bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 9, 2023 12:41:19 GMT
<snip> ....The problem with AC is that they are full of hubris and self entitlement, they think they can get away with anything,....<snip> I'm always mindful that everything comes from the top and we all know who that is!!!!
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 10, 2023 10:27:52 GMT
I can understand people who have substantial amounts still locked up with AC are not entirely happy with the situation but before you rush to judge their recent actions I would suggest looking at the Financials on companies house. In my opinion unless they dramatically reduce their running costs they are going to run into problems and this is not in anyones interest. Also the equity investors have lost quite alot of capital so do not have alot of motivation to continue their involvement. I was impressed that one of my last remaining loans with them (which I had written off) was recently paid off with interest (after extensive legal action from AC leading to the imminent threat of repossession of the borrowers home) and if you look at the amount of security they have on their loans I would say there is a good chance creditors will get most of their money back plus interest if they are able to trundle on with their operations. If I had substantial amounts left in AC I would be against anything that rocked the boat too much since it might capsize.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 10, 2023 10:40:53 GMT
Mustn't rock the boat then. We'll just have to let the captain and crew eat the third class passengers, as they think necessary.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,010
Likes: 642
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 10, 2023 10:42:55 GMT
Mustn't rock the boat then. We'll just have to let the captain and crew eat the third class passengers.
I dont think they will eat them, just nibble them a bit. And Better that than the ship sinking and everyone getting eaten by the sharks.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 910
Likes: 500
|
Post by rscal on Feb 10, 2023 11:20:29 GMT
Studying the Wind Down Plan of another well-known regulated platform - Kuflink some things about the AC WDP become clearer: the same copy pasta is present as in: [Q: is this phrasing taken from a common resource produced by/under the aegis of the FCA?] However they word their risks differently to AC: and, finally:[see added comment] Clear? Yes, thought so. However AC words this concept differently: So there is a key difference in relation to the assurances offered - KUF has allocated funds to a dedicated purpose, whereas AC implies they have just 'run the numbers' - KUF 'works constantly with the FCA and monitors its plan to ensure it is setting aside sufficient amounts to fulfil it. - AC is confident , but has not made any separate provision (or any it is telling its investors about) that the income from monitoring and exit is "More Than Sufficient" to the purpose of winding down the loan book (which is the only thing the WDA is concerned with and not backfilling charges for unrelated costs.) [and of course AC don't call theirs a 'wind down plan' being jargon complaint is so cliché] Now as to whether being worth 'spit' as our angry colleague might say, I'm not sure it does. The FCA does suggest that firms can [be expected] to vary their plan - but that should be interpreted in relation to unfavourable 'circumstances'. AC is going with their 'Non Normal Market' which they are very proud of inventing, but it doesn't really represent what is an elective business decision for a business that isn't 'growing' fast enough to suit them. Tough. I feel the Regulator is weak as sauce and won't do anything without - you guessed it - 'heat'. But on the arguments alone there is an opening provided by the evidence that AC took some standard [intended] format identical to KUF but then sought to cover an actual lack of planning behind it with an overly hasty 'nothing for yous to worry about' remark of More Than Sufficient™ that ought to (in a just World) get them in trouble [Sam doesn't favour opening the box and seeing what's in the bottom of the Access Accounts but I do...] [added 28/5/23: it occurs to me the reason Kuflink uses 'two years' in its WDA is that it makes loans for periods no more than 24 months IIRC - which AC are prevented from -assuming they won't try to move any- by having outstanding loans up to 60 months]
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 10, 2023 11:36:49 GMT
Studying the Wind Down Plan of another well-known regulated platform - Kuflink some things about the AC WDP become clearer: the same copy pasta is present as in: [Q: is this phrasing taken from a common resource produced by/under the aegis of the FCA?] However they word their risks differently to AC: and, finally: Clear? Yes, thought so. However AC words this concept differently: So there is a key difference in relation to the assurances offered - KUF has allocated funds to a dedicated purpose, whereas AC implies they have just 'run the numbers' - KUF 'works constantly with the FCA and monitors its plan to ensure it is setting aside sufficient amounts to fulfil it. - AC is confident , but has not made any separate provision (or any it is telling its investors about) that the income from monitoring and exit is "More Than Sufficient" to the purpose of winding down the loan book (which is the only thing the WDA is concerned with and not backfilling charges for unrelated costs.) [and of course AC don't call theirs a 'wind down plan' being jargon complaint is so cliché] Now as to whether being worth 'spit' as our angry colleague might say, I'm not sure it does. The FCA does suggest that firms can [be expected] to vary their plan - but that should be interpreted in relation to unfavourable 'circumstances'. AC is going with their 'Non Normal Market' which they are very proud of inventing, but it doesn't really represent what is an elective business decision for a business that isn't 'growing' fast enough to suit them. Tough. I feel the Regulator is weak as sauce and won't do anything without - you guessed it - 'heat'. But on the arguments alone there is an opening provided by the evidence that AC took some standard [intended] format identical to KUF but then sought to cover an actual lack of planning behind it with an overly hasty 'nothing for yous to worry about' remark of More Than Sufficient™ that ought to (in a just World) get them in trouble [Sam doesn't favour opening the box and seeing what's in the bottom of the Access Accounts but I do...] Regulatory framework allows for various scenarios on how a winddown will be funded including ringfenced funds, fee income from loanbook incl increased commissions (informed consent req). The grey area is whether AC runoff constitutes a formal winddown as described in the regulatory frameworks (COBS 18.12.28 & linked SYSC clauses)
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Feb 10, 2023 11:37:28 GMT
Don't know how I missed this! My complaint is in as well, thanks for the template pikestaff
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 955
Likes: 645
|
Post by alender on Feb 10, 2023 11:52:58 GMT
I can understand people who have substantial amounts still locked up with AC are not entirely happy with the situation but before you rush to judge their recent actions I would suggest looking at the Financials on companies house. In my opinion unless they dramatically reduce their running costs they are going to run into problems and this is not in anyones interest. The problem is that complaints to the FOS is the only option left for investors as AC will just give a standard reply of no to any complaints so in their eyes leaves them with Carte blanche to do anything they want. As they are now closed to retail investors they do not give a dam about bad publicity so an FOS complaint (or the threat of) is the only leverage investors have against AC and without it AC will keep pushing the boundaries to drain down funds of locked in investors. For the investors sake AC must be held to account. I take your point about the state of AC so an FOS complaint is a double edged sword and it is up to AC to ensure that there are not too many of these by treating retail investors fairly. Also it may encourage AC to make saving especially in the area of directors pay where a lot of saving can be made. I am sure SL does not want to have a collapsed AC on his CV to help his future employment prospects and just perhaps the directors may become liable for some of liabilities of AC. Also SL et al will want to keep AC gravy train going for non retail investors to keep those lovely remuneration packages. I would say SL et al have more to lose by FOS complaints than most retail investors.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 910
Likes: 500
|
Post by rscal on Feb 10, 2023 12:03:04 GMT
Regulatory framework allows for various scenarios on how a winddown will be funded including ringfenced funds, fee income from loanbook incl increased commissions (informed consent req). The grey area is whether AC runoff constitutes a formal winddown as described in the regulatory frameworks (COBS 18.12.28 & linked SYSC clauses) From the horse's mouth: Since it is not option '1' and not option '2', the reported solvent run-off must be describing the third option, surely.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 10, 2023 12:11:22 GMT
Regulatory framework allows for various scenarios on how a winddown will be funded including ringfenced funds, fee income from loanbook incl increased commissions (informed consent req). The grey area is whether AC runoff constitutes a formal winddown as described in the regulatory frameworks (COBS 18.12.28 & linked SYSC clauses) From the horse's mouth: Since it is not option '1' and not option '2', the reported solvent run-off must be describing the third option, surely. Ok, so compare to the regulatory framework, only problem being some of the provisions are guidance which gives AC wiggle room. How far does the winddown constitute something investors can place reliance on when deciding to invest through the platform?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,848
Likes: 11,077
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 10, 2023 12:57:01 GMT
rscal Actually on reviewing the 'standby' plan they arent in winddown as per option 3, they are in a sort of halfway house. No evidence that RSM are involved They are continuing to fund tranches of in course loans which they wouldnt under the winddown plan There is a lack of clarity (as usual) on exactly what AC has enacted
|
|
rscal
Posts: 910
Likes: 500
|
Post by rscal on Feb 10, 2023 13:01:11 GMT
From the horse's mouth: Since it is not option '1' and not option '2', the reported solvent run-off must be describing the third option, surely. Ok, so compare to the regulatory framework, only problem being some of the provisions are guidance which gives AC wiggle room. How far does the winddown constitute something investors can place reliance on when deciding to invest through the platform? Then they will have to explain themselves to an Ombudsman I suppose. But what a shocker if they say: "Oh.. THAT 'plan' ". Clearly they are not following it and the charging is tacked on to whatever it is they are doing. They stand condemned by words no one put in their mouths. Either the assurances given were the product of poor workmanship in relation to some pretty basic costs.. or things really do need extra cash to simply accomplish that [but these aren't 'extra' costs of course, the loan book is still 'performing'] or the finances are actually pretty damn sound and it is pure skimming on the pretext of a 'run-off'. Thus having exposed their nakedness, it may be possible to attack the arbitrariness of a fee grab [using their over wrought term '2.2'] as: "You engineered a situation where exit is not longer possible and THEN you slapped on this fee. They are even worse than the last time which was capped at 0.9% and lasted just 13 months. Here you propose an open ended period starting at 2.9% and envisaged to last 5 years or more - not because your hand is forced but because that is somehow 'fairer' to the majority of investors now trapped behind the paywall". Well, if a 'brother Ombudsman' found it unacceptable to lock-in investors [that complained] before one is bound to do it again. [Please forgive the crossed response]
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 10, 2023 14:28:46 GMT
Mustn't rock the boat then. We'll just have to let the captain and crew eat the third class passengers.
I dont think they will eat them, just nibble them a bit. And Better that than the ship sinking and everyone getting eaten by the sharks.
I don't think that is 'eating customers fairly'. And the captain may be the only shark in these waters.
|
|
rocky1
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,120
Likes: 1,940
|
Post by rocky1 on Feb 10, 2023 14:57:20 GMT
are the FCA themselves aware of what is going on here ?they should be nipping things like this in the bud instead of leaving lenders on their own to fight unfair changes/practices that these fintech platforms and their lawyers think they can implement for their own financial gains as and when it suits.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 910
Likes: 500
|
Post by rscal on Feb 10, 2023 14:59:12 GMT
Just got my reply too - they must be robo-stamping these now, because mine begins "Dear Jonathon" and my name isn't Jonathon [YOU know who you are.. you naughty boy out there in ComplaintLand!]
To the gist: Yes, they quote 2.2 ["we may charge a fee..."] and 21 ["Altered Circumstances and Changes to The Terms"]They say: Some 'logic' there, but they continue Really, how so? They then suggest it would have to be an 'insolvent' run-off in that case [i.e. in the case were they weren't initially insolvent and so could make a choice - b/c you either ARE or you AREN'T] ..and all that follows. However, that would actually be under the actual terms of the Wind Down Plan, right? But they are still obliged to address the Plan further, having only mentioned it briefly, as I had brought it to their attention as a part of my complaint.
Next, Stuart proceeds they proceed under the third option - which is actually the second option under the FCA registered WDA SP - to rubbish the whole concept of a loan book disposal ... really gets into it he does they do:
Stuart the writer then equivocates as if contradicting what you had just peddled somehow lends authority to your silken vitriol eloquence: A final bit reads:
|
|