blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 22, 2023 21:00:26 GMT
Could you clarify what you mean by capital? I was referring to investor capital, not borrower. Also the way AC word it in their email makes it sound like the % fee applies to the interest portion received by investors only, on performing loans. If that's the case, this fee seems very low, but I suspect they've worded that poorly - because they go onto explain that the average fee would work out as reduction of 1.15% per anum over 5 years. That effectively means capital isn't touched. It's better to use the word principal rather than capital, principal being the amount of the loan or loans advanced. So the 2.9% is the amount you will pay in fees expressed as an annual percentage of the total performing principal which is outstanding to your account. Performing means, I think, only the loans which are not in arrears. This is paid monthly, so that each month your fee will be 0.242% of outstanding performing principal. The fee is being collected by deducting it from interest payments. Effectively, if all loans perform, it is as if your annual interest rates were currently reduced by 2.9%. This is happening in MLA, effective 15 Dec. On the Access accounts with the interest rates at 4% it should be as if that rate had been reduced to 1.1%. For some reason they paid 3.3% on the Access accounts on 1 Feb. Maybe they applied some notice period? Anyway we will soon find out on 1 March.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,870
Likes: 11,097
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 22, 2023 21:27:18 GMT
Could you clarify what you mean by capital? I was referring to investor capital, not borrower. Also the way AC word it in their email makes it sound like the % fee applies to the interest portion received by investors only, on performing loans. If that's the case, this fee seems very low, but I suspect they've worded that poorly - because they go onto explain that the average fee would work out as reduction of 1.15% per anum over 5 years. That effectively means capital isn't touched. It's better to use the word principal rather than capital, principal being the amount of the loan or loans advanced. So the 2.9% is the amount you will pay in fees expressed as an annual percentage of the total performing principal which is outstanding to your account. Performing means, I think, only the loans which are not in arrears. This is paid monthly, so that each month your fee will be 0.242% of outstanding performing principal. The fee is being collected by deducting it from interest payments. Effectively, if all loans perform, it is as if your annual interest rates were currently reduced by 2.9%. This is happening in MLA, effective 15 Dec. On the Access accounts with the interest rates at 4% it should be as if that rate had been reduced to 1.1%. For some reason they paid 3.3% on the Access accounts on 1 Feb. Maybe they applied some notice period? Anyway we will soon find out on 1 March. The fee on the access accounts is deducted from the full loan rate on the loans held by the AA, not the target rate. The rate averaged across performing loans is approx 6.2%, so after deduction of the 2.9% would be 3.3%. The definition of loans against which the fee is applicable is in the FAQ but is basically any loan that is paying interest. If it doesnt pay interest in a month then the fee accrues until a payment is made so the fee will be lumpy, particularly in relation to loans where it is being rolled up where in theory it will all fall due on loan redemption. Transparent it is not.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Feb 22, 2023 22:22:28 GMT
The fee on the access accounts is deducted from the full loan rate on the loans held by the AA, not the target rate. The rate averaged across performing loans is approx 6.2%, so after deduction of the 2.9% would be 3.3%. The definition of loans against which the fee is applicable is in the FAQ but is basically any loan that is paying interest. If it doesnt pay interest in a month then the fee accrues until a payment is made so the fee will be lumpy, particularly in relation to development loans where in theory it will all fall due on loan redemption. Transparent it is not. Thanks. I've read all the info produced by AC and every post on here and that's the first time I've understood the 3.3%.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 957
Likes: 647
|
Post by alender on Feb 22, 2023 23:46:55 GMT
I get it, your upset, everyone is upset, I am too. From past experience with these failed P2P firms - the aim should be to maximise returns. Calling for regulators to come, and potentially forced administration, it will be a case of jumping out the frying pan and into the fire. Revenue stream at the moment is likely beginning to trail off, but as the year trends on it will rapidly decline, and that will put the whole business operation in jeopardy. I wish AC provided more clarity on what it's being used for, but I hope the interest is being used as a pool of funds to be used over the coming years, and leftovers being used to help to fund loans. InterestAC: Still being paid, albeit roughly 50% haircut Growth Street: zero interest RateSetter: zero interest WithdrawalsAC: permitted from cash in accounts, with more distributions likely in a few months/later this year Growth Street: no withdrawals, full lockdown until wind-down fully completed, unknown timescale Rate Setter: huge priority based queue, would have taken 3-5+ years I've not been part of the other failed P2P projects, which I heard have bene nasty (particularly those where the administrators came in) - so I've been lucky to be part of the "failed good ones" as it were. I sense that AC could be part of that good batch, based on a sensible and sustainable direction they are taking. I was involved with GS wind down at the the same time as the first AC lockin The differences for me are - GS obey all the rules where AC keep making changes, lender fees, flat rate payouts, secondary market to name a few.
- GS were upfront with everything and and was easy to contact them, AC won't even answer their phones (at least when I have tired).
- GS had no choice but to wind down under the rules, AC have taken a commercial decision to wind down.
- I got a better rate of return from GS when the higher interest rate and bonuses are taken into account even with loss of interest during wind down.
- I got my money out of GS a lot faster in wind down than AC in the first lockin which gave me opportunities to buy shares at a very low point especially miners and Oil and Gas where I put lot of my P2P funds, now investors will have to wait years before this fiasco is over.
- No stupid videos like the ones from SL.
- AC attacking posters for telling the truth while spreading disinformation.
- GS were open with there investments where AC have never released the amount they commited of investors loan repayments in future tranches so investors never had any idea of how much of their future loan repayments was committed by AC to generate extra fees at their expense while keeping their cash tied up earning very little if any interest.
- I got all my money out of GS capital + interest + bonus as per T&Cs in a relatively short time with no lender fees, will investors get all their money out of AC, only time will tell, probably a very long time.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 23, 2023 9:35:12 GMT
The fee on the access accounts is deducted from the full loan rate on the loans held by the AA, not the target rate. The rate averaged across performing loans is approx 6.2%, so after deduction of the 2.9% would be 3.3%. The definition of loans against which the fee is applicable is in the FAQ but is basically any loan that is paying interest. If it doesnt pay interest in a month then the fee accrues until a payment is made so the fee will be lumpy, particularly in relation to loans where it is being rolled up where in theory it will all fall due on loan redemption. Transparent it is not. Thanks for that. I said I did not understand the 3.3% and your further explanation has made my post worthwhile. But the purpose of the fee is to take (monthly equivalent of) 2.9% of total principal from investors funds into the coffers of Assetz. So while the interest we receive may 'only' go down from 4% to 3.3%, much more cash that was ours is being taken from the Access Accounts invisibly (to most lenders). That presumably would have been cash for the provision fund which will no longer be there. Does that not increase the threat to the future interest rate on the access accounts and eventually to the return of our capital? Transparent? Invisible and unaccountable, more like.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 957
Likes: 647
|
Post by alender on Feb 23, 2023 9:54:01 GMT
But the purpose of the fee is to take (monthly equivalent of) 2.9% of total principal from investors funds into the coffers of Assetz. So while the interest we receive may 'only' go down from 4% to 3.3%, much more cash that was ours is being taken from the Access Accounts invisibly (to most lenders). That presumably would have been cash for the provision fund which will no longer be there. Does that not increase the threat to the future interest rate on the access accounts and eventually to the return of our capital? Transparent? Invisible and unaccountable, more like. Looks like these future tranches are a win win for AC, they get to keep the total principal higher for longer so getting more from the additional 2.9% fee and they get the fees from the borrower for the loans. As I stated before the PF is now pointless as it just holds money for future defaults, fine when an investor can withdraw money so leaving some funds in the PF for the next investor to deal with defaults but pointless if you can't withdraw. The best thing for investors is to get the PF funds paid out now to them and take a hit on latter defaults, either way the PF will come back to lenders. However I suspect AC have found a way to take advantage of the funds in the PF, is this included in the total principal used to collect fees.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 646
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 23, 2023 10:12:55 GMT
In my opinion AC need to make a detailed statement about the reasons behind their course of action, perhaps presenting some figures to retail investors. This will help settle the arguement about whether this is a cash grab from retail investors who they dont need any more or an attempt to keep what is essentially a failed business solvent while they run off the loan book (which is my perspective on this after looking at the group accounts).
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 957
Likes: 647
|
Post by alender on Feb 23, 2023 11:18:55 GMT
In my opinion AC need to make a detailed statement about the reasons behind their course of action, perhaps presenting some figures to retail investors. This will help settle the arguement about whether this is a cash grab from retail investors who they dont need any more or an attempt to keep what is essentially a failed business solvent while they run off the loan book (which is my perspective on this after looking at the group accounts). Unfortunately this is very unlikely to happen unless the FCA forces this (don't hold your breath), as I have said many times once AC have got your money they regard it as there own to do with as they wish, in ACs eyes as a retail investor you are unimportant, take what your given and be thankful for it. As they are not going to be any new retail investors AC will just ignore you, they will not engage except except for standard replies and refuse to answer the phone, if you have the cheek to complain they will just send back a standard reply and tell you in effect to go away.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 746
Likes: 737
|
Post by eeyore on Feb 23, 2023 11:19:58 GMT
In my opinion AC need to make a detailed statement about the reasons behind their course of action, perhaps presenting some figures to retail investors. This will help settle the arguement about whether this is a cash grab from retail investors who they dont need any more or an attempt to keep what is essentially a failed business solvent while they run off the loan book (which is my perspective on this after looking at the group accounts). Well, yes, but you've just outlined precisely why AC won't make any such statement!
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 646
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 23, 2023 12:41:45 GMT
In my opinion AC need to make a detailed statement about the reasons behind their course of action, perhaps presenting some figures to retail investors. This will help settle the arguement about whether this is a cash grab from retail investors who they dont need any more or an attempt to keep what is essentially a failed business solvent while they run off the loan book (which is my perspective on this after looking at the group accounts). Well, yes, but you've just outlined precisely why AC won't make any such statement!
I would say it is reasonable for them to provide a detailed break down of the situation and if they are not willing to then it wont look good in my opinion. If the reason for doing this is their financial situation is not great I would think they would be more than willing to provide further details.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 2,450
|
Post by iRobot on Feb 23, 2023 20:50:10 GMT
Or, as seems likely, those posts relate to the institutional side of the business. Assetz Capital covers a wide breadth of subsidiaries. That's the problem, knowing what funds Assetz retail has access to from other separate parts of the overall company, ie, how well they have separated the finances of say retail and institutional lending. Retail lending is in wind down and strapped for cash, but the rest of the company may be flourishing. May be something. May be nothing. But...
AC have updated the links on their website as per this following example:Before - https://www.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/quick-access-account/key-account-informationAfter - https://retail.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/quick-access-account/key-account-information Hmmmmnnn....
|
|
jon1982
New Member
Posts: 2
Likes: 17
|
Post by jon1982 on Feb 25, 2023 11:45:34 GMT
This is just scandalous, I will definitely be complaining to the Ombudsman. And if that doesn't go my way, then I will be dragging their arses to court - and I think that is something we would be as well to club together on.
So far this month my account has earned roughly £225 interest - AC have helped themselves to £186 of it.
Apparently this outrageous plundering will reduce in time - but where's the guarantee of that? Who is to say there is not going to be "The lender fee needs to be increased". They got away with it during COVID and now they feel emboldened.. up with it I will not put. AC seem to think they have the right to take as much of our returns as they like - while of course leaving us with 100% of the risk in the case of a default. Nice work if you can get it...
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Feb 27, 2023 15:41:12 GMT
That's the problem, knowing what funds Assetz retail has access to from other separate parts of the overall company, ie, how well they have separated the finances of say retail and institutional lending. Retail lending is in wind down and strapped for cash, but the rest of the company may be flourishing. May be something. May be nothing. But...
AC have updated the links on their website as per this following example:Before - https://www.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/quick-access-account/key-account-informationAfter - https://retail.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/quick-access-account/key-account-information Hmmmmnnn.... I'm glad to hear that Assetz Capital is doing well..... bestadvice.co.uk/assetz-capital-completes-its-largest-ever-development-facility/
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Feb 28, 2023 18:55:13 GMT
|
|
rscal
Posts: 914
Likes: 503
|
Post by rscal on Feb 28, 2023 19:38:00 GMT
Can you expand on that please?
|
|