|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on May 16, 2020 8:44:15 GMT
The correct camera angle could disguise the spacing, possibly cardboard cut outs could be used to help the illusion. I will be perfectly safe on the porch with a shotgun, delivering the immortal line.... There will be no lynching while I'm sheriff. I really do worry about the calibre of your co-residents if they allow the "village idiot" to be sheriff.  Personally I would be far more worried about me holding a shotgun.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483 
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on May 16, 2020 9:26:05 GMT
ablrate can you confirm if you are planning on introducing a trading fee for ablrate lenders buying/selling an ablrate loan when you implement ASMX? Or will we retain free SM trading?And a more general question on ASMX, is the fee charged to just the buyer or is it charged to the seller also in a trade? To a question below yesterday's Youtube video, DBW replied: "The 'old' secondary market will be retired as ASMX will be the new secondary market."
link
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on May 16, 2020 9:53:27 GMT
I really do worry about the calibre of your co-residents if they allow the "village idiot" to be sheriff. Personally I would be far more worried about me holding a shotgun. It's OK. He has sawn the wrong end off his shotgun.
|
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on May 18, 2020 15:42:35 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.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by muttley916 on May 18, 2020 16:39:42 GMT
Poor timing. My income is down about 50% due to non paying loans, both covid related and historical. Now a fee to buy and or sell the remaining performing loans is not exactly welcome.
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 483
Likes: 400
|
Post by sapphire on May 18, 2020 18:15:31 GMT
Whilst ablrate note the various charges they have been absorbing to date, even after doing so and not charging a SM fee so far, they have been running at a profit for 3 years now ( per ablrate's post dated 29 Feb 20 here ) so it's not that they are being forced to introduce this new functionality now for a fee to survive. Whilst the new ASMX *may* provide some extra benefits to lenders, if ablrate do wish to introduce it, in the current environment, I think it is reasonable for existing lenders to expect that the charges should should be introduced only for new loans issued henceforth, with explicit and clear disclosure of the new fees in the (new) Borrowing Proposals. Existing investors may not have invested if they were aware that they would be liable to pay this. Alternatively, ablrate could retain the existing SM, and offer existing lenders an option to continue to use it, free, or switch to the ASMX and pay the new fee. By forcing existing lenders to use ASMX and being charged for doing so, it makes one feel like someone who is content with their existing car being forced to swap to an ostensibly flashier one with some extra bells and whistles, and being asked to pay extra for the 'privilege' of doing so. And during a financial crisis! Whilst the existing T&Cs may empower them to do so, the intention to introduce this fee has so far not specifically been highlighted in the borrowing proposals to date. Although ASMX has been in the works for quite sometime now, I can't find a specific mention of this (proposed) charge even in the most recent Borrowing Proposal launched on 27th Apr. (Loan #144). Personally, more than the amount in question (42p/84p per average transaction), its the principle of effectively introducing a new & additional charge on existing loans that I have concerns with. I consider this approach to be an unwelcome precedent and potentially the thin edge of the wedge. What's stopping ablrate from introducting new/additional fees/charges in the future on existing loans? I am out. |
|
thedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 105
Likes: 111
|
Post by thedog on May 18, 2020 18:22:08 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. ..... 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. ...... 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. Completely agree - sorry ablrate but this is going to damage liquidity not enhance it. You may bring new investors in (but spread across more loans as well) but a 50bp fee makes it uneconomic to make a market (ie actively provide liquidity), so if you're hoping to increase liquidity I suspect on balance that it's self-defeating.
Fully get the platform needs to be economic, don't expect it not to be, but absorbing some costs against overheads (so paid for by arrangement fees, interest spreads, monitoring fees etc) is not a reason to take a different view on a different cost. Your decision but I think it's a mistake. Keep well guys.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
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.
|
|
number5
Member of DD Central
Posts: 449
Likes: 98
|
Post by number5 on May 18, 2020 18:46:48 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. I only invest via the SM and also I am trading a significantly higher amount than the average trade of £168. As I don't use the PM, every £168 trade is going to cost me 84p guaranteed rather than 42p. That is significant based on the amount I have invested and my trading activity. If I remember correctly FC didn't even charge buyers.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on May 18, 2020 19:20:04 GMT
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. Thank you for remembering that post.  From a personal stand point, I shall be letting my current bidding on loans to buy, expire. Then move the money out, so my action will 'slightly' reduce liquidity.  I am not going to bother complaining. I am just grateful that I was able to use such a great secondary market system, when I did. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on May 18, 2020 19:56:47 GMT
I 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. Thank you for remembering that post. From a personal stand point, I shall be letting my current bidding on loans to buy, expire. Then move the money out, so my action will 'slightly' reduce liquidity. I am not going to bother complaining. I am just grateful that I was able to use such a great secondary market system, when I did. Realising now that I was costing the platform money by adding funds, I am riddled with guilt. Alas I will now have to endure the further turmoil of costing them money by withdrawing. Its an emotional nightmare. Not that anything much is paying anything currently, so I will have time to reflect. It has been obvious for a while that they are looking to move beyond the current base, and a casual comment in a video suggests he has low regard for this forum. Fun while it lasted, but I am ready to get off when my current position unwinds. I doubt the additional paid for benefit I was perfectly happy without has coloured that much either way.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on May 18, 2020 20:56:31 GMT
Personally, I’m fine with 0.25% but when I see how OCD some people are with penny pinching on the SM, I think it may damage liquidity. I’d probably just charge the seller.
|
|
nw99
Posts: 340
Likes: 114
|
Post by nw99 on May 18, 2020 20:58:16 GMT
Keep up the good work Ablrate
|
|
Nomad
Member of DD Central
Posts: 727
Likes: 494
|
Post by Nomad on May 18, 2020 22:04:01 GMT
Personally, I’m fine with 0.25% but when I see how OCD some people are with penny pinching on the SM, I think it may damage liquidity. I’d probably just charge the seller. Sellers pay 0.25% on WA. And all investors pay an annual service fee of 0.25% to 1%.
|
|
