merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902 
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Dec 11, 2014 10:23:25 GMT
Concerns yes, problem no. Would you rather we allowed less sophisticated investors to bumble into a loan that may go bad in the future when we know there might be a problem in the future? My own morals don't allow that to happen. As I say, judge us on losses. Ah but what about those of us that are stuck with unsaleable loans? Where are your morals then? We bought in good faith but now we are stuffed! Yes there are at least six of these that give you sufficient concern to stop sales so you do have more than 2 problem loans!
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 11, 2014 10:54:15 GMT
You bought into a loan with a small probability of the loan going bad which is the nature of lending and why you get an interest rate return. You read the reports, made an assessment of the risk and you took the decision to invest. That probability has increased which is why it has been suspended for new entrants to the loan.
Again, judge us on losses. You have yet to lose a single penny with AC.
|
|
koba
Posts: 45
Likes: 13
|
Post by koba on Dec 11, 2014 11:45:14 GMT
Concerns yes, problem no. Would you rather we allowed less sophisticated investors to bumble into a loan that may go bad in the future when we know there might be a problem in the future? My own morals don't allow that to happen. As I say, judge us on losses. I am a concerned AC fan and content to wait to see what emerges once all the recent "teething troubles" have settled down. So long as they are eventually sorted I personally see little point in perpetually getting on AC's case and have refrained from posting on the various niggles. Paradoxically, I find AH's above statement more worrying (well as worrying perhaps) than the various process-related issues raised. The reason is that the price of protecting "less sophisticated investors" is the distortion of a fair market in the units. I am a conservative investor and would wish to sell on any bad news - even a single late payment. My counterparty may have a higher risk tolerance and welcome the opportunity of picking these same units up. That is what makes a market. I can understand trying to protect investors - the sophisticated and unsophisticated alike - by insisting on fair disclosure. Preventing the perfectly legitimate reallocation of risk among market participants on the grounds that some may not have the sophistication to participate in the market strikes me as a step too far.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Dec 11, 2014 11:50:40 GMT
OK Andrew, and for me too the crits are excessive, but really
we will update you by end of 9th Dec has to be delivered even if all you can say is - sorry still waiting for a response from whoever
Whether it's on a q&a web page or whether it's a phone call to a client
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 11, 2014 11:53:05 GMT
OK Andrew, and for me too the crits are excessive, but really we will update you by end of 9th Dec has to be delivered even if all you can say is - sorry still waiting for a response from whoeverWhether it's on a q&a web page or whether it's a phone call to a client Sorry, perhaps some frustration is coming through from me. Noted on the point made.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Dec 11, 2014 12:34:21 GMT
You bought into a loan with a small probability of the loan going bad which is the nature of lending and why you get an interest rate return. You read the reports, made an assessment of the risk and you took the decision to invest. That probability has increased which is why it has been suspended for new entrants to the loan. Again, judge us on losses. You have yet to lose a single penny with AC. I note that you are still not admitting that you have more than two problem loans which is clearly wrong if you are blocking off the AM for at least six loans. If, as you imply, you have no problem with the other four loans you should allow them back on the AM. If not you still have six problem loans so why not own up to it?
I sincerely trust that we will not lose out on investments with AC but from a pragmatic standpoint I have always expected to lose on a small percentage and have budgeted accordingly.
PS. If you had got far enough up the greasy military pole you would have probably attended a staff course at Shrivenham where you would have learned more about contingency planning.
|
|
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 Dec 11, 2014 13:24:45 GMT
You bought into a loan with a small probability of the loan going bad which is the nature of lending and why you get an interest rate return. You read the reports, made an assessment of the risk and you took the decision to invest. That probability has increased which is why it has been suspended for new entrants to the loan. Again, judge us on losses. You have yet to lose a single penny with AC. , there are at least 4 loans that owe money which AC have been removed from the platform. These owe pre-drawdown interest. Technically, you won't consider these as losses, but it is money owed by borrowers to lenders. Can you please put them back on the platform so we can be kept up to date on progress.
|
|
Neil
Posts: 40
Likes: 70
|
Post by Neil on Dec 11, 2014 13:35:11 GMT
In regards to loans in difficulty. We have two loans in a recognised insolvency process and one entering it. There are some bridge loans that have missed repayment date but I don't feel having seen the information that lenders are at risk of loss. If you lend money, expect problems. I note that you are still not admitting that you have more than two problem loans which is clearly wrong if you are blocking off the AM for at least six loans. If, as you imply, you have no problem with the other four loans you should allow them back on the AM. If not you still have six problem loans so why not own up to it?
I sincerely trust that we will not lose out on investments with AC but from a pragmatic standpoint I have always expected to lose on a small percentage and have budgeted accordingly.
PS. If you had got far enough up the greasy military pole you would have probably attended a staff course at Shrivenham where you would have learned more about contingency planning.
Sorry Merlin but you appear to be spoiling for a fight. Andrew has said they have two loans in a recognised insolvency process and one entering it, so that makes 3? As for the bridges, it would appear they aren't at a risk of loss at the moment but things could deteriorate and AC have taken action to protect the investors with less experience & knowledge. As long as a platform uses the same safeguards for every loan then we'll all know where we stand. I imagine different platforms will do things their own way. Your "PS" is out of order in my opinion. I'm sure AC have procedures and plans in place for different scenarios.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Dec 11, 2014 14:03:38 GMT
In regards to loans in difficulty. We have two loans in a recognised insolvency process and one entering it. There are some bridge loans that have missed repayment date but I don't feel having seen the information that lenders are at risk of loss. If you lend money, expect problems. I note that you are still not admitting that you have more than two problem loans which is clearly wrong if you are blocking off the AM for at least six loans. If, as you imply, you have no problem with the other four loans you should allow them back on the AM. If not you still have six problem loans so why not own up to it?
I sincerely trust that we will not lose out on investments with AC but from a pragmatic standpoint I have always expected to lose on a small percentage and have budgeted accordingly.
PS. If you had got far enough up the greasy military pole you would have probably attended a staff course at Shrivenham where you would have learned more about contingency planning.
Sorry Merlin but you appear to be spoiling for a fight. Andrew has said they have two loans in a recognised insolvency process and one entering it, so that makes 3? As for the bridges, it would appear they aren't at a risk of loss at the moment but things could deteriorate and AC have taken action to protect the investors with less experience & knowledge. As long as a platform uses the same safeguards for every loan then we'll all know where we stand. I imagine different platforms will do things their own way. Your "PS" is out of order in my opinion. I'm sure AC have procedures and plans in place for different scenarios. Neil if you had taken the trouble to go back to the start of this thread and followed it through you would have seen that originally AH claimed only two loans were in difficulties.
As to my PS. Again if you had read what AH had written you would also seen that AC referred to his time spent at the RMA Sandhurst. My PS was in response to his comment about military planning, nothing to do with AC.
Finally I am not spoiling for a fight all I am doing is seeking for the truth!
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Dec 11, 2014 14:03:51 GMT
Concerns yes, problem no. Would you rather we allowed less sophisticated investors to bumble into a loan that may go bad in the future when we know there might be a problem in the future? My own morals don't allow that to happen. As I say, judge us on losses. I am a concerned AC fan and content to wait to see what emerges once all the recent "teething troubles" have settled down. So long as they are eventually sorted I personally see little point in perpetually getting on AC's case and have refrained from posting on the various niggles. Paradoxically, I find AH's above statement more worrying (well as worrying perhaps) than the various process-related issues raised. The reason is that the price of protecting "less sophisticated investors" is the distortion of a fair market in the units. I am a conservative investor and would wish to sell on any bad news - even a single late payment. My counterparty may have a higher risk tolerance and welcome the opportunity of picking these same units up. That is what makes a market. I can understand trying to protect investors - the sophisticated and unsophisticated alike - by insisting on fair disclosure. Preventing the perfectly legitimate reallocation of risk among market participants on the grounds that some may not have the sophistication to participate in the market strikes me as a step too far. It is hard to imagine an informed investor wanting to take a loan with increased risk off your hands without an increased reward. The "market" you refer to would require you to price your loan at 90-95p in the £, which is not what you are suggesting. AC needs to protect its reputation and its new customers. I think AC is correct to suspend these loans. Most other P2P platforms suspend loans from sale for much less. Zopa used to suspend loans from sale forever (before safeguard) for any late payment. If P2P ISAs take off, or SIPPs expand there are likely to be a lot of new lenders. It would be disastrous for the industry if many of those new entrants were stung by those 'conservative investors' who are able to get rid of higher risk loans at a normal price. In time it would be good if AC could introduce another marketplace for loans with some sort of impairment, but this should be obvious and new members receive further warnings. This would allow the sale of loans such as FF so that people can lock in capital losses in a given tax year (not sure what the Autumn Statement implications would be) or get some money. Then the market could be described as fair. I think that AC have other priorities for now.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 11, 2014 14:04:52 GMT
In regards to loans in difficulty. We have two loans in a recognised insolvency process and one entering it. There are some bridge loans that have missed repayment date but I don't feel having seen the information that lenders are at risk of loss. If you lend money, expect problems. I note that you are still not admitting that you have more than two problem loans which is clearly wrong if you are blocking off the AM for at least six loans. If, as you imply, you have no problem with the other four loans you should allow them back on the AM. If not you still have six problem loans so why not own up to it?
I sincerely trust that we will not lose out on investments with AC but from a pragmatic standpoint I have always expected to lose on a small percentage and have budgeted accordingly.
PS. If you had got far enough up the greasy military pole you would have probably attended a staff course at Shrivenham where you would have learned more about contingency planning.
Sorry Merlin but you appear to be spoiling for a fight. Andrew has said they have two loans in a recognised insolvency process and one entering it, so that makes 3? As for the bridges, it would appear they aren't at a risk of loss at the moment but things could deteriorate and AC have taken action to protect the investors with less experience & knowledge. As long as a platform uses the same safeguards for every loan then we'll all know where we stand. I imagine different platforms will do things their own way. Your "PS" is out of order in my opinion. I'm sure AC have procedures and plans in place for different scenarios. Agreed - what seems to have started off as a criticism of the revamped web site and AC not always keeping to an updated promised timetable has become IMO personal. You can only test a website to a certain extent before it goes live - whether that testing was extensive enough will always be a moot point. What is important is that it is now being sorted but the programmers need time. Alter a bit of code here and a red light goes off elsewhere - that is the nature of programming. Goodness even MSoft and Apple don't get it right. The other point about missed feedback is probably just one or two individuals. Okay, not good enough but easy to rectify. To suggest though, as this thread seems to have deteriorated to that level, that AC are plain incompetent is a bit over the top. I think we all need to take a chill out pill (if appropriate).
|
|
|
|
Post by paul123 on Dec 11, 2014 14:58:09 GMT
...I think we all need to take a chill out pill (if appropriate).
Unfortunately, for better or worse, there will be a never ending parade of new lenders joining AC and this forum, some of whom will be annoyed about some surprising, confusing or complex piece of behaviour on the website and will raise their concerns in public here in the certain knowledge that AC staff will respond. Much like a complaint on a company's twitter feed often gets good results. This is a can of worms that AC chose to open and while they continue to interact in the immediate way they do here, threads like this will continue forever...
|
|
|
|
Post by uncletone on Dec 11, 2014 15:08:03 GMT
Locking this thread to give time for deep breathing and consideration.
|
|
