Tony
Posts: 51 
Likes: 36
|
Post by Tony on Oct 4, 2023 10:20:21 GMT
Reading the recent note from Mr Law
In one sentence I quote "we would ask that all lenders take steps to withdraw all funds held in their Cash Accounts in a timely manner to maximise investment returns elsewhere" and in another sentence "Withdrawals will be processed less frequently moving to weekly in the first instance".
Is he for real!
Its quite clear that the only people Mr Law is looking after is Assetz, could this be to advantage his position to get a role in what remains of the Company, heaven help them.
They make Leading Works look like saints.
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Oct 21, 2023 17:36:13 GMT
Next month I think I have 22 loans redeeming which will be about 10% of my remaining stake, 😄. However I expect a lot of voting for extensions and I am getting increasingly fed up ☹️. For sure any loan not paying increased rates with a solid track record can get lost. Also any loan requiring interest free, no solid believable exit route within 3 months can go to. Life's hard and getting the feeling that our borrowers are finding the existing rates very attractive compared to transfered rates so stringing us along for a refinance in the future is good business.
|
|
|
|
Post by scepticalinvestor on Oct 21, 2023 21:00:14 GMT
"Withdrawals will be processed less frequently moving to weekly in the first instance".
The "in the first instance" sounds a bit ominous. I wonder what his plans are in the second and third instances....
|
|
bob2010
Posts: 104
Likes: 63
Member is Online
|
Post by bob2010 on Oct 21, 2023 22:23:24 GMT
Next month I think I have 22 loans redeeming which will be about 10% of my remaining stake, 😄. However I expect a lot of voting for extensions and I am getting increasingly fed up ☹️. For sure any loan not paying increased rates with a solid track record can get lost. Also any loan requiring interest free, no solid believable exit route within 3 months can go to. Life's hard and getting the feeling that our borrowers are finding the existing rates very attractive compared to transfered rates so stringing us along for a refinance in the future is good business. In terms of extensions and increased rates, how does this work considering Assetz are in wind down mode. Would lenders benefit from this? Also, how is this fair on those with Access Accounts who don't have a vote and are unable to access their funds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 22, 2023 8:51:13 GMT
Next month I think I have 22 loans redeeming which will be about 10% of my remaining stake, 😄. However I expect a lot of voting for extensions and I am getting increasingly fed up ☹️. For sure any loan not paying increased rates with a solid track record can get lost. Also any loan requiring interest free, no solid believable exit route within 3 months can go to. Life's hard and getting the feeling that our borrowers are finding the existing rates very attractive compared to transfered rates so stringing us along for a refinance in the future is good business. In terms of extensions and increased rates, how does this work considering Assetz are in wind down mode. Would lenders benefit from this? Also, how is this fair on those with Access Accounts who don't have a vote and are unable to access their funds. AC are clearly not concerned about fairness. They have decided to fund their business from allternate sources and are now attempting to keep as much of any income as possible for themselves while forcing us lenders to pay for the rundown that we necessitated by their failings. The FCA are apparently OK with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by brightspark on Oct 22, 2023 9:53:29 GMT
Why do you say that the FCA are OK with this? Is it not the case that AC have unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of loans which the FCA say is not permitted.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 6,228
|
Post by duck on Oct 22, 2023 9:57:43 GMT
Next month I think I have 22 loans redeeming which will be about 10% of my remaining stake, 😄. However I expect a lot of voting for extensions and I am getting increasingly fed up ☹️. For sure any loan not paying increased rates with a solid track record can get lost. Also any loan requiring interest free, no solid believable exit route within 3 months can go to. Life's hard and getting the feeling that our borrowers are finding the existing rates very attractive compared to transfered rates so stringing us along for a refinance in the future is good business. I don't know how well you monitor your loans but what I am seeing on my spreadsheet wrt the final repayment date is "Was ABC, Was DEF, Was GHI ......" lots of loans being extended by weeks/months on a continual basis without a vote in sight. These loans remain live since interest is still being paid which of course means fees can be levied and grabbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 22, 2023 10:47:55 GMT
Why do you say that the FCA are OK with this? Is it not the case that AC have unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of loans which the FCA say is not permitted. Because they are fully aware of what AC are doing. They have not protected lenders interests, as they should have done by forcing the company to pay for their own wind-down. All while still allowing AC to collect their fees.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,181
Likes: 11,372
|
Post by ilmoro on Oct 22, 2023 13:23:40 GMT
Why do you say that the FCA are OK with this? Is it not the case that AC have unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of loans which the FCA say is not permitted. Because they are fully aware of what AC are doing. They have not protected lenders interests, as they should have done by forcing the company to pay for their own wind-down. All while still allowing AC to collect their fees. This appears a false premise ... there is no basis for the FCA to force a company to pay for its own winddown through cross-collateralisation ... the winddown was always going to be funded by retail fee income, either retained in capital ringfenced for the purpose or ongoing income. There is no evidence to suggest that fees have not been used for the intended purpose. AC argues that these resources were insufficient so an additional fee needed to be charged as allowed by the t&cs (not changed) and that should be front loaded for certainty. At the root is the question of whether those not benefiting should be expected to foot the bill ... this has been the issue in the case of the various platform administrations with recovery of trust assets not being at the cost of the general estates. Its a very nuanced question as to where protecting lenders interests lies ... is a fee that prevents a platform collapse not in lenders interests compared to the alternative? Fairness is complex and will entirely depend on individual circumstances. eg it seems entirely unfair that frontloading the fee means a MLA lender with a few short date loans has to pay 6.25% and will gain no benefit from the fee averaging out over time. Now, the question is whether there has been any transfer of assets from the retail to institutional side of the business, whether that was done at fair value so the retail side has fully benefitted from investment in IT, staff, training, goodwill, origination etc that has been defacto passed to the institutional side. That seems to be much more open question.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrismellish on Oct 22, 2023 15:22:55 GMT
Now, the question is whether there has been any transfer of assets from the retail to institutional side of the business, whether that was done at fair value so the retail side has fully benefitted from investment in IT, staff, training, goodwill, origination etc that has been defacto passed to the institutional side. That seems to be much more open question. I have to caveat this by saying that it's based on second hand information from others who have left the business more recently than I, but it seems common knowledge amongst staff that the new institutional side of the business has not been performing as expected. I am led to believe that AC have been using the fee to pay for this pivot, effectively charging lenders the fee for the benefit of protecting shareholders through trying to salvage a viable business out of the ashes of the peer-to-peer platform. There must be some confidence in the future pipeline to have reduced the fee now, but if my information is correct then for many many months they've been drawing single digit numbers of loans. They've lost a lot of staff so their overheads will be much lower, but equally I don't believe they have strong institutional relationships at present acting more as introducer than a true lending partner. So they're likely making less margin per loan, with a low volume of loans drawing down. There's residual fees from the loan book and extra fees from extensions, but that doesn't quite seem enough even with the reduced overheads. Perhaps they'll raid the provision funds, as with the fee being reduced they should start receiving some payments, which AC may argue aren't needed with the accounts no longer trading. Just my speculation though. All in all it doesn't seem like a fair deal for lenders, and seems to fly in the face of the previous ruling by the ombudsman. There was a wind down plan in place, it should have been triggered in my view, and instead lenders have been paying to restructure and pivot the business in a manner that hasn't even worked that well thus far. If the ombudsman again rules against the fee and AC have to repay lenders then I think that would tip them straight into administration but with lenders in a worse position than if the wind down plan had been triggered at the outset.
|
|
|
|
Post by garreh on Oct 22, 2023 15:35:38 GMT
Because they are fully aware of what AC are doing. They have not protected lenders interests, as they should have done by forcing the company to pay for their own wind-down. All while still allowing AC to collect their fees. Now, the question is whether there has been any transfer of assets from the retail to institutional side of the business, whether that was done at fair value so the retail side has fully benefitted from investment in IT, staff, training, goodwill, origination etc that has been defacto passed to the institutional side. That seems to be much more open question. AC retail and institutional side are registered as separate entities, therefore their balance sheet, resources, assets, etc should in theory not be intertwined. Its likely that's not been the case and there has been shared resources/blurring of the lines. I suspect retail have had to foot the bill for various redundancies that are not clearly linked to retail side of operations, which is wholly unfair if that's the case. From what I hear the institutional side of the business is on its knees, so where are AC getting it's pool of money to maintain it's thriving image? The little retail guy barely has a voice and say in what happens, so they know they can get away with extending and milking their operations for fees and income generation, with lender capital.
|
|
