pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Apr 10, 2021 7:29:34 GMT
The announcements strike me a sensible moves towards “reactivating” the Access Accounts as they were conceived originally. By starting to charge a 1%pa fee on queued withdrawals, only those who really wish to withdraw their funds will stay in the queue (rather than many doing so by default). This should see a much faster return to “normal conditions” and facilitate the restart of new lending. And, by providing a permanent exit option for those who never understood the accounts properly and have been complaining at the prospect of new lending, the rest of AC’s lenders are no longer held back. i.e. it isn't an "access" account anymore. best rename it. They are access accounts only in normal market conditions. The fee will be charged only in abnormal conditions. It does what SteveT says, and it's a thoroughly good idea in my view. I cancelled all my withdrawal requests a few weeks ago. The changes announced make me more confident that I made the right decision.
|
|
ptr120
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,202
Likes: 1,350
|
Post by ptr120 on Apr 10, 2021 7:47:26 GMT
And yet normal vs non-normal are entirely subjective. I thought we were living in the 'new normal' now?
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 10, 2021 10:00:56 GMT
I agree with Ian there are far better places to put your money than AC for a good return.
I put a lot of my repaid P2P funds in the Supermarket REIT offer on PrimaryBid and got the full allocation at £1.06 with no fees or stamp duty, now less than a month latter they are sell price £1.115, yield is 5.5% and the next dividend on 15/4/21 with no dividend fees, also increase of dividends since lockdown, IMO this fund is far safer than AC for a higher yield, no money in suspended assets, exit when you like no changes of rules etc. There are also a number of health care REITs with higher yields than AC who I believe are a lot safer. But always DYOR.
If AC want my money which they clearly don't they must do a lot better than low rates, more fees lock ins constant changes of rules, lack of any decent information, pointless videos etc.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 10, 2021 12:54:12 GMT
I have been keeping log of the payouts since 25/3/21, the % is based on the amount invested before each of the payouts.
Date % 25-Mar 2.61 26-Mar 2.15 27-Mar 2.40 28-Mar 0.78 29-Mar 0.45 30-Mar 6.73 31-Mar 2.68 01-Apr 13.60 02-Apr 8.30 03-Apr 2.99 04-Apr 1.91 05-Apr 1.72 06-Apr 2.34 07-Apr 6.85 08-Apr 6.24 09-Apr 7.31 10-Apr 4.93
Around 52.5% of the account balance on 25-Mar paid out.
I suspect that the AC email will reduce payments but we will never know by how much as we will not know how much future investments has been cancelled as a result of the changes and exit fee.
I guess the best indication will be the amount of interest reinvested at the start of May compared to previous months.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 10, 2021 16:43:59 GMT
I agree with Ian there are far better places to put your money than AC for a good return.
I put a lot of my repaid P2P funds in the Supermarket REIT offer on PrimaryBid and got the full allocation at £1.06 with no fees or stamp duty, now less than a month latter they are sell price £1.115, yield is 5.5% and the next dividend on 15/4/21 with no dividend fees, also increase of dividends since lockdown, IMO this fund is far safer than AC for a higher yield, no money in suspended assets, exit when you like no changes of rules etc. There are also a number of health care REITs with higher yields than AC who I believe are a lot safer. But always DYOR.
If AC want my money which they clearly don't they must do a lot better than low rates, more fees lock ins constant changes of rules, lack of any decent information, pointless videos etc.
A major problem with REITs is that you're essentially investing in property at full current value. So, a fall in property prices would likely see a similar fall in the unit price of the REIT. A well managed property secured P2P investment should be protected from fairly substantial property falls. I don't know the maximum or average LTVs at AC, and I accept that you probably don't feel that they are well managed. However, if you take one of the safer P2P platforms that publish such figures like Loanpad, the maximum LTV is 50% and the current average is 39%. So, even a 50% crash in property prices should leave your capital intact. REITs have the advantage that the capital value can be restored if one remains invested and waits for property prices to rise again. However, one would have to forsake liquidity to achieve that, which could take several years.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 10, 2021 17:27:01 GMT
A major problem with REITs is that you're essentially investing in property at full current value. So, a fall in property prices would likely see a similar fall in the unit price of the REIT. A well managed property secured P2P investment should be protected from fairly substantial property falls. I don't know the maximum or average LTVs at AC, and I accept that you probably don't feel that they are well managed. However, if you take one of the safer P2P platforms that publish such figures like Loanpad, the maximum LTV is 50% and the current average is 39%. So, even a 50% crash in property prices should leave your capital intact. REITs have the advantage that the capital value can be restored if one remains invested and waits for property prices to rise again. However, one would have to forsake liquidity to achieve that, which could take several years. If property prices fall I would be much more worried about the state of the AC loan book given how much is invested in development projects whose LTV seems to bear little relation to amount recovered if things go wrong.
In Supermarket REIT's case the property is as it says in Supermarkets, from what I can remember the rents are inflation linked with the average of 12 years on the contracts. If for any reason there are serious issues and the sites cannot be rented there is a good chance they can be converted to housing at high profit. The other ones are am keen on are healthcare REITs renting the properties to be used as clinics, GP Surgeries etc again with good contracts for guaranteed rent. I will agree nothing is safe but these REITs give a higher return than AC, no sign of trouble in the Covid crisis (unlike AC), no reduction in income during Covid, the accounts are properly audited unlike AC loan book. IMO these look a lot safer than some complicated accounts with lower rates which can be in different states for exit and/or exit fee, constant rule changes and no idea how long it takes to get out.
I used the example of Supermarket REIT of what can be made when the opportunity arises (if you have liquid funds not locked into accounts) for a relatively safe investment with good yield. I have made more risky investments recently with a much higher return but these are far from comparable to investments in AC. Of course you can trade out using the SM to achieve liquidity but this is not guaranteed to always be there and who knowns what the discount might be after a few more of these emails from AC.
|
|
johni
Member of DD Central
Posts: 369
Likes: 329
|
Post by johni on Apr 11, 2021 8:06:45 GMT
I'm a simple soul. I want to invest in something where I know what I'm getting and the notice period to withdraw. Maybe I'm missing something but would it not be easier just to switch to Loanpad or similar and save the hassle? <removed> So what is the grounding for calling the AA <redacted>? As far as I can tell this is a slanderous accusation of the company. If I were Assetz I would be seeing you in court. You also claim many of the 158000 complaints are heading for Assetz looking at the FSO website there is nothing to suggest from the complaints uploaded that many or more than other companies are heading for Assetz. Looking at the accounts again your assumption that most of the seedrs money has gone in directors fees and losses appears incorrect and it has been stated that they will be back in profit shortly. You are quick to complain to the FSO hoping for compensation on an account you have lost no money. But this compensation could quickly go for the false alegations/slander you quite happily share on here
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Apr 11, 2021 8:15:13 GMT
This all bets are off business about when the queue will end is boring me already. How can one pretend to be a p2per if you shy away from pretending you are a master of pricing risks. So I’m sticking with my original call that the first time the Queue ends will be this April. Furthermore I’ll stick with doubling up on that bet that the queue would end within a fortnight. So let’s call that by 23rd April as that call was originally made a few days ago. I think you are about right. Even if you aren't right the queue is likely to end by the 1st May. With the new withdrawal fee it will no longer make sense to leave large sums in the withdraw queue purely to reinvest at a discount. It will then make more sense to just pay the 0.1% discount if needed when one actually wants to withdraw cash. This is clearly the intent of the new fees and I expect it to work.
|
|
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: 11,548
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 11, 2021 9:40:03 GMT
This all bets are off business about when the queue will end is boring me already. How can one pretend to be a p2per if you shy away from pretending you are a master of pricing risks. So I’m sticking with my original call that the first time the Queue ends will be this April. Furthermore I’ll stick with doubling up on that bet that the queue would end within a fortnight. So let’s call that by 23rd April as that call was originally made a few days ago. Once more unto the accounts, dear friends, once more, Close the queue up with our RS deposits. Cry 'QAA for Deees, Assetz, and Saint George!’  (Sorry Will)
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Apr 11, 2021 9:53:59 GMT
Assuming the Exit Accounts result in a release of performing loans onto the secondary market (for those that want to utilise that feature) would this be taken up very quickly indeed given the current paucity of loans available? (Indeed, 'whither' the Secondary Market at this point?)
|
|
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: 11,548
|
Post by ilmoro on Apr 11, 2021 9:59:41 GMT
A Ponzi scheme only occurs when there are no, or at least virtually no, underlying assets on which the returns are based. That is clearly not the case with investing through the AC platform. Liquidity relies on later investors (as indeed is theoretically the case with the stockmarket), but not returns. Your correct - Clearly there is value in the loans however the potential of ongoing capital retention is obviously there. My concern Re the ongoing financial viability of AC and others in the sector is valid. In the round AC has lost circa £1.5m in the past 2 years; paid directors fees of circa £1.5m in the past 2 years and raised capital of a very similar amount. In the round AC have broken even in the last 3 years, as the last 2 years losses are covered by the previous year profit. When considering the viability of AC are you factoring in that the platform is part of a very much larger whole? Oh & please stop with Ponzi nonsense.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Apr 11, 2021 11:14:02 GMT
Assuming the Exit Accounts result in a release of performing loans onto the secondary market (for those that want to utilise that feature) would this be taken up very quickly indeed given the current paucity of loans available? (Indeed, 'whither' the Secondary Market at this point?) Yes, within a single spin of the hamster wheel.
( Sold last week on SM, 50 MLA Loans, gone within 10 mins. Have a few £s sitting in MLA trying to buy more of certain loans, zero availability)
Currently MLA investor demand for good performing loans outstrips supply.
Any new pipeline loans don't trouble the Access accounts currently. Interested to see where this pipeline of new AA lending for May will come from!
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Apr 11, 2021 12:35:08 GMT
What is the benefit of the exit account vs staying put?
Does the exit account effectively become GBBA III ? Whereas the AA continues to diversify and will have new funds buying you out.
Sounds like a move to the exit account is a retrograde step with no increase in liquidity.
|
|
alibaba
Member of DD Central
Posts: 341
Likes: 245
|
Post by alibaba on Apr 11, 2021 12:47:46 GMT
The very mention of GBBA III gives me nightmares, I am stuck in GBBA I, GBBA II and GEA, and will probably still be for years to come.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Apr 11, 2021 12:54:00 GMT
Based on current data: 10% of an exit account would be cash. 15% of an exit account would be non-tradable (either default or otherwise suspended) 2.5% is available on the MLA SM and might not sell quickly. 72.5% has zero availability on the MLA SM and in theory should be snapped up quickly if not instantly. The most salient point however is the 15% non-tradable of which circa 2/3rds is in default. This side of bat-sh!t-crazy-land I can’t see why anyone would hit the exit button currently. They’ll be stuck with a rump holding of circa 17% to start with and even after a few years would have a rump of 5 to 10%. The Exit accounts will currently not receive any of the cash in the Access accounts, it's allocated to future tranches, that's clearly stated in the terms.
(That might change in the next month if there's sufficient inflows of new money, such that the AAs are overfunded. But at that point, you'd have thought the crazies would have fully withdrawn at par)
The Exit accounts have been created purely to allow the bat-sh!t-crazy brigade to jump into; otherwise if they stay put in the Access accounts, they have implicitly accepted the 'new-improved' operating terms and conditions of the Access accounts.
|
|
