Draw down timescales

This bridging loan introducer seems to have a lot to answer for. The Derby one was was fully funded from HNW individuals due to needing an immediate drawdown (still waiting nearly 2 months later), and the other 3 (S. Manchester, Bolton & Birmingham) were all pre-filled to a significant percentage again because a quick drawdown was required. Fortunately the only one I was in (S. Manchester) did draw down relatively quickly despite needing 2nd charge security, but for 2 of the 4 to still be awaiting drawdown at this point is very disappointing.

AC wanted to show this introducer we could produce the ££££££ in short order, but the introducer hasn't then reciprocated in taking the ££££££ in a timely manner. In one of the earlier posts on the bridging loan thread I said I felt the rates on this series of loans were too low ... unfortunately I've been proven right. I hope AC can manage to negotiate some form of sensible time period on drawdowns (possibly including a reservation fee) with this introducer before more bridging loans are offered on the platform. We filled the loans in minutes last time ... there is unlikely to be a stampede next time.

Fully support your comments mclondon and j. I have already decided to suspend any further lending to AC until this matter is addressed.

Posting updates on delayed draw downs such as ' waiting for an update from the relationship manager ' are a waist of time and does not fill me with much confidence. I would like to be informed the actual reasons why draw downs are being delayed, action planned or being taken by AC in applying long stop deadlines, extention or penalty fees to unscrupulous borrowers who are abusing their obligations and our money.

I was reminded by these remarks of one line that I had read in an article ( here ...  in which Stuart Law explains that bridging finance is a new strategic direction for AC).  The relevant line is  "However, according to Stuart, the lender has a firm ‘one strike and you’re out’ policy. This applies to brokers found to have not sufficiently informed Assetz Capital, the rule was actioned with one broker last week." 

I don't know what I'm talking about but it seems plausible to me that, as AC grow, they can more easily play hardball with borrowing opportunities and get a useful reputation in the industry for so doing.  Since that article AC have indeed hired relevant experience in Ken Purchase.  So perhaps it is too early to write off bridging loans just yet.

Finally, I too am fed up of getting the sporadic WACTCTB feedback for auctions closed in October.   But IIRC Andrew Holgate has said that he is aware of the problems, will be looking at ways of reducing the delays and I hope that we will yet hear good news about more streamlined processes etc.  We've drawn attention to the problem.  We've agitated for action.  I'm happy to wait and reserve judgement until I hear what is said.

PS:  Did you notice the comment at the foot of the article I linked, from an appropriately named industry insider (?), which goes some way to explaining why some AC loans are anonymized.

Please note these are personal opinions from the non-financial arm of the company.

Growth is a balancing act between growing our lender base and finding enough borrowers.  This balancing act affects all P2P companies and I doubt any will ever get things 100% right 100% of the time as different initiatives on both sides of the equation kick in at different times and have varying degrees of success.  If we're going to grow from £3-4m per month to £10+m per month within 12 months then that will depend on finding the deal flow but also will involve finding some large lenders who will fund a significant proportion of those loans.  There will also need to be growth in our private / individual investors, but to an extent this means educating the general public that peer to peer even exists let alone is relevant to them which is a slower process.

In terms of drawdown times we are painfully aware of this current bottleneck and the issues it is causing, including the impact it has on the effective rates earned by our lenders.  We are doing all we can to address this with our current batch of loans and I will personally do what I can to make sure we keep you all up to date with our progress.  We are also taking steps to not just improve this situation for the future but to try and eliminate it - I'm not sure how much I can say for now so I'll leave it there, but expect big announcements in the coming weeks and months as we are able to put our plans in place.

In terms of technological changes, as I've mentioned before I have some big updates to the primary markets that are being polished ready for release on Wednesday.  These are targeted at improving fairness for all and improving our lender offering, with one change in particular designed to protect our smallest investors as and when we are able to attract large / institutional funding, and are also part of our strategy for combating the impact of drawdown times.

From a platform update point of view it will then be radio silence as we complete another major new project designed to build on next weeks changes that I personally believe will put us streets ahead of the competition in terms of our lender offering.  This will be completed mid to late March and will be consuming all of my time, along with our other developers, until then so incremental updates to the rest of the platform will be few and far between for that period unless they are part of the larger development that we are able to release early.

I hope these changes are going to include the previously requested date/timestamping on Q&As!!!

Good man - thanks!!

They have to be released at some point though and they wouldn't have been ready to release earlier. Bidding strategy may change, although not in a way that should disadvantage anyone, and once it's properly announced you'll understand our reasoning.