|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Sept 9, 2015 9:32:08 GMT
I like AC & would still recommend them but less strongly than ever before as they have dropped from my undisputed #1 choice to only third or fourth due to both loss of focus on lenders needs & competitors strong performance (SS, MT, Mintos for example) 7/10;
+ve
Historically high returns but looks to be on a downward trajectory going forward
Dynamic & responsive mgmt team with some real talent (Chris take a bow) but so much heroic firefighting wouldn’t be necessary if the basic systems & procedures worked more reliably more often
Good strategic vision, likely to be a long term winner so still happy to soon be a shareholder
-ve
Poor deal flow is at the root of many problems & building a decent sized, diversified portfolio from scratch would now be nearly impossible
Sloppy loan monitoring & lack of any urgency or lender focused concern when problems do inevitably occur, often resulting in increased lender risk & reduced liquidity (the destruction of a possible exit in #45 Leeds is a prime example)
Opaque algorithms behind loan distribution & workings of specific accounts; there is an aversion across the whole platform to the KISS principle which whilst admirable is often not advisable & impossible to explain to new or inexperienced investors.
Overpromising & under delivering is a really poor recurring feature across all areas & the new Q&A deletion policy is a serious mistake, covering up problems should never be acceptable.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977 
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Sept 9, 2015 11:46:37 GMT
Yes, following the email I transferred funds to invest in the exciting new QAA only to find that there is no QAA.
Sometimes I think of Assetz as being a bit like the old Top Gear, "ambitious but rubbish", but then that seems a little harsh.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Sept 9, 2015 11:50:21 GMT
Par for the course for AC! Unfortunately .... (ahem!)
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 9, 2015 11:54:07 GMT
Yes, following the email I transferred funds to invest in the exciting new QAA only to find that there is no QAA. Sometimes I think of Assetz as being a bit like the old Top Gear, "ambitious but rubbish", but then that seems a little harsh. It's fair in this instance. I made a mistake last week in that we had finished ahead of schedule and were testing but then decided to use that time to accelerate the deployment of the "sweep idle funds" option which was originally planned to follow the launch of the account at a later date. That function has taken longer to develop than I had hoped and has put us from being ahead of schedule to being on the back foot. Coupled to the display rounding issue we found at the 11th hour and the compliance issue that has surfaced and needs resolving it does make us look a little amateur. In that cliched way lessons have been learned! At the same time though we have been arguably the most innovative platform with one of the smaller development teams (certain big players have ten times the developers we have) and whilst our enthusiasm for a good idea may need to be dampened slightly I'd rather be at the forefront of a very fast moving industry than continually playing catch up and me too, or worse not being able to bring our ideas to market. I'll find a better balance with the next project as this has definitely been a VERY ambitious build where we accepted some major changes late in the day. Equally no project will be set live until I'm happy with it.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Sept 9, 2015 12:01:36 GMT
chris Thanks for the full story on this one, Chris. 
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 9, 2015 12:03:05 GMT
chris Thanks for the full story on this one, Chris. No worries. I think given the reception of that feature and the way it changes lenders can use the site it was worth pursuing, but I'll hold my hands up and admit it has strained our resources.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 10, 2015 12:43:24 GMT
Some leeway is expected at the end of a loan as things don't always (and is often the norm) run to plan in the building industry - so I am much more confident in the extended end date of SS loans. Please correct me if am wrong, but AC's loan issues have not all been at redemption and include missed repayments part way through the term. Yes, AC have have had issues before redemption. But the fact that SS haven't had those probably has nothing to do with the quality of SS loans. SS have a tendency to retain at drawdown all the interest due during the course of their loans, so lenders will receive their monthly interest payments no matter what happens to their borrowers. As a result, with SS, as with FS, if there's going to be a problem with capital repayment, lenders won't have a clue until repayment day comes and nothing happens.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Sept 10, 2015 12:45:27 GMT
As a result, with SS, as with FS, if there's going to be a problem with capital repayment, lenders won't have a clue until repayment day comes and nothing happens. And with a number of SS loans currently significantly beyond their repayment day, this is a rather pertinent point.
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Sept 10, 2015 18:28:38 GMT
As a result, with SS, as with FS, if there's going to be a problem with capital repayment, lenders won't have a clue until repayment day comes and nothing happens. And with a number of SS loans currently significantly beyond their repayment day, this is a rather pertinent point. The cynics might argue that's one reason why SS finally accelerated their "true P2P" plans which shift risk from SS onto lenders in true P2P fashion.
|
|
