alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Mar 2, 2021 0:13:40 GMT
I generally agree with what you have said but I believe there is still a serious issuer of confidence and 8 out 10 sounds high.
I believe the pro rata situation is mush more serious, it sent a clear message that larger investors would be treated as second class and not welcome, it has been reversed but will larger investors be confident that this or something similar will not happen again, perhaps if AC haver a mea culpa and promise that all lenders will be treated equally and put this in the T&C some larger lenders will stay. However fool me once man shame on you, fool me twice shame on me comes to mind. If AC believe they do not need large investors that is fine but if so they will have to permanently downsize the AAs.
The other issue is that AC have done nothing to really restore access to the AAs, even with the recent large payments lenders will be years getting their money out and they continue to holds excess cash which after all is the property of the lenders and could be paid out. Unless AC are seen to do all they can to restore access they will be a lack of confidence in these accounts. I am sure some will say you can sell on the SM, that is true but it will not restore confidence, AC are still calling these Access Accounts, at the very least they should rename these accounts and change the T&Cs, however from the FCAs guidance I do not think they can get away with this without offering all the money back to the current lenders, anyone interested can either read my previous posts on changing T&Cs or google it.
From my perspective (not being an MLA lender) MLA lenders have been treated better than AA holders, however how easy will it be for AC to run the MLA if there is no or a dis-functional AAs to take up the slack. While there is a queue to leave the AAs, AC are in a limited position to use AAs to help out the MLA by putting some parts of MLA loans into the AAs when they cannot be sold. As the SM adds no new money to the AAs it only making this situation worse. CBILS is helping AC liquidity but what happens when this finishes, AC have until then to restore confidence in their products including the AAs otherwise we will be in a run of position. In effect the AAs are already in this position.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Mar 2, 2021 16:54:41 GMT
The pair of you make fair points.
The fact AC are still operating is a big plus; however it’s clear the business is undercapitalised, relying on ‘capital capture’ to keep the business operational.
As a larger investor, I have always felt disadvantaged; the distribution process prior to pro rata, completely destroyed my trust in the business. Management are arrogant and not at all customer centric. The lack of information given to investors is totally unacceptable.
I firmly believe the companies valuation process is flawed (to the extent I wouldn’t invest in anything in excess of 50% LTV) additionally their recovery process out of control, and unreasonably costly. I’m sure it’s not the case, however one might suspect brown envelopes have exchanged hands on occasions.
Products (GBBA etc) have been discontinued without a clear exit strategy for investors. Whilst their replacements (Access Accounts) certainly are not what they are marketed as.
There will doubtless be many 1000s of valid complaints that are yet be dealt with by the ombudsman. Separate legal challenges may also be underway. So whilst the business will have remained profitable over the past 12 months, all the costs associated with their handling of ‘non normal market conditions’ will probably only start to hit the P&L later this year.
I sincerely hope everyone gets their money back. My own refusal to certify as an investor I am, will hopefully prevent a penny of my Access Account funds investing in loan #1342. If not it’s another breach and complaint to the ombudsman from me and another £550 bill for AC.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 2, 2021 18:04:32 GMT
The pair of you make fair points. The fact AC are still operating is a big plus; however it’s clear the business is undercapitalised, relying on ‘capital capture’ to keep the business operational. As a larger investor, I have always felt disadvantaged; the distribution process prior to pro rata, completely destroyed my trust in the business. Management are arrogant and not at all customer centric. The lack of information given to investors is totally unacceptable. I firmly believe the companies valuation process is flawed (to the extent I wouldn’t invest in anything in excess of 50% LTV) additionally their recovery process out of control, and unreasonably costly. Products (GBBA etc) have been discontinued without a clear exit strategy for investors. Whilst their replacements (Access Accounts) certainly are not what they are marketed as. There will doubtless be many 1000s of valid complaints that are yet be dealt with by the ombudsman. Separate legal challenges may also be underway. So whilst the business will have remained profitable over the past 12 months, all the costs associated with their handling of ‘non normal market conditions’ will probably only start to hit the P&L later this year. I sincerely hope everyone gets their money back. My own refusal to certify as an investor I am, will hopefully prevent a penny of my Access Account funds investing in loan #1342. If not it’s another breach and complaint to the ombudsman from me and another £550 bill for AC. In the first 6 months of this financial year the number of new complaints relating to P2P received by the FOS was 82, so I suspect 1000s is somewhat of an exaggeration. #1342 hasnt gone anywhere near the AA and nor was it ever going to.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Mar 2, 2021 19:17:00 GMT
The pair of you make fair points. The fact AC are still operating is a big plus; however it’s clear the business is undercapitalised, relying on ‘capital capture’ to keep the business operational. As a larger investor, I have always felt disadvantaged; the distribution process prior to pro rata, completely destroyed my trust in the business. Management are arrogant and not at all customer centric. The lack of information given to investors is totally unacceptable. I firmly believe the companies valuation process is flawed (to the extent I wouldn’t invest in anything in excess of 50% LTV) additionally their recovery process out of control, and unreasonably costly. Products (GBBA etc) have been discontinued without a clear exit strategy for investors. Whilst their replacements (Access Accounts) certainly are not what they are marketed as. There will doubtless be many 1000s of valid complaints that are yet be dealt with by the ombudsman. Separate legal challenges may also be underway. So whilst the business will have remained profitable over the past 12 months, all the costs associated with their handling of ‘non normal market conditions’ will probably only start to hit the P&L later this year. I sincerely hope everyone gets their money back. My own refusal to certify as an investor I am, will hopefully prevent a penny of my Access Account funds investing in loan #1342. If not it’s another breach and complaint to the ombudsman from me and another £550 bill for AC. In the first 6 months of this financial year the number of new complaints relating to P2P received by the FOS was 82, so I suspect 1000s is somewhat of an exaggeration. #1342 hasnt gone anywhere near the AA and nor was it ever going to. I lknow of in excess of 300 complaints that have gone to the ombudsman Re AC. They haven’t starting processing complaints from July yet! Additionally there are similar delays in the judicial process.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 2, 2021 19:29:04 GMT
In the first 6 months of this financial year the number of new complaints relating to P2P received by the FOS was 82, so I suspect 1000s is somewhat of an exaggeration. #1342 hasnt gone anywhere near the AA and nor was it ever going to. They haven’t starting processing complaints from July yet! Additionally there are similar delays in the judicial process. Split among approximately how many investors? PS: FOS Case Fee now £650 (once over 25 cases).
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Mar 2, 2021 19:51:53 GMT
I lknow of in excess of 300 complaints that have gone to the ombudsman Re AC. They haven’t starting processing complaints from July yet! Additionally there are similar delays in the judicial process. Split among approximately how many investors? PS: FOS Case Fee now £650 (once over 25 cases). How likely is that these complaints will maximise the return from complainant's investments?
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 2, 2021 20:09:50 GMT
The FOS publish quarterly data with " the number of new enquiries and new complaints received in the period, together with the number of ombudsman referrals and the percentage of cases upheld in favour of the customer." Quarter Product Enquiries New cases Ombudsman % of cases upheld
Q1 20/21 Crowdfunding (Loan-based) 16 40 13 -
Q1 20/20 Crowdfunding (investment-based) 13 50 <10 -
Q4 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -
Q3 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -
Q2 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -
Q1 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -Perhaps there's a section I'm missing (perhaps the "Other..."?), but if 'Crowdfunding' is the whole of P2P, then... Or the FOS only record one complaint per complainant per company?? |
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 2, 2021 20:26:32 GMT
The FOS publish quarterly data with " the number of new enquiries and new complaints received in the period, together with the number of ombudsman referrals and the percentage of cases upheld in favour of the customer." Quarter Product Enquiries New cases Ombudsman % of cases upheld
Q1 20/21 Crowdfunding (Loan-based) 16 40 13 -
Q1 20/20 Crowdfunding (investment-based) 13 50 <10 -
Q4 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -
Q3 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -
Q2 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -
Q1 19/20 Crowdfunding (loan-based) <30 <30 <30 -Perhaps there's a section I'm missing (perhaps the "Other..."?), but if 'Crowdfunding' is the whole of P2P, then... Or the FOS only record one complaint per complainant per company?? Press reports of the Q1 figures referenced P2P number as 40, so I determined on that basis that P2P figures were accepted to be CF (LB) Q2 figures are 44 42 <10 I presume the argument is that as there is a backlog many complaints havent entered the system. Unfortunately havent as yet found the criteria for the various classifications. I would guess new case means the allocation of a case number for those that arent rejected out of hand as outside the remit, procedurally irregular (ie havent complained to the company & given time to respond, or without merit. Q3 due end of April so bit of wait
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Mar 4, 2021 8:14:16 GMT
Split among approximately how many investors? PS: FOS Case Fee now £650 (once over 25 cases). How likely is that these complaints will maximise the return from complainant's investments? Complainants are not awarded £650, that is the charge levied by the FOS for all complaints in excess of 25 per annum. I can think of half a dozen complaints which might be valid regarding the introduction of the secondary market, alone! Those complaints would cost £3900 if there are 5 like minded individuals on this thread; with a couple accounts each, the cost is up to £39,000. Hopefully they haven’t referred a couple of people each or your close to £100k ! There certainly could be complaints Re the Pool distribution; Lenders fee; funding of development tranches & Forbearance. Borrowers might also have the odd gripe too ! As regards compensation when the FOS uphold a complaint, AC will need to put the consumer back in the position they would have been in if things hadn’t gone wrong in the first place. If I can prove I could have invested at 15% elsewhere may the difference might be payable, losses on the secondary market might have to be repatriated. Additionally the individual might also be able to claim compensation for their distress and inconvenience etc AC have heavily relied on the technicalities within its T&CS - however wether those are reasonable for a layman to interpret is a different matter. There have undoubtedly been some fundamental changes to the product offer over the past 12 months. Irrespective of ones opinion of management, we can all agree we have been subjected to a degree of capital capture while funds have been lent possibly against our wishes. This in itself would appear to be a direct contravention of the Platform Terms & Conditions – Section 6-3 given Lending Members were prevented from satisfying themselves that loans were appropriate to their circumstances as redeemed funds were invested without their consent. Lenders were also unable to seek independent financial advice as to the suitability of further involvement in the Loan Selection Facility. Whilst the loan book may survive. The fait of AC the business entity,may ironically be more dependent upon the FSO & the FCA than the state of the post covid property market.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Mar 4, 2021 9:52:04 GMT
Sept - Dec Q3 20/21 | Group | Product | Enquiries | New cases | Ombudsman | % of cases upheld | | Loans | Crowdfunding (loan-based) | 50 | 46 | 11 | - |
Source FOS There is also the complication that some of these complaints may be borrowers rather than lenders depending on how the FOS have categorised complaints.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 4, 2021 12:30:17 GMT
Sept - Dec Q3 20/21 | Group | Product | Enquiries | New cases | Ombudsman | % of cases upheld | | Loans | Crowdfunding (loan-based) | 50 | 46 | 11 | - |
Source FOS Guess there's still a backlog, guess we await the next figures in 3 month. Après mai, le déluge! 
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Mar 4, 2021 13:01:53 GMT
I can think of half a dozen complaints which might be valid regarding the introduction of the secondary market, alone! Those complaints would cost £3900 if there are 5 like minded individuals on this thread; with a couple accounts each, the cost is up to £39,000. Hopefully they haven’t referred a couple of people each or your close to £100k ! There certainly could be complaints Re the Pool distribution; Lenders fee; funding of development tranches & Forbearance. Borrowers might also have the odd gripe too ! Knocking up a hypothetical scenario based on supposition is quite the deviation from stating: I lknow of in excess of 300 complaints that have gone to the ombudsman Re AC. Perhaps I'm missing the point... (By the way, do you think the FOS may have a 'circuit-breaker' in place? Perhaps one which prevents 'nuisance claimants' from generating unreasonable levels of complaints which might not only be unduly injurious to a Firm (in respect of the £650 Case Fee) but which also might take up a disproportionate amount of the FOS' resources.)
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Mar 4, 2021 15:38:06 GMT
I can think of half a dozen complaints which might be valid regarding the introduction of the secondary market, alone! Those complaints would cost £3900 if there are 5 like minded individuals on this thread; with a couple accounts each, the cost is up to £39,000. Hopefully they haven’t referred a couple of people each or your close to £100k ! There certainly could be complaints Re the Pool distribution; Lenders fee; funding of development tranches & Forbearance. Borrowers might also have the odd gripe too ! Knocking up a hypothetical scenario based on supposition is quite the deviation from stating: I lknow of in excess of 300 complaints that have gone to the ombudsman Re AC. Perhaps I'm missing the point... (By the way, do you think the FOS may have a 'circuit-breaker' in place? Perhaps one which prevents 'nuisance claimants' from generating unreasonable levels of complaints which might not only be unduly injurious to a Firm (in respect of the £650 Case Fee) but which also might take up a disproportionate amount of the FOS' resources.) In terms of timings my complaints which were forwarded by myself in July have a deadline to be allocated of 12/4/21!! Complaints Re timeliness of dealing with can be forwarded the independent assessor, Dame Gillian Guy, and I believe she has have three months to address that complaint. Whilst your data may be accurate the internal reporting may the true picture might be wholly inaccurate!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 4, 2021 16:10:29 GMT
Knocking up a hypothetical scenario based on supposition is quite the deviation from stating: Perhaps I'm missing the point... (By the way, do you think the FOS may have a 'circuit-breaker' in place? Perhaps one which prevents 'nuisance claimants' from generating unreasonable levels of complaints which might not only be unduly injurious to a Firm (in respect of the £650 Case Fee) but which also might take up a disproportionate amount of the FOS' resources.) In terms of timings my complaints which were forwarded by myself in July have a deadline to be allocated of 12/4/21!! Complaints Re timeliness of dealing with can be forwarded the independent assessor, Dame Gillian Guy, and I believe she has have three months to address that complaint. Whilst your data may be accurate the internal reporting may the true picture might be wholly inaccurate! Do your case(s) have reference numbers? If so, at what point did they get them? I suspect that denotes entry into the system & statistics. There is a noted backlog in allocating cases due to CV19.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 4, 2021 16:35:20 GMT
There are more risks in P2P than I can remember. The ones I can recall are: Platform Risk Crowd Risk Liquidity Risk Economic Risk Regulatory Risk Fraud Risk And that’s before we get to - Credit Risk. AND I wouldn’t be surprised if I’ve forgotten more risks than most p2pers have thought about! An obvious one for me is "Comprehension" risk - people investing in things they dont understand or on the basis of information they dont understand. A subset of this would be "stupidity" risk - people investing without or only partially reading the information provided
|
|
