p2ploser
Member of DD Central
Posts: 163 
Likes: 221
|
Post by p2ploser on May 5, 2020 9:09:19 GMT
No buy transactions for me for almost 24 hours. Is it working for anyone or has everyone else stopped investing!
|
|
savernake
Member of DD Central
Posts: 174
Likes: 142
|
Post by savernake on May 5, 2020 9:16:20 GMT
No buy transactions for me for almost 24 hours. Is it working for anyone or has everyone else stopped investing! Perhaps everyone is waiting for the expected bargains in the forthcoming AA secondary market?
|
|
lobster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 636
Likes: 467
|
Post by lobster on May 5, 2020 9:23:01 GMT
No buy transactions for me for almost 24 hours. Is it working for anyone or has everyone else stopped investing! I have also had a buy request in place for the last 24 hours, but it hasn't been executed. I sent chris a PM earlier, and he said the system seemed to be running ok, so I'm not sure what the issue is. I'm still using the legacy system, so maybe that's an issue, but I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 5, 2020 9:29:56 GMT
An issue has identified that was stopping some transactions going through, it'll be resolved shortly.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 591
|
Post by dave4 on May 5, 2020 11:08:16 GMT
An issue has identified that was stopping some transactions going through, it'll be resolved shortly. Give it another harder kick please, still got ££ waiting to invest in mla over last 26 hrs. Thanyou.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 5, 2020 12:06:52 GMT
Up and running again with a vengeance
|
|
p2ploser
Member of DD Central
Posts: 163
Likes: 221
|
Post by p2ploser on May 5, 2020 12:18:29 GMT
Up and running again with a vengeance Lucky we’re here to tell them their platform isn’t running one of its basic functions. I wonder what else is broken that hasn’t been found yet! I’m scared.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on May 17, 2020 9:35:42 GMT
No transactions - not even a single line of shrapnel - since 6pm yesterday. Is it just me or has the MLA joined a union and locked down? There were a couple of sales at 19:43 yesterday (16/5) via two of my family accounts. Strangely whilst a four figure sum on a particular loan has been on sale (for a few weeks now), at par, in each of the 4 accounts held by 3 different family members, the results yesterday were different! Individual X: sold £30 in the single account held (at 19:43 yesterday) Individual Y: sold £7 in one account (at 19:43 yesterday) and Nil in the other account on offer. Individual Z: Nil sold in the single account held I thought any sales were split roughly equally across different accounts, offering at the same price? Is this no longer true or is the above occurrence a software bug?
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on May 17, 2020 20:40:49 GMT
The ways of the great hampster passes all human understanding, it is not for us to know, just to wonder why.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on May 17, 2020 20:57:25 GMT
There were a couple of sales at 19:43 yesterday (16/5) via two of my family accounts. Strangely whilst a four figure sum on a particular loan has been on sale (for a few weeks now), at par, in each of the 4 accounts held by 3 different family members, the results yesterday were different! Individual X: sold £30 in the single account held (at 19:43 yesterday) Individual Y: sold £7 in one account (at 19:43 yesterday) and Nil in the other account on offer. Individual Z: Nil sold in the single account held I thought any sales were split roughly equally across different accounts, offering at the same price?
Is this no longer true or is the above occurrence a software bug? Theoretically they should be. Were the accounts all holding exactly the same amount? The sales should be done proportionally to amount offered. That said whilst most times it is, I have observed a few cases between my MLIA Standard and IFISA where it was not.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on May 17, 2020 21:32:20 GMT
There were a couple of sales at 19:43 yesterday (16/5) via two of my family accounts. Strangely whilst a four figure sum on a particular loan has been on sale (for a few weeks now), at par, in each of the 4 accounts held by 3 different family members, the results yesterday were different! Individual X: sold £30 in the single account held (at 19:43 yesterday) Individual Y: sold £7 in one account (at 19:43 yesterday) and Nil in the other account on offer. Individual Z: Nil sold in the single account held I thought any sales were split roughly equally across different accounts, offering at the same price?
Is this no longer true or is the above occurrence a software bug? Theoretically they should be. Were the accounts all holding exactly the same amount? The sales should be done proportionally to amount offered. That said whilst most times it is, I have observed a few cases between my MLIA Standard and IFISA where it was not. The four accounts each hold a different amount in the loan and the full account holdings have been on sale, in all, for a few weeks now. Whereas the ratio of sales in the two accounts is approx. 4.3:1 (£30/£7), the relative account holding in these two is in the ratio of 2:1. Also puzzled why Y's second account and Z's (only) account did not receive any sales allocation. These two accounts roughly hold the same amount, which is approx a third of that in X's account. You mention "The sales should be done proportionally to amount offered". In theory, isn't it supposed to be split by *equal* amounts across the various accounts offering at a particular price? I think AC management have mentioned this *equal* amount method used in the MLA secondary market 'pool', as a justification for using a similar approach when distributing cash to the QAA withdrawal queue being treated as a 'pool'? Hope I am not missing something?
|
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on May 18, 2020 11:58:12 GMT
Same understanding as you sapphire - equal allocations across all accounts regardless of amount offered for sale (assuming you're best price natch...). I had a sale yesterday where the amounts sold seemed to confirm that - total available fell by twice my sale though I was something like 80% of the amount available.
(As an aside it's an interesting structure for a SM. Could argue about "fairness" but it does reduce the incentive for small sellers to drive the price down to fill their sale - which might otherwise be a result of the one-way transparency of the AC SM. How well it works if it's not widely known is another question of course....)
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 18, 2020 15:21:52 GMT
Same understanding as you sapphire - equal allocations across all accounts regardless of amount offered for sale (assuming you're best price natch...). I had a sale yesterday where the amounts sold seemed to confirm that - total available fell by twice my sale though I was something like 80% of the amount available.
(As an aside it's an interesting structure for a SM. Could argue about "fairness" but it does reduce the incentive for small sellers to drive the price down to fill their sale - which might otherwise be a result of the one-way transparency of the AC SM. How well it works if it's not widely known is another question of course....)
Yes - it means you can match the largest discount and still sell rather than have to exceed it to sell. I like that aspect.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 485
Likes: 406
|
Post by sapphire on May 18, 2020 15:25:04 GMT
When financial IT systems which are expected to behave consistently and yield deterministic results, start behaving randomly, it does trigger alarm bells for me as to what else has gone wrong elsewhere and can do so in future.
It makes me wonder if ostensible inconsistencies like these have occurred inadvertently or possibly intentionally? (Cause for concern either way!)
Here it's not amount in question which raises concern, it's the principle.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on May 18, 2020 16:22:40 GMT
Theoretically they should be. Were the accounts all holding exactly the same amount? The sales should be done proportionally to amount offered. That said whilst most times it is, I have observed a few cases between my MLIA Standard and IFISA where it was not. The four accounts each hold a different amount in the loan and the full account holdings have been on sale, in all, for a few weeks now. Whereas the ratio of sales in the two accounts is approx. 4.3:1 (£30/£7), the relative account holding in these two is in the ratio of 2:1. Also puzzled why Y's second account and Z's (only) account did not receive any sales allocation. These two accounts roughly hold the same amount, which is approx a third of that in X's account. You mention "The sales should be done proportionally to amount offered". In theory, isn't it supposed to be split by *equal* amounts across the various accounts offering at a particular price? I think AC management have mentioned this *equal* amount method used in the MLA secondary market 'pool', as a justification for using a similar approach when distributing cash to the QAA withdrawal queue being treated as a 'pool'? Hope I am not missing something? Yes, I think you are correct and I didn't express it properly, it's the bottom filling (for want of a better expression - I'm sure there must be some technical term) where purchase size/order viz the amounts you have up for sale can make a difference. However, I've had discrepancies like you where one account sells and another doesn't - indeed I had one only today on a par sale. Not sure if this is an IFISA / Standard issue, but I believe it's not supposed to make a difference. I've also seen uneven amounts sold between accounts where I didn't expect them. To be honest I've somewhat given up looking with all the noise in the transaction statements. I'm very nearly out as much as I can be (bar defaults and suspended's) so as long as it's worked out in the end it's not worth the effort trying to figure it out. I had also missed the highlighted bit, but that was probably due to noise of a different kind, on the forum.
|
|
