angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Jan 5, 2023 19:30:11 GMT
Although I can understand people who have sizable amounts locked up in AC are a bit angry looking at the group accounts suggest they might very well need to reduce their operating costs. Administrative expenses were about 10 million pounds last year which probably means they have to scale back their operations a fair bit if stopping retail investing is going to mean their revenue drops. Freezing and running off the retail loan book as economically as possible is probably the best option to avoid risk of insolvency and the nightmare that would cause for lenders.
|
|
|
Post by df on Jan 5, 2023 20:06:57 GMT
Although I can understand people who have sizable amounts locked up in AC are a bit angry looking at the group accounts suggest they might very well need to reduce their operating costs. Administrative expenses were about 10 million pounds last year which probably means they have to scale back their operations a fair bit if stopping retail investing is going to mean their revenue drops. Freezing and running off the retail loan book as economically as possible is probably the best option to avoid risk of insolvency and the nightmare that would cause for lenders. In any case, this scenario is better for us than administration.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Jan 5, 2023 21:04:53 GMT
Although I can understand people who have sizable amounts locked up in AC are a bit angry looking at the group accounts suggest they might very well need to reduce their operating costs. Administrative expenses were about 10 million pounds last year which probably means they have to scale back their operations a fair bit if stopping retail investing is going to mean their revenue drops. Freezing and running off the retail loan book as economically as possible is probably the best option to avoid risk of insolvency and the nightmare that would cause for lenders. In any case, this scenario is better for us than administration. I really hope it is but either way will get milked by those administering the run off, personally do not trust AC to do the right thing. Also would like to hear how AC are going to reduce their costs so less losses to investors, for a start the directors should take a large cut in income, minimum of 20% as AC will be 20% smaller but should be a lot more as they have done a such a bad job and do not deserve their salaries unless you count fleecing investors as part of their role, also staff will need to go as it is a smaller company. I get the feeling AC will take as much as they can and absolve themselves of blame.
|
|
trouble
Member of DD Central
Posts: 127
Likes: 97
|
Post by trouble on Jan 6, 2023 17:21:52 GMT
In any case, this scenario is better for us than administration. I really hope it is but either way will get milked by those administering the run off, personally do not trust AC to do the right thing. Also would like to hear how AC are going to reduce their costs so less losses to investors, for a start the directors should take a large cut in income, minimum of 20% as AC will be 20% smaller but should be a lot more as they have done a such a bad job and do not deserve their salaries unless you count fleecing investors as part of their role, also staff will need to go as it is a smaller company. I get the feeling AC will take as much as they can and absolve themselves of blame. Lol, when a Board cuts costs (i.e. gets rid of minions and gets the remaining minions to do more work) they all form a chain, pat each other on the back and give each other a bonus and pay rise for increasing profits (slowing down losses). When a Board decides to grow a business and employ more people they all form a chain, pat each other on the back and give each other a bonus and pay rise as they each now have more responsibility.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Jan 6, 2023 18:34:46 GMT
I really hope it is but either way will get milked by those administering the run off, personally do not trust AC to do the right thing. Lol, when a Board cuts costs (i.e. gets rid of minions and gets the remaining minions to do more work) they all form a chain, pat each other on the back and give each other a bonus and pay rise for increasing profits (slowing down losses). When a Board decides to grow a business and employ more people they all form a chain, pat each other on the back and give each other a bonus and pay rise as they each now have more responsibility.
My personal opinion is that at one point the Board at AC saw P2P (who obviously have their own capital and the contacts required to raise capital) as a great Fintech growth sector and put ALOT of money into P2P. Unfortunately that does not look like it is going to be the case so it is trying to change tacks - the retained earnings are negative quite a few million so it has not worked out. P2P was always a big gamble for everyone involved, the positive of AC is they have secured debt not the unsecured madness of some other platforms. Although I made a profit for me P2P was more of an interest rather than an investment, I was pretty sceptical of it from the start but then again I am sceptical about everything and everyone.
|
|
toffeeboy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 505
Likes: 362
|
Post by toffeeboy on Jan 10, 2023 13:02:50 GMT
Although I can understand people who have sizable amounts locked up in AC are a bit angry looking at the group accounts suggest they might very well need to reduce their operating costs. Administrative expenses were about 10 million pounds last year which probably means they have to scale back their operations a fair bit if stopping retail investing is going to mean their revenue drops. Freezing and running off the retail loan book as economically as possible is probably the best option to avoid risk of insolvency and the nightmare that would cause for lenders. I've missed something, I thought that AC was going pure institute money not closing down. If it was closing down then yes completely agree with you but all it is doing is closing retail investment so locking us out in essence or in to loans. Money invested was always at risk of being unaccessable if the buyers weren't there but AC have made the decision to not allow the buyers to be there and therefore locked us in so yes people have the right to be angry. As previously mentioned Zopa and Ratesetter both were fine examples of how to change to purely institutional money by buying all of the loans back from retail investors. Basically AC have used our money to build a model that works and then shafted us to take the easier to earn institutional money once it was available in enough amounts. I have no problem with them removing retail investing it is the way they are doing it and tying us in that is the problem.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Jan 11, 2023 12:19:20 GMT
Although I can understand people who have sizable amounts locked up in AC are a bit angry looking at the group accounts suggest they might very well need to reduce their operating costs. Administrative expenses were about 10 million pounds last year which probably means they have to scale back their operations a fair bit if stopping retail investing is going to mean their revenue drops. Freezing and running off the retail loan book as economically as possible is probably the best option to avoid risk of insolvency and the nightmare that would cause for lenders. I've missed something, I thought that AC was going pure institute money not closing down. If it was closing down then yes completely agree with you but all it is doing is closing retail investment so locking us out in essence or in to loans. Money invested was always at risk of being unaccessable if the buyers weren't there but AC have made the decision to not allow the buyers to be there and therefore locked us in so yes people have the right to be angry. As previously mentioned Zopa and Ratesetter both were fine examples of how to change to purely institutional money by buying all of the loans back from retail investors. Basically AC have used our money to build a model that works and then shafted us to take the easier to earn institutional money once it was available in enough amounts. I have no problem with them removing retail investing it is the way they are doing it and tying us in that is the problem.
From the group accounts AC as a P2P operation seems to have lost quite a few million in terms of retained earning and has very high running costs (over 10 million) - so I am not sure this is a sustainable business. If P2P is declining as a sector I would say they would find it hard to stay solvent unless they change direction. Ideally they would buy out the P2P investors like Zopa and Ratesetter, but AC might not be in a position to do this.
|
|
deltron
Member of DD Central
Posts: 54
Likes: 66
|
Post by deltron on Jan 11, 2023 19:45:13 GMT
Perhaps AC could take out a business loan to cover the costs of shifting their focus from retail to institutional lending?
Or maybe they already looked in to that, got heartily rebuffed, and realized their only option was to lock the gates and bleed lenders dry?
When they win they win, and when they lose they also win. What a racket.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Jan 11, 2023 20:03:29 GMT
Perhaps AC could take out a business loan to cover the costs of shifting their focus from retail to institutional lending?
Or maybe they already looked in to that, got heartily rebuffed, and realized their only option was to lock the gates and bleed lenders dry?
When they win they win, and when they lose they also win. What a racket.
P2P has always suffered from an OPM problem*.
* - Other Peoples Money.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,870
Likes: 2,308
|
Post by keitha on Jan 11, 2023 22:35:30 GMT
When I signed up to Assetz, using MLA only, I did in on the basis that there was a secondary market if I needed my money back urgently. Now I am locked in for the next five years. I am surprised the FCA allow this.
The same applies to Ablrate.
Zopa were good enough to buy us out of existing loans when they dropped out of the P2P business.
Funding circle have done much the same. they closed the SM at the start of Covid then decided that no longer interested in retail, but are just winding loans down. It's taken me 3 years to get to the extent that I have my investment back I still have about 8% in still open loans and another 8% in loans that defaulted over the period, I have loans with 16 months to run still
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,452
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 25, 2023 23:05:15 GMT
Also would like to hear how AC are going to reduce their costs so less losses to investors, for a start the directors should take a large cut in income, minimum of 20% as AC will be 20% smaller but should be a lot more as they have done a such a bad job and do not deserve their salaries unless you count fleecing investors as part of their role, also staff will need to go as it is a smaller company. I get the feeling AC will take as much as they can and absolve themselves of blame. I know AC have said that retail was providing 20% of their funding, but I don't think it follows that shutting down retail will make AC 20% smaller. Won't they just fund the loans that would have been given to retail investors by using their institutional investors to provide that funding?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,850
Likes: 11,078
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 26, 2023 0:28:38 GMT
Also would like to hear how AC are going to reduce their costs so less losses to investors, for a start the directors should take a large cut in income, minimum of 20% as AC will be 20% smaller but should be a lot more as they have done a such a bad job and do not deserve their salaries unless you count fleecing investors as part of their role, also staff will need to go as it is a smaller company. I get the feeling AC will take as much as they can and absolve themselves of blame. I know AC have said that retail was providing 20% of their funding, but I don't think it follows that shutting down retail will make AC 20% smaller. Won't they just fund the loans that would have been given to retail investors by using their institutional investors to provide that funding? Of course they will. Retail lending last year (£60m) is easily covered by the new institutional funding announced last year - £950m over 3 years . They may enter up smaller staffwise as they wont need the level of customer facing & regulatory compliance staff
|
|
rscal
Posts: 911
Likes: 500
|
Post by rscal on Jan 26, 2023 9:18:03 GMT
We could demand some actual head cuts counts I suppose.
|
|
m2btj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 626
Likes: 749
|
Post by m2btj on Feb 1, 2023 10:10:12 GMT
Has anyone received their January interest? Logged on this morning to see that interest not paid into cash account for withdrawal.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 1, 2023 10:16:27 GMT
Has anyone received their January interest? Logged on this morning to see that interest not paid into cash account for withdrawal. Same here. They don't need to bother, do they?
|
|