Assetz closed to retail investment

Add in Wellesley, I started investing there but got out long before the collapse as it just did not look right or perhaps just good luck.

Would not believe much AC say, they may have 80% funded by institutional investors but how many are adding and how many are withdrawing, IMO AC cannot compete in the current market place on a risk/reward basis against many other investments. There is the question why not just continue, if all is OK with the loan book the AAs will be more or less be frozen for a time with some secondary market trades, MLAs will be slow, but not much in the way of admin costs. Although interest rates are rising inflation is coming down in UK, US and world wide so it will only be a matter of time before the AAs will start to defrost unless the loan book is suspect which could be the reason AC are now pulling the plug, hope not as I would like to see lenders get all or at least most of their money back.

Being involved in the GS winddown I can say there is a world of difference between the 2, GS stuck to the T&Cs and returned the funds as quick as possible, during the first AC lockdown AC kept changing the T&Cs built a cash mountain and held onto the cash as long as possible, also AC have a habit of extracting as much in fees as they can especially in the closed/dead accounts, not one of their previous accounts have ended well for lenders. As has been stated the AC loans will be up to 59 months before the last is repaid, however this could go on longer if they sit on defaults extracting fees which seems to be in their DNA.

Don't know too much about RS as I got out after it was obvious they were rigging the rates but the fact they were taken over means that there was faith in their loans, not sure the same can be said for AC.

The end of an era, still have about 500 quid in loans that look like they can be recovered at some point so I am glad it looks like an orderly wind down. Just looked at the accounts retained earnings for the group is about -4 million, so I guess some of the investors in the business have lost a fair bit of money on the venture. In my opinion they should have focused on the "Assetz" part of their name when deciding who to lend to.

The view from Proplend:

Hear, hear. AC are just digging their own reputational grave as a would be institutional lending channel. It looks chepe and tawdry and it is.

                                                          ---------------- UPDATE from me [12 May 2023] ----------------------

ARCHIVED version of the ORIGINAL [3744 word] announcement [15 Dec 22] archive.is/41VSU

ARCHIVE of CURRENT [4827 word] version [at 12 May 23] archive.is/BQSHd (now hosted on different route directory and with the previous page 404'd)

Please note the 'Ed-ditions'

This grabbed my attention:
Do not adjust your seats, in copy pasting wholesale the verbiage received in identical 'final response' letters, Assetz' 'brain' has inadvertently duplicated two old paragraphs (now securely archived.) Would someone like to point out the nonsense to them or leave them to stumble over next edit?

Also, it now requires updating to reflect the 'interim' announcement to follow their rolling the 2.9% fee another six months:
People must also have been asking around, because they have included quite a lengthy rationale in the update to say they didn't just 'make up' some numbers...

Apologies to anyone who caught by brief post (now deleted as it was nonsense). I was at cross purposes between AC and Proplend.

There's a great deal of complaining on Seedrs by those that are both platform and equity investors. There are also some comments by those supporting AC's decision. In general, the posts don't appear to me to be any better informed than those on here. On balance the posts are fairly negative.