sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 28, 2019 16:22:31 GMT
"Separate" doesn't necessarily invalidate "proportionally identical", in line with the pool of loans that each of the access accounts participate. I can see two possibilities: A. Same % of weighted average rate is set aside for PF. Say WA rate is 8%, and 1% is set aside as PF, then each of the access accounts has equal PF cover (even if they are in separate funds). B. The bulk of the difference between the capped rate and the WA rate across the loan pool is going to a PF for each access account. This means the QA would have the biggest PF and the 90DA the smallest. This only makes a difference if PF funds keep accruing, in which case QA would start having proportionally higher PF, and increasingly so, compared to the other accounts. I suspect that the first possibility above is the case (hence the coverage in the table at the beginning of the thread is the same for QA and 30DA accounts). It would be good if we had some clarification here from AC. There's also the aspect to take into account that AC have stated publicly that they "remove excess funding from PFs that are ahead of our target level of coverage ratio" ( source)
The identical coverage on the QAA and 30DAA probably represents the amount above which AC had unilaterally determined the PFs had "excess funding" (e.g. reducing the QAA to the same coverage ratio as the 30DAA).
I'd expect part of the amount removed next time to be re-invested as seed capital in the 90DAA, which may otherwise appear far riskier due to the far lower coverage ratio from the £300k of seed capital they originally announced.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammertime on Mar 28, 2019 16:38:02 GMT
I cant see the point of the 90 day account the interest is awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Mar 28, 2019 17:04:20 GMT
I cant see the point of the 90 day account the interest is awful. The fact that it has already attracted c. £28 million suggests plenty of people disagree with your opinion. There are many investors in AC that view the premise of their access accounts as offering a sensible balance between diversification / risk / reward that none of the other AC accounts achieve. The 5.75% pa for the 90DAA is the highest rate AC currently offer for a slice of the access accounts, and therefore is attractive to many investors.
Around 6% pa is the most anyone should expect from a diversified portfolio of p2p loans. I've recently posted on another thread that my current XIRR at Lendy is 11.9%, but after my contingencies for capital losses on the distressed loans (>90 days overdue + suspended) I'm predicting my actual return from Lendy since 2014 wlll be 5.6%.
Rather than a one line post of negativity, it would help forum members understand your thinking if you added a few paragraphs that explained and justified your position with reference to alternatives and how you assess their risk / reward in relation to AC's 90DAA.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammertime on Mar 29, 2019 10:35:35 GMT
Well for a start my interest rates have gone down from when i first joined from 11.5% to 7.5%. And the rates do not look like they are going up any time soon. Plus why so many trading suspended loans not great D/D i would say. And the problem with the I*** loans what was going on there???.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammertime on Mar 29, 2019 12:44:39 GMT
Also the GBBA is 0.5% higher the PSA is only 0.25% lower both of these you can get your cash out much quicker .The 30DA is only roughly half a per cent less and you can get your money out two months earlier. Why bother with these cash back and bonus schemes why not just put the interest rates up.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammertime on Mar 31, 2019 13:42:36 GMT
No response then Mr clondon
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Apr 24, 2019 21:00:57 GMT
That, plus the fact that the original algo in no way, by any remotely sensible understanding of the word, "diversified". I have looked at the diversification on my qqa and 30 day. They both look okay to me. Have they there for sorted the diversification (or lack of it) now?
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on May 15, 2019 11:26:47 GMT
That, plus the fact that the original algo in no way, by any remotely sensible understanding of the word, "diversified". I have looked at the diversification on my qqa and 30 day. They both look okay to me. Have they there for sorted the diversification (or lack of it) now? My QQA account has 400 loans in it. I call that good diversification.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on May 15, 2019 12:14:11 GMT
That, plus the fact that the original algo in no way, by any remotely sensible understanding of the word, "diversified". I have looked at the diversification on my qqa and 30 day. They both look okay to me. Have they there for sorted the diversification (or lack of it) now? The clue being in the word 'original'. In theory unless there's a run on AC resulting in liquidity issues the access funds, particularly QAA, should return your funds when asked, and only 'notionally' (for want of a better word) hold any suspended loans. In the early days when there weren't nearly so many loans on the platform the non-access black box accounts - GBBA & GEIA, ended up allocating large chunks (in excess of 20% in some cases iirc) of investors entire holdings into loans that were subsequently suspended. The intention was that the holdings would be balanced more evenly before anything untoward occurred, unfortunately this didn't happen in a number of cases. I still have what was nearly 35% of my very small GEIA holdings in a few suspended loans, some people have ended up in a far worse position though with large sums in suspended loans. Most of these issues are yet to be resolved as loans are still in 'recovery' - there are many posts about this issue on this board and there is even one in this thread - here. I have funds in access accounts, but haven't gone near a black-box one since so I presume the situation has improved simply because loan origination has substantially increased but can't attest to it myself.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on May 17, 2019 16:48:33 GMT
The provision fund data appears to be published quarterly and the December 31st data seems to have been published around Feb 19th. This would appear to imply that we are due to get the March 31st provision fund data in the next few days.
|
|
sd2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 621
Likes: 224
|
Post by sd2 on Jun 4, 2019 8:16:20 GMT
Also the GBBA is 0.5% higher the PSA is only 0.25% lower both of these you can get your cash out much quicker .The 30DA is only roughly half a per cent less and you can get your money out two months earlier. Why bother with these cash back and bonus schemes why not just put the interest rates up. They are after new/more money. As opposed to just giving you an extra 1% and you adding nothing extra. Further more it would cost more a lot more....obviously
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Jun 4, 2019 10:49:25 GMT
Provision fund data is 2 months behind?
|
|
|
|
Post by squeezedmiddle on Jun 10, 2019 14:21:40 GMT
As far as I can tell from downloading the whole loan book today, there are 58.5M of suspended loans, which I calculated to be 14.37% of the loan book. I calculated 43M (11.07% on 28th Feb 2019). This is based on my calculations, if anyone disagrees then please advise, I'm happy to learn.I wonder if Chris chris or Stuart stuartassetzcapital could comment on the apparent increase in the percentage of suspended loans. In addition, can you provide: 1) total value of loans that have been suspended since A/C began 2) total value of loans that have defaulted since A/C began 3) total value of recovered funds from defaults since A/C began I'd like to see if this provides additional insights alongside the quoted expected loss percentages. Thanks |
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jun 10, 2019 17:43:12 GMT
As far as I can tell from downloading the whole loan book today, there are 58.5M of suspended loans, which I calculated to be 14.37% of the loan book. I calculated 43M (11.07% on 28th Feb 2019). This is based on my calculations, if anyone disagrees then please advise, I'm happy to learn.I wonder if Chris chris or Stuart stuartassetzcapital could comment on the apparent increase in the percentage of suspended loans. In addition, can you provide: 1) total value of loans that have been suspended since A/C began 2) total value of loans that have defaulted since A/C began 3) total value of recovered funds from defaults since A/C began I'd like to see if this provides additional insights alongside the quoted expected loss percentages. Thanks I think you are looking at the 'loan amount' which is the highest amount currently lent when you should be looking at 'capital remaining' which is the current outstanding amount of a loan. The true figure for currently suspended loans is £49.27m. Live loans is £370.9M so 13.28%. 28th Feb there were £49.1M suspended (per my nightly snap) with £396.1M live loans, so 12.4%. So yes, loans suspended as a % of the live loan book has increased but this is simply a consequence of the large amount of repayments there have been in the last few weeks (which much be deemed a good thing?), not an increase in problem loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Jun 10, 2019 19:19:39 GMT
One day the value of suspended loans could be higher than the value of live loans. This figure is meaningless.
Over the years good loans have been made and repaid. Bad loans have been suspended. The worst suspended loans can hang around for ever so until they get written off the total suspended will continue to increase.
More valuable data would compare suspended loans with total all time loans, assuming no loans have ever been written off. The suspended total is not a good indicator of the default position, loans more than 6 months late might be better.
|
|
