Assetz Capital. A Contrarian view

The original poster might not have read the Glassdoor reviews of AC's employees, which shed light on the fact that AC has consistently mistreated not only "sophisticated investors" but also its own staff.

Litigation at this stage might be premature and could lead to unfavourable consequences, but I am not in favor of endorsing AC as they seem to arbitrarily change their rules. Even seasoned sophisticated investors would not have anticipated the complete disregard for previous statements and adjustments to terms to suit their own needs - to the point they are now diverting investors' interests to fund employee redundancies. Additionally they are lining their own pockets with profitable loans early and throwing investors to the wolves later.

It's difficult to consider AC as the ethical party in this situation. Perhaps if the platform were managed by conscientious and compassionate founders, these issues could have been avoided in the first place.

Do not mind them covering costs , though redundancy payments are pushing it, but the new rate means they are taking over my full rate of return before losses and any charges to the borrower on top. Mean while all the risks are mine , none as I see it ACs. That on the evidence I can see makes no sense, also the front loading of fees at this level gives  a strong suspicion that it's grab now and run. AC need to give  a clear commitment to an orderly run down over the long term, but I only hear crickets.

The people behind AC haven't lost a penny. Future loans are being funded by institutional investors. The costs of winding down the retail side is being borne by the retail lenders, including the redundancy costs for staff that AC no longer need. How that can be fair is beyond me. It's AC's failure to come up with a workable model (where many others are succeeding) not the failure of the retail lenders. The costs of AC's business failures should be borne by AC.

The P2P party is very much alive and kicking; damaged by AC's incompetence no doubt, but there are very many professional and competent platforms that are flourishing, even in today's difficult conditions, that put AC to shame. 

I agree that AC may well abandon lenders to the wolves once they have finished picking over the corpse that they created. I'm now embarrassed to be an AC equity shareholder. 

What happens if you include those lovely directors remuneration packages.

Looks like not only have the lenders been shafted but the shareholders who are not directors have also been shafted, this company is either totally incompetent or ..... I let you fill in the blanks.

The comment "the founders have lost millions" is not based on any evidence whatsoever, in terms of them having money they have invested from their own pockets, unless you are party to information that we don't have. If so, please share here in this thread?

Don't forget Stuart Law and his buddies will have gifted themselves those shares, not bought them. They are on top of Mr Law's eye watering salary, bonuses, 'expenses' and a dozen other ways he will have creamed our money out of Assetz Capital for himself. 

Any supposition that Stuart Law et al are now driving their Jaguars and Bentleys to their local food banks in order to have enough food to eat is absurd to the extreme.

I think one or two people are suffering from Stockholm syndrome, wherein they develop an irrational bond with their captors.

Stuart Law never has and never will care for the investors. As many other retail lenders have rightfully commented, the supposition that "doing nothing" will lead to an about turn in Assetz Capital's modus operandi of many years and for them to start prioritising retail lenders' needs is not based on any fact. 

The unilateral imposition of all these new, ever-increasing and ever-extended, fees shows Assetz Capital's colours once again. If the Assetz Capital management and staff were so incompetent that they were not able to make a success of their one and only job in life, to run a peer-to-peer lending business, when, as has pointed out above, many other people have made a success of it, why should I be forced to paying their fat-cat salaries, redundancies and whatever else they choose to reward themselves with?

If they can introduce any fees, at any level of their choosing, with their customers/clients having no say whatsoever, the logic extension of that would be that any other business could do the same: doubling, tripling or quadrupling their fees out of the blues to their customers and those customers not even having the choice of avoiding those charges by parting ways with that business.

I myself did not lodge a single complaint with Assetz Capital or any regulator despite Assetz Capital being the only platform I invest with to introduce a whole plethora of moves against my interests during and after Covid. Did that result in Assetz Capital treating me even the slightest bit better? Not on your nelly. Therefore, I have no qualms in having submitted another 25 page complaint about the thieves to the Financial Ombudsman Service yesterday. 

As per the other thread, I would encourage everyone to consider hiring Mendelsons Solicitors to take action against Assetz. 100% no-win no-fee. Therefore you only have an upside potential of getting the money that you were due and no downside whatsoever.  

It's only if Assetz Capital realise that they can't screw retail lenders over at will that they might start acting in a less blaze way. Otherwise Stuart Law and Co. will carry on stealing our hard-earned money to fill their Jaguars' boots with as many bagfuls of fifty quid notes as possible before they proceed with their probable plans to push Assetz Capital into Administration and then jump fully into bed with their current darlings, their institutional investors.

I'm not sure what periods you are referring to, but according to S Law "Institutional capital has provided 80% of all of Assetz Capital’s lending since 2020".

A quote from www.assetzcapital.co.uk/whats-happening-at-assetz-capital/:  "The first billion was more than 90% retail funded but, as soon as the pandemic started, it went to nearly 100% institutional funded".