|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 2, 2016 13:56:08 GMT
A quick note to say that I've made some changes that should see the standards returned to our previous levels.
It will be nice to get back to "just about acceptable". (JOKE)
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977 
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Dec 2, 2016 13:59:45 GMT
You were lucky, we used to dream about "just about acceptable".
|
|
n
Member of DD Central
Yet another Nick
Posts: 882
Likes: 461
|
Post by n on Dec 2, 2016 14:31:44 GMT
'course, we 'ad it tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Dec 2, 2016 14:52:42 GMT
TOUGH? we dreamt of tough - we just ad to mek do wi tuf!
|
|
trevor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 557
Likes: 381
|
Post by trevor on Dec 3, 2016 10:00:57 GMT
When I was a lad.........
|
|
skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Dec 5, 2016 20:57:25 GMT
A quick note to say that I've made some changes that should see the standards returned to our previous levels. It will be nice to get back to "just about acceptable". (JOKE) Does this mean restoring interest rates to competitive levels ie circa 12%. I initially decided to use Assetz because I really liked the way MLIA worked, over the past few months I have got the distinct impression you were going to phase it out (It isn't even mentioned on your home page!). I am not interested in your single figure fixed rate 'managed' accounts. I have also noticed on this forum that Assetz popularity appears to have slipped dramatically, if numbers viewing the various companies at any one time are anything to go by. I have increased my P2P investments recently, NONE of my cash was invested with Assetz. ps JOKE not funny
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 5, 2016 21:33:40 GMT
I am not interested in your single figure fixed rate 'managed' accounts. That's just as well, as they don't seem to be working very well. Having had a couple of significant repayments recently, and having difficulty reinvesting the money via the MLIA, I put £100 of my 'idle' cash into my 'test' GBBA. Three days later, all of the £100 still is "Awaiting Investment". Which presumably means that none of the 16 loans with parts available on the SM right now are eligible for inclusion in GBBAs. 
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 6, 2016 9:25:27 GMT
A quick note to say that I've made some changes that should see the standards returned to our previous levels. It will be nice to get back to "just about acceptable". (JOKE) Does this mean restoring interest rates to competitive levels ie circa 12%. I initially decided to use Assetz because I really liked the way MLIA worked, over the past few months I have got the distinct impression you were going to phase it out (It isn't even mentioned on your home page!). I am not interested in your single figure fixed rate 'managed' accounts. I have also noticed on this forum that Assetz popularity appears to have slipped dramatically, if numbers viewing the various companies at any one time are anything to go by. I have increased my P2P investments recently, NONE of my cash was invested with Assetz. ps JOKE not funny Where we can offer rates at the higher level we will. We are in a competitive market which means for the loans of the quality we want the rates are keener. While we had a raft of defaults from earlier loans (pre-2015 and predominantly from one broker) since the start of 2015 only 5/6 of the loans written have gone into an insolvent position. Those loans were also higher (much higher) interest rates. People pay double digit interest rates for a reason. Since the start of 2015, of all the loans written only one of those has caused a loss a possible loss and that might not happen (subject to finding the borrower and pursuing the bankruptcy). We've shown with Boiler man, Central London and the the Oldham property that we have worked with the borrower to get full repayment and/or strong plans to get us repaid. Including pre-2015 loans we are still only looking at c£1.2m of losses, which is well below a loss on a single loan on another platform I know of, and our life time rate is under 1% of the whole book compared to 1% per annum on other platforms I could mention. Not all our customers want 12% loans. Not all our customers want MLIA. There is a market to serve that is diverse and wide and we are offering products to suit everyone's tastes. At present the demand for QAA outstrips demand for our other investment accounts and we have to prioritise. I'd like to give every customer exactly what they wanted, but I'm not going to be able to do that. I really am sorry if you feel that AC isn't offering what you want, but from what we can see the market is asking for QAA more than it is asking for 12% MLIA loans. I wish you luck with your portfolio but I will also add that 12%+ comes at an increased risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Dec 6, 2016 9:53:05 GMT
Does this mean restoring interest rates to competitive levels ie circa 12%. I initially decided to use Assetz because I really liked the way MLIA worked, over the past few months I have got the distinct impression you were going to phase it out (It isn't even mentioned on your home page!). I am not interested in your single figure fixed rate 'managed' accounts. I have also noticed on this forum that Assetz popularity appears to have slipped dramatically, if numbers viewing the various companies at any one time are anything to go by. I have increased my P2P investments recently, NONE of my cash was invested with Assetz. ps JOKE not funny Where we can offer rates at the higher level we will. We are in a competitive market which means for the loans of the quality we want the rates are keener. While we had a raft of defaults from earlier loans (pre-2015 and predominantly from one broker) since the start of 2015 only 5/6 of the loans written have gone into an insolvent position. Those loans were also higher (much higher) interest rates. People pay double digit interest rates for a reason. Since the start of 2015, of all the loans written only one of those has caused a loss a possible loss and that might not happen (subject to finding the borrower and pursuing the bankruptcy). We've shown with Boiler man, Central London and the the Oldham property that we have worked with the borrower to get full repayment and/or strong plans to get us repaid. Including pre-2015 loans we are still only looking at c£1.2m of losses, which is well below a loss on a single loan on another platform I know of, and our life time rate is under 1% of the whole book compared to 1% per annum on other platforms I could mention. Not all our customers want 12% loans. Not all our customers want MLIA. There is a market to serve that is diverse and wide and we are offering products to suit everyone's tastes. At present the demand for QAA outstrips demand for our other investment accounts and we have to prioritise. I'd like to give every customer exactly what they wanted, but I'm not going to be able to do that. I really am sorry if you feel that AC isn't offering what you want, but from what we can see the market is asking for QAA more than it is asking for 12% MLIA loans. I wish you luck with your portfolio but I will also add that 12%+ comes at an increased risk. That's a bit disingenuous AH - you are attracting BS depositors with promotions that target the QAA, offering 3.75 - 4.25% against < 0.5%, whilst most MLIA investors are being offered 7/8% loans whilst similar risk profile loans are being offered at 10%+ by competitor platforms; so not unsurprising you are attracting QAA depositors & MLIA investors are investing their funds elsewhere so to then conclude that the QAA is more popular than a decent 12% loan is a bit of a stretch.
I do accept the rest of your analysis & for what it's worth think that it is a sensible corporate direction & as a future shareholder hope it pays great dividends in more ways than one. I no longer bother to read most Credit reports but would be concerned if they were just being nodded through without sufficient DD in the drive for volume & find it troubling that it often still requires your personal intervention to maintain standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 6, 2016 10:44:03 GMT
Noted. I didn't mean to be disingenuous at all. That's not my style. In terms of credit, davidricketts runs the team on a day to day basis and I laser in when I need to. Nothing is just waved through. My own personal pride wouldn't do that. |
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on Dec 8, 2016 18:47:05 GMT
Not the best of starts after recent comments and promises. Took less than a minute to spot this in CR #385...
Is that China te?
I know it's a really, really small and tiny mistake but..............
I'll keep reading but wont report back any further gaffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 8, 2016 18:51:11 GMT
OH DEAR.
|
|
trouble
Member of DD Central
Posts: 127
Likes: 97
|
Post by trouble on Dec 8, 2016 20:39:31 GMT
The detail under the personal guarantee on 385 security page is spot on though - well done.
It covers who from and the £s limitation, rather than the various iterations we have seen (and remain unaltered) on previous credit reports, hopefully my comment under the improvements thread was taken on-board and this is how it will be detailed on every security page going forwards.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Dec 8, 2016 22:15:32 GMT
This is one report I made substantial comments on. I'm glad they have been listened to.
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 638
Likes: 659
|
Post by warn on Dec 9, 2016 9:57:13 GMT
Is that China te? I know it's a really, really small and tiny mistake but.............. I'll keep reading but wont report back any further gaffs. As is your wont? I know it's a really, really small and tiny mistake but.............. 
|
|
