michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703 
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Sept 30, 2020 19:54:54 GMT
That is the opposite of what we have said. Come on guys. Get a grip. The amount of nonsensical posts by of a number of previous posters on this subject in regard to AC, fees and their investments, leads me to a conclusion that there are a number of AC investors/posters who have no idea what they are invested in, no idea of the reality of how the current global financial crisis is affecting their investments and no idea of how difficult it is for AC management to manage a way through this turmoil while doing their best to protect the interests of all stakeholders lenders, borrowers and company. The future success of all stakeholders are interlinked. Selfish interest or not. If you truly believe that you are invested in possible future worthless 'dross', or that AC management are untrustworthy on fees and their intentions, then you would be an fool to stay invested. The option is there for disgruntled investors to cash out, thanks to the AA secondary market. So here's a question. Why whinge, bleat and remain ?? The door to your self imagined investment prison cell door is wide open. Why stay ....you can leave today. Go The option isn't there as has been pointed out. The amounts in my case are relatively small compared to my peak portfolio some years ago. I have been trying to exit for around 2 years. I didn't seem the email back in April about the new fees and the latest email today did not remind me of what they are. Maybe I suggest your post is as emotive as mine which I swiftly apologised for. One difference is that I was attacking a platform whereas your response was largely directed at an individual.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheapaschips on Sept 30, 2020 20:13:12 GMT
That is the opposite of what we have said. Come on guys. Get a grip. The amount of nonsensical posts by of a number of previous posters on this subject in regard to AC, fees and their investments, leads me to a conclusion that there are a number of AC investors/posters who have no idea what they are invested in, no idea of the reality of how the current global financial crisis is affecting their investments and no idea of how difficult it is for AC management to manage a way through this turmoil while doing their best to protect the interests of all stakeholders lenders, borrowers and company. The future success of all stakeholders are interlinked. Selfish interest or not. If you truly believe that you are invested in possible future worthless 'dross', or that AC management are untrustworthy on fees and their intentions, then you would be an fool to stay invested. The option is there for disgruntled investors to cash out, thanks to the AA secondary market. So here's a question. Why whinge, bleat and remain ?? The door to your self imagined investment prison cell door is wide open. Why stay ....you can leave today. Go Yes we do know what we invested in and knew the risks, but that does not give AC carte blanche to add extra charges without some form of scrutiny. Many dislike the fee. It is hoped that the fee will end, but I find that very unlikely. AC do not just need their cheerleaders, they also need others to question their motives, if they have nothing to hide, that's fine, but if they are keeping the lenders fee going when it is not found to be necessary, then they need to be answerable and to justify their decisions. It's a question of balance, it is rather awkward that you tell people to go just because they have a different opinion about this aspect of AC than you do, motives or not you are very one sided in your narrative, and that bias should not be allowed to go unchallenged. I believe AC has handled this crisis efficiently to save their company and if that means some measures have had a bad taste for some investors, then time will be the judge on that one, but the lender fees were not very popular and we had no vote and no choice. So AC need to be questioned on the continuation of this fee, especially as things seem to be improving. There is nothing wrong with that, it is not bleating and moaning, its a fair criticism that they will not want to end them. I hope I am wrong and as I said, time will be the judge
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2020 20:34:21 GMT
I always find it fascinating to see which points get addressed by platform reps, and which get ignored.
Sometimes, silence is the most informative noise they make.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on Sept 30, 2020 23:10:41 GMT
I have actively avoided platforms that charge fees just to risk my own money on but was more than willing to support AC with their fee to stave off imminent oblivion - a reasonable situation given they were direly suffering too.
That being said to hear Stuart's comments when trying to present the platform in a positive light (Cash up, profits looking good etc.) I'm somewhat sceptical of the justification for this fee - If I were Stuart I would never have used the word 'Profits' while still relying on (what I possibly mistakenly thought) was an emergency cash feed.
A miserable old cynic like myself may start to think this is on the verge of profiteering. My apologies if that's an over-reaction but I was willing to go along with this as a support mechanism and can't help shake the feeling it's turning into part of the company's turnover. If Stuart could give us a more in-depth analysis of the company's situation (outside of the sound-bites above that I think will come back to haunt Stuart time and again) and the need for the fee I would certainly feel more comfortable.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 1, 2020 7:03:55 GMT
There is no doubt in my mind, that if the fee was not a con from the start, the continuation of it from now, certainly is.
Even if figures are supplied they can be manipulated, & I would not trust them.
Nice to see a substantial number of posters with backbone on this thread, rather than the usual naive.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Oct 1, 2020 7:58:54 GMT
My bold.
I was having some concerns about future loan quality in the coming months - right in the midst of a downturn, but it's likely that a lot of the struggling co's will go to CBILS, hopefully leaving more quality loans "floating" on top.
Agreed, it is a risk, and lenders will have to consider it, and AC will have to make sure the new loans are enticing. Right now we can't help get the lender fee back to zero until AC speed up the pipeline of new loans. The reason the fee is there is due to the lack of new loans. It looks like there is demand given the recent new loan. The recent 'New' loan was a roll-over of a roll-over of an existing AC retained interest 'bridging' facility, where the borrowers drawn out even more capital despite no previous repayment of capital or interest . Wouldn't want any more like that one.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 1, 2020 8:44:29 GMT
I have actively avoided platforms that charge fees just to risk my own money on but was more than willing to support AC with their fee to stave off imminent oblivion - a reasonable situation given they were direly suffering too. That being said to hear Stuart's comments when trying to present the platform in a positive light (Cash up, profits looking good etc.) I'm somewhat sceptical of the justification for this fee - If I were Stuart I would never have used the word 'Profits' while still relying on (what I possibly mistakenly thought) was an emergency cash feed. A miserable old cynic like myself may start to think this is on the verge of profiteering. My apologies if that's an over-reaction but I was willing to go along with this as a support mechanism and can't help shake the feeling it's turning into part of the company's turnover. If Stuart could give us a more in-depth analysis of the company's situation (outside of the sound-bites above that I think will come back to haunt Stuart time and again) and the need for the fee I would certainly feel more comfortable. I hope you are right, but I fear that the 'cash up, profits looking good' statement is whistling in the dark. We don't have the numbers with which to assess the current position of AC and they don't have any safe information about the future prospects. The key info for me was the disgraceful, imo, sequence by which the 90 days notice of a rate change turned out to be 60 days notice. If they need to do that then the future must be unknown and cash needs to be up. I'm not suggesting that the position of AC is any more uncertain than many similar businesses - it's only a short time from the Chancellor's statement about job support. I do have confidence in the management.
edit: I am not a shareholder. Just a lender.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Oct 1, 2020 11:15:34 GMT
Hopefully we will see new MLA loans increase dramatically now so that the lender fee can start to be reduced. It feels like it is in AC's hands now to test how much new retail lending demand there is in the manual market. We were told to ignore what was in the pipeline list. It would be good to get this going again. I agree with this, hopefully, AC manages to get the fee removed regardless of the Government positions. This is a new normal and many expect the "lockdowns" to continue to kill and close businesses though 2021. This is the new normal, got a few deaths in your area? Time to close 1000's of businesses in your area and increase unemployment. We have gone into a second lockdown here, and my close neighbor's jobs and have started dropping like flies in my working-class area, even my family are now out work. At that point, I can hardly even blame AC anymore either... They guaranteeing cashflow to an extent it seems like. They know this lockdown business isn't going anywhere for the rest of the year, and most likely deep into 2021. The New Normal!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2020 11:26:55 GMT
And lest we forget, AC does have another significant grouping from among the public that have their own agenda - shareholders.
I do wonder how many of the most rabid 'cheerleaders' fall into this category. Their motivations will differ significantly from those of pure lenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 1, 2020 11:32:39 GMT
I have actively avoided platforms that charge fees just to risk my own money on but was more than willing to support AC with their fee to stave off imminent oblivion - a reasonable situation given they were direly suffering too. That being said to hear Stuart's comments when trying to present the platform in a positive light (Cash up, profits looking good etc.) I'm somewhat sceptical of the justification for this fee - If I were Stuart I would never have used the word 'Profits' while still relying on (what I possibly mistakenly thought) was an emergency cash feed. A miserable old cynic like myself may start to think this is on the verge of profiteering. My apologies if that's an over-reaction but I was willing to go along with this as a support mechanism and can't help shake the feeling it's turning into part of the company's turnover. If Stuart could give us a more in-depth analysis of the company's situation (outside of the sound-bites above that I think will come back to haunt Stuart time and again) and the need for the fee I would certainly feel more comfortable. I hope you are right, but I fear that the 'cash up, profits looking good' statement is whistling in the dark. We don't have the numbers with which to assess the current position of AC and they don't have any safe information about the future prospects. The key info for me was the disgraceful, imo, sequence by which the 90 days notice of a rate change turned out to be 60 days notice. If they need to do that then the future must be unknown and cash needs to be up. I'm not suggesting that the position of AC is any more uncertain than many similar businesses - it's only a short time from the Chancellor's statement about job support. I do have confidence in the management. We've just all agreed to disagree on the interpretation of the notice and that may happen sometimes. In the end though the reduced rate on the 90 day account merely went straight into the PF protecting your loans, not to us so our motives weren't selfish but protective.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Oct 1, 2020 11:43:33 GMT
I hope you are right, but I fear that the 'cash up, profits looking good' statement is whistling in the dark. We don't have the numbers with which to assess the current position of AC and they don't have any safe information about the future prospects. The key info for me was the disgraceful, imo, sequence by which the 90 days notice of a rate change turned out to be 60 days notice. If they need to do that then the future must be unknown and cash needs to be up. I'm not suggesting that the position of AC is any more uncertain than many similar businesses - it's only a short time from the Chancellor's statement about job support. I do have confidence in the management. We've just all agreed to disagree on the interpretation of the notice and that may happen sometimes. In the end though the reduced rate on the 90 day account merely went straight into the PF protecting your loans, not to us so our motives weren't selfish but protective. I did not mean to imply that the cash went to AC - sorry it looks that that and you are right to point out the distinction between our money and the platform's money. So, you are happy with the rest of the post  .
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 1, 2020 11:45:03 GMT
My understanding of AC is that in the best of times they’ve been bouncing around breakeven; sometimes small losses, sometime small profits. So I find the current fixation with they are profiteering off the back of the lender fee on the basis of probably a loose use of the terms profits by Stuart as typical of the discourse and understanding you get on this forum. It is unlikely that AC is “profiteering”. What’s certain is that the lender fee is ensuring two things: - the AC balance sheet isn’t eroding as fast as it would without the fee - AC staff numbers and payroll level is being sustained at a higher level than without the fee would allow. In the short term I’m sanguinely ok with that. In the medium term lender returns will need to be compelling for the risks taken. If AC have an out of line cost base that means they reduce the yield through too high an expense ratio (arrangement fee + intro fee + monitoring fee + lender fee + exit fee) then their business model is unlikely to flourish. It's not that our balance sheet is eroding, slower or faster, but that it is growing. Not all in cash as we are diverting seven figure sums to skin in the game participation in lending under CBILS biut then that drives profits and cash that pay for that in part. We need to balance cash, balance sheet and profits over time and profits diverted to balance sheet investment loses cash so we need to be protective of cash and do at present expect profits to end up good for this FY 2020/21 as well as strong balance sheet growth and also cash up potentially also. This will only be seen around the end of the year though with more certainty and until then we run a tight ship and balance the books. We have not reduced cash balances nor made a loss since this all hit in March but that is after care in the cost base and sacrifices by all, including you our lenders. but we still pay healthy rates and the next move in rates is expected to be up not down as per the expected Bank of England's position. So no profiteering at all, we are all in this together and rely on each other to have a good outcome over the years and decades. We are very aware of this and will never 'milk' our investors as has been implied. We have set up and run a sustainable business we trust and will continue to behave in a way that balances all stakeholders' interests in the best way we can at any time and very much fully balanced on average over a longer period. Our cost base has reduced but our governance has not one iota and our investment in that has taken us here and will hopefully take us onwards over the decades. That is a non-negotiable cost and is what sets us apart we believe over the years from others that you see peeling away over time. Shareholders themselves are one of the stakeholders and they have no value over time if we don't or you the lenders don't - our slogan is far more than just a slogan, it's our entire way of thinking. Fairer Growth for All. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 1, 2020 11:47:34 GMT
And I think from a present and future point of view we feel secure in our position, and therefore yours and our shareholders now and see an upwards path from here which is a lot more than can be said for many businesses and we do feel fortunate in that regard.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 1, 2020 11:50:03 GMT
Assetz Capital taking no pain, but lenders are.
What's this about no fee income ?
A few points to think about
1) £70m CBILS expected to double to £ 140m. Fee 3%. Fixed Income £4.2m. Would new ordinary loans have pulled in any more ?
2) £750m loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £22.5m pa
3) Lender fee £750m @ 0.9% pa. £6.75m pa bunce
4) Originally at the outset. Furloughed staff. Costs substantially reduced. Wages cut.
5) They are making a profit.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Oct 1, 2020 12:12:38 GMT
stuartassetzcapitalIt was the irrational behaviour of lenders using the QAA as a bank account that caused the biggest problem for AC, despite all the warnings. Now MLA investors are paying a much higher fee than the QAA lenders. Eg, MLA investors in 5% loans are losing 18% of their income. For QAA lenders it's only 8.5%. When will you redress the imbalance?
|
|
.