|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Feb 16, 2023 14:56:35 GMT
TC should be a warning to AC lenders, AC may do the same as TC if extensive claims are upheld by the FOS, ie, separate the retail part (if they haven't already) make that part bankrupt due to not enough money to pay claims (and/or rundown the loan book without the extra fees) and bring in the administrators. That really hasn't worked out well for lenders! This is my absolute fear ,can a company split it's self in half, leaving the creditors of the unwanted bit to swing and carry on with the good bit. The creditors and as I understand it we would be treated as creditors in an adminstration would have been creditors to the entire financial entity as was whom they delt with and were in contract with, not just the selected unwanted bit cast aside. This is way past my knowledge area and skills ,opinions please
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 16, 2023 16:25:47 GMT
TC should be a warning to AC lenders, AC may do the same as TC if extensive claims are upheld by the FOS, ie, separate the retail part (if they haven't already) make that part bankrupt due to not enough money to pay claims (and/or rundown the loan book without the extra fees) and bring in the administrators. That really hasn't worked out well for lenders! This is my absolute fear ,can a company split it's self in half, leaving the creditors of the unwanted bit to swing and carry on with the good bit. The creditors and as I understand it we would be treated as creditors in an adminstration would have been creditors to the entire financial entity as was whom they delt with and were in contract with, not just the selected unwanted bit cast aside. This is way past my knowledge area and skills ,opinions please
Complex company structures are definitely above my pay grade, but certainly seemed to happen with TC, all perfectly legal I'm sure. Apparently retail lenders were not part of the main company just part of a separate company (with no access to any other of the 'group' funds) and our company went into administration due to being broke. TC is actually still around, it seems we were BLM with a trading name of TC. The trading name lives on for the corporate lenders to enjoy... How the AC companies are arranged I have absolutely no clue, I didn't with TC either until the crunch and even now I'm pretty clueless.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 646
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 16, 2023 20:31:26 GMT
AC were a major player in the p2p market at one point and obviously knew about the legal side of things with their focus on secured debt. I would assume they have done some dd before they made this move and have a plan b. You put money into a Ltd liability company as a creditor it has basically left the building. If I was still heavily invested I would pay the fee. disclaimer - Since my remaining loans are suspended doesn't matter , it benefits me since I don't pay.
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Feb 17, 2023 13:23:29 GMT
TC should be a warning to AC lenders, AC may do the same as TC if extensive claims are upheld by the FOS, ie, separate the retail part (if they haven't already) make that part bankrupt due to not enough money to pay claims (and/or rundown the loan book without the extra fees) and bring in the administrators. That really hasn't worked out well for lenders! This is my absolute fear ,can a company split it's self in half, leaving the creditors of the unwanted bit to swing and carry on with the good bit. The creditors and as I understand it we would be treated as creditors in an adminstration would have been creditors to the entire financial entity as was whom they delt with and were in contract with, not just the selected unwanted bit cast aside. This is way past my knowledge area and skills ,opinions please
Aren't our investments ring-fenced as per the Client Money rules?
|
|
rscal
Posts: 914
Likes: 503
|
Post by rscal on Feb 17, 2023 14:22:15 GMT
(well, well, well)
I have seen another complainants response from AC and it is identically worded to mine - so I assume we all received this 'memo'. Not that much of a surprise, really, as they will want to squat on the same ground:
|
|
rscal
Posts: 914
Likes: 503
|
Post by rscal on Feb 17, 2023 14:44:31 GMT
No attempt to summarise the content and thus no attempt to address the substance of individual complaint, then? Presumably that's 'all good' and 'nothing to see' even though it took them three weeks to 'collect data' and knock off the copy. I'm so grateful for instance that by not dropping the retail outfit straight into costly administration the recoveries 'team' will continue to be gainfully employed and going about its excellent ['award winning'?] work .. and it has so much work of course.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 743
Likes: 835
|
Post by p2pfan on Feb 17, 2023 14:45:19 GMT
Interesting.
Yes, I received exactly the same template response.
I replied to it, but AC told me they won't address my complaint further. Therefore, I have taken it to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I would encourage everyone else to do so as well.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 914
Likes: 503
|
Post by rscal on Feb 18, 2023 17:59:34 GMT
After sitting on it for a week I finally fashioned at reply this afternoon and sent it straight off (receipt acknowledged)
I know it may be felt by some of you a poor tactic but it is the one I have settled for. [Regards]
It has crossed my mind to send this to the guy at AC handling the complaints and make him an offer [assuming my complaint could be withdrawn before the fee is lodged with then.] I've guesstimated my fees and they are no that great in practice - much less than £750 anyway. As a compromise I could ask for 10 months remittance (when the fee is much higher than in subsequent periods) and allow them to collect it after (say) October. That represents a 'discount' to them of about 70% and for me about 40%) Of course who am I fooling, this company isn't interested in saving themselves money - they aren't valued-centric and they will never go for it. Steam on, they'll say - we know the process will take two years .. see you on the other side
[An Update 24/02: Confirmed, they didn't go for it]
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 19, 2023 23:58:15 GMT
I have to say I find it pretty absurd that everyone here is complaining about reduction in interest.
Personally, I'm more than comfortable with that if it means AC can run more sustainably during the wind-down process.
AC have made a lot of mistakes, and there probably is a case to be made to the regulators about how they have acted. However, nobody wants to rock the boat too much and cause AC to go into full bankruptcy mode. The vultures will come in, and complaints about the "lender fee" will be the least of investors worries. They should streamline their operations, and continue as efficiently as possible and repay investors. That will take time, but it's in the best interest to keep AC at the helm.
I do agree though it is frustrating with the lack of clarity over what is actually happening at AC, what the fee is actually used for. My hope is that it's used to help fund loans, rather than simply to line their pockets.
In any case, I'm comfortable with a reduction in interest if it considerably increases the likelihood of capital being preserved.
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Feb 20, 2023 7:51:08 GMT
I'm comfortable with a reduction in interest if it considerably increases the likelihood of capital being preserved. But other than AC's statements, what have you seen which indicates that it does considerably increase the likelihood of capital preservation? And that it isn't just being used as yet another excuse to pad their income for as long as they can? Based on past experience, I would lean towards the latter. The bizarre logic that we shouldn't do anything to upset them because they can punish us if / when they want to doesn't make sense. If that is true then you can bet your bottom dollar that AC will milk investors of every penny they can all the way to the end, irrespective of how pliant and appeasing we are towards them. In my mind, the more vigorously this change is protested, the more likely it is that they will think long and hard before conjuring up the next wheeze to extract more income.
|
|
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 20, 2023 13:14:18 GMT
Forfeiting circa one quarter, say, of borrower paid interest going forward is galling, and even more so this month when the accrual for a fortnight of December is being collected. It is however infinitely better than additionally forfeiting over 25% of any future capital collected. That’s 25% of capital after any reductions already baked in by current likely capital losses. Because that’s what a P2P platform in administration looks like. A hefty haircut on capital repayments to pay administration that will be massively less effective in collecting capital, won’t fund incomplete developments and won’t be able to see through a full 5 years of managing a wind down. The comparison is really that polarised. Earn a few % less interest or lose an additional big chunk of capital on top as well. That's what it looked like before the FCA tightened the winddown plans ... platforms shouldn't go into admin anymore because the winddown kicks in when they are solvent. AC expect their standard monitoring income to cover the runoff even involving RSM & I'm sure the FCA has properly scrutinised the detailed plan Look a flying pig
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 20, 2023 17:05:42 GMT
A hefty haircut on capital repayments to pay administration that will be massively less effective in collecting capital, won’t fund incomplete developments and won’t be able to see through a full 5 years of managing a wind down. Exactly. I suspect AC have been telling porkies and downplaying how much they were funded and relied on retail (80% funded by retail, "not much of a change", really AC - if so why the need to touch interest for retail investors?) So I suspect they do need that money to keep critical employees and operations running during the wind-down. This whole process could take years, which is my main concern - do they intend keep this interest reduction, will it be increased? I sincerely hope is it temporary and doesn't increase, and they continue to streamline their operations. But for now, I am comfortable taking a 1-2% interest reduction to pay to keep the cogs turning as efficiently and effectively as possible under the existing management.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 743
Likes: 835
|
Post by p2pfan on Feb 20, 2023 18:00:05 GMT
I'm comfortable with a reduction in interest if it considerably increases the likelihood of capital being preserved. But other than AC's statements, what have you seen which indicates that it does considerably increase the likelihood of capital preservation? And that it isn't just being used as yet another excuse to pad their income for as long as they can? Based on past experience, I would lean towards the latter. The bizarre logic that we shouldn't do anything to upset them because they can punish us if / when they want to doesn't make sense. If that is true then you can bet your bottom dollar that AC will milk investors of every penny they can all the way to the end, irrespective of how pliant and appeasing we are towards them. In my mind, the more vigorously this change is protested, the more likely it is that they will think long and hard before conjuring up the next wheeze to extract more income. Totally agree with this. We have no evidence whatsoever that supporting AC milking more money from us increases the likelihood of our capital being preserved. Anybody who has that mindset is welcome to post thousand pound cheques to AC, made out to Stuart Law. AC are smug and the more investors resist against their Putinesque arrogance, the less likely we are to be screwed over during the wind-down. As AC have chosen not to listen to or co-operate with investors, complaining about them to the Financial Ombudsman Service and others is the only way to get them to act ethically.
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 20, 2023 19:11:23 GMT
But other than AC's statements, what have you seen which indicates that it does considerably increase the likelihood of capital preservation? And that it isn't just being used as yet another excuse to pad their income for as long as they can? Based on past experience, I would lean towards the latter. The bizarre logic that we shouldn't do anything to upset them because they can punish us if / when they want to doesn't make sense. If that is true then you can bet your bottom dollar that AC will milk investors of every penny they can all the way to the end, irrespective of how pliant and appeasing we are towards them. In my mind, the more vigorously this change is protested, the more likely it is that they will think long and hard before conjuring up the next wheeze to extract more income. Totally agree with this. We have no evidence whatsoever that supporting AC milking more money from us increases the likelihood of our capital being preserved. Anybody who has that mindset is welcome to post thousand pound cheques to AC, made out to Stuart Law. AC are smug and the more investors resist against their Putinesque arrogance, the less likely we are to be screwed over during the wind-down. As AC have chosen not to listen to or co-operate with investors, complaining about them to the Financial Ombudsman Service and others is the only way to get them to act ethically. What is your aim in your complaint to the Ombusman? What do you hope to achieve? Do you want them to remove the interest fee? What impact will that have on income stream as the loans are drawn down and completed, and who is able to continue working at AC and keep the tranches operating efficiently? I totally agree it is frustrating and AC have acted in a way that probably does breach some code of conduct, but I can't see anything positive coming out of rocking the boat and pushing AC into administration. As a comparison - I was unfortunately in both RateSetter and Growth Street when it ran into liquidity issues and they froze all withdrawals on the platform. They went into wind-down mode, and they completely stopped all interest. In less than a year, they were able to recoup 100% for investors because they were able to streamline their operations, stay afloat and wind-down the books efficiently in house without having to go into administration. This is my vision and hope of AC - and I am comfortable giving them a portion of interest if it means they can achieve this orderly wind-down.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Back and to the left..
Posts: 1,016
Likes: 646
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Feb 20, 2023 20:03:45 GMT
But other than AC's statements, what have you seen which indicates that it does considerably increase the likelihood of capital preservation? And that it isn't just being used as yet another excuse to pad their income for as long as they can? Based on past experience, I would lean towards the latter. The bizarre logic that we shouldn't do anything to upset them because they can punish us if / when they want to doesn't make sense. If that is true then you can bet your bottom dollar that AC will milk investors of every penny they can all the way to the end, irrespective of how pliant and appeasing we are towards them. In my mind, the more vigorously this change is protested, the more likely it is that they will think long and hard before conjuring up the next wheeze to extract more income. Totally agree with this. We have no evidence whatsoever that supporting AC milking more money from us increases the likelihood of our capital being preserved. Anybody who has that mindset is welcome to post thousand pound cheques to AC, made out to Stuart Law. AC are smug and the more investors resist against their Putinesque arrogance, the less likely we are to be screwed over during the wind-down. As AC have chosen not to listen to or co-operate with investors, complaining about them to the Financial Ombudsman Service and others is the only way to get them to act ethically. I'M not a fan of AC infact they are the main reason i started to exit p2p in 2018. But in mu opinion ac was an attempt to do p2p in a sensible fashion. Have you looked at the group accounts for AC? I wouldn't want to be a big equity investor. As far as I am concerned p2p is a failed experiment that worked for a while during the QE driven credit bubble and the buzz of a new fintech. If you are still heavily invested in 2023 count yourself lucky if you get your capital back.
|
|