|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jan 16, 2014 14:11:28 GMT
Personally I suspect you are barking up the wrong tree becausae you are trying to relate the net £1245 statement to the £36k gross statement. I think its clear from page 9 that the net statement is after any tax but before outgoings i.e. classic net take home. if you made an assumption that the individual is on sick pay of 50% of normal salary (18k), and then put that into the calculator for which someone provided a link, you get a net take home of £1254. Ok not quite £1245, but assuming the £36k is rounded up a bit from the actual salary then it would fit. That is then supplemented by the £600 insurance payout. I'll buy that BB.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Jan 16, 2014 16:50:48 GMT
So we established that the £1245 number is correct. A few semantics in the definition, but none-the-less correct.
What has really p'd me on this one is not so much the response of the crowd to a deal they may not like but some of the vitriol that has been leveled in the above comments. I'm glad that so many people have passion for the industry and that they are prepared to discuss and comment on these cases, and where we are found lacking it is right to point it out. What I abhor is the nature in which a minority attacked my staff by naming them in this forum or use overly impassioned language suggesting dishonesty on AC's part, but when I point this out there is not so much as an apology. Pretty poor form. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism aimed at AC or me personally but keep my staff out of it.
I've said all I need to on that subject now.
A
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 16, 2014 17:12:47 GMT
[Mod hat not on: just to be clear]
Andrew, for what its worth, I agree. I believe there is no place for taking nasty swipes at individuals, and also no place for naming individual employees. Also as someone else once said: we are blessed with a rich and varied language: there is always a polite way of expressing what you want.
in the context of a board such as this, given that the intent is meant to be constructive and informative dialogue between the different parties involved in p2x as well as just dialogue between lenders, it is also particularly counter productive: why would p2x companies get involved on the board if they are going to be the target of unpleasantness of a personal nature. It also seems doubly out of place when aimed at market players who are engaging with the community of lenders through the board.
This is my personal opinion: as of course the Forum Rules make clear any such post of mine would be.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188 
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jan 16, 2014 17:26:57 GMT
So we established that the £1245 number is correct. A few semantics in the definition, but none-the-less correct. What has really p'd me on this one is not so much the response of the crowd to a deal they may not like but some of the vitriol that has been leveled in the above comments. I'm glad that so many people have passion for the industry and that they are prepared to discuss and comment on these cases, and where we are found lacking it is right to point it out. What I abhor is the nature in which a minority attacked my staff by naming them in this forum or use overly impassioned language suggesting dishonesty on AC's part, but when I point this out there is not so much as an apology. Pretty poor form. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism aimed at AC or me personally but keep my staff out of it. I've said all I need to on that subject now. A Andrew, rest assured that the vast majority on here appreciate the fact that you & some of your colleagues take the time to correspond to our queries on this board, amongst other things. It gives a more human feel & transparency to the whole experience. As someone said earlier, if this looks like the wrong bus for you, don't get on & wait for the next one!
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Jan 16, 2014 17:29:21 GMT
[Mod hat not on: just to be clear] Andrew, for what its worth, I agree. I believe there is no place for taking nasty swipes at individuals, and also no place for naming individual employees. Also as someone else once said: we are blessed with a rich and varied language: there is always a polite way of expressing what you want. in the context of a board such as this, given that the intent is meant to be constructive and informative dialogue between the different parties involved in p2x as well as just dialogue between lenders, it is also particularly counter productive: why would p2x companies get involved on the board if they are going to be the target of unpleasantness of a personal nature. It also seems doubly out of place when aimed at market players who are engaging with the community of lenders through the board. This is my personal opinion: as of course the Forum Rules make clear any such post of mine would be. Also of course there is a Q & A section with all the auctions at AC. Okay, a minority of the Q's never get an answer. It is then up to the individual to decide whether to invest or not. Personally I couldn't see what all the fuss was about and elevating matters to a personal level regarding competence served no constructive purpose whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jan 16, 2014 17:45:08 GMT
+1 I'm firmly in the vast majority camp here. Not sure why anyone would get that (apparently) angry at a proposal that they have to access themselves. I get far angrier at the pile of junk food leaflets in the porch that I have no option but to actively reject by binning them! Make mine a banana smoothie  Another board I'm on has an auto generated 'forum etiquette' email sent to all members once a month, just as a gentle reminder, any possibility mods? |
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 16, 2014 17:48:23 GMT
"Make mine a banana smoothie" Eh? Wot? (Yawn) Wot's been going on? . . . Oh!
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 16, 2014 17:48:44 GMT
Personally I couldn't see what all the fuss was about and elevating matters to a personal level regarding competence served no constructive purpose whatsoever. I agree that any discussion should avoid comments directed at individuals -- that is unnecessary. Personal comments aside, though, there can be a constructive effect. If it can be pointed out that parts of a credit report are unclear, or inconsistent, and these criticisms are felt to be justified, then perhaps more care would be put into the preparation of these reports in the future and their quality would improve. AC management know who is responsible for every report, and if it turns out that a particular individual's work is consistently coming in for criticism then I would expect AC management to address the problem themselves, as it doesn't help the company image at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Jan 16, 2014 18:33:07 GMT
Another board I'm on has an auto generated 'forum etiquette' email sent to all members once a month, just as a gentle reminder, any possibility mods? Personally I think that's overkill. If people can't be polite and constructive without a monthly reminder they probably won't last more than a month here anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Jan 16, 2014 21:50:53 GMT
So we established that the £1245 number is correct. A few semantics in the definition, but none-the-less correct. What has really p'd me on this one is not so much the response of the crowd to a deal they may not like but some of the vitriol that has been leveled in the above comments. I'm glad that so many people have passion for the industry and that they are prepared to discuss and comment on these cases, and where we are found lacking it is right to point it out. What I abhor is the nature in which a minority attacked my staff by naming them in this forum or use overly impassioned language suggesting dishonesty on AC's part, but when I point this out there is not so much as an apology. Pretty poor form. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism aimed at AC or me personally but keep my staff out of it. I've said all I need to on that subject now. A OK, I’ll hold my hand up and accept that some of my comments were rather harshly worded and apologise for any offence caused.
Nonetheless, the difference between Mrs X’s gross and net salary was anomalous and should have triggered caveat emptor to the reader, IMO the information was not presented clearly and to AC’s usual standard.
If you still lend on a certain P2B site you become punch drunk from the constant stream of poor quality business loan requests and questionable ratings and tend to view any inconsistencies with suspicion.
As someone said earlier, if in doubt, leave out or words to that effect.
As a footnote, the aforementioned P2B site recently hit a new low in my eyes by offering a six figure loan request from a supposedly A+ rated firm with a very low credit score and barely £200 net assets.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 16, 2014 22:54:06 GMT
One thing that platform will never do is EXPLAIN why they think a company with a consistently poor credit rating is, in their view, WORTHY of an A+ rating. In my view they are fools on that site for NOT explaining their thinking. They have been asked. Now....... which site was it you were writing about??........AAA-AAA-AAA-AHHH! NO NAMES PLEASE.
I think we all know.
Assetz Capital offers a full report explaining the pros and cons. The other place doesn't like being told to offer the same.
So in future let's just ask AC to clarify weaknesses in what we are presented with, rather than slamming individuals. We always get a reply from AC, then we choose to "take it or leave it".
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Jan 16, 2014 23:08:39 GMT
Another board I'm on has an auto generated 'forum etiquette' email sent to all members once a month, just as a gentle reminder, any possibility mods? Personally I think that's overkill. If people can't be polite and constructive without a monthly reminder they probably won't last more than a month here anyway! And another board I'm on has a bit of text alongside the Post button which reads (can't quite remember), Please be nice even when you're arguing which I always liked
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Jan 17, 2014 9:15:28 GMT
So we established that the £1245 number is correct. A few semantics in the definition, but none-the-less correct. What has really p'd me on this one is not so much the response of the crowd to a deal they may not like but some of the vitriol that has been leveled in the above comments. I'm glad that so many people have passion for the industry and that they are prepared to discuss and comment on these cases, and where we are found lacking it is right to point it out. What I abhor is the nature in which a minority attacked my staff by naming them in this forum or use overly impassioned language suggesting dishonesty on AC's part, but when I point this out there is not so much as an apology. Pretty poor form. I'm a big boy and I can take criticism aimed at AC or me personally but keep my staff out of it. I've said all I need to on that subject now. A OK, I’ll hold my hand up and accept that some of my comments were rather harshly worded and apologise for any offence caused.
Nonetheless, the difference between Mrs X’s gross and net salary was anomalous and should have triggered caveat emptor to the reader, IMO the information was not presented clearly and to AC’s usual standard.
If you still lend on a certain P2B site you become punch drunk from the constant stream of poor quality business loan requests and questionable ratings and tend to view any inconsistencies with suspicion.
As someone said earlier, if in doubt, leave out or words to that effect.
As a footnote, the aforementioned P2B site recently hit a new low in my eyes by offering a six figure loan request from a supposedly A+ rated firm with a very low credit score and barely £200 net assets.
Accepted. As I said, I don't mind having constructive criticism. I'm re-assessing this report before the auction goes live. A
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Jan 17, 2014 9:19:08 GMT
And another board I'm on has a bit of text alongside the Post button which reads (can't quite remember), Please be nice even when you're arguing which I always liked If only that mantra had been adhered to in 1914 and 1939.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 12:25:52 GMT
There is an episode in Colombo where the eponymous hero searches for the trigger which transforms a pair of friendly, happy dogs into an attack pack that go for jugular. In my case, the trigger was a highly dubious business proposal supported by an incoherent credit report.
Consider the circumstances: Assetz give notice that the auction for loan parts for a South Wales Fishery will commence at 11.00 am the following day, and that initially the maximum loan part will be limited to £1000 per person. I note the subject and the time and determine to read the documents in the morning before the auction. I have a particular interest in the subject as for part of my career I managed a national fisheries economic research programme for several years, and my wider background is in natural resource economics. Indeed, last year I supervised a report on fish farming (not in the UK) for an international organisation. In addition, I was at university in Wales many moons ago and spent my early married life there, so I have a certain fondness for the Principality. I therefore approached the auction with goodwill and great interest, and was expecting to bid the full £1000 allowed, even though this was a far greater amount than I had ever bid on any platform on any single company.
And what did I find? A valuation report that beggared belief (others have commented on this) and a credit report, my opinion of which you already know. Yes, I saw red. I was insulted that such documents should have been put up to support a loan and angry that my time had been wasted. Yes, my language was strong, forceful - abrasive even - but I can assure you that reports for public consumption in the areas that I have worked in are subject to rigorous peer review by academics, international consultants, government officials and others and the language can be equally rich if the offering is so bad. This was not a question of one mistake but an entire report which was confused.
I am asked for an apology. I make none. Rather, I ask why no apology is offered to the hundreds of would-be investors who are asked to part with their money on the basis of the information provided. It is in my view simply unprofessional. If I had been the manager who read my comment, I think my reaction would also have been anger, but mainly anger at the deficiencies in the management system which had allowed such documents to get into the public domain. Clearly, the quality control system had failed.
Some one said that I should have put my comments on the question and answer page. But there would have been so many questions it would have amounted to a line by line analysis, and would not have solved the problem of the structure, omissions and internal inconsistencies. I am not being paid to supervise this report. In any case, I am not aware of any great haste on the part of Assetz to answer any questions on other loan applications. The generalised criticism was all I had time and the inclination for, and would, I hoped, send out a warning to other investors about the quality of this proposal.
As for the issue of naming authors, they put their name to the report and presumably accept responsibility for it. Would they not accept any praise that came their way? It makes no difference whether they are referred to by name or as the authors. Perhaps they are young and inexperienced - we are all at that stage to begin with - but in this case the supervision was clearly lacking.
The "libellous" issue is laughable. There was nothing I said which was not demonstrably true or fair comment. I think people have forgotten that in appraising a loan request, the borrower's character was traditionally a key element in the appraisal. That is why the old-fashioned bank manager had a better handle on the soundness of loan applications than computer algorithms that only examine key ratios, and may explain to some extent why the banks got into the debt they did with unsound loans. And inferences on character and capability could be made in this case - had to be made - based on the borrower's history.
There is also a moral issue here. We lend money to businesses and hope they will be successful and the loan will be repaid from profits. In the Assetz model we have the security of land and bricks and mortar, which is what attracted me in the first place. However, in this case, the security appears to be the borrower's homes - though the report never makes clear where the couple live. There is no mention of any asset value in a fourth property. If the business fails, as I believe this surely will, the borrower would not even have a home to retreat to. Like the traditional bank manager, we have an obligation sometimes to protect loan applicants from themselves (while, of course, protecting ourselves)
I know from the comments on this forum that few people will agree with me, but I am unrepentant. However, I have learned a lesson. My trenchant criticisms are disliked and unappreciated. As in much of modern society, certain things are forbidden to be said. Everyone's amour propre must not be threatened in any way. I will henceforth be a silent but still potential investor - unless banned.
Adieu.
|
|
