If you could change one thing at AC, what would it be?

I like the idea of asking for 'one thing'. Its all very well saying "read through the comments...", but that amounts to an unpriortised wish list / set of moans. Asking for one thing should yeild more considered priorities, and you can more easily see where the weight of opinion lies.

For me it is fairly immaterial: I've become largely - but not entirely - disengaged from lending on AC. And that is a combination of things, would require multiple change to rectify, and so to list those would break the rule. If you address 75% of whatever specifics get raised on this thread, then there's a reasonable chance you'd catch enough of those. However its very possible that the AC model has just moved too far away from what would engage me: placing 'target investments' on loans that may or may not happen at some point in the future, at some indeterminate and unreliable date if they do happen, with a need to get cash in ahead of the game if you are to snaffle but without the inclination (or time) to continually monitor when they may or may not crystallise, an inability to move cash in quickly when 'something happens', a perception / view (and its a personal perception / view NOT stated as a point of fact) that at least a small number of (relatively large) loans have had statements about pre-conditions or terms which have not been enforced pre or post lending etc. At the moment AC is less then 10% of my p2x lending, of which more than 10% is currently sitting uninvested in cash. that is not where I expected it to be 18 months ago, and I hope that it changes. But on recent 'direction of travel' I'm not expecting it to.

In the end the apparent market differentiator for AC is its claim to 'asset backed' loans and its 'experienced team'. To maxmise that proving the value of the security should be a key plank. To comment on OGs post in that regard, I'm not sure that it is an issue for AC in regard to how hard they chase, but rather perhaps the model which requires lender vote at every twist and turn. While in principle I like that,  perhaps AC would have acted more forcibly in a number of cases if their hands had not been tied. If so then I would suggest a change of tack: namely that you do not require a vote in order to enforce recovery actions, and only require a vote in the event of a breach / distressed loan where you deduce that you should not be enforcing default and recvovery. 

There you go, in the end i breached my own statement and did list  a 'one thing'. But suggest you prioritise those from more active lenders than myself: they are the more low hanging fruit.

 

You make some good points there.

I think what would massively benefit the site is some sort of auto invest account. I'm pretty sure smaller lenders don't want to read page after page of credit report to lend a small amount. They just want to be diversified.  What Assetz needs is some sort of auto invest with diversification that takes the aggravation out of the whole thing - a bit like FC auto invest (only better).

Without going over old ground again, which has been acknowledged and hopefully is now being rectified, I'd like to see a change in the number of new loans presented to us retail lenders each month. Twice the current number would be a nice start and would leave investors with less, or hopefully no dead money which would then make them want to add more funds to the platform.

Agreed and you are not!

I find the 'Your transactions' download excellent (I download them for both my personal and business account daily) but keeping track of anticipated/actual cash flow is a real pain.

I am also going to have a second ride on this horse.

I agree strongly with the complaints about the random & long time it takes to fund our accounts. Shorten the reins!

I agreed with all the comments regarding not meeting timescales for actions. I understand these can't always be met but if so just let us know and set new date don't just leave us hanging.

The one thing I'd like to change is AC to deal more robustly with lenders who refuse to engage with AC over weeks and months.

By ignoring repeated requests for info they are able to string things out and annoyingly seem to gain more than those lenders who are communicating. I understand the argument that AC need information to put a proposal to us but there comes a point that a line needs to be drawn and it need to be quicker than some in the last year. Obviously where the line is varies by loan. It must also be intensely frustrating for AC staff to chase and chase lenders getting nothing back and have us on the other side getting more and more frustrated.