|
|
Post by davefoz on Jul 24, 2021 7:33:13 GMT
A more enlightened forum member once likened the AAs to a ponzi scheme. Given repayment of investors was. Wholly reliant on other investors investing for a period of time. Again for GBBA investors the similarities exist given AC appear to fund any action themselves and appear to have completely reneged on their provision fund commitments.
That’s why I’m out of son of GBBA the access accounts - its only a matter of time before they go pear shaped.
Meanwhile directors use any capital raised to pay their salaries.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,846
Likes: 1,482
|
Post by bugs4me on Jul 24, 2021 8:47:56 GMT
'....I don't think it being a fool or about missing details in the T&Cs, it is more about trust....'
It's all about trust in my book and how that trust deteriorates in a lenders view is largely irrelevant.
In my case it's when a P2P platform starts displaying a cavalier attitude towards lenders funds, reduces it's transparency combined with increasing opaqueness, fails to answer valid questions and when/if they do it's with an air of arrogance, platform Directors loosing interest, a disguised financial interest in loans funded by lenders, etc, etc. Or it may just be old fashioned 'gut feeling' that all is not well.
I have a few zombie loans floating around in the old FS, LY, MT and Col platforms which I do not expect to see any further return. It would be helpful if administrators stopped quoting payments as being interim with more possibly being forthcoming when most lenders know that is not the case. But those administrators continue in the same vein as when the platforms were on their way down - treating lenders as fools.
Fortunately I was one of the lucky ones and even with the zombie loans got out of P2P with a profit. So I thank one platform back in 2017 for demonstrating their total incompetence which resulted in myself doing more detailed DD on the loan offerings and the platforms themselves. The result was often deceit, lies, concealment, etc.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 985 
Likes: 687
|
Post by alender on Jul 24, 2021 10:10:34 GMT
A more enlightened forum member once likened the AAs to a ponzi scheme. Given repayment of investors was. Wholly reliant on other investors investing for a period of time. Again for GBBA investors the similarities exist given AC appear to fund any action themselves and appear to have completely reneged on their provision fund commitments. That’s why I’m out of son of GBBA the access accounts - its only a matter of time before they go pear shaped. Meanwhile directors use any capital raised to pay their salaries. While there are enough people willing to invest in the AAs and enough interest coming from the good loans to cover the interest payments to lenders (at current reduced rate) the game will continue and we have no idea of the true value of the loan book but I would guess somewhat less than par which will get worse as the government covid support is withdrawn.
The main aim of the directors seems to be to keep everything running for as long as possible to get their salaries, they treat lenders with contempt, change the T&Cs at will to suit them. Up to the AAs ACs accounts have left a trail of destruction with the directors salaries and doggy borrowers benefiting for lenders hard earned money. Perhaps the AAs will be different and I really hope they will for the current lenders but from ACs track record I fear as you do it is only a matter of time before in all goes wrong.
I have asked if the directors had any funds in the AAs, as always no replies. Some of the AC fans/associates have stated they are not allowed to put money into the AAs as it was against the rules, however when questioned what are these rules there are no replies. I subsequently asked many times for the directors to either tell us how much they have in the AAs or show us the rules which states this is not allowed, never one reply. This should tell us all we need to know about the AAs.
The other issue that will hit AC is all of the FOM complaints which from my understating is quite a few, if AC lose some of these there will be a considerable bill to be paid, even if they win all of these they will still cost AC £550 - £750 per complaint after the first 25 in any financial year which cannot be good for ACs long term financial health. This could have been avoided if AC had shown some regards to lenders concerns and not acted with such hubris. Before one of the fans comes back and asked for evidence of the number of complaints I suggest they ask AC, I know personally of a number but only AC can tell us the total number, of course like everything else they will refuse to answer with numbers, at best they say their critics are wrong and give no data to back up their case. Either way if AC could not make a profit before covid (except for 1 year) how can they keep going with all the covid effects and FOM complaints, for now government support is keeping them afloat but this will end. Unlike Growth Street which folded but had a respect for lenders and paid back all funds I suspect it will be a different storey for AC.
|
|
|
|
Post by davefoz on Jul 24, 2021 10:21:57 GMT
A more enlightened forum member once likened the AAs to a ponzi scheme. Given repayment of investors was. Wholly reliant on other investors investing for a period of time. Again for GBBA investors the similarities exist given AC appear to fund any action themselves and appear to have completely reneged on their provision fund commitments. That’s why I’m out of son of GBBA the access accounts - its only a matter of time before they go pear shaped. Meanwhile directors use any capital raised to pay their salaries. While there are enough people willing to invest in the AAs and enough interest coming from the good loans to cover the interest payments to lenders (at current reduced rate) the game will continue and we have no idea of the true value of the loan book but I would guess somewhat less than par which will get worse as the government covid support is withdrawn.
The main aim of the directors seems to be to keep everything running for as long as possible to get their salaries, they treat lenders with contempt, change the T&Cs at will to suit them. Up to the AAs ACs accounts have left a trail of destruction with the directors salaries and doggy borrowers benefiting for lenders hard earned money. Perhaps the AAs will be different and I really hope they will for the current lenders but from ACs track record I fear as you do it is only a matter of time before in all goes wrong.
I have asked if the directors had any funds in the AAs, as always no replies. Some of the AC fans/associates have stated they are not allowed to put money into the AAs as it was against the rules, however when questioned what are these rules there are no replies. I subsequently asked many times for the directors to either tell us how much they have in the AAs or show us the rules which states this is not allowed, never one reply. This should tell us all we need to know about the AAs.
The other issue that will hit AC is all of the FOM complaints which from my understating is quite a few, if AC lose some of these there will be a considerable bill to be paid, even if they win all of these they will still cost AC £550 - £750 per complaint after the first 25 in any financial year which cannot be good for ACs long term financial health. This could have been avoided if AC had shown some regards to lenders concerns and not acted with such hubris. Before one of the fans comes back and asked for evidence of the number of complaints I suggest they ask AC, I know personally of a number but only AC can tell us the total number, of course like everything else they will refuse to answer with numbers, at best they say their critics are wrong and give no data to back up their case. Either way if AC could not make a profit before covid (except for 1 year) how can they keep going with all the covid effects and FOM complaints, for now government support is keeping them afloat but this will end. Unlike Growth Street which folded but had a respect for lenders and paid back all funds I suspect it will be a different storey for AC.
On the subject of complaints myself abs associates have got over 30 complaints being dealt with … if they come in chances are the platform will go bust !
|
|
garfield
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490 
Likes: 268
|
Post by garfield on Jul 24, 2021 10:49:04 GMT
Would anyone be prepared to give the rest of us some idea of the nature of the complaints against AC? I've only ever invested in the AAs, none of the historical (closed) accounts. Like many, I'm pulling out all uninvested cash. TIA
|
|
|
|
Post by davefoz on Jul 24, 2021 14:30:31 GMT
Would anyone be prepared to give the rest of us some idea of the nature of the complaints against AC? I've only ever invested in the AAs, none of the historical (closed) accounts. Like many, I'm pulling out all uninvested cash. TIA
When complaints are settled and the compensation is banked …. yes (for a fee) lol
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 24, 2021 17:45:08 GMT
The GBBA was a black box account with assurances of 'diversification over a range of different loans'. After a year or so, the curtain was puled back and lo! Most early investors had 20% in the Castle Golf Club debacle, and 5% or so in D*******polos, who has now done a runner to Monaco. As diversification was not achieved within an honest interpretation of that word, the only fair outcome for GBBA sufferers is that the provision fund covers the rump that remains of both loans.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,344
Likes: 11,565
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 24, 2021 19:06:38 GMT
The GBBA was a black box account with assurances of 'diversification over a range of different loans'. After a year or so, the curtain was puled back and lo! Most early investors had 20% in the Castle Golf Club debacle, and 5% or so in D*******polos, who has now done a runner to Monaco. As diversification was not achieved within an honest interpretation of that word, the only fair outcome for GBBA sufferers is that the provision fund covers the rump that remains of both loans. Golf club dates from Jan 16, Greek one from Sep 16. Plenty of visibility on loan holdings seeing as individual loan holdings in the account were being discussed the previous year though perhaps not a full holdings view. Ironically of course all the chatter was about inability to get funds deployed The diversification 'assurance' was min 5 loans, 20%. From March 2106 web.archive.org/web/20160313134253/https://www.assetzcapital.co.uk/our-investment-accounts/gb-account/ The issue was rediversification as in some circumstances a 20% holding could become a larger % of the account as loans were repaid/removed and couldnt be replaced
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jul 24, 2021 21:45:46 GMT
Thanks ilmoro, you are a true historian of the T&Cs, while i only share the folk memory. The key to understanding the Discretionary Provision Fund lies in the word 'discretionary' and not what one thought one heard. While I would dispute that there were only 5 loans available when I got 20% allocated to a golf club, that's now a bit of an old cow to pull out of the dyke, as they say in The Netherlands. Just hope there is something left of this provision fund, see Monte Carlo Refugee Loan thread. |
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 747
Likes: 656
|
Post by dead-money on Jul 25, 2021 10:15:09 GMT
Would anyone be prepared to give the rest of us some idea of the nature of the complaints against AC? I've only ever invested in the AAs, none of the historical (closed) accounts. Like many, I'm pulling out all uninvested cash. TIA
The FOS in only now releasing their 2020 judgements on compliants from 2016 and earlier.
Failure to read the T&Cs or understand their implications and the wide discretion AC has hasn't resulted in payouts.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 26, 2021 13:45:03 GMT
I'm assuming that all the non-MLA accounts are 'protected' by the provision fund against capital losses.
As mentioned by ilmoro in the pink pages, the provision fund for the GBBA was pretty much all used up not even covering the Scottish estate loan (#227). As of 30/04/21 the GBBA PF had £10k in it and given the only two remaining loans in the account are this loan and the remnant of #227 then it's not going to have moved since, unless AC have manually topped it up.
If you're in this loan in GBBA2 then you might be okay as that had £600k in the PF on 30/04/21 and doesn't hold nearly so much of this loan.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,344
Likes: 11,565
|
Post by ilmoro on Jul 26, 2021 13:51:07 GMT
I'm assuming that all the non-MLA accounts are 'protected' by the provision fund against capital losses.
As mentioned by ilmoro in the pink pages, the provision fund for the GBBA was pretty much all used up not even covering the Scottish estate loan (#227). As of 30/04/21 the GBBA PF had £10k in it and given the only two remaining loans in the account are this loan and the remnant of #227 then it's not going to have moved since, unless AC have manually topped it up.
If you're in this loan in GBBA2 then you might be okay as that had £600k in the PF on 30/04/21 and doesn't hold nearly so much of this loan. There are more loans than that left including one that is not in default. (Darth ..... with a K) Holdings will be lender specific.
|
|
Brainer
Member of DD Central
Posts: 186
Likes: 323
|
Post by Brainer on Jul 26, 2021 14:06:05 GMT
As mentioned by ilmoro in the pink pages, the provision fund for the GBBA was pretty much all used up not even covering the Scottish estate loan (#227). As of 30/04/21 the GBBA PF had £10k in it and given the only two remaining loans in the account are this loan and the remnant of #227 then it's not going to have moved since, unless AC have manually topped it up.
If you're in this loan in GBBA2 then you might be okay as that had £600k in the PF on 30/04/21 and doesn't hold nearly so much of this loan. There are more loans than that left including one that is not in default. (Darth ..... with a K) Holdings will be lender specific. True, I stand corrected on that. They are the only two left in mine and I imagine most GBBA accounts will be fairly similar. In any case, there won't be much going into the PF pot and certainly nowhere near enough to cover the loss on this loan.
|
|
|
|
Post by davefoz on Jul 28, 2021 5:32:03 GMT
AC were responsible fir ensuring the PF was sufficiently funded to cover bad debts. Realistically when launching the AAs the GBBA etc should have been bought out.
What is galling us that AC rather than contribute additional funds to the PF actually exacerbate the position by drawing their fees prior to return of capital in defaulted loans.
IMHO - The Parasites will proper another 6/12 months then the chickens will come home to roost particularly when the FSO gets round to dealing with the thousands of complaints that must be stacked up against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Aug 23, 2021 18:40:29 GMT
I won't be filling up my trough with any more swill or money. Another loan in GBBA with a large amount of my supposedly diversified money has a borrower's offer of 60% of the current debt and a current valuation around 50-55% of the initial valuation. I'm getting PTSD flashbacks of other sites. Plenty of fees for AssetzCapital though, rub hands and onto to the next shambles.
I can't decide whether to pull the plug now by selling all the loans not in default. My monthly interest has dropped significantly, simply being added to my accrued interest total. Loans in default are now 28% of my portfolio. Bollocks to this, there are far better, fairer and more competent platforms around.
|
|
