IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 20, 2020 15:28:15 GMT
I would say until more is known about the virus non-essential international travel from any country should remain at a minimum. For example, what if people who have "recovered" are still infectious? What if there are different strains in different countries which can lead to reinfection? - we just dont know enough about this virus in my opinion.
We do however know a lot about the negative effects of a long lockdown. If we keep it going because of all the possible "what ifs" we could end up doing a whole lot of harm.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 19, 2020 8:37:08 GMT
I am about to take my Pension from a Defined Benefit/Final Salary Pension Scheme and, basically, I don't trust my former Employers to get the calculations correct on the Pension they have quoted me that I will receive. In particular I need to independently check that the assumptions etc that they use in their Pension Income calculations are "fair", "reasonable" and/or "acceptable" etc. I probably need to hire an Actuary or Pensions Calculations Specialist of some kind to do this vetting/checking/auditing but wonder if learned colleagues out there can confirm that this course of action is correct, or is there another avenue to pursue? Apologies if what I am wanting to achieve is not very clear, it's late and what little articulation I possess is fast deserting me as I type. As always, "Many Thanks" in advance. A Grateful OzBoy. I'm a bit lost Scheme rule are scheme rules - contributions, accrual rates etc - and are usually decided by trustees of the scheme and revised periodically. Surely any assumptions are scheme wide issues affecting all members? Not sure how you can challenge them, other than basis on which they have calculated final salary, years of contributions, any reductions for early retirement etc. Perhaps there are small print issues in your scheme - in which case you would need a pensions expert for sure.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 18, 2020 18:43:23 GMT
I have to agree that this is very poorly explained. I've just spent the last couple of hours trying to get my head round this, and the first of many many questions I have is .... Does this mean that once this goes live we will have to pay a charge (in ASMX's own crypto currency) to trade on the SM? (or will that only apply to trading on other SMs where we are not members of the particular platform on which a loan was originated?) If its the former then that will be the end of my association with ABL. I have kept at a barge pole distance from crypto-bollocks so far and I have no intention of changing that stance. If its the latter then no matter, as I have no intention in participating in a cross platform SM until it has been running for at least couple of years to prove itself. Even then I'm not going to be in a position to do any sort of DD, however minimal, on some Aussie or Singaporean borrower. As we said in the email... nothing, apart from the way the SM looks and the additional functionality, will change. Nope, you wont be charged ASM on Ablrate or any otherAs we have said, if you want to just use Ablrate as it is.. then no worriesI think the original plans were not to charge, according to this earlier post, so I suspect the changed financial circumstances may have something to do with it. Several other platforms have introduced (eg Mintos) or increased (eg Landlord Invest) SM fees, though none charge both sides. Assetz of course just has a new AUM fee. Fair enough, you might say, but I don't see how you can dress a new SM charge as increasing liquidity.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 18, 2020 16:11:46 GMT
Yes there will be a 0.25% fee and it will be charged to buyer and seller. The platform is being put together to increase liquidity for all and to put the fee in perspective it is 42p on the average trade of the secondary market of £168. Liquidity in P2P and in private debt in general is, we believe, paramount in the coming years. We would also imagine that those not able to withdraw from other platforms would have happily paid a fee to be able to access liquidity. By implementing the new market we aim to increase origination, create better risk management tools for lenders and allow greater diversification. The company is a separate technology provider and needs to create revenue of course and at present we absorb a lot of the costs for lenders, from such providers: Each withdrawal costs us 40p next day or £3.50 same day and is not charge to lenders, we pay a monthly management fee for the IFISA service, which is not passed on to lenders. We pay 0.25% on all debit card transactions, which we don't pass on. These amount to circa £70k+ per annum and that is before legal fees that we don't pass on. So we have kept our service free for lenders and there will be no charge on primary loans, of course. So if you are a casual user of the marketplace it won't materially make a difference. On the terms, we have reserved the right to charge 0.25% on the secondary market since we launched it. We never charged it because we wanted to prove the concept that such a secondary market could operate successfully. In choosing to pass on or absorb costs we model the benefits and cost. It may be that we absorb this cost too if, as we expect, that implementation increases revenues and profits but liquidity on any platform is a service to lenders. A large volume of trades happen on the market for which we do not earn anything at all because we believe liquidity is massively important, take take that to another level will benefit everybody so it is not unreasonable to charge a small fee for it, but we shall see what effect it has on our business and act accordingly. If you are charging it to both sides it is an 84p charge on the £168 trade. Seems to me a big risk of reducing liquidity in the SM by charging both sides.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
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.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 21:52:23 GMT
takes more than a few days to die with COVID-19 - ~3 weeks would be a more likely delay Doesn't really change the theory though. It doesn't really matter how far deaths lag infections they should line up. sure, agreed, but the rate of increase/fall in deaths will tell you R from ~3 weeks ago was just the point I was making
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 16:48:17 GMT
This paper suggests robust immunity post infection. Also, and quite intriguingly, a large proportion of people who never had SARS-CoV-2 infections have antibodies from other coronavirus infections (i.e. colds) that provide protection against SARS-COV-2 ("cross-reactivity"). Could help explain why so many infected have mild or no symptoms. Promising. www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2820%2930610-3
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 16:42:42 GMT
Really interesting dan1 . To be honest, I don't understand know all the government's objectives of the lock down so it's hard to tell whether a change in R value means the lock down is working. The examples I used below shows the R is falling. So is the lockdown not working? Let's say week 20, 70 infected in the Community with R = 0.7 and 530 infected in care homes with R = 0.9; then Week 22, 50 infected in the Community with R = 0.5 and 400 infected in care homes with R = 0.75 [Week 20] ((70*0.7)+(530*0.9))/600=0.87 [Week 22] ((35*0.5)+(400*0.75))/435=0.73 I just look at the daily deaths, if they are a fairly steady number (as at present) I would say R was about 1 a few days ago, assuming number of deaths and number of infections are more or less proportional with deaths lagging by a few days. Keep it simple... takes more than a few days to die with COVID-19 - ~3 weeks would be a more likely delay
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 15:16:34 GMT
True, it is scary, but the information and evidence is there, in abundance, for anyone who chooses to look, with an open mind to all available evidence. It is not hard to find. Do you even listen to other opinions, such as Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr Rashid Buttar, etc, to hear what they have to say, or look at analysis of statistics away from mainstream media sources? But those conditioned all their lives to believing the mainstream media can not escape their conditioning. The worldview that alternative media presents is just so alien. The evidence is there, sadly, that the world is that way, and there are many, a minority admittedly, who share this understanding. We are moving towards an Orwellian future. Maybe once we get there, many will realize it, but by then it will be too late. Many will simply accept, and even welcome, their enslavement to the 'new normal': social distancing, vaccinations, and whatever else that might mean, and trade their freedom for a 'safe' 'new normal'. It is not a world I wish to be part of. You think it all nonsense? The next few years will tell. The world is about to change forever. Party time is over.
Buttar is an osteopath and Kaufman is a psychiatrist, and they're both heavily discredited ones at that. In 2019 for example, Buttar admitted "unprofessional conduct including, but not limited to, departure from or the failure to conform to the ethics of the profession." Disregarding their brushes with authorities though, why would you value their views over experts in the actual medical fields involved? Especially when their views are hugely hugely outnumbered by a vast majority of medical practitioners advising of exactly the opposite? Re: vaccines/control - I almost daren't ask, but where does this lead if you're right? What is your arch-vision of who is aiming to control us all, and for what purpose? Have to say I think the views of psychiatrists will become/are becoming increasingly important
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 11:16:24 GMT
civil disobedience you mean? There are plenty of places that have far stricter lockdown laws than us, but most are obeying them. It goes back to something I mentioned a few days ago - people with an inflated sense of self entitlement. 2 items from BBC web site:
A group of about 70 people gathered in a park in England for a "rave" on Saturday - flouting lockdown rules and telling police they were "sick of self-isolation". West Mercia Police said a DJ had set up for the party at Granville Country Park in Telford, Shropshire. The group were dispersed by officers.
and
Qatar has made the wearing of face masks compulsory, with anyone defying the order facing a jail term of up to three years or a fine of up to $55,000 (£45,000) for those who repeatedly fail to cover up.
Sure - if an even stricter lockdown is the end goal, you can do it, for what it is worth. Try and squeeze a few more percent compliance out of the 90-odd percent we already have. However, any attempts to move us towards a Middle Eastern style (or Chinese style) authoritarian state would have me out on the streets instantly. People WILL get sick of self isolation. Humans are social animals, and isolation is a very unhealthy state for us. An authoritarian crackdown when that happens really would mean a change to our style of democracy and way of life. Some may welcome that - I would not.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 10:56:03 GMT
Perhaps those who catch this virus should be allowed to sue those who broke lockdown and those who will not follow basic instructions in the name of "civil rights" (rather than civic responsabilities), class action anyone? If they just increased the fines to a sensible level (£1,000 should be a suitable deterrent) it would have the desired effect. civil disobedience you mean?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 10:54:41 GMT
Others see lockdown as just delaying the inevitable whilst causing more harm in the process (not saying they are right, am giving the argument). On the civil liberties front, it would seem that a public health campaign can reduce R below 1 without making it a criminal matter (Sweden has an estimated R of 0.7 last I read). We have learnt that people change their behaviour without needing to infringe civil liberties, and indeed the adherence to social distancing measures has been much higher and enduring than was estimated beforehand. And if you are elderly, the risk is a 1000 fold more for you than others. At what point do you say you can make an informed choice yourself about harms? Many harms we allow people to pursue could conceivably but very rarely cause harm to others. We are entering a stage where, perhaps understandably, half the population is in a state of fear and anxiety and doesn't want to restart life (indeed argues for even more restrictions) until the risk is zero (which it never will be). That will become an increasing problem and we have to understand and deal with it. As ever there is a tension between managing risk and abolishing risk.
I certainly dont envy the government and the decisions they have to make. My main concern is that this Virus is starting to look a lot more serious than initially thought and has unknown long term consequences. Personally I am going to avoid it at all costs until more is known about it, if I thought catching it just meant a 1 in 100 I would just get on with life and take the risk.
For most people it is well under 1 in 100, and probably under 1 in 1000
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 10:52:08 GMT
Perhaps those who catch this virus should be allowed to sue those who broke lockdown and those who will not follow basic instructions in the name of "civil rights" (rather than civic responsabilities), class action anyone? If they just increased the fines to a sensible level (£1,000 should be a suitable deterrent) it would have the desired effect. Perhaps we can sue those who went to the pub because there is a risk that people who go to the pub will drink and drive (or beat their partner etc)? Or sue people who swim in the sea, or go caving, or any other risky hobby, for endangering the lives of rescuers? Or sue those selling unhealthy food for endangering the health of those eating too much of the product? Or sue parent who smoke at home for the damage they cause to their children? Or sue those who didn't wash their hands during the flu season, given that handwashing is hands-down the most evidence based intervention we have against infection (pun intended) Etc. I think people put too much store on the very small number of "lockdown breakers". The policy has been FAR more widely adhered to than any policy maker expected.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 9:45:15 GMT
Going into a care home, or just getting old are both a one way ticket, and once we hit a big age and need looking after every year is a bonus. My mother in law wasn't in a care home and I wonder if she would have been happier at the end if she had been. She missed her husband and seemed rather lonely, although she did have a brother locally and some friends, we did what we could from a few hundred miles away (she refused to leave her house and come to us). Growing old is a s**tshow. Still, its better than the other alternative. And eternity lasts a long time - especially towards the end
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,671
Likes: 2,996
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 17, 2020 9:44:15 GMT
Some people seem to see the lockdown as an infringement of their civil liberties. Maybe you could argue that people should have the right to risk getting the virus if it only affected them but one person could go on to infect others some of who might either die or have life altering damage.
Others see lockdown as just delaying the inevitable whilst causing more harm in the process (not saying they are right, am giving the argument). On the civil liberties front, it would seem that a public health campaign can reduce R below 1 without making it a criminal matter (Sweden has an estimated R of 0.7 last I read). We have learnt that people change their behaviour without needing to infringe civil liberties, and indeed the adherence to social distancing measures has been much higher and enduring than was estimated beforehand. And if you are elderly, the risk is a 1000 fold more for you than others. At what point do you say you can make an informed choice yourself about harms? Many harms we allow people to pursue could conceivably but very rarely cause harm to others. We are entering a stage where, perhaps understandably, half the population is in a state of fear and anxiety and doesn't want to restart life (indeed argues for even more restrictions) until the risk is zero (which it never will be). That will become an increasing problem and we have to understand and deal with it. As ever there is a tension between managing risk and abolishing risk.
|
|