfortable that future commitments are addressed then new lending can be reconsidered in order to keep the loan book fresh and old redemptions replaced as we are not in any kind of run off situation. That’s what the accounts say they will do and people expect. " i.e. new loans are currently possibly going to start again at some point, hence there's not going to be a defined end date. It may be what people expect but I think you will find there are number of people who do not want this, these accounts are meant to be Access Accounts not locked forever accounts, these accounts should return to access accounts before there is any new lending, after all we signed up for Access Accounts. At some point I think the FOM/FCA will have something to say if these accounts are changed permanently to very little/no access accounts while AC do what they wish with our money for all time.
Unfortunately we don't live in a world where what each of us would prefer to happen is the actual reality, so what a few aggrieved individuals feel is largely irrelevant to this question. Likewise, the FCA aren't exactly known for their proactivity in the P2P or indeed any sphere, so I can only suggest that you/others raise it with them if you feel there is a case to be heard.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2020 8:55:02 GMT
Hopefully you would agree, investors in the access accounts are entitled to their money back and funds invested in, Quick, 30 & 90 day access accounts, should not be treated as had they been invested in perpetuity. Given the longest term loan on the platform is 56 months; What is the absolute drop dead date all redeemed capital will be returned to investors rather than used to fund further tranches. Clearly you will have modelled this based on projected redemptions - please share the answer with the forum. You might want to re-read Stuart's post earlier in this thread: " As and when we are comfortable that future commitments are addressed then new lending can be reconsidered in order to keep the loan book fresh and old redemptions replaced as we are not in any kind of run off situation. That’s what the accounts say they will do and people expect. " i.e. new loans are currently possibly going to start again at some point, hence there's not going to be a defined end date. I would prefer Stuart to confirm the inference you make that .... IF New loans start then AC have no intention of returning our capital within a given timescale. Is he really saying - If no new funding is secured then AC will just hold onto our capital forever and a day and our loans will effectively become assetz capitals share capital. Please answer Stuart - as I invested in an access account, not an an ‘equity/unit trust’ with a 3% dividend.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2020 10:04:16 GMT
IMHO in the short to medium term (possibly longer too) the best hope of getting capital back is to sell on the AA SM at a small a discount as possible. A narrowing of the discount won’t be helped by a regular stream of negativity. Ironically some of the lenders who are most desperate to get out without a/big discounts are potentially talking up resistance to the discount narrowing. The MLA where there is less negativity seems, for now at least, to have stabilised at a few low discounts. Albeit there may not be much buying and selling, but that’s what you’d rationally expect on investments that primarily need to be held to term. For years the AAs had a false level of positivity about them as few investors in them questioned how long conditions would allow seemingly unlimited instant access. That unquestioning positivity wasn’t helpful. There’s a danger now the pendulum might swing too far and for too long in the opposite direction. The AAs were flawed at least in the over-reliance placed on them. There are no easy short or medium term solutions to remedy that now. Only BAD ONES. Patience is going to be part of any successful remedy and that’ll require a medium to long term perspective. Disclosure: My AA exposure is relatively nominal as I’m primarily in the MLA. I think your comments are spot on however that is not to say we shouldn’t strive to get the CEO OF THE COMPANY. to commit to paying access account holders all the proceeds of capital redemptions within a timescale given existing commitments to tranche funding. Indeed if AC are to commence new funding (funded by investors against their wishes) there is a case to argue that this is Contrary to the Platform Terms & Conditions – Section 6-3 - Lending Members using the Loan Selection Facility are prevented from satisfying themselves that loans are appropriate to their circumstances as redeemed funds are invested without their consent. As a consequence lenders are unable to seek independent financial advice as to the suitability of further involvement in the Loan Selection Facility.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Oct 22, 2020 10:40:29 GMT
IMHO in the short to medium term (possibly longer too) the best hope of getting capital back is to sell on the AA SM at a small a discount as possible. A narrowing of the discount won’t be helped by a regular stream of negativity. Ironically some of the lenders who are most desperate to get out without a/big discounts are potentially talking up resistance to the discount narrowing. The MLA where there is less negativity seems, for now at least, to have stabilised at a few low discounts. Albeit there may not be much buying and selling, but that’s what you’d rationally expect on investments that primarily need to be held to term. For years the AAs had a false level of positivity about them as few investors in them questioned how long conditions would allow seemingly unlimited instant access. That unquestioning positivity wasn’t helpful. There’s a danger now the pendulum might swing too far and for too long in the opposite direction. The AAs were flawed at least in the over-reliance placed on them. There are no easy short or medium term solutions to remedy that now. Only BAD ONES. Patience is going to be part of any successful remedy and that’ll require a medium to long term perspective. Disclosure: My AA exposure is relatively nominal as I’m primarily in the MLA. I agree that negativity does not help the discounts, however there is very little way at present to hold AC to account for their actions with the AAs except to bring it to ACs and peoples attention. We should not let AC off the hook and give Stuart a free rein to make statements, refuse to back them up with data and do what he wants with our money against our wishes. I believe we would still have the flat rate repayments if it was not for the pressure put on AC by adverse comments, also if there was no pressure to make repayments I believe we would be seeing far less than the already small amount paid out. Without this pressure and subsequent actions from AC we may well see the discount rise as AC do everything they can to hold onto our money. However as someone who wishes to see more repayments and disagrees with the SM my main concern is to increase repayments and get closer to the product I was sold i.e. Access Accounts not taken for a ride long into the future by AC without my permission, no clear path or exit.
Since the lock in AC have done nothing positive to help the AAs, they use them as lender of last resort and generate commission for AC by the future tranches so have no incentive or intention to pay lenders back the money trusted to AC, otherwise why would they hold onto the large cash balances in these accounts. If these cash balances are required for future tranches give us the data, if not give us this money back as it is our money and has been requested by lenders under the terms of the AAs.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2020 12:59:03 GMT
... I believe we would still have the flat rate repayments if it was not for the pressure put on AC by adverse comments ... That AC went down that avenue of favouring low balances at the expense of larger balances was a massive unforced blunder compounded by how long they took to move to an equitable pound-weighted distribution. Whilst in absolute money terms the impact for larger balances was in the end probably not too large in relative terms, the damage to AC’s credibility and trustworthiness is going to unfortunately take a longer while to repair. The mess of over reliance on the access accounts and the mirage of their liquidity is a blunder of a different nature that was allowed to brew for years. It would have taken a long time and a position of strength to put onto firmer footings. Shifting to a solid sustainable position in the current environment is going to be longer and extremely difficult. Totally agree and this will have done irreparable damage to trust of those probably contributing 80% of investment capital. That said with their new funds incentives they have always alienated larger investors.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Oct 22, 2020 14:24:45 GMT
... I believe we would still have the flat rate repayments if it was not for the pressure put on AC by adverse comments ... That AC went down that avenue of favouring low balances at the expense of larger balances was a massive unforced blunder compounded by how long they took to move to an equitable pound-weighted distribution. Whilst in absolute money terms the impact for larger balances was in the end probably not too large in relative terms, the damage to AC’s credibility and trustworthiness is going to unfortunately take a longer while to repair. The mess of over reliance on the access accounts and the mirage of their liquidity is a blunder of a different nature that was allowed to brew for years. It would have taken a long time and a position of strength to put onto firmer footings. Shifting to a solid sustainable position in the current environment is going to be longer and extremely difficult. That decision was the beginning of the end of the access accounts - as I said before the "Gerald Ratner" moment, which they finally reversed after caving in under the weight of FOS complaints and threats of legal action. The resulting exodus from these accounts is now plain for all to see and completely predictable from the moment they made that decision. I would have expected them to simply run the accounts down and return capital repayments to investors but they are actually doing the opposite and returning very little and thereby locking investors into these accounts. Is the underlying business really so desperate for fees that they need to do this?
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2020 16:46:42 GMT
That AC went down that avenue of favouring low balances at the expense of larger balances was a massive unforced blunder compounded by how long they took to move to an equitable pound-weighted distribution. Whilst in absolute money terms the impact for larger balances was in the end probably not too large in relative terms, the damage to AC’s credibility and trustworthiness is going to unfortunately take a longer while to repair. The mess of over reliance on the access accounts and the mirage of their liquidity is a blunder of a different nature that was allowed to brew for years. It would have taken a long time and a position of strength to put onto firmer footings. Shifting to a solid sustainable position in the current environment is going to be longer and extremely difficult. That decision was the beginning of the end of the access accounts - as I said before the "Gerald Ratner" moment, which they finally reversed after caving in under the weight of FOS complaints and threats of legal action. The resulting exodus from these accounts is now plain for all to see and completely predictable from the moment they made that decision. I would have expected them to simply run the accounts down and return capital repayments to investors but they are actually doing the opposite and returning very little and thereby locking investors into these accounts. Is the underlying business really so desperate for fees that they need to do this? Stuart has a duty to shareholders, not investors in the platform. In order to ensure AC continues; and he’s still got his company / job. He might be better retaining our very cheap capital @ 3.75%; less a lender fee. (Maybe 4% if negative interest rates are to prevail!!) - that not a suggestion! Additionally Presumably institutional funding is proper term debt. That will need to be repaid in 1yr/2ys/3yrs time. If replacement funding is not secured at the same price, they cannot afford to give us retail investors our capital back indeed they may choose to retain our capital merely to aggregate the rate borrowings.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Oct 22, 2020 17:05:47 GMT
That decision was the beginning of the end of the access accounts - as I said before the "Gerald Ratner" moment, which they finally reversed after caving in under the weight of FOS complaints and threats of legal action. The resulting exodus from these accounts is now plain for all to see and completely predictable from the moment they made that decision. I would have expected them to simply run the accounts down and return capital repayments to investors but they are actually doing the opposite and returning very little and thereby locking investors into these accounts. Is the underlying business really so desperate for fees that they need to do this? Stuart has a duty to shareholders, not investors in the platform. In order to ensure AC continues; and he’s still got his company / job. He might be better retaining our very cheap capital @ 3.75%; less a lender fee. (Maybe 4% if negative interest rates are to prevail!!) - that not a suggestion! Additionally Presumably institutional funding is proper term debt. That will need to be repaid in 1yr/2ys/3yrs time. If replacement funding is not secured at the same price, they cannot afford to give us retail investors our capital back indeed they may choose to retain our capital merely to aggregate the rate borrowings. I suspect you've already been asked this, maybe even by me (bad short term memory here) , but what the heck. If you're so fundamentally opposed to how AC are conducting themselves, why aren't you just selling out and moving on? I mean, unless you were unfortunate enough to invest all of your capital in February 2020, aren't you going to be near enough to having all of your initial money back? Even perhaps a better return than a savings account depending on what you invested in and when. It's just that you sound like a Neil Woodford-ite who's had their capital locked in and is angry at the CEO, demanding timescales etc when you're free to leave. Can't you just reframe this, sell up, move on and gain some peace? I'm only even writing this as I suspect you're going to be first in line to be in uproar when AC actually do fully lock in some of the AA loans as they've already advertised they may have to do. Are you going to be cool with that, or no less cool at least?
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 22, 2020 18:16:30 GMT
Firstly it’s a discussion about the issues facing investors who have their capital trapped .... given approx 1% of asset account capital drips out per month without taking a 7% ish hit I’m currently in for another 8 years. On a 30 day account which had an average withdrawal time of 15 days.
Presently there is no guarantee the 1% capital redemption will continue - however my original question is still valid - when will all redeemed capital new returned to investors ?
AC Marketed these accounts as 30/90 day accounts presently they are nothing like that .... at very least they should come clean and change their names to reflect the fact the CEO of the company is not even prepared to share with investors when he projects capital redeemed from borrowers will be distributed to investors.
PS I assume if you’ve got them majority of your capital back over the past 6 months .. (good for you - btw) that you had less than £2k invested in the AAs and therefore benefitted from the period when distributions were not prorated to your investment.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Nov 1, 2020 12:32:09 GMT
stuartassetzcapital , please pass on to whomever has started abbreviating months to 'm' in lender update text ; please don't ! it's very ambigous. Preferable to use 'mths' , this avoid confusion with other possible means such as metres (the normal use of 'm') or millions, often abbreviated as 'M' . Thanks in advance.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 1, 2020 14:50:54 GMT
stuartassetzcapital , please pass on to whomever has started abbreviating months to 'm' in lender update text ; please don't ! it's very ambigous. Preferable to use 'mths' , this avoid confusion with other possible means such as metres (the normal use of 'm') or millions, often abbreviated as 'M' . Thanks in advance.
'mths' could be moths, or maths or meths. What's wrong with 'months'?
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,056
Likes: 617
|
Post by dave4 on Nov 1, 2020 16:34:03 GMT
Agree, please stop abbreviating, it has already caused confusion on some lender updated i noted.
|
|
