sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jun 12, 2019 9:43:05 GMT
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. Which download contains a "capital remaining" column? I've never seen this on any of the loan book downloads I've done (the reason I've also used "loan amount" as the only readily available figure I could find when "capital remaining" would have been better).
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jun 12, 2019 10:16:05 GMT
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. Which download contains a "capital remaining" column? I've never seen this on any of the loan book downloads I've done (the reason I've also used "loan amount" as the only readily available figure I could find when "capital remaining" would have been better). Unfortunately I don't think any of them do. You may need to go into each individual loan to pull this figure out (which I do). I'm sure AC can add this field to their report at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 26, 2019 16:19:40 GMT
The website has recently been revised with 31st March 2019 data | Account | Url | Balance | Expected
Loss | Coverage
Ratio | | Property Secured Account (PSA) | Link | £393,000 | 0.27% | 6.80x | | Great British Business Account (GBBA) Series 2 | Link | £518,000 | 0.24% | 4.42x | | Quick Access Account (QAA) | Link | £1,780,000 | 0.48% | 6.57x | | 30-Day Access Account (30DAA) | Link | £2,200,000 | 0.48% | 5.32x | 90-Day Access Account (90DAA)
| Link
| £229,000
| 0.48%
| 1.72x
|
The balance / coverage ratio for the 90-Day account look low at an initial glance, but the snapshot is only a month after the account was launched. Quite why it takes nearly a full quarter for AC to compile and publish the data is something of a mystery.
In terms of trends, the coverage ratios continue to go up, helped in part by a steady decline in the expected loss % of the access accounts.
For reference the previous data sets were
Account (31st Dec 2018)
| Url | Balance | Expected
Loss | Coverage
Ratio | | Property Secured Account (PSA) |
| £322,000 | 0.30% | 5.10x | | Great British Business Account (GBBA) Series 2 |
| £474,000 | 0.25% | 4.15x | | Quick Access Account (QAA) |
| £1,400,000 | 0.58% | 4.23x | | 30-Day Access Account (30DAA) |
| £2,500,000 | 0.58% | 4.23x |
Account (30th Sept 2018)
| Url | Balance | Expected
Loss | Coverage
Ratio | | Property Secured Account (PSA) |
| £240,000 | 0.30% | 3.76x | | Great British Business Account (GBBA) Series 2 |
| £334,000 | 0.25% | 3.27x | | Quick Access Account (QAA) |
| £1,100,000 | 0.66% | 3.22x | | 30-Day Access Account (30DAA) |
| £2,000,000 | 0.66% | 3.22x |
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jun 28, 2019 11:07:32 GMT
The website has recently been revised with 31st March 2019 data [snipped most of table]
| Account | Url | Balance | Expected
Loss | Coverage
Ratio | 90-Day Access Account (90DAA)
| Link
| £229,000
| 0.48%
| 1.72x
|
The balance / coverage ratio for the 90-Day account look low at an initial glance, but the snapshot is only a month after the account was launched. By my records, the balance of the 90DAA at that time was £29M.
I'd been assuming in my calculations that most of the £300k seed capital would be intact, and that ongoing contributions from loans would be adding to that (albeit slower than the other accounts).
Instead the reverse seems to be true - the PF having already taken a hit of a £71k net losses (just over 0.24% of the entire account balance) within its first month of operation.
If we assume the £229k balance is still intact (any further losses balanced out by contributions and vice/versa), and that expected losses are still 0.48%, that PF would only support a minimum 1.00x coverage ratio on an invested balance of up to £47.7M, which is less than the current total balance of £52.3M, so either - the 90DAA PF is already under water - there've been at least some net contributions towards it since the 31 March snapshot [perhaps including additional seed capital from AC due to the popularity of this new account?]
- the expected loss ratio has fallen further so that this amount just about supports the current account balance.
I wonder whether AC will clarify this for investors, or will we need to wait another 3 months to find out what the figures will have been at the end of this month?
Based even on the stats I privately calculated at the start of the month, I'd been anticipating that AC would be shortly announcing that the "introductory capped rate" would be coming to an end in 90 days, and that the new "normal" rate for the 90DAA would be 5.xx%.
I guess they're also not actually under any obligation to pay the full advertised interest rate if the PF is running a bit low... it was only advertised as a "capped rate" after all!
Biggest problem seems to me that despite the very different requirements of the QAA and the 90DAA, AC still manage it as a single investment pool. It would seem better to me to keep more of the non-invested cash in the QAA at any given moment and more of the loan units in the 90DAA in order to better meet the requirements of each account... it's the QAA that needs access to liquid cash on demand (in normal market conditions), and the 90DAA that needs as little cash drag as possible in order to stand a chance of topping up its PF.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jun 28, 2019 21:46:32 GMT
The website has recently been revised with 31st March 2019 data [snipped most of table]
| Account | Url | Balance | Expected
Loss | Coverage
Ratio | 90-Day Access Account (90DAA)
| Link
| £229,000
| 0.48%
| 1.72x
|
The balance / coverage ratio for the 90-Day account look low at an initial glance, but the snapshot is only a month after the account was launched. By my records, the balance of the 90DAA at that time was £29M.
I'd been assuming in my calculations that most of the £300k seed capital would be intact, and that ongoing contributions from loans would be adding to that (albeit slower than the other accounts).
Instead the reverse seems to be true - the PF having already taken a hit of a £71k net losses (just over 0.24% of the entire account balance) within its first month of operation.
If we assume the £229k balance is still intact (any further losses balanced out by contributions and vice/versa), and that expected losses are still 0.48%, that PF would only support a minimum 1.00x coverage ratio on an invested balance of up to £47.7M, which is less than the current total balance of £52.3M, so either - the 90DAA PF is already under water - there've been at least some net contributions towards it since the 31 March snapshot [perhaps including additional seed capital from AC due to the popularity of this new account?]
- the expected loss ratio has fallen further so that this amount just about supports the current account balance.
I wonder whether AC will clarify this for investors, or will we need to wait another 3 months to find out what the figures will have been at the end of this month?
Based even on the stats I privately calculated at the start of the month, I'd been anticipating that AC would be shortly announcing that the "introductory capped rate" would be coming to an end in 90 days, and that the new "normal" rate for the 90DAA would be 5.xx%.
I guess they're also not actually under any obligation to pay the full advertised interest rate if the PF is running a bit low... it was only advertised as a "capped rate" after all!
Biggest problem seems to me that despite the very different requirements of the QAA and the 90DAA, AC still manage it as a single investment pool. It would seem better to me to keep more of the non-invested cash in the QAA at any given moment and more of the loan units in the 90DAA in order to better meet the requirements of each account... it's the QAA that needs access to liquid cash on demand (in normal market conditions), and the 90DAA that needs as little cash drag as possible in order to stand a chance of topping up its PF.
I think its been mentioned on here (by AC) that as a lot of the funds going into the 90DAA are being moved from over from the other access accounts then so they will likely also move over the corresponding amount of the PF. I think its only reasonable to do this, in fact I think the only reasonable way to run the whole thing given allocations are the same across all the accounts is to run a combined PF for the whole lot.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781 
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Jul 15, 2019 21:30:34 GMT
I fully understand that the 90 day account gives Assetz Capital plenty of time to return invested monies to customers, but that doesn’t in any way, shape or form explain why the coverage ratio is hugely lower than all other access accounts. I can appreciate the possible argument that the coverage ratio doesn’t need to be quite as high as other accounts, but there is no logical or mathematical justification for the ratio only being 1.72x when it is 5.32x for the 30DAA etc.
Could anyone at AC please explain if you intend to increase the coverage ratio for the 90DAA and, if so, within which specific time-frame? Otherwise this account is a much riskier proposition than other accounts.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jul 15, 2019 22:27:56 GMT
It is interesting that the 30DAA PF cash balance went down by 300k between Dec 2018 and March 2019.
I wonder what happened there?
Is that due to increased defaults in the period?
AC taking out excess as profits?
AC funding the seed capital in the 90DAA?
Something else?
Also interesting that the access account expected loss has been on a downward trajectory from 0.66% to 0.58% to 0.48% in 6 months. Be interesting to see if that is maintained in the next six months.
The next quarterly updates for the PFs are due to be loaded on the website in August 2019.
That means worst case that the stats can be up to circa 5 months out of date at any one time and a minimum of circa 3 months out of date. That feels like a long time to me to be assessing/holding onto PF data.
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Aug 21, 2019 0:52:44 GMT
It is interesting that the 30DAA PF cash balance went down by 300k between Dec 2018 and March 2019. I wonder what happened there? Is that due to increased defaults in the period? AC taking out excess as profits? AC funding the seed capital in the 90DAA? Something else? Also interesting that the access account expected loss has been on a downward trajectory from 0.66% to 0.58% to 0.48% in 6 months. Be interesting to see if that is maintained in the next six months. The next quarterly updates for the PFs are due to be loaded on the website in August 2019. That means worst case that the stats can be up to circa 5 months out of date at any one time and a minimum of circa 3 months out of date. That feels like a long time to me to be assessing/holding onto PF data. Those are excellent, crucial questions, but unfortunately only AC can answer them. Like you, I'm keen to see the latest PF data. Why it's provided so much in arrears is beyond me. However, ultimately, the PFs seem to be largely a theoretical marketing technique? I keep hearing from frustrated lenders that overdue loans are kicked into the long grass and left as pending forever more so that AC don't actually have to pay out via the PF. Are there any insights on the instances where AC have paid lenders through the PF?
|
|
zlb
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 333
|
Post by zlb on Sept 9, 2019 18:25:29 GMT
It is interesting that the 30DAA PF cash balance went down by 300k between Dec 2018 and March 2019. I wonder what happened there? Is that due to increased defaults in the period? AC taking out excess as profits? AC funding the seed capital in the 90DAA? Something else? Also interesting that the access account expected loss has been on a downward trajectory from 0.66% to 0.58% to 0.48% in 6 months. Be interesting to see if that is maintained in the next six months. The next quarterly updates for the PFs are due to be loaded on the website in August 2019. That means worst case that the stats can be up to circa 5 months out of date at any one time and a minimum of circa 3 months out of date. That feels like a long time to me to be assessing/holding onto PF data. Those are excellent, crucial questions, but unfortunately only AC can answer them. Like you, I'm keen to see the latest PF data. Why it's provided so much in arrears is beyond me. However, ultimately, the PFs seem to be largely a theoretical marketing technique? I keep hearing from frustrated lenders that overdue loans are kicked into the long grass and left as pending forever more so that AC don't actually have to pay out via the PF. Are there any insights on the instances where AC have paid lenders through the PF? I'd have thought it important to distinguish between the different provision funds. If an Access Account pf has been used, eg the quoted 300k above, I'd have thought that it would be legal that it is only used as pf money, not seeding another account type, and not used for profits of some kind. I only use the AAs but I can see from the forum that pf coverage must only come in on lending on individual loans as last resort...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 9, 2019 19:05:36 GMT
Those are excellent, crucial questions, but unfortunately only AC can answer them. Like you, I'm keen to see the latest PF data. Why it's provided so much in arrears is beyond me. However, ultimately, the PFs seem to be largely a theoretical marketing technique? I keep hearing from frustrated lenders that overdue loans are kicked into the long grass and left as pending forever more so that AC don't actually have to pay out via the PF. Are there any insights on the instances where AC have paid lenders through the PF? I'd have thought it important to distinguish between the different provision funds. If an Access Account pf has been used, eg the quoted 300k above, I'd have thought that it would be legal that it is only used as pf money, not seeding another account type, and not used for profits of some kind. I only use the AAs but I can see from the forum that pf coverage must only come in on lending on individual loans as last resort... The PF doesn't apply to the Manuel Lending account, if that's what you meant.
|
|
rogedavi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 129
|
Post by rogedavi on Nov 3, 2019 12:43:28 GMT
it is really quite unbelievable the lack of transparency regarding the PF numbers - not only are they are to find on the site (most have a clear "statistics" page) they also are hopelessly out of date.
hopefully the FCA rules implementation will force an improvement? or force something...
taking the 90DAA as an example, March 2019 PF = £229k against a current total investment of £60m+. I make that a coverage of just 0.38% but then the numbers are so out of date I dont know what to make of it. doesnt exactly inspire confidence.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Nov 3, 2019 15:44:11 GMT
Ah, the old chestnut of the AC PF. An enigma hiding behind a mystery. As nights draw in lenders huddle around wood burners speculating about its size, it’s value and its parsimonious pay outs...
|
|
rogedavi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 129
|
Post by rogedavi on Nov 5, 2019 18:15:10 GMT
I don't really believe their EL% numbers which look to subject to some degree of assumption (and the coverage ratios follow from these). So I decided to look at just cash, reverse engineer the loan balances outstanding at that time and simply look at PF Cash over outstanding loan balance to work out how well capitalised the Provision Funds really are without any AC fudges going on.
Account - Cash/Balance
Property - 1.84%
Business - 1.06%
QAA - 3.15%
30D - 2.55%
90D - 0.83%
Total (if blended together) - 2.13%
Its probably fair to assume that there has been some change regarding 90D account as the total balance has more than doubled since the last update.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 5, 2019 20:16:10 GMT
I don't really believe their EL% numbers which look to subject to some degree of assumption (and the coverage ratios follow from these). So I decided to look at just cash, reverse engineer the loan balances outstanding at that time and simply look at PF Cash over outstanding loan balance to work out how well capitalised the Provision Funds really are without any AC fudges going on. Account - Cash/Balance Property - 1.84% Business - 1.06% QAA - 3.15% 30D - 2.55% 90D - 0.83% Total (if blended together) - 2.13% Its probably fair to assume that there has been some change regarding 90D account as the total balance has more than doubled since the last update. Expected loss is the sum of the values of all possible losses, each multiplied by the probability of that loss occurring. So it's a prediction.
|
|
rogedavi
Member of DD Central
Posts: 100
Likes: 129
|
Post by rogedavi on Nov 6, 2019 9:37:13 GMT
is there any wording on the methodology used to compute that - it doesn't seem to tie in with the bad debt forecasts (unless assumed recovery is very high).
|
|
