|
Post by davee39 on May 31, 2020 14:31:16 GMT
Sorry folks, you need to understand that the provision fund is a quantum concept.
It may exist inside the black box as long as it remains closed. If you are foolish enough to open the box you will find it is no longer there
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on May 31, 2020 14:52:08 GMT
I have some old, long-defaulted loans with only less than 1p in the access accounts only, and never invested via any other acount; I was unable to view the updates in these loans even under the old interface. I have other defaulted loans with less than £1 in AA accounts (and in no other accounts) and these I can view these ok - nothing greyed-out. So there is a cut-off at some low value (which I believe may be 1p), where AC refuse you access to details of defaulted loans.
Is you small investment via QAA now less than 1p? Is it possible you previously had just above this threshold, and QAA withdrawals have now taken it below? Thanks baldpate On this loan my exposure via QAA is more than 50p but less than a £1. Following your response I asked my wife to check and she is able to view this update. She has just over £5 exposure to this loan via QAA, so likes the (new?) threshold is somewhere between a £1 and £5. I think I have been told £1
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on May 31, 2020 15:10:33 GMT
I thought other than the "forbearance vote" that AA did not have a vote so surely if there is any money in the Provision fund should be paid. I also think that I've read here that if a loan is traded on the AA the value must be covered by reserved funds?
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on May 31, 2020 15:13:48 GMT
So many words to say "no progress".
Reading this update, I also think the penny has only just dropped for me why AC don't want to enforce this one. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the mention of another party in the update, and who happens to be a director of that company.
For quite some time I've wondered whether the AC team that are supposed to be monitoring this loan are suffering a form of 'regulatory capture' ( link) as I see no signs of them providing independent comment and/or valuations, they simply allow the Borrower to present any comment they like without verification or analysis.
AC's problem is this. A high proportion of the investment is in the QAA etc. The provision funds can't cover it. Worse, the allocation algo then in place means that some poor sods have a lot (most?) of their QAA etc investment in this one loan and others not so much, instead of what everybody thought, which was equally spread. If they declare a default on the part of Laird muck a muck then they have to declare a default of the QAA etc. The entire business is at risk. They have to string it along until they are big enough to cover the loss. I think that the whole board had to decide to fund this loan, so they all have egg on their face, so even replacing the MD/Chair doesn't really give them an excuse.
On my part, my initial note was double bargepole, but then there was a loan update which gave hope, (£500). This was I think the update which facilitated an additional payout (800K?) which immediately disappeared into Laird muck a muck's pockets instead of funding more development work. You just know when this collapses he'll be in South Africa and Lady wosserface will magically hold all the assets.
It's the classic, if you owe the bank (ie us) a bit of money you're in trouble, if you owe them a lot then the bank's in trouble. I had a boss do that once, he got a computer system worth £1M+ in today's money on the promise of paying it as soon as our blue chip customer paid us, all sanctioned by the UK sales director of the American computer company. The blue chip customer duly paid us a few weeks later, and we* paid all the other people we owed and offered the computer company UK sales director a stake in our company, which he had to endorse up the line to save his own skin.
*When I say we, I mean the company, in which I was a minion, not a co-conspirator
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,524
Likes: 2,667
|
Post by cb25 on May 31, 2020 16:40:14 GMT
For quite some time I've wondered whether the AC team that are supposed to be monitoring this loan are suffering a form of 'regulatory capture' ( link) as I see no signs of them providing independent comment and/or valuations, they simply allow the Borrower to present any comment they like without verification or analysis.
AC's problem is this. A high proportion of the investment is in the QAA etc. The provision funds can't cover it. Worse, the allocation algo then in place means that some poor sods have a lot (most?) of their QAA etc investment in this one loan and others not so much, instead of what everybody thought, which was equally spread. If they declare a default on the part of Laird muck a muck then they have to declare a default of the QAA etc. The entire business is at risk. They have to string it along until they are big enough to cover the loss. I think that the whole board had to decide to fund this loan, so they all have egg on their face, so even replacing the MD/Chair doesn't really give them an excuse.
On my part, my initial note was double bargepole, but then there was a loan update which gave hope, (£500). This was I think the update which facilitated an additional payout (800K?) which immediately disappeared into Laird muck a muck's pockets instead of funding more development work. You just know when this collapses he'll be in South Africa and Lady wosserface will magically hold all the assets.
It's the classic, if you owe the bank (ie us) a bit of money you're in trouble, if you owe them a lot then the bank's in trouble. I had a boss do that once, he got a computer system worth £1M+ in today's money on the promise of paying it as soon as our blue chip customer paid us, all sanctioned by the UK sales director of the American computer company. The blue chip customer duly paid us a few weeks later, and we paid all the other people we owed and offered the computer company UK sales director a stake in our company, which he had to endorse up the line to save his own skin.
I'm one of the lenders who had 20% of their at-the-time GBBA holdings put into this one loan (my fault, I sure have read the Ts&Cs much more carefully). At the time, I imagine that if lenders had asked AC whether this wasn't a gross over-concentration in one loan AC would have said "no, because we have good procedures in place wrt picking and managing loans and if something should go wrong, there's always the PF". Little did lenders know what a mess this loan and its handling would turn out to be or that the PF was of no practical use - either too small to cover the losses or unlikely that AC would use a substantial portion of the PF to make good losses on just this loan even if they could.
With my holding at £5000+ it's going to be an expensive lesson but at least I'm willing to put my hand up and say - I've been an idiot, what was I thinking placing money in such a way? As for AC.....?
|
|
|
Post by westcountryfunder on May 31, 2020 17:05:12 GMT
AC's problem is this. A high proportion of the investment is in the QAA etc. The provision funds can't cover it. Worse, the allocation algo then in place means that some poor sods have a lot (most?) of their QAA etc investment in this one loan and others not so much, instead of what everybody thought, which was equally spread. If they declare a default on the part of Laird muck a muck then they have to declare a default of the QAA etc. The entire business is at risk. They have to string it along until they are big enough to cover the loss. ------- I'm one of the lenders who had 20% of their at-the-time GBBA holdings put into this one loan (my fault, I sure have read the Ts&Cs much more carefully). At the time, I imagine that if lenders had asked AC whether this wasn't a gross over-concentration in one loan AC would have said "no, because we have good procedures in place wrt picking and managing loans and if something should go wrong, there's always the PF". Little did lenders know what a mess this loan and its handling would turn out to be or that the PF was of no practical use - either too small to cover the losses or unlikely that AC would use a substantial portion of the PF to make good losses on just this loan even if they could.
With my holding at £5000+ it's going to be an expensive lesson. At least I'm willing to put my hand up and say - I've been an idiot, what was I thinking placing money in such a way? As to AC.....
I'm in the same boat: £5333 at risk. Perhaps I was an idiot, but I think we were misled. I knew about the 20%, but understood that as more loans were added to the GBBA(v1), then the 20% in one loan would progressively reduce. Then along came GBBA(v2). Very convenient for AC - no need to worry any more about the over exposure to this loan. I think this is what occurred, but it's a longtime ago now, and I have long since forgotten the precise details.
|
|
|
Post by df on May 31, 2020 19:53:47 GMT
I'm one of the lenders who had 20% of their at-the-time GBBA holdings put into this one loan (my fault, I sure have read the Ts&Cs much more carefully). At the time, I imagine that if lenders had asked AC whether this wasn't a gross over-concentration in one loan AC would have said "no, because we have good procedures in place wrt picking and managing loans and if something should go wrong, there's always the PF". Little did lenders know what a mess this loan and its handling would turn out to be or that the PF was of no practical use - either too small to cover the losses or unlikely that AC would use a substantial portion of the PF to make good losses on just this loan even if they could.
With my holding at £5000+ it's going to be an expensive lesson. At least I'm willing to put my hand up and say - I've been an idiot, what was I thinking placing money in such a way? As to AC.....
I'm in the same boat: £5333 at risk. Perhaps I was an idiot, but I think we were misled. I knew about the 20%, but understood that as more loans were added to the GBBA(v1), then the 20% in one loan would progressively reduce. Then along came GBBA(v2). Very convenient for AC - no need to worry any more about the over exposure to this loan. I think this is what occurred, but it's a longtime ago now, and I have long since forgotten the precise details. I remember at the time there was no simple way of discovering the exact details of your loan book in GBAA (and GEIA), "view loan holdings" wasn't available, only transactions. I think I was aware about 20%, but took a comfort with PF, believing in LTV myth and thinking that assets can be sold if borrower fails to repay. I've made a big mistake getting involved with Great&Green accounts - if I've invested in 227 through MLIA using my own diversification strategy the failure of this loan would have very little effect on the performance of my AC funds.
|
|
alibaba
Member of DD Central
Posts: 341
Likes: 245
|
Post by alibaba on May 31, 2020 20:20:41 GMT
I'm one of the lenders who had 20% of their at-the-time GBBA holdings put into this one loan (my fault, I sure have read the Ts&Cs much more carefully). At the time, I imagine that if lenders had asked AC whether this wasn't a gross over-concentration in one loan AC would have said "no, because we have good procedures in place wrt picking and managing loans and if something should go wrong, there's always the PF". Little did lenders know what a mess this loan and its handling would turn out to be or that the PF was of no practical use - either too small to cover the losses or unlikely that AC would use a substantial portion of the PF to make good losses on just this loan even if they could.
With my holding at £5000+ it's going to be an expensive lesson. At least I'm willing to put my hand up and say - I've been an idiot, what was I thinking placing money in such a way? As to AC.....
I'm in the same boat: £5333 at risk. Perhaps I was an idiot, but I think we were misled. I knew about the 20%, but understood that as more loans were added to the GBBA(v1), then the 20% in one loan would progressively reduce. Then along came GBBA(v2). Very convenient for AC - no need to worry any more about the over exposure to this loan. I think this is what occurred, but it's a longtime ago now, and I have long since forgotten the precise details. Ditto for me 19k in this loan.
|
|
dave4
Member of DD Central
Cynical is a hobby not a lifestyle
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 591
|
Post by dave4 on Jun 3, 2020 14:25:34 GMT
Regarding the current Q/A battle for an answer to a question.
Assets winning.
Expensive, but entertaining.
|
|
slippery
Member of DD Central
Posts: 83
Likes: 61
|
Post by slippery on Jun 20, 2020 1:27:42 GMT
So many words to say "no progress".
Reading this update, I also think the penny has only just dropped for me why AC don't want to enforce this one. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the mention of another party in the update, and who happens to be a director of that company.
For quite some time I've wondered whether the AC team that are supposed to be monitoring this loan are suffering a form of 'regulatory capture' ( link) as I see no signs of them providing independent comment and/or valuations, they simply allow the Borrower to present any comment they like without verification or analysis. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thanks for these posts, discovering that SL & an Assetz colleague are directors of Cherish was more interesting than the rambling and badly written "Lender Update" Assetz posted on 29.5.2020. Given the huge "monitoring fee" of £428k Assetz seems to expect in Jan 2021 I do wonder what they are actually doing for it. To post an update with such glaring errors e.g. "in December 2020, the Borrower received an offer for funding..." without querying the obvious errors seems to show a surprising level of incompetence and/or contempt for those of us who invested in funding this loan. Much as I would like to submit a question to Assetz for clarification of the December 2020 vote referred to, I know it would be rejected (presumably as dave4 has discovered). It's annoying that investors' valid questions are edited or rejected yet Assetz staff will post verbatim nonsense from the unlovely laird. This is my single largest Assetz ML investment, because I relied on the valuation, but I accept I should have been more cautious. I can't imagine how angry I would feel if I had a larger potential loss such as those who were trapped by GBBA1.
|
|
alibaba
Member of DD Central
Posts: 341
Likes: 245
|
Post by alibaba on Jun 20, 2020 4:31:33 GMT
For quite some time I've wondered whether the AC team that are supposed to be monitoring this loan are suffering a form of 'regulatory capture' ( link) as I see no signs of them providing independent comment and/or valuations, they simply allow the Borrower to present any comment they like without verification or analysis. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thanks for these posts, discovering that SL & an Assetz colleague are directors of Cherish was more interesting than the rambling and badly written "Lender Update" Assetz posted on 29.5.2020. Given the huge "monitoring fee" of £428k Assetz seems to expect in Jan 2021 I do wonder what they are actually doing for it. To post an update with such glaring errors e.g. "in December 2020, the Borrower received an offer for funding..." without querying the obvious errors seems to show a surprising level of incompetence and/or contempt for those of us who invested in funding this loan. Much as I would like to submit a question to Assetz for clarification of the December 2020 vote referred to, I know it would be rejected (presumably as dave4 has discovered). It's annoying that investors' valid questions are edited or rejected yet Assetz staff will post verbatim nonsense from the unlovely laird. This is my single largest Assetz ML investment, because I relied on the valuation, but I accept I should have been more cautious. I can't imagine how angry I would feel if I had a larger potential loss such as those who were trapped by GBBA1. I am one of the unfortunate trapped via GBBA1 in this loan. The more information that is revealed the more concerned I become.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Jun 20, 2020 9:32:47 GMT
For quite some time I've wondered whether the AC team that are supposed to be monitoring this loan are suffering a form of 'regulatory capture' ( link) as I see no signs of them providing independent comment and/or valuations, they simply allow the Borrower to present any comment they like without verification or analysis. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thanks for these posts, discovering that SL & an Assetz colleague are directors of Cherish was more interesting than the rambling and badly written "Lender Update" Assetz posted on 29.5.2020. Given the huge "monitoring fee" of £428k Assetz seems to expect in Jan 2021 I do wonder what they are actually doing for it. To post an update with such glaring errors e.g. "in December 2020, the Borrower received an offer for funding..." without querying the obvious errors seems to show a surprising level of incompetence and/or contempt for those of us who invested in funding this loan. Much as I would like to submit a question to Assetz for clarification of the December 2020 vote referred to, I know it would be rejected (presumably as dave4 has discovered). It's annoying that investors' valid questions are edited or rejected yet Assetz staff will post verbatim nonsense from the unlovely laird. Can you explain this please how is this connected to the borrower?
|
|
liso
Member of DD Central
Posts: 390
Likes: 394
|
Post by liso on Jun 20, 2020 10:12:57 GMT
Can you explain this please how is this connected to the borrower? Independent of our loan, there is commercial involvement between Cherish Homes and our borrower. The May update on the platform outlines some of the details.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Jun 21, 2020 8:04:53 GMT
Can you explain this please how is this connected to the borrower? Independent of our loan, there is commercial involvement between Cherish Homes and our borrower. The May update on the platform outlines some of the details. Thankyou for taking the time to respond
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 21, 2020 11:16:27 GMT
I find this thread useful in one respect...
Whenever anyone asks for my advice on P2P I point them to various articles and threads to demonstrate the highs and lows of the industry. This thread is as low as it can get.
AC really need to slay this demon, whatever the cost as it is a massive millstone round their neck.
|
|