alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Oct 1, 2020 14:51:54 GMT
'have set things like the lender fee at a level to achieve break even'
So when I said Assetz Capital are not taking any pain, but lenders are, I was right. I don't think anyone would say that at all - at least our lenders are making profits, albeit a bit reduced whereas we have had a 6 month breakeven and reduced salaries for some and rather an excessive work level to boot. No-one complaining but the opposite of no pain and the other way around to what you are suggesting if we are being fair about it. How are your lenders making a profit for the last 6 months, the AAs interest rate has been reduced and because of the lock in the only way out is the SM given the discounts of say 8%, QAA interest of 1.875% (3.75%*6/12), looks like a loss of approx 6.125% less a little as the rate was not reduce at the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 1, 2020 15:18:54 GMT
The range of fees are on the website. There are details on individual loans and summary information (see below for an example from the access accounts) for everyone to see. It is not hidden. As an example the recent new 12month loan had an arrangement fee of 2.5%,monitoring fee of 3% and exit fee of 0.5%, taken from the credit report. There are also enhanced monitoring fees on some forbearance loans which in some cases are several times higher than the normal monitoring fees. ----- Assetz Capital Fees charged to borrowers Notes: There are no formal upper or lower limits to the fees Assetz Capital charges to borrowers for arranging and managing a loan, but the current range of fees at origination for different fee types are shown here. Assetz Capital may earn additional monitoring fees if the loan defaults. Arrangement fee (net of broker fees) - % of loan facility 0 % to 7.5 % Monitoring fees paid to Assetz Capital - % per annum based on loan outstanding 0 % to 5.5 % Exit fees - % of loan facility 0 % to 2 % So my figures were nearer the mark ! Nope, we know our loan book averages. the average of the range isn't the average of the book.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 1, 2020 15:20:44 GMT
I don't think anyone would say that at all - at least our lenders are making profits, albeit a bit reduced whereas we have had a 6 month breakeven and reduced salaries for some and rather an excessive work level to boot. No-one complaining but the opposite of no pain and the other way around to what you are suggesting if we are being fair about it. How are your lenders making a profit for the last 6 months, the AAs interest rate has been reduced and because of the lock in the only way out is the SM given the discounts of say 8%, QAA interest of 1.875% (3.75%*6/12), looks like a loss of approx 6.125% less a little as the rate was not reduce at the start.
We are principally an investment platform, not a liquidity platform as a bank is so we do not factor in the discounts to force liquidity for a period. So yes lenders are making around 4% or greater profit at present for no work and we have no profit so far in the pandemic and lots of work.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 1, 2020 15:24:20 GMT
I don't think anyone would say that at all - at least our lenders are making profits, albeit a bit reduced whereas we have had a 6 month breakeven and reduced salaries for some and rather an excessive work level to boot. No-one complaining but the opposite of no pain and the other way around to what you are suggesting if we are being fair about it. Have you considered, when your profits start to increase, paying back all the fees you have charged to date, as a thank you for lender support. Take the fee as a loan to help you through hard times & pay us back when profits increase in good times. That would make things one sided again. We aim to seek to balance over time and covering reduced returns in tougher times for one stakeholder only, at the expense of all the others later on, wouldn't be fair or balanced. In bad times we all lower our returns and in the good times we all improve. The next move on interest rates for us is up, whereas for bank savings it is likely down. Lenders will enjoy the good times again we expect in due course and have a warm glow that they also helped support the country's businesses through difficult times to boot.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 1, 2020 15:48:58 GMT
Have you considered, when your profits start to increase, paying back all the fees you have charged to date, as a thank you for lender support. Take the fee as a loan to help you through hard times & pay us back when profits increase in good times. That would make things one sided again. We aim to seek to balance over time and covering reduced returns in tougher times for one stakeholder only, at the expense of all the others later on, wouldn't be fair or balanced. In bad times we all lower our returns and in the good times we all improve. The next move on interest rates for us is up, whereas for bank savings it is likely down. Lenders will enjoy the good times again we expect in due course and have a warm glow that they also helped support the country's businesses through difficult times to boot. Will leave it there, but I am still not convinced it is necessary to continue the lender fee.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on Oct 1, 2020 17:38:52 GMT
Would you still be making a profit without the £1.2m lender fee to date ? No. We entirely ceased new lending in March and have set things like the lender fee at a level to achieve break even only over the 6 main months of covid impact (for us, not suggesting other business have potentially recovered so quickly). The profits we refer to are what are in the pipeline if we deliver strongly in the coming months before year end. That is something likely to only start showing in Q1 next year but we will see it coming beforehand. All our changes have been on a prudent basis for the benefit of all in the bigger picture. I'm pretty happy with this explanation regarding my original concerns, as long as these profits are expected\theoretical and not already baked in then fair enough. Time will only tell where we end up at the end of all this but I'm sure you understand it would still be prudent for lenders to keep an eye on this as well.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Oct 1, 2020 18:16:30 GMT
How are your lenders making a profit for the last 6 months, the AAs interest rate has been reduced and because of the lock in the only way out is the SM given the discounts of say 8%, QAA interest of 1.875% (3.75%*6/12), looks like a loss of approx 6.125% less a little as the rate was not reduce at the start.
We are principally an investment platform, not a liquidity platform as a bank is so we do not factor in the discounts to force liquidity for a period. So yes lenders are making around 4% or greater profit at present for no work and we have no profit so far in the pandemic and lots of work. I bed to differ, firstly where was it stated before the lock in that lenders would have to factor in discounts to get their own money back in accounts that were advertised as Quick Access, 30D and 90D. We knew that if problems occur we would have to wait for borrowers to pay interest and capital and could suffer some loses but had know idea of the amount AC had promised in future tranches because AC did not tell us and are still not giving us this information. Also that AC would hold onto cash in the AAs which could be paid out to lenders which would allow interest rates to increase.
What you consider no work is in fact a risk, perhaps a big risk, you cannot get away from the fact that lenders have lost money in PSA, GEIA, GBBA1, GBBA2, QAA, 30D , 90D, numerous MLA loans in particular D******d M***** Limited. For the lenders in the AAs you either have to sell out at loss or be locked in in perpetuity. I think you will find that most lenders had to work hard for the money they have lost with AC.
AC may have no profits in the pandemic but the directors are still taking salaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradley02 on Oct 1, 2020 19:34:19 GMT
Have you considered, when your profits start to increase, paying back all the fees you have charged to date, as a thank you for lender support. Take the fee as a loan to help you through hard times & pay us back when profits increase in good times. That would make things one sided again. We aim to seek to balance over time and covering reduced returns in tougher times for one stakeholder only, at the expense of all the others later on, wouldn't be fair or balanced. In bad times we all lower our returns and in the good times we all improve. The next move on interest rates for us is up, whereas for bank savings it is likely down. Lenders will enjoy the good times again we expect in due course and have a warm glow that they also helped support the country's businesses through difficult times to boot. Hi Stuart, full respect to you for the amount of time you dedicate to answering both genuine and disingenuous questions on this forum. Being long in the tooth as an investor, the generosity of the time you dedicate, in the eye if the storm of this financial crisis, to answering questions is commendable. Unlike other p2p platforms who have dumped on their retail investors, your commitment to retail investment is very welcome. I believe that the silent mass majority of satisfied AC retail investors is not fairly represented by the disgruntled, minority angry squad on this forum. Congratulations and full support for all that you and the company are trying to achieve for all stakeholders lenders, borrowers and company in the most challenging of circumstances.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Oct 1, 2020 19:45:44 GMT
We are principally an investment platform, not a liquidity platform as a bank is so we do not factor in the discounts to force liquidity for a period. So yes lenders are making around 4% or greater profit at present for no work and we have no profit so far in the pandemic and lots of work. I bed to differ, firstly where was it stated before the lock in that lenders would have to factor in discounts to get their own money back in accounts that were advertised as Quick Access, 30D and 90D. We knew that if problems occur we would have to wait for borrowers to pay interest and capital and could suffer some loses but had know idea of the amount AC had promised in future tranches because AC did not tell us and are still not giving us this information. Also that AC would hold onto cash in the AAs which could be paid out to lenders which would allow interest rates to increase.
What you consider no work is in fact a risk, perhaps a big risk, you cannot get away from the fact that lenders have lost money in PSA, GEIA, GBBA1, GBBA2, QAA, 30D , 90D, numerous MLA loans in particular D******d M***** Limited. For the lenders in the AAs you either have to sell out at loss or be locked in in perpetuity. I think you will find that most lenders had to work hard for the money they have lost with AC.
AC may have no profits in the pandemic but the directors are still taking salaries.
You chose to invest no one forced you.
|
|
johni
Member of DD Central
Posts: 369
Likes: 329
|
Post by johni on Oct 1, 2020 20:15:07 GMT
That would make things one sided again. We aim to seek to balance over time and covering reduced returns in tougher times for one stakeholder only, at the expense of all the others later on, wouldn't be fair or balanced. In bad times we all lower our returns and in the good times we all improve. The next move on interest rates for us is up, whereas for bank savings it is likely down. Lenders will enjoy the good times again we expect in due course and have a warm glow that they also helped support the country's businesses through difficult times to boot. Will leave it there, but I am still not convinced it is necessary to continue the lender fee. The easier way would have been to do what banks and many other platforms have done. Cut the interest rate by 0.9%. That would have been that. But to Assetz credit they explained the fee only charged it on interest paying loans and keep it under review.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 3, 2020 8:07:48 GMT
I did say I would leave it, but for those who appear still to act obsequiously towards the CEO, I would say this.
It is what the CEO doesn't say that is more important than what he does say; & he is selective with the following examples.
Posters here suggested 'the lender fee was needed as the company was not getting any loan fees'. Why would the CEO reply to that & given his position, I wouldn't either. I had to put that straight.
The CEO only questioned my overestimates, obviously not mentioning omissions, for example, exit fees; & would not state actual figures.
The CBILS loans are likely to be over £200m by the end of the month.
The introduction fees are likely to be substantially lower on CBILS loans than normal loans.
From March to November 1st (7 months) fees are as follows.
CBILS £5.0m
Monitoring £3.0m
Exit £1.5m
Default £0.2m
Extension £1.0m Approximately 50% of loans
Lender £1.4m. May to November 1st. Bunce
With hindsight the CBILS loan fee bonanza made the lender fee unnecessary & to continue it, is pure greed & profiteering.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 3, 2020 9:05:29 GMT
I did say I would leave it, but for those who appear still to act obsequiously towards the CEO, I would say this. It is what the CEO doesn't say that is more important than what he does say; & he is selective with the following examples. Posters here suggested 'the lender fee was needed as the company was not getting any loan fees'. Why would the CEO reply to that & given his position, I wouldn't either. I had to put that straight. The CEO only questioned my overestimates, obviously not mentioning omissions, for example, exit fees; & would not state actual figures. The CBILS loans are likely to be over £200m by the end of the month. The introduction fees are likely to be substantially lower on CBILS loans than normal loans. From March to November fees are as follows. CBILS £5.0m Monitoring £3.0m Exit £1.5m Lender £1.4m. Bunce With hindsight the CBILS loan fee bonanza made the lender fee unnecessary & to continue it, is pure greed & profiteering. Thankyou for the information... are you positive circa £5m has been received from CBILS?? Irrespective your points are well made ... defaults & loan extensions are potential sources of revenue for AC none of which is shared with Access account or GBBA holders .... we’ve just had a near 33% reduction in revenue along with haircuts to capital.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 3, 2020 9:42:31 GMT
I did say I would leave it, but for those who appear still to act obsequiously towards the CEO, I would say this. It is what the CEO doesn't say that is more important than what he does say; & he is selective with the following examples. Posters here suggested 'the lender fee was needed as the company was not getting any loan fees'. Why would the CEO reply to that & given his position, I wouldn't either. I had to put that straight. The CEO only questioned my overestimates, obviously not mentioning omissions, for example, exit fees; & would not state actual figures. The CBILS loans are likely to be over £200m by the end of the month. The introduction fees are likely to be substantially lower on CBILS loans than normal loans. From March to November 1st (7 months) fees are as follows. CBILS £5.0m Monitoring £3.0m Exit £1.5m Default £ 0.2m Extension £ 1.0m Approximately 50% of loans Lender £1.4m. May to November 1st. Bunce With hindsight the CBILS loan fee bonanza made the lender fee unnecessary & to continue it, is pure greed & profiteering. Thankyou for the information... are you positive circa £5m has been received from CBILS?? Irrespective your points are well made ... defaults & loan extensions are potential sources of revenue for AC none of which is shared with Access account or GBBA holders .... we’ve just had a near 33% reduction in revenue along with haircuts to capital. Based on minimum £200m CBILS loans by end October at 2.5%. I have updated my original post to include your points.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 3, 2020 10:50:48 GMT
Thankyou for the information... are you positive circa £5m has been received from CBILS?? Irrespective your points are well made ... defaults & loan extensions are potential sources of revenue for AC none of which is shared with Access account or GBBA holders .... we’ve just had a near 33% reduction in revenue along with haircuts to capital. Based on minimum £200m CBILS loans by end October at 2.5%. I have updated my original post to include your points. Apologies again however where / when was it announced AC have made £200m of cbils lending ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Oct 3, 2020 10:57:35 GMT
There's talk of CBILS ending in Nov now.
|
|
