GBBA jiggle

The investment accounts have some additional term based rules around them to prevent buy in into loans that will shortly redeem.  There's also the question as to whether final tranches are more risky or less risky, which will be dependent on the loan.  If the MLA investors are already invested enough in a given loan but the final tranche is less risky for that loan because the project is fundamentally complete with the majority of the value in a standing building etc. then is it bad for the GBBA to invest?  Alternatively the rate may be too low for MLA lender's appetite, as they're trying to generate a higher income with more risk, but it's a good solid deal at a rate that fits the GBBA (or another account).

Unpopular doesn't necessarily mean riskier or bad.

If you do all that AND get loan 227 fixed, then I'll be happy (or at least happier)

Chris, can we not have some half way house on this issue?

The problem seems to be when first investing in (or adding large sums to) one of the managed accounts one can end up with a large percentage of their invested funds in one loan. If that loan goes bad before the diversification sausage machine algorithm reduces this overexposure then one is stuck with it. I for one am currently stuck with 11% of my PSA funds in 534.

Surely a simple solution would be to have some limit on the percentage of a person's funds that can be allocated to a single loan, albeit at the disadvantage of not having all of ones funds immediately invested. I would be fairly happy to have that limit fairly high at say somewhere between 3 and 5%. Although not ideal, it would be much better than the, IMO ridiculous, thirty-odd percent that some have quoted. I obviously can't speak for others, but the potential cash drag would seem preferable to me than the overexposure.

Ideally this maximum percentage would be user configurable, but I realize that's quite a bit more work, and might make these accounts too complicated for some.

Sorry if this sounds like whinging, its intention is to be a constructive suggestion. I would like to congratulate you on your willingness to engage with users on this forum. It certainly does you and AC great credit. It always makes a bitter pill easier to swallow when one feels that they have been listened to, even if their suggestions are ultimately rejected.

Regards
Ace

I opened my IFISA 7 days ago and my PSA and GBBA2 investments are all at or below 5%, the largest being #441 which is at 5% in GBBA2, so the balancing is working fine on my IFISA accounts, although it has involved nearly 100 pages of transactions across the two accounts to get there.

On my standard accounts all investments are below 5% except #441 which is at 9.2% in GBBA2 and #414 which is at 7.3% in PSA.

I invested in the standard PF accounts some time ago and the totals are less than those in the IFISA PF accounts and so I am not sure if the differences are due to size or age of investment or a combination.

My investments in standard PF accounts should be more than enough to allow loans to be balanced and although I am not overly concerned, to be frank, I am somewhat disappointed that the much trailed sparkly new GBBA2 et al algorithm still needs significant changes to make it work properly.

In 2007 the financial system was brought down when mortgages of sound borrowers were diced and sliced with mortgages to unsound borrowers to produce financial instruments that were then sold on in the financial markets.   The UK (and USA) spent the previous 11 years clawing their way out of that hole.   My perception is this Algorithm system seems to be doing something similar though smaller and more transparently.