sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 16, 2019 8:56:08 GMT
Given they discount at up to 4% their fees must be lovely. Money recycled how often? 4? 6 times a year? Who pays? I'm pretty sure the 3-4% discounts are "cutting their losses", as bg explained earlier in this thread... they don't want to wait for weeks or months to sell at a 1% discount, when they can take the hit now, and make it back recycling the money a few more times within those weeks/months.
Whilst I'm not familiar with the exact mechanism, I understand that the process goes along the lines of the following: 1. underwriters commit to funding a loan. 2. AC call for those funds at a later time just as the loan is about to draw down. 3. Underwriters are legally committed to providing those funds on short notice.
As such all the subsequent loans we saw with 3-4% discounts were presumably committed to before they realised that the liquidity wouldn't be there to sell. In addition, the alternatives to selling at a 3-4% discount when the funds for the next loan(s) are called may be having to liquidate some other external funds at short notice, or pay a significant penalty for failing to meet a call for funds.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Apr 16, 2019 14:44:58 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised at the former, and you might be 'lucky' with the latter if #1000 is anything to go by - it's a small loan, and I'm not sure how much went out at a discount, but I didn't get anywhere near my target purchase. Can't get my head around it. I got #1000 at 1% discount and the same with many loans in recent months. I put my bid in when the loans are still in upcoming section and set my investment orders at par. Not complaining about suddenly getting an extra 1% of capital, it's very nice, but to me it suggests the whole amount was bough by UW before the loan went live. Why would they do this? I've also had quite a few "free" 1% discounts. Agreed that the number of these may well fall, but it's hard to predict which ones are going to produce a discount or not. However, if you are in the position that there are more new loans (which meet your criteria) than you have available funds for, you can always just make bids for all of them at a discount - some you'll get, some you won't. Even if you don't get some first time round, you can also just leave your bid on the table for future tranches. One of the many nice side effects of the way that AC handle their market.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 17, 2019 7:39:34 GMT
Loan # | Events | Last P | First L | Next P | Amount | LTV | Rate | Term | Available | Discounted | Best Rate | Best Amt | Drew | 998 | | | | | 115,000 | 57.5 | 5 | 60 of 60 | 76,012 | 1,943 | -2 | 1,943 | 16/Apr/19 | 986 | | | | 04-May-19 | 2,288,373 | 66 | 8 | 9 of 9 | 923,521 | 96,417 | -1 | 96,417 | 5/Apr/19 | 974 | | | | 02-May-19 | 208,000 | 69.3 | 6 | 60 of 60 | 178,553 | 10,245 | -1.5 | 2,296 | 3/Apr/19 | 975 | | | | 28-Apr-19 | 750,000 | 54.1 | 5 | 60 of 60 | 407,767 | 5,907 | -1.5 | 1,047 | 29/Mar/19 | 978 | | | | 28-Apr-19 | 215,000 | 65.2 | 5 | 60 of 60 | 156,444 | 3,346 | -1 | 3,346 | 29/Mar/19 | 971 | | | | 28-Apr-19 | 422,500 | 70.4 | 5.5 | 60 of 60 | 313,917 | 1,299 | -1.5 | 1,299 | 29/Mar/19 | 962 | | | | 20-Apr-19 | 327,434 | 58 | 7 | 18 of 18 | 61,195 | 5,620 | -1 | 5,620 | 21/Mar/19 | 961 | | | | 19-Apr-19 | 273,000 | 65 | 5 | 60 of 60 | 241,284 | 2,596 | -2 | 1,576 | 20/Mar/19 | 959 | L | 13-Apr-19 | 13-Apr-19 | 13-May-19 | 352,170 | 49.2 | 4.5 | 59 of 60 | 240,904 | 2,430 | -2 | 2,430 | 14/Mar/19 | 948 | L | 12-Apr-19 | 12-Apr-19 | 13-May-19 | 94,850 | 58.2 | 6.5 | 11 of 13 | 24,999 | 5,100 | -1 | 5,100 | 13/Mar/19 | 954 | | 07-Apr-19 | | 07-May-19 | 1,175,000 | 72.1 | 7 | 59 of 60 | 487,687 | 48,400 | -1.5 | 8,542 | 8/Mar/19 | 955 | | 06-Apr-19 | | 07-May-19 | 504,675 | 64.8 | 7 | 11 of 13 | 221,708 | 3,371 | -1 | 3,371 | 7/Mar/19 | 949 | | 03-Apr-19 | | 03-May-19 | 355,000 | 64 | 5.5 | 59 of 60 | 222,882 | 6,737 | -3.5 | 1,386 | 4/Mar/19 | 946 | | 28-Mar-19 | | 27-Apr-19 | 157,450 | 67 | 5.5 | 59 of 60 | 109,630 | 16,267 | -3 | 313 | 28/Feb/19 | 944 | | 25-Mar-19 | | 24-Apr-19 | 144,112 | 49 | 6 | 14 of 15 | 41,134 | 16,972 | -1.5 | 3,268 | 25/Feb/19 | 938 | | 22-Mar-19 | | 18-Apr-19 | 3,390,241 | 69.7 | 8 | 11 of 12 | 557,827 | 8,343 | -1 | 8,343 | 19/Feb/19 | 939 | | 19-Mar-19 | | 18-Apr-19 | 245,000 | 26.3 | 6 | 59 of 60 | 98,055 | 57,726 | -2 | 13,456 | 19/Feb/19 | 942 | | 22-Mar-19 | | 18-Apr-19 | 172,455 | 64.9 | 6.5 | 13 of 14 | 57,427 | 26,953 | -1 | 26,953 | 19/Feb/19 | 935 | | 18-Mar-19 | | 17-Apr-19 | 438,000 | 54.8 | 5 | 59 of 60 | 281,894 | 47,874 | -4 | 819 | 18/Feb/19 | 932 | | 12-Apr-19 | | 12-May-19 | 430,000 | 64.7 | 5 | 58 of 60 | 262,305 | 51,488 | -3.5 | 288 | 13/Feb/19 | 930 | | 11-Apr-19 | | 11-May-19 | 228,750 | 75 | 5.5 | 58 of 60 | 157,377 | 5,430 | -2.5 | 921 | 12/Feb/19 | 933 | | 11-Apr-19 | | 11-May-19 | 140,000 | 60.3 | 5.5 | 22 of 24 | 117,137 | 20,386 | -2 | 566 | 12/Feb/19 | 934 | | 11-Apr-19 | | 11-May-19 | 750,000 | 56.8 | 5 | 58 of 60 | 565,267 | 107,967 | -4.5 | 102 | 12/Feb/19 | 914 | | 24-Mar-19 | | 23-Apr-19 | 1,133,000 | 47.2 | 5.5 | 34 of 36 | 463,470 | 30,666 | -4 | 16,111 | 24/Jan/19 | 867 | | 26-Mar-19 | | 22-Apr-19 | 473,926 | 64.7 | 7 | 8 of 12 | 227,877 | 3,195 | -1 | 3,195 | 23/Nov/18 | 840 | | 19-Mar-19 | | 18-Apr-19 | 496,546 | 63 | 6.5 | 9 of 15 | 61,686 | 2,285 | -1 | 2,285 | 15/Oct/18 | 834 | | 07-Apr-19 | | 08-May-19 | 547,980 | 62.6 | 7 | 12 of 19 | 133,828 | 7,731 | -1 | 7,731 | 5/Oct/18 | 832 | M | 28-Mar-19 | | 27-Apr-19 | 682,500 | 65 | 5.5 | 18 of 24 | 1,704 | 368 | -1 | 368 | 28/Sep/18 | 831 | | 31-Mar-19 | | 01-May-19 | 1,031,147 | 63.1 | 7.5 | 12 of 19 | 472,945 | 71,117 | -1 | 71,117 | 28/Sep/18 | 828 | | 29-Mar-19 | | 28-Apr-19 | 1,638,212 | 64 | 8 | 14 of 21 | 448,555 | 101,212 | -1 | 101,212 | 25/Sep/18 | 798 | | 01-Apr-19 | | 02-May-19 | 715,173 | 67.4 | 7 | 11 of 19 | 155,773 | 4,803 | -1 | 4,803 | 28/Aug/18 | 805 | M | 24-Mar-19 | | 23-Apr-19 | 825,000 | 55 | 7 | 53 of 60 | 26,047 | 837 | -1 | 837 | 24/Aug/18 | 788 | | 30-Mar-19 | | 29-Apr-19 | 300,000 | 69.1 | 6 | 52 of 60 | 257,477 | 565 | -1.5 | 162 | 30/Jul/18 | 774 | | 15-Mar-19 | | 15-May-19 | 1,235,003 | 69 | 7 | 9 of 18 | 186,601 | 2,010 | -1.5 | 1,349 | 13/Jul/18 | 766 | | 08-Apr-19 | | 08-May-19 | 255,000 | 70.8 | 7 | 51 of 60 | 167,443 | 86,548 | -1.5 | 30,754 | 9/Jul/18 | 768 | | 08-Apr-19 | | 08-May-19 | 715,000 | 55 | 6.5 | 51 of 60 | 390,253 | 115,287 | -1 | 115,287 | 9/Jul/18 | 753 | | 29-Mar-19 | | 27-Apr-19 | 3,336,034 | 71.7 | 8 | 1 of 11 | 488,348 | 96,576 | -1.5 | 96,369 | 25/Jun/18 | 748 | M | 13-Apr-19 | | 13-May-19 | 195,312 | 69.8 | 6 | 26 of 36 | 1,167 | 675 | -1.5 | 77 | 14/Jun/18 | 743 | | 16-Mar-19 | | 15-May-19 | 731,142 | 61.5 | 6 | 10 of 20 | 164,566 | 8,689 | -1 | 8,689 | 14/Jun/18 | 729 | M | 16-Mar-19 | | 15-May-19 | 1,850,000 | 56.1 | 8 | 3 of 14 | 53,642 | 215 | -1 | 215 | 16/May/18 | 704 | | 31-Mar-19 | | 30-Apr-19 | 2,121,176 | 64.9 | 8 | 10 of 22 | 513,694 | 12,734 | -1 | 12,734 | 25/Apr/18 | 694 | L | 14-Apr-19 | 14-Apr-19 | 15-May-19 | 1,697,430 | 56 | 6.5 | 4 of 17 | 1,053,423 | 4,165 | -1 | 4,165 | 11/Apr/18 | 688 | | 08-Apr-19 | | 08-May-19 | 677,993 | 63.1 | 6 | 6 of 19 | 544,702 | 6,030 | -1 | 6,030 | 5/Apr/18 | 678 | | 31-Mar-19 | | 30-Apr-19 | 1,306,207 | 67.6 | 8 | 4 of 17 | 630,761 | 10,462 | -1 | 10,462 | 28/Mar/18 | 664 | L | 18-Mar-19 | 14-Apr-19 | 12-May-19 | 542,560 | 68.1 | 7 | 7 of 19 | 139,673 | 4,232 | -1 | 4,232 | 14/Mar/18 | 590 | | 27-Mar-19 | | 26-Apr-19 | 2,394,496 | 67.5 | 7 | 12 of 28 | 829,680 | 7,761 | -1 | 7,761 | 21/Dec/17 | 587 | M | 20-Mar-19 | | 19-Apr-19 | 370,000 | 69.8 | 7.5 | 15 of 30 | 31,500 | 1,552 | -1.5 | 233 | 20/Dec/17 | 578 | M | 27-Mar-19 | | 29-Apr-19 | 1,136,001 | 57 | 7 | 1 of 18 | 161,230 | 70,953 | -1 | 70,953 | 22/Nov/17 | 573 | M | 09-Apr-19 | | 09-May-19 | 225,000 | 52 | 7 | 43 of 60 | 27,885 | 2,120 | -2 | 39 | 10/Nov/17 | 483 | ML | 02-Mar-19 | 01-Apr-19 | 01-May-19 | 500,000 | 64.7 | 7.6 | 39 of 60 | 18,706 | 1,159 | -1 | 1,159 | 2/Jun/17 | 329 | M | 22-Mar-19 | | 21-Apr-19 | 220,000 | 65.7 | 7 | 30 of 60 | 21,794 | 409 | -1 | 409 | 22/Sep/16 |
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Apr 17, 2019 10:34:38 GMT
So did we ever work out what caused the fall that Tonyr seemed to know was gonna happen? Or... was it just him buying up all the discounts? Let's just say that underwriting conditions changed. When AC have cash they underwrite loans, when they don't they ask underwriters to do it. They can turn on or off the underwriters whenever they like.
|
|
amwinv
Member of DD Central
Posts: 198
Likes: 282
|
Post by amwinv on Apr 17, 2019 10:38:33 GMT
So did we ever work out what caused the fall that Tonyr seemed to know was gonna happen? Or... was it just him buying up all the discounts? Let's just say that underwriting conditions changed. When AC have cash they underwrite loans, when they don't they ask underwriters to do it. They can turn on or off the underwriters whenever they like. Oh. That doesn't sound good for you guys. And means less discounts for us tiny minions too.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 17, 2019 12:16:42 GMT
I've also had quite a few "free" 1% discounts. Agreed that the number of these may well fall, but it's hard to predict which ones are going to produce a discount or not. I've just been working through my dilemma for pipeline loans exceeding my minimum criteria for holding at par...
Simplified scenario (ignoring specific investment amounts, and the possibility of partially filled orders or running out of cash): I'll be happy to take 1 unit at par, and 1 more unit (totalling 2) if there's a discount.
Desired outcomes: A. [best outcome] I get 2 units at a discount
B. I get 1 unit at par, when nothing was ever available at a discount.
Acceptable but mildly annoying outcomes: C. I get no units, but none were ever available for purchase. D. I get 1 unit at par, and then afterwards another at a discount (could have got the first at a discount too by waiting a bit).
Non-desired outcomes: E. I get 1 unit (requested at par, but possibly filled at a discount), and discounted units have been available, but by the time I request a second unit at a discount, nothing is available. F. [worst outcome] I get no units, because I was asking for a discount, and by the time I changed to request at par, nothing is available.
My preferred strategy would be: Strategy 0: place 2 initial buying orders, for 1 unit at par and 1 unit at -1%. This allows outcomes A,B,D which are all at least acceptable, and completely avoids the risk of non-desired outcomes E/F.
AC only allows one buying order at a time, so for each loan I need to choose between:
Strategy 1: place initial buying order for 1 unit at par, aiming for B/D, with the opportunity to get A ("free" 1% discount) and the risk of getting E (only 1 loan unit instead of 2) Strategy 2: place initial buying order for 2 units at -1%, aiming for A, risking F, but with the opportunity to switch to strategy 1 later if it doesn't succeed in picking anything up in the short term.
Historically, the risk of outcome F was large enough that I'd stuck to strategy 1.
However, as almost all loans have units widely available for an extended period, this risk now seems almost non-existent, and strategy 2 seems to dominate (something I'd vaguely suspected, but only really figured out in detail while writing this post).
In the meantime, members of the underwriting panel who want to quickly dispose of their allocated loan units and re-invest the cash in the next loans have a similar table of options (best = sell quickly at par, worst = sell nothing because no sales at par ever occurred)... and my choice of strategy 2 reduces the initial demand at par, seemingly making them more likely to offer similar loan units at a discount in order to achieve a faster sale next time.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 17, 2019 12:20:29 GMT
So did we ever work out what caused the fall that Tonyr seemed to know was gonna happen? Or... was it just him buying up all the discounts? Let's just say that underwriting conditions changed. When AC have cash they underwrite loans, when they don't they ask underwriters to do it. They can turn on or off the underwriters whenever they like. Don't they have something a bit more fine-grained?
An earlier comment had talked about "increasing" the proportion made available to underwriters, for which the converse would be a "decrease" rather than a complete shut-off...?
... although historically, the huge lurches in the available cash in the access accounts between "hardly any" and "plenty" seemed to suggest they were being a bit heavy-handed in their use of controls to include or exclude 3rd party underwriters.
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Apr 17, 2019 13:58:58 GMT
I've also had quite a few "free" 1% discounts. Agreed that the number of these may well fall, but it's hard to predict which ones are going to produce a discount or not. I've just been working through my dilemma for pipeline loans exceeding my minimum criteria for holding at par...
Simplified scenario (ignoring specific investment amounts, and the possibility of partially filled orders or running out of cash): I'll be happy to take 1 unit at par, and 1 more unit (totalling 2) if there's a discount.
Desired outcomes: A. [best outcome] I get 2 units at a discount
B. I get 1 unit at par, when nothing was ever available at a discount.
Acceptable but mildly annoying outcomes: C. I get no units, but none were ever available for purchase. D. I get 1 unit at par, and then afterwards another at a discount (could have got the first at a discount too by waiting a bit).
Non-desired outcomes: E. I get 1 unit (requested at par, but possibly filled at a discount), and discounted units have been available, but by the time I request a second unit at a discount, nothing is available. F. [worst outcome] I get no units, because I was asking for a discount, and by the time I changed to request at par, nothing is available.
My preferred strategy would be: Strategy 0: place 2 initial buying orders, for 1 unit at par and 1 unit at -1%. This allows outcomes A,B,D which are all at least acceptable, and completely avoids the risk of non-desired outcomes E/F.
AC only allows one buying order at a time, so for each loan I need to choose between:
Strategy 1: place initial buying order for 1 unit at par, aiming for B/D, with the opportunity to get A ("free" 1% discount) and the risk of getting E (only 1 loan unit instead of 2) Strategy 2: place initial buying order for 2 units at -1%, aiming for A, risking F, but with the opportunity to switch to strategy 1 later if it doesn't succeed in picking anything up in the short term.
Historically, the risk of outcome F was large enough that I'd stuck to strategy 1.
However, as almost all loans have units widely available for an extended period, this risk now seems almost non-existent, and strategy 2 seems to dominate (something I'd vaguely suspected, but only really figured out in detail while writing this post).
In the meantime, members of the underwriting panel who want to quickly dispose of their allocated loan units and re-invest the cash in the next loans have a similar table of options (best = sell quickly at par, worst = sell nothing because no sales at par ever occurred)... and my choice of strategy 2 reduces the initial demand at par, seemingly making them more likely to offer similar loan units at a discount in order to achieve a faster sale next time.
Are you including in your strategies buying with an IFISA a/c aswell as a Standard a/c? So two buying orders.
|
|
|
Post by df on Apr 17, 2019 14:24:13 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised at the former, and you might be 'lucky' with the latter if #1000 is anything to go by - it's a small loan, and I'm not sure how much went out at a discount, but I didn't get anywhere near my target purchase. Can't get my head around it. I got #1000 at 1% discount and the same with many loans in recent months. I put my bid in when the loans are still in upcoming section and set my investment orders at par. Not complaining about suddenly getting an extra 1% of capital, it's very nice, but to me it suggests the whole amount was bough by UW before the loan went live. Why would they do this? My question was a bit unclear. By "they" I meant AC. I don't understand why AC needs to involve UWs in loans that can be picked up by ordinary investors at par.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Apr 17, 2019 14:51:17 GMT
Can't get my head around it. I got #1000 at 1% discount and the same with many loans in recent months. I put my bid in when the loans are still in upcoming section and set my investment orders at par. Not complaining about suddenly getting an extra 1% of capital, it's very nice, but to me it suggests the whole amount was bough by UW before the loan went live. Why would they do this? My question was a bit unclear. By "they" I meant AC. I don't understand why AC needs to involve UWs in loans that can be picked up by ordinary investors at par. AC is a bit different to other platform's, effectively there is no primary market and the self select account (ie MLIA) only gets to pick up from the already funded (ie SM) loan. When they have agreed everything with the borrower done their DD etc, then AC seeks to fill the loan, they can't fund it themselves, so they either use cash in the access and black box accounts which are indirect investor funds, or underwriters (if they don't have enough money) or institutional funds. The money is paid to the borrower, and then the loan is released to the ordinary mortals who might want some from the MLIA. I think on a technical basis they may just have 'reserved' funds from the access accounts and it's all allocated at loan release, but you get the idea. I'm not sure whether they still use institutional funds, they have done before and the institution tended to take whole loans, then nobody would get a lookin at all until possibly much later in the loans life.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 17, 2019 15:18:11 GMT
Are you including in your strategies buying with an IFISA a/c aswell as a Standard a/c? So two buying orders. No, but that sounds like an idea for those who are in a position to be able to control two accounts (whether ISA and non-ISA, or co-ordinating actions between self and spouse, or even self and "limited company I run", depending on circumstances).
Even if I could easily arrange for a second account, I'm not sure I'd want the administrative headache of reconciling many dozens of buying instructions between these multiple accounts.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 17, 2019 18:00:36 GMT
Can't get my head around it. I got #1000 at 1% discount and the same with many loans in recent months. I put my bid in when the loans are still in upcoming section and set my investment orders at par. Not complaining about suddenly getting an extra 1% of capital, it's very nice, but to me it suggests the whole amount was bough by UW before the loan went live. Why would they do this? My question was a bit unclear. By "they" I meant AC. I don't understand why AC needs to involve UWs in loans that can be picked up by ordinary investors at par. Bear in mind that #1000 may appear to be a 'small' loan but its only the first tranche of a larger dev loan. There's another £730k to come on that one and AC may not want to end up holding 95% in the access accounts, it leaves them with a big exposure. As it is they currently only hold 33% of it which gives them much more flexibility for future tranches.
|
|