p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 743
Likes: 835
|
Post by p2pfan on Feb 20, 2023 20:10:12 GMT
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. I have noted the point you've made about RateSetter and Growth Street. Each situation is different. Assetz group is not a business that is broke. Stuart Law is not living off Lidl baked bean cans he picks up from his local food bank. One can't make a deduction without evidence. Your supposition is that we need to give piles of gold to AC as the only way to keep them running and managing loans. That is not based on any facts we have been party to. AC are still making money. Their sources of income have not suddenly run dry. They still continue to make fat commissions, fees and charges on loans. As they wind down operations and have less loans and investors to manage, their costs will commensurately decline as they will need less and less staff etc. For instance, their costs will have already plummeted as they no longer need to advertise to, carry out KYC and AML checks on, onboard and educate new investors. Therefore, there is no logical justification for them to suddenly extract hundreds of thousands of pounds more from investors to manage their operations. Having seen how AC have operated over many years now, with relatively little regard for investors, the only strategy I see to ensure that they behave ethically is to have the spotlight of regulators and the media on them.
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 20, 2023 20:38:46 GMT
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. I have noted the point you've made about RateSetter and Growth Street. Each situation is different. Assetz group is not a business that is broke. Stuart Law is not living off Lidl baked bean cans he picks up from his local food bank. One can't make a deduction without evidence. Your supposition is that we need to give piles of gold to AC as the only way to keep them running and managing loans. That is not based on any facts we have been party to. AC are still making money. Their sources of income have not suddenly run dry. They still continue to make fat commissions, fees and charges on loans. As they wind down operations and have less loans and investors to manage, their costs will commensurately decline as they will need less and less staff etc. For instance, their costs will have already plummeted as they no longer need to advertise to, carry out KYC and AML checks on, onboard and educate new investors. Therefore, there is no logical justification for them to suddenly extract hundreds of thousands of pounds more from investors to manage their operations. Having seen how AC have operated over many years now, with relatively little regard for investors, the only strategy I see to ensure that they behave ethically is to have the spotlight of regulators and the media on them. 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.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 914
Likes: 503
|
Post by rscal on Feb 20, 2023 23:48:57 GMT
I have noted the point you've made about RateSetter and Growth Street. Each situation is different. Assetz group is not a business that is broke. Stuart Law is not living off Lidl baked bean cans he picks up from his local food bank. One can't make a deduction without evidence. Your supposition is that we need to give piles of gold to AC as the only way to keep them running and managing loans. That is not based on any facts we have been party to. AC are still making money. Their sources of income have not suddenly run dry. They still continue to make fat commissions, fees and charges on loans. As they wind down operations and have less loans and investors to manage, their costs will commensurately decline as they will need less and less staff etc. For instance, their costs will have already plummeted as they no longer need to advertise to, carry out KYC and AML checks on, onboard and educate new investors. Therefore, there is no logical justification for them to suddenly extract hundreds of thousands of pounds more from investors to manage their operations. Having seen how AC have operated over many years now, with relatively little regard for investors, the only strategy I see to ensure that they behave ethically is to have the spotlight of regulators and the media on them. 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. With respect garreh , Growth Street were in 30 day 'rolling loans' for business cashflow. They closed and returned all capital in about 8 months if my memory serves correctly. True, there was no interest but we were paid in large tranches every few months anyway - so the return of cash was even speedier. Some customers were lucky enough to have all their money available from day one (I think I had 3/8ths) based on the 'rolling' re-investment cycle and where it fell in the month for you. I lost about £100 interest (after they honoured a bonus I had earned) No that was very clean and quick. And Ratesetter had no stoppage of interest [paid half interest and operated a queue on withdrawals May 2020-Jan 2021] and full redemption within 9 or 10 months when they concluded their buyout 'at par' through Starling Metrobank. These were 'quality' payday / car loans and still they took the job lot. Investors again lost nothing. I have another account with Lending Crowd (loans for businesses) that has been in run-off for a couple of years now and I'm seeing a healthy profit (i.e. more withdrawn to date than original capital) with more to come - plus they do recoveries .. actual recoveries. In comparison to these 'going out of business' firms AC is a relative ponzi with zero transparency. 20 decimal places for your money... which clown thought that up eh? Sorry but you seem to be ill-informed on how the competition actually perform whilst Law can talk the talk [get's his puff pieces out regularly] but the walking part.. not so much.
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 21, 2023 1:16:20 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. With respect garreh , Growth Street were in 30 day 'rolling loans' for business cashflow. They closed and returned all capital in about 8 months if my memory serves correctly. True, there was no interest but we were paid in large tranches every few months anyway - so the return of cash was even speedier. Some customers were lucky enough to have all their money available from day one (I think I had 3/8ths) based on the 'rolling' re-investment cycle and where it fell in the month for you. I lost about £100 interest (after they honoured a bonus I had earned) No that was very clean and quick. And Ratesetter had no stoppage of interest and full redemption within 9 or 10 months when they concluded their buyout 'at par' through Starling. These were 'quality' payday / car loans and still they took the job lot. Investors again lost nothing. I have another account with Lending Crowd (loans for businesses) that has been in run-off for a couple of years now and I'm seeing a healthy profit (i.e. more withdrawn to date than original capital) with more to come - plus they do recoveries .. actual recoveries. In comparison to these 'going out of business' firms AC is a relative ponzi with zero transparency. 20 decimal places for your money... which clown thought that up eh? Sorry but you seem to be ill-informed on how the competition actually perform whilst Law can talk the talk [get's his puff pieces out regularly] but the walking part.. not so much. GS were not in rolling loans, they advertised as such but the reality is the underlying loans were not 30 days. The wind-down of GS was a lot simpler because they had limited number of loans (around 100 ish) of shorter term lengths (avg of a year from what I remember), and they entered full wind-down and closure of the whole business, essentially went into administration with an in-house team. They were able to do it all quickly because they helped borrowers move their loans to other companies - essentially sold a large part of their loan book. AC are not doing that, they are allowing them to run their course. I hope they do explore that as an option though. RS was lucky to get that lifeline from Starling and be bought out - prior to that it was looking very grim waiting in the queue system. I make comparisons to those two, but with AC they haven't actually entered a full-closure of the business, they are continuing but closing one aspect of the business. They aim to still continue with the institutional side (I believe GS was looking to do that same at the time, but realised it was impossible, so triggered their Resolution Event and closure of the whole business). Maybe that would be a better path for AC, maybe they will come to the realisation they may need to do that, who knows. I feel the frustration though of not being able to do anything - I remember with GS they were woeful in their communications as well, at least things panned out well. Hopefully AC will provide an update and clarity soon.
|
|
dave2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 171
Likes: 160
|
Post by dave2 on Feb 21, 2023 3:47:44 GMT
# 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. Capital, not interest.
|
|
|
Post by bob2010 on Feb 21, 2023 7:28:29 GMT
|
|
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 21, 2023 8:56:56 GMT
What's Starling got to do with it? ... RS sold their property book to Shawbrook & was taken over by Metro bank.
Seem to remember that RS underwent a Stabilisation Period where a good chunk of interest was taken to boost the PF.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 914
Likes: 503
|
Post by rscal on Feb 21, 2023 9:50:28 GMT
What's Starling got to do with it? ... RS sold their property book to Shawbrook & was taken over by Metro bank. Seem to remember that RS underwent a Stabilisation Period where a good chunk of interest was taken to boost the PF. You are right, on both points --- sorry my bad. It is hard to keep up. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RateSetter
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Feb 21, 2023 9:53:03 GMT
Im staying out of the Assetzcapital post-mortem threads , refer to all my previous posts about them. I only have a couple of loans left which I decided to hang onto a while longer for some illogical reason plus all the delinquent loans, it all amounts to around £1000.
Given the size of AC and the government covid loans relationship where the retailers again suffered , I'd like to think the government will step in and tell AC exactly what they can and can't do regarding fairness to retail investors this time.
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 21, 2023 15:43:38 GMT
Oh jheez, that is a frustrating read, new branded cupcakes, marketing and HR recruits, ohh my. Either they are doing a lot better and healthier than we imagine, or they are recklessly squandering investor money. When I emailed them I asked if they are reducing costs and unnecessary business expenses - AC replied: Without going into specific details, the actions you state regarding reducing our costs have happened over the past year to which we have greatly reduced our operating costs. The ceasing of new retail lending means that we no longer have any loan origination income as a part of our income for the retail part of the business. In response to this, and to ensure that the loan book run-off process and the required team are properly funded, we will look to reduce overheads and simplify our processes to reasonably control costs. Maybe I haven't been on these boards enough to fully grasp the questionable mechanics behind ACs inner workings.
|
|
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 21, 2023 16:02:57 GMT
Oh jheez, that is a frustrating read, new branded cupcakes, marketing and HR recruits, ohh my. Either they are doing a lot better and healthier than we imagine, or they are recklessly squandering investor money. When I emailed them I asked if they are reducing costs and unnecessary business expenses - AC replied: Without going into specific details, the actions you state regarding reducing our costs have happened over the past year to which we have greatly reduced our operating costs. The ceasing of new retail lending means that we no longer have any loan origination income as a part of our income for the retail part of the business. In response to this, and to ensure that the loan book run-off process and the required team are properly funded, we will look to reduce overheads and simplify our processes to reasonably control costs. Maybe I haven't been on these boards enough to fully grasp the questionable mechanics behind ACs inner workings. Or, as seems likely, those posts relate to the institutional side of the business. Assetz Capital covers a wide breadth of subsidiaries.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Feb 21, 2023 17:13:11 GMT
Oh jheez, that is a frustrating read, new branded cupcakes, marketing and HR recruits, ohh my. Either they are doing a lot better and healthier than we imagine, or they are recklessly squandering investor money. When I emailed them I asked if they are reducing costs and unnecessary business expenses - AC replied: Maybe I haven't been on these boards enough to fully grasp the questionable mechanics behind ACs inner workings. 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.
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 21, 2023 17:14:23 GMT
Oh jheez, that is a frustrating read, new branded cupcakes, marketing and HR recruits, ohh my. Either they are doing a lot better and healthier than we imagine, or they are recklessly squandering investor money. When I emailed them I asked if they are reducing costs and unnecessary business expenses - AC replied: Maybe I haven't been on these boards enough to fully grasp the questionable mechanics behind ACs inner workings. Or, as seems likely, those posts relate to the institutional side of the business. Assetz Capital covers a wide breadth of subsidiaries. If it is related to the institutional side and AC is 80% funded by institutional investments (as they claim) - clearly that side of the business is thriving, with new recruits and frivolous spending, so sure it's possible to sell the loanbook to the institutional side? It merely represents 20%. To a thriving subsidiary that sounds perfectly feasible. Something doesn't add up. And at the very least, it's poor form to be gloating on Instagram about cupcakes and new marketing recruits given that retail is left in the dark with money locked away.
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Feb 21, 2023 18:02:19 GMT
I have always thought, though must be said on the basis of very little knowledge on the legal side , the only major question of consequence is if the retail side and institutional side of AC peer to peer is a single financial entity and AC therefore would have to put the entire operation into administration. Which they only could do if they could demonstrate that the company overall was in a position that it needed the protection of an administor to protect it's creditors, when 80% of it was doing ok with reported good future prospects.
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Feb 22, 2023 16:40:03 GMT
# 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. Capital, not interest. 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.
|
|