Post by star dust on Dec 11, 2020 18:45:21 GMT
Mod Hat On/
I had a frank discussion with the CEO on the 'Questions for Stuart ' thread.
I put forward an estimate of all the fees Assetz had made since March.
The CEO came back at me about a few figures that were wrong or high only.
The CEO would not comment on my remaining figures.
I stated I felt the company was profiteering over the continuing fees.
Everyone of my own posts containing figures, together with the CEOs replies have been removed.
Nothing came from monitoring staff about the removals.
Did I hit a nerve ?
CBILs loan fees together with monitoring fees.
Existing loan monitoring fees.
Existing loan exit Fees.
Existing Loan default fees.
Loan Extension fees.
Investor <redacted> fees
1) £70m CBILS expected to double to £ 140m. Fee 2.5%%. Fixed Income £3.5m.
2) Would new ordinary loans have pulled in any more under ordinary circumstances ?
2) £380m loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £11.4m pa
2a) £140m CBILS loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £4.2m pa
3) Lender fee £380m @ 0.9% pa. £3.61m pa bunce
4) Originally at the outset. Furloughed staff. Costs substantially reduced. Wages cut.
5) To early September when you say you were making a profit, lender fees were £380m x 4 momths x 0.9%. £1.2m
6) How much of the lender fees contribute towards your profit ?
1) £70m CBILS expected to double to £ 140m. Fee 2.5%%. Fixed Income £3.5m.
A bit less but similar yes
2) Would new ordinary loans have pulled in any more under ordinary circumstances ?
ordinary loans would have been higher
2) £380m loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £11.4m pa
Monitoring fees are way lower than that - we only take about 1% pa
2a) £140m CBILS loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £4.2m pa
Ditto
3) Lender fee £380m @ 0.9% pa. £3.61m pa bunce
Not all the book attracts the lender fee as we have said. So lower than that as for example we only get paid if you do on each loan.
4) Originally at the outset. Furloughed staff. Costs substantially reduced. Wages cut.
Correct
5) To early September when you say you were making a profit, lender fees were £380m x 4 momths x 0.9%. £1.2m
As above, lower and not much per month.
6) How much of the lender fees contribute towards your profit ?
They don't they just help cover a little overhead.
Our latest full company accounts are with Companies House around now and it's all there to see the numbers and overheads. We think that versus pretty much all other companies in our sector they will be comfortingly solid and the changes put in place recently are to make sure they stay so for the benefit of all of us.
There are a further 40+ posts from both you and stuartassetzcapital in this thread (which I won't bore everyone else with by re-quoting) not all of which are direct exchanges but nonetheless, seem to be about the posts you claim ".... have been removed." Not sure who you've been talking to in respect of "Nothing came from monitoring staff about the removals.", but it certainly wasn't me. There is no system evidence of post removals in the "Questions for Stuart" thread by either yourself or Stuart, as indeed there are none here either.
I put forward an estimate of all the fees Assetz had made since March.
The CEO came back at me about a few figures that were wrong or high only.
The CEO would not comment on my remaining figures.
I stated I felt the company was profiteering over the continuing fees.
Everyone of my own posts containing figures, together with the CEOs replies have been removed.
Nothing came from monitoring staff about the removals.
Did I hit a nerve ?
CBILs loan fees together with monitoring fees.
Existing loan monitoring fees.
Existing loan exit Fees.
Existing Loan default fees.
Loan Extension fees.
Investor <redacted> fees
criston - I wonder if you've been dreaming, I think you may have thread confusion? Within this very thread is the following post - an answer from stuartassetzcapital to your post (which also still exists).
2) Would new ordinary loans have pulled in any more under ordinary circumstances ?
2) £380m loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £11.4m pa
2a) £140m CBILS loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £4.2m pa
3) Lender fee £380m @ 0.9% pa. £3.61m pa bunce
4) Originally at the outset. Furloughed staff. Costs substantially reduced. Wages cut.
5) To early September when you say you were making a profit, lender fees were £380m x 4 momths x 0.9%. £1.2m
6) How much of the lender fees contribute towards your profit ?
A bit less but similar yes
2) Would new ordinary loans have pulled in any more under ordinary circumstances ?
ordinary loans would have been higher
2) £380m loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £11.4m pa
Monitoring fees are way lower than that - we only take about 1% pa
2a) £140m CBILS loans with monitoring fee 0.25% per month or 3% pa. Income £4.2m pa
Ditto
3) Lender fee £380m @ 0.9% pa. £3.61m pa bunce
Not all the book attracts the lender fee as we have said. So lower than that as for example we only get paid if you do on each loan.
4) Originally at the outset. Furloughed staff. Costs substantially reduced. Wages cut.
Correct
5) To early September when you say you were making a profit, lender fees were £380m x 4 momths x 0.9%. £1.2m
As above, lower and not much per month.
6) How much of the lender fees contribute towards your profit ?
They don't they just help cover a little overhead.
Our latest full company accounts are with Companies House around now and it's all there to see the numbers and overheads. We think that versus pretty much all other companies in our sector they will be comfortingly solid and the changes put in place recently are to make sure they stay so for the benefit of all of us.
There are a further 40+ posts from both you and stuartassetzcapital in this thread (which I won't bore everyone else with by re-quoting) not all of which are direct exchanges but nonetheless, seem to be about the posts you claim ".... have been removed." Not sure who you've been talking to in respect of "Nothing came from monitoring staff about the removals.", but it certainly wasn't me. There is no system evidence of post removals in the "Questions for Stuart" thread by either yourself or Stuart, as indeed there are none here either.
We do remove posts for a variety of reasons, but in the majority of instances we let people know and we would certainly respond if asked directly. I do not think you have been a 'victim' here as you are claiming, and I'm fairly certain there is nothing untoward going on. In terms of hitting nerves, your innuendo that the volunteer forum staff are somehow complicit in this has certainly hit mine.
Finally, if you want to raise anything further kindly PM me.
