macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 17, 2019 13:50:16 GMT
I also think its a bad idea to advertise rates a few days in advance as any increase in rates would be a catalyst for withdrawals. Guess they know their market as with the length of queue and the weekend notice probably not worth withdrawing cash as you will get the new rate.And by the time a sale of your loan went through you would have the fee and the make up the difference fee as well
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 17, 2019 9:16:17 GMT
According to ABLRate's e-mail, the loan is only paying 12% for a minimum of the next six months, there's no guarantee it'll pay 12% after that period expires. Your interpretation could well be correct, but I interpreted it as: the loan would be 12% till term, but was guaranteed to last for at least 6 months. From the outside looking in fair play to Abl on the rise but i assumed the bump to 12% was for the life of the loan and due to a new tranche coming.Which i guess would also be at 12% to get it to fill quicker then last time and in effect has turned it into a self select loan.That is One of the problems so far with the portfolio loans that they are to old borrowers with better rates normally on the SM I thought like others it was a type of revolving credit loan from Abl to new borrowers with a lower rate to match this products terms - not a similar product to established borrowers
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 17, 2019 8:36:53 GMT
The 'Sell' button is enabled on request. (Don't know why WA do it this way, but they do. Or at least, they had to for me a while back.) Selling isn't complicated, but as with any SM it requires a willing counter-party. Is it possible to sell at discount if u need liquidity? Pretty sure the answer is no as when you click sell the money is put back in at the note rate with the rest if there is any left from an original offer.But you may get a quicker sell if the note has sold out as there could be somebody waiting
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 15, 2019 17:03:30 GMT
or One that has not been used yet Well we all know PF have been used in those platforms. Their usage can vary from time to time. RS used 30% back in 2011 while some may used up to 204.7% in one year. Landbay have a reserve fund but not sure they have used it
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 15, 2019 15:34:11 GMT
or One that has not been used yet
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 11, 2019 15:47:54 GMT
probably depends on how much your trying to get but there is the SPDR range of dividend Aristocrats ETF's or maybe look at some infrastructure funds (l have the L & G infrastructure index in a pension while not an ETF is pretty cheap) Could be worth looking at investment trusts as well as some are quite cheap and like ETF's can be held for a fixed fee on many platforms
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 8, 2019 13:48:17 GMT
I don't wish to detract from the hugely positive step that has been taken by ablrate in making the announcement, and the issue of trading is secondary. But I was saying quite strongly that none of these loans should have been trading, and I include 85 because it was so heavily linked financially to 97, 104 & 105 that much material information was not known to lenders. However, it is interesting that my concern was that the existing offers on 85 and 67 looked dangerous for purchasers, and there was little support for that view, but now it seems that these loans are looked at more favourably, there are howls of anguish, presumably in support of those whose existing offers were bought. I doubt that we will hear much from those who bought at 75% and are selling at 90%. We are not at the end of this saga yet, and I still think that these six loans should not be traded, at least until we have a revaluation of the security and some sort of prospectus for the new trading borrower entity. Personally i would agree on what you say about the trading of loans in trouble but it seems many want to trade so if that is the case on a general day to day basis these loans would be clearly flagged and with all the info out for everybody to review either after a pause or reset maybe(and people who bought yesterday may still end wishing they had not) But when the borrower changes or the rate or the length of term changes then you are dealing with a complete new loan in someways not a change of news on trading conditions on the old loan so there should be a way of taking that news on board first and maybe doing some DD.Which would be of use to both buyer and seller
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 8, 2019 13:05:24 GMT
while it will be good if the restructuring goes a head and Abl's position on fee's is a positive step i tend to be on the side of the fence that at some point the market should have been paused/reset(and fair play to Abl for saying quickly that they will review) and if the plan does not come about there could be more swings the other way.It would compere in someways to company shares that pause trading when significant news is expected such as takeovers etc and can be seen even today with NAB shares paused awaiting management news
I don't think 'pause' is adequate - you need to ensure that those with offers/bids out there get a chance to review them under the new circumstances. I think the bids/offers should all be nuked (as happened with partial capital repayment on the M** loans iirc), and people can set up new bids/offers if they choose to. Whoever was selling at 75% probably wanted to change that offer before the market un-paused again (if not, can I please have some more).
Was thinking this morning that reset maybe better then pause but was not sure if Abl are allowed to do that so would agree pause may not work and "nuking" maybe better I have no problem with people trading defaulted,late loans or with trading news etc(as long as all the info can be viewed) as each person is taking a view on how that loan will go so its buyer beware But when its a major change to the terms i think a chance for a re-think should be allowed not FF off an email and yes i realise that if this plan does not go a head people who bought yesterday may not gain anyway
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 7, 2019 22:01:21 GMT
with the SM more like a stock/bond market with premium or discounts caused by peoples view of loans,it could be said that trading on the loans day to day comes with the risk of default etc.And i am not suggesting this has happened and am certain it has not happened but from Abl point of view to trade when news is expected that involves big changes carries the risk of someone claiming something akin to insider dealing/knowledge so may be better from their point of view to pause
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 7, 2019 21:34:17 GMT
while it will be good if the restructuring goes a head and Abl's position on fee's is a positive step i tend to be on the side of the fence that at some point the market should have been paused/reset(and fair play to Abl for saying quickly that they will review) and if the plan does not come about there could be more swings the other way.It would compere in someways to company shares that pause trading when significant news is expected such as takeovers etc and can be seen even today with NAB shares paused awaiting management news
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 7, 2019 8:06:02 GMT
you say i don't "get it" but a quick google search for Octopus Cash brings up articles by the likes of the FT and Savings champion website saying the same thing as me.So i am in good company if wrong maybe they fell for the "marketing" as well Good luck with the FCA (and i mean that) as if the product is wrong you will be doing people a service so their reply would be of interest as would your question's to them for context
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 6, 2019 20:13:27 GMT
i was not arguing but offering a different point of view but would not want to go all MSE luvvie.There was a cashback thread on the product some time back so the interpretation could be of interest to some
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 6, 2019 18:42:48 GMT
But think the terms you have so kindly quoted refer to money with Octopus awaiting investment (which yes should be considered) If you look under the how it works section on their site it says savers can invest up to £340,000 with full FSCS protection which is why they only invest £85,000 with each partner bank or BS from their panel I can not say if the product is any good but that's how i see it from my reading of the terms(yes i did read them) in my humble opinion and its not investment advice as i will leave that to you macq Just to come back to this. In the intervening period I have taken the time to verify the rather questionable claims made by Octupus with the FSCS. In summary, the situation is as I pointed out to you , and as their terms quite clearly state. Your protection is capped at the FSCS £85k limit and not a penny more. An extract from the email I received, in the FSCS's own words: "Our limit for all deposit accounts is £85,000 per person per firm, it cannot be manipulated as it is the same limit for every firm. The maximum compensation amount is up £85,000 per person per firm. The upper limit would not be altered for deposit protection dependant on the firm. In some circumstances as a direct result of a life event our Temporary High Balance protection of up to £1 million would come in to affect, however this doesn’t appear to be what the firm or your original query is referring to. There is some more information available around Temporary High Balance protection on the deposit section of our website if you require further clarification on this but as stated I don’t think this is what Octopus is referring to."Furthermore, I explicitly also asked FSCS about the "pass-through" which you claim happens (but I'm telling you in practice is not the case). They said no to that as well. As per the FSCS definition "the firm" is the firm with which you, the customer, directly contract (slightly over-simplified summary, I know). Anything that happens higher up the chain on an institutional basis (i.e. what banks Octupus chooses to do business with) is not a matter you are party to and is none of your business. Your contract is with Octupus and that's that. All of this is actually spelt-out by Octupus : " The platform is offered by Octopus Co-Lend Ltd. Octopus Institutional Deposits Ltd acts as Trustee to the Octopus Co-Lend Ltd's Trust in which investors cash deposits are received" Summary ? If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is !! (And if you need 100% guarantee above £85k, the only truly guaranteed option is NS&I as that's backed by the government) Not sure why i am worrying as i am not going to have to care about the limit any time soon and you have obviously looked in to it. But i can only call it as i see it on their site - you keep saying the money is with Octopus (it maybe is as it passes through their bank) but the money is not with Octopus after that,it is then invested direct with the likes of Metro bank or Aldermore etc. You say it does not matter what happens higher up the institutional chain (and you may be right) but if you click the for advisers tab on the home page there is a video that shows how you can invest across partner banks over the £85,000 The example uses 4 banks £85,000 x 3 and £50,000 x 1 so i assume advisers would know if that is correct or not? or hopefully have checked like you with the FSCS
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 5, 2019 15:24:08 GMT
Just started on ratesetter. Have £1600 in the 1 year account, if I set it at income and capital to holding account, do I pay fees for the removal of capital from the market? If I set it at capital and income reinvested can I take it out after 1 year even though the reinvested money has not been in for 1 year? The same questions apply to the 5 year market. Want to remove money as I get capital and income repaid. I need some income to get me through to retirement. Excuse my ignorance ratesetter doesn't seem to understand my questions. Thinking more on it - not sure One year is the best choice for income maybe 5 year or rolling would be better but sure a RS expert will help more
|
|
macq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,924
Likes: 1,192
|
Post by macq on Feb 5, 2019 15:19:24 GMT
.. Also assume you signed with a bonus after a year so would need to stay over a £1000 for the first year to get that paid P.s you will not get any repayments in 1 year unless they repay early To meet this condition any early repayment from the 1 year could be sent to 'rolling' I suppose, which would allow the subsequent invetment to be ender by the lender at the anniversary point with no fee. RM is 'fire and forget' in that sense. you mean the new "improved" RM - which actually could work for the OP for fire & forget and the income so you could be right
|
|