criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 3, 2020 11:08:29 GMT
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 ? It was announced by AC in September, £70m were already made & they were hoping to double it by the cut off point at the end of September. In an earlier post here, the CEO did not suggest my figure of £140m was incorrect. The cut off point has now been extended to the end of November due to high demand. Some providers have ceased dealing with them as they cannot handle the surge. £200m minimum should be easily achievable by end of October (if not already) as they are back to strength & nicely placed as nothing much is going on with ordinary loans. Probably very much higher by the end of November Not forgetting the CEOs statement 7/9/20 'Zero redundancies. Everyone back this month after some were furloughed due to no work to do in loan origination for a bit. Cash up and profits looking good for the year. Retail and CBILS lending now restarted and we have £150m of capacity for CBILS being worked through at pace.'
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Oct 3, 2020 12:15:28 GMT
Apologies again however where / when was it announced AC have made £200m of cbils lending ? It was announced by AC in September, £70m were already made & they were hoping to double it by the cut off point at the end of September. In an earlier post here, the CEO did not suggest my figure of £140m was incorrect. The cut off point has now been extended to the end of November due to high demand. Some providers have ceased dealing with them as they cannot handle the surge. £200m minimum should be easily achievable by end of October (if not already) as they are back to strength & nicely placed as nothing much is going on with ordinary loans. Probably very much higher by the end of November Thankyou for clarifying I’m not sure where you got the 2.5% from. I know as with bounce back (typically 2.5%) the 1st year is free of interest to borrower so government lends assetz the capital at zero interest & that is passed on to the borrower.... I’m not sure where the 2.5% ‘arrangement fee’comes in.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 3, 2020 12:23:31 GMT
It was announced by AC in September, £70m were already made & they were hoping to double it by the cut off point at the end of September. In an earlier post here, the CEO did not suggest my figure of £140m was incorrect. The cut off point has now been extended to the end of November due to high demand. Some providers have ceased dealing with them as they cannot handle the surge. £200m minimum should be easily achievable by end of October (if not already) as they are back to strength & nicely placed as nothing much is going on with ordinary loans. Probably very much higher by the end of November Not forgetting the CEOs statement 7/9/20 'Zero redundancies. Everyone back this month after some were furloughed due to no work to do in loan origination for a bit. Cash up and profits looking good for the year. Retail and CBILS lending now restarted and we have £150m of capacity for CBILS being worked through at pace.' Thankyou for clarifying I’m not sure where you got the 2.5% from. I know as with bounce back (typically 2.5%) the 1st year is free of interest to borrower so government lends assetz the capital at zero interest & that is passed on to the borrower.... I’m not sure where the 2.5% ‘arrangement fee’comes in. It appears you missed my earlier posts here. The CEO confirmed I was close at 2.5% fees. The fees are paid by the Government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Oct 4, 2020 11:10:32 GMT
Thankyou for clarifying I’m not sure where you got the 2.5% from. I know as with bounce back (typically 2.5%) the 1st year is free of interest to borrower so government lends assetz the capital at zero interest & that is passed on to the borrower.... I’m not sure where the 2.5% ‘arrangement fee’comes in. It appears you missed my earlier posts here. The CEO confirmed I was close at 2.5% fees. The fees are paid by the Government.
You mentioned bunce, do you know where all the bunce goes to?
As I understand it some (or all) the directors were (are?) on half pay - i can't make it add up.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 17, 2020 14:53:44 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Oct 17, 2020 19:22:33 GMT
Perhaps CEO's live in a parallel dimension.
If lenders were comfortable with AC we would not be seeing discounts at current levels.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Oct 18, 2020 9:58:57 GMT
Perhaps CEO's live in a parallel dimension. If lenders were comfortable with AC we would not be seeing discounts at current levels. Not sure they are uncomfortable with AC, but rather the general situation. There will be blood.
|
|
ton27
Member of DD Central
Posts: 431 
Likes: 267
|
Post by ton27 on Oct 18, 2020 11:21:25 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. These fees of £12M compare favourably with the revenue for the previous year of £16m and will be against a background of reduced costs. The P&L account for 21/2 should therefore be positive.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 18, 2020 11:33:22 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. www.crowdfundinsider.com/2020/10/167675-assetz-capital-we-are-proud-to-bring-the-uk-government-into-our-shareholder-base-through-the-future-fund/These fees of £12M compare favourably with the revenue for the previous year of £16m and will be against a background of reduced costs. The P&L account for 21/2 should therefore be positive. £12m for 7 months only.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 18, 2020 11:45:06 GMT
These fees of £12M compare favourably with the revenue for the previous year of £16m and will be against a background of reduced costs. The P&L account for 21/2 should therefore be positive. £12m for 7 months only. Completely and utterly wrong sorry. CBILS loans only earn when out of the door and that has barely started. And then CBILS fees are only paid by the government quarterly. .
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 18, 2020 11:47:38 GMT
Completely and utterly wrong sorry. CBILS loans only earn when out of the door and that has barely started. And then CBILS fees are only paid by the government quarterly. . You need to come clean & tell what is right rather than wrong Since April Pending CBILS ? £ £ Monitoring ? £ £ Exit ? £ £ Default? £ £ Extension? £ £ Lender ? £ £
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Oct 18, 2020 11:58:03 GMT
We will not be publishing monthly management accounts on a forum. We have been clear enough about our financial position and the positive outcomes of several actions that we have taken. When we have replaced lender fee income with lending income again we still intend to reduce or eliminate it as an income stream to counter the impact of COVID. We won’t do that before the right time and that seems to be getting much closer. We will need to be able to earn from retail lending again to do that clearly - we cannot service retail lenders at zero cost - the engineering and service levels are high and normally paid by borrower fees as we have said. Hopefully normal service can resume shortly and in the meantime we continue to pay very healthy returns. With the nation heading into a new lockdown and a difficult winter ahead for the economy and people we will continue to ensure the platform remains strong, investors receive good returns and borrowers are supported through this too.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 18, 2020 12:07:49 GMT
We will not be publishing monthly management accounts on a forum. We have been clear enough about our financial position and the positive outcomes of several actions that we have taken. When we have replaced lender fee income with lending income again we still intend to reduce or eliminate it as an income stream to counter the impact of COVID. We won’t do that before the right time and that seems to be getting much closer. We will need to be able to earn from retail lending again to do that clearly - we cannot service retail lenders at zero cost - the engineering and service levels are high and normally paid by borrower fees as we have said. Hopefully normal service can resume shortly and in the meantime we continue to pay very healthy returns. With the nation heading into a new lockdown and a difficult winter ahead for the economy and people we will continue to ensure the platform remains strong, investors receive good returns and borrowers are supported through this too. I stand by my figures to be reasonably accurate & to include pending incoming funds. I also believe future funds will increase proportionately to the figures I have assessed to date. The sooner that lender fee is removed the better as I still believe it is profiteering.
|
|
criston
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 628
|
Post by criston on Oct 18, 2020 12:20:34 GMT
A forum poster generated table of fee income that is a some mixture of various guesstimates of collected fees and fees on possible future loans is in danger of being treated as audited fact. Nearly 50% of guesstimated fees is on possible CBILS advances. I’m not sure how much certainty to attach to that £5m number or it’s timing. What visibility there is on CBILS loans to AC type borrowers isn’t awe inspiring. A few development loans are having future tranches met by AC’s CBILS lending. On a few non-development refinancing where either an AC or mainstream bank CBILS was mentioned nothing materialised in the end and the loans just got extended. Maybe I shouldn’t draw strong negative conclusions from that about AC’s CBILS loanbook to non-existing borrowers, but equally I’m not comfortable treating the tabulation of fees as revenue banked or to be banked imminently. We know the fee approaches 2.5% & CBILs advances are at least £200m whether pending or not. I expect them to increase substantially.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2020 12:26:56 GMT
You can infer just as much information from what the AC reps ignore as from what they pounce on enthusiastically as errors.
This is actually quite hilarious and tragic at the same time. Silence really does speak volumes.
|
|
