littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 22, 2019 16:59:22 GMT
I can't see how to do that either.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 22, 2019 16:57:08 GMT
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 22, 2019 16:56:37 GMT
Has anyone succeeded in getting an ISA transfer into GS? If so what happened afterwards? Mine is just sitting in cash and I can't see any way to get it invested. Autolend is turned on. (I have also posted this query on another thread) Yes, but I'm a little confused by your question. The GS ISA doesn't seem to have an AutoInvest setting. I had to log in to my GS ISA account and manually invest my ISA transfer cash. The non-ISA account does have auto invest settings that seem to work as expected for me. Are you somehow confusing the two different accounts? I am definitely on my ISA account. From the Portfolio page, which shows only the cash I transferred in, I click on "Invest now" and get an Invest page saying autolend is on.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 22, 2019 11:57:48 GMT
Has anyone succeeded in getting an ISA transfer into GS? If so what happened afterwards? Mine is just sitting in cash and I can't see any way to get it invested. Autolend is turned on.
(I have also posted this query on another thread)
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 22, 2019 11:51:51 GMT
Sorry guys, I did not make it clear that it was an ISA transfer in. The ISA part of the platform is completely different to the classic account. There are none of the features any of you have suggested.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 20, 2019 16:44:46 GMT
GS said a transfer in was received and ready for me to invest a few days ago. Autolend is on but nothing invested yet. I there anything I should be doing?
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 15, 2019 6:55:43 GMT
I'm getting 6.7% before fees. 8 tranche A loans.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 9, 2019 7:03:36 GMT
About 10% of loans (12% by value) in the QAA are currently suspended.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 8, 2019 16:01:23 GMT
ilmoro for Landbay you show a "Yes" for transfers in (correct) but contradict this in the comments. Edit: And for Goji you have amended the table entry but there is also a footnote which should be deleted. Edit 2: Capital Rise ISA is flexible.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 8, 2019 6:44:46 GMT
I think it's reasonable to describe a platform that has gone into administration or has been forced to close by the FCA as having "failed". This does not imply that all lenders funds are necessarily completely lost, but there will probably be losses arising directly from this "failure" on top of any loan losses.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Chat
Stocks
Jul 7, 2019 7:23:22 GMT
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 7, 2019 7:23:22 GMT
IMO the story that some people won at Blackjack by counting cards was probably spread by casino operators. The margin to the house from Blackjack is far higher than Roulette for example, and any possible improvement in the punter's chances by counting cards will be slight in comparison, spasmodic in occurrence and easily detected if the casino was worried about it. I'm aware this is at risk of diverging from the actual purpose of the thread, but what you've said isn't true. The house edge on standard (European) roulette is 1/37, or roughly 2.7%. The house edge on Blackjack varies a littel depending on the exact rules in use, but is normally about 0.5% (assuming you play with correct strategy). It's certainly believable that counting cards (was) a method of play that would give you positive expected value. The major problem nowadays, I believe, is that most casinos will shuffle a large number of decks together, and will reshuffle very frequently, making it difficult to get enough penetration into the deck to get a big edge.
As it is, there are better ways to beat the house edge at casinos and bookmakers, so I don't think the decline of card counting is really a problem.
Your assumption is an easy get out. If you play using the same strategy as the dealer is forced to the edge will be about 5%, but of course it's not difficult to improve on that a little. If you can ever manage to see a casino's internal accounts of profit per game you will probably see that they make more on BJ than R because players in general cannot beat the edge. Casinos generally have plenty of BJ tables, more than R, and they are not there for any other reason than to make money for the casino. There are plenty of books claiming to know "the correct strategy" which to my cynical mind suggests that there is more money to be made out of writing books for gullible punters than in playing BJ. If there were a sure winning strategy anyone who knew it would make a living out out of it and would be most anxious that knowledge of it did not leak out causing casinos to change the rules back in their favour. The last thing they would do is publish it. On the other hand, suggesting that there is one, known only to a few, is a good way for casinos to encourage play.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Chat
Stocks
Jul 5, 2019 14:53:47 GMT
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 5, 2019 14:53:47 GMT
IMO the story that some people won at Blackjack by counting cards was probably spread by casino operators. The margin to the house from Blackjack is far higher than Roulette for example, and any possible improvement in the punter's chances by counting cards will be slight in comparison, spasmodic in occurrence and easily detected if the casino was worried about it.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 2, 2019 15:08:42 GMT
Has anyone had a bond mature since the decision to stop issuing them, and if so how long after maturity did it take to get funds? I had one mature on 21/6 and am pleased to see that it reached the target 5% return so I will be entitled to a 2% bonus.
Edit 4/7: Aaargh! Return now slipped below 5%. Still no cash in account either.
Edit 9/7: 60% of the funds have arrived. Still waiting for the remainder of the first payment.
Edit 18/07: Still waiting for the other 40% and also waiting for them to start processing transfers using the 60% already there. They give the appearance of having lost all interest in winding down their own book now that they only do processing for other platforms.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 1, 2019 16:51:00 GMT
Northern Rock and Lehman's weren't "shadow bank"? Taking deposits and lending them out was the original building society model. My recollection of Northern Rock is that taking deposits and lending them out wasn't the problem. They were using short term borrowing to fund long term lending, and when short term funding dried up due to the financial crisis, NR's business plan went down the pan. Yes, and don't forget 125% mortgages. (I see something similar has come back on certain p2p sites )
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jul 1, 2019 7:00:18 GMT
Can we please stop with this idea that somehow banks have been screwing lenders over by offering low deposit rates but raking in high fees when they lend the money out. Banks do not charge intermediary fees in loan lending because they do not intermediate. They do not take depositors money and lend it out. There is no 'money multiplier' or 'fractional reserve banking'. These ideas exist only in economic textbooks. In the modern monetary system with a fiat currency, the primary constraint is the price of money, not the amount. Banks create "inside money" ab-initio by creating loans; there is no need for depositors, only a need for regulatory reserves. Please see this link from the Bank of England. If you still refuse to believe me, I can provide equivalents links from the Fed, RBA, ECB etc.
The bottomline is that banks don't need depositors to make loans. They make loans and that creates the deposit. When they take external deposits, it is for other reasons than loan creation. Note also that banks always have BoE OSF and OMO facilities to borrow at.
Only shadow banks (Northern Rock, Lehman, pre 2008 say) would take depositors money and lend it out.
I agree with the thrust of your comments but IMO you have overstated the case. Banks can lend out depositors' funds, although they are not restricted to those, otherwise a run on the bank a la Northern Rock would be impossible, also the FSCS would be pointless for banks.
|
|