|
|
Post by delboy711 on Jun 18, 2015 11:00:00 GMT
Loan #171 has now drawn down.
Interestingly, although my target has been fulfilled my cash balance has not gone down.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 18, 2015 11:23:43 GMT
Loan #171 has now drawn down. Interestingly, although my target has been fulfilled my cash balance has not gone down. Do you mean #171? That drewdown nearly a month ago!
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Jun 18, 2015 11:52:04 GMT
Not 100% clear that funds were called on 11/6 for #166. The Q&A that had confirmed that has been removed and a request for clarification by the author of the Q a couple of days ago has been left unanswered. Could be a mistaken removal, but at the moment it's all a bit quiet on that front. Last time they moved the dd date back by a couple of weeks it was done on the forecast dd date itself. New date is now tomorrow, but confidence in that date must be questionable given its history.
|
|
|
|
Post by delboy711 on Jun 18, 2015 11:54:04 GMT
Loan #171 has now drawn down. Interestingly, although my target has been fulfilled my cash balance has not gone down. Do you mean #171? That drewdown nearly a month ago! Sorry my mistake. Got confused there.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 18, 2015 12:07:21 GMT
Not 100% clear that funds were called on 11/6 for #166. The Q&A that had confirmed that has been removed and a request for clarification by the author of the Q a couple of days ago has been left unanswered. Could be a mistaken removal, but at the moment it's all a bit quiet on that front. Last time they moved the dd date back by a couple of weeks it was done on the forecast dd date itself. New date is now tomorrow, but confidence in that date must be questionable given its history. Yes, Id noticed that. Poor comms by AC, seem to be letting important questions linger in certain cases. Theres one on E**** that was time limited by the vote which unfortuneately they havent been able to provide an answer to even in part within that timeframe. They say 5 working days but didnt give an initial response for 2 days so it will be over a week. In this case, its a straight yes or no, no external info needed. Ive got funds waiting idle for it.  #170 seems to have silently disappeared which was also due tomorrow though never likely!
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Jun 18, 2015 12:09:19 GMT
Not 100% clear that funds were called on 11/6 for #166. The Q&A that had confirmed that has been removed and a request for clarification by the author of the Q a couple of days ago has been left unanswered. Could be a mistaken removal, but at the moment it's all a bit quiet on that front. Last time they moved the dd date back by a couple of weeks it was done on the forecast dd date itself. New date is now tomorrow, but confidence in that date must be questionable given its history. Yes, Id noticed that. Poor comms by AC, seem to be letting important questions linger in certain cases. Theres one on E**** that was time limited by the vote which unfortuneately they havent been able to provide an answer to even in part within that timeframe. They say 5 working days but didnt give an initial response for 2 days so it will be over a week. In this case, its a straight yes or no, no external info needed. Ive got funds waiting idle for it. #170 seems to have silently disappeared which was also due tomorrow though never likely! Yes, I've got a lot of funds been waiting idle for #166 since they first gave a definite drawdown date. More fool me 
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Jun 18, 2015 13:28:43 GMT
I have just spoken to Dominic at AC about loan #166.
Underwriter funds were called and have been settled.
It's on schedule for drawdown tomorrow. It could even be today.
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Jun 18, 2015 19:59:19 GMT
1 in, 1 out, 1 down, 1 due, 1 ready, 1 delayed, 1 disappeared. Momentum? | #179 | PC(M)L | 11.5% | 36 | 960k | 69% | 30th June |
|
Re: #179 It look as though the annual rate will be slightly ahead of the stated figure at 11.75%.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 18, 2015 20:46:16 GMT
1 in, 1 out, 1 down, 1 due, 1 ready, 1 delayed, 1 disappeared. Momentum? | #179 | PC(M)L | 11.5% | 36 | 960k | 69% | 30th June |
|
Re: #179 It look as though the annual rate will be slightly ahead of the stated figure at 11.75%. Hmm, no idea where I got 11.5% from. Seems to be total confusion, 11.75% on site, 10% on CR, 12% based on repayments. Have changed to displayed rate for moment.
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Jun 19, 2015 11:04:48 GMT
Not 100% clear that funds were called on 11/6 for #166. The Q&A that had confirmed that has been removed and a request for clarification by the author of the Q a couple of days ago has been left unanswered. Could be a mistaken removal, but at the moment it's all a bit quiet on that front. Last time they moved the dd date back by a couple of weeks it was done on the forecast dd date itself. New date is now tomorrow, but confidence in that date must be questionable given its history. Apologies for the self-quote, but what did I say? Updated today (the date sqh was assured of only yesterday): Drawdown Update 19th Jun 2015 at 11:25 We will be drawing down next Wednesday at the latest, however, we are aiming to do this on Monday if we are able. (Stupid, stupid Rose even freed up some extra funds to sit and earn nothing yesterday on the basis of assurances. Will I never learn?  ) Edit: What I'm finding a bit distastful on this is that yesterday AC had answered the additional Q&A that I referred to yesterday saying they were hopeful of drawdown today. Now, that Q&A has also been removed, like the previous one in which they had confirmed the funds call. I'm quite happy with them removing the opinionated rants that aren't questions that often occur and which are as annoying to me as to them, but these were questions and they had answered. Removing evidence of their assurances is not really on though is it?
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 638
Likes: 659
|
Post by warn on Jun 19, 2015 11:17:49 GMT
I'm beginning to get fed up with this lot.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 19, 2015 11:47:30 GMT
Interesting to see what response the Q already asked about drawdown gets, whether any explanation is provided, if it does get an answer. Seems to be an element of chaos in their comms at the moment Answer on one Q on a loan refering to an update posted 4 days afterwards (postdated?) Answer on another refers to votes being tallied today which was announced yesterday! (delayed post?) Answer to question on an upcoming loan, is cut & paste of an answer to the previous Q with no attempt at explanation or answering the bulk of the question. (Edit: someones sneaked in & updated the answer so it isnt a repeat and answers the question) Regular ghost updates which IMO indicates deleted Qs, which aernt IMHO always opinions but valid Qs. (Edit: born out by Rose's comment) I had thought comms were getting better, becoming less confident in this view.  |
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 19, 2015 12:01:45 GMT
Edit: What I'm finding a bit distastful on this is that yesterday AC had answered the additional Q&A that I referred to yesterday saying they were hopeful of drawdown today. Now, that Q&A has also been removed, like the previous one in which they had confirmed the funds call. I'm quite happy with them removing the opinionated rants that aren't questions that often occur and which are as annoying to me as to them, but these were questions and they had answered. Removing evidence of their assurances is not really on though is it? Seems to me that AC ( with andrewholgate 's blessing ?) is embarking on a dangerous game here. The FCA made clear in their review published 3rd Feb 2015 that censorship of social media by p2p platforms was something they were aware of (para 51) "For people to share knowledge, platforms often allow investors to comment on investment opportunities. Some market intelligence suggests that negative comments are being deleted from these forums on some sites, which may lead to situations where relevant risks are overlooked."
Whilst this was presumably aimed at one well known platform that we all know takes censorship to extremes, it is all too easy to slip from the occaisonal (and justifiable) censorship of bad language / potential libel to a state where censorship becomes all pervasive. It is better to have a policy of masking out content felt to have crossed the line (as is the norm on this forum) rather than to delete without trace. To invite closer scrunity from the FCA seems a risky strategy to me.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 19, 2015 12:15:40 GMT
Ive had several questions deleted but in each case (except where I have specifically told them to delete it myself) Ive had an emailed explaining why and providing an answer to my query. The reason has always been the question wasnt specific enough to the loan concerned. Doesnt seem to be the case in these examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Jun 19, 2015 13:35:17 GMT
I'm out of the office at present and can't answer fully. However I will on Monday. AC do welcome open and frank discussion. We do not censor comments but the Q&A is not a forum for just stating your opinion. The Q&A should be for clarifying information on the loan.
|
|
)
