|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Jul 11, 2019 15:11:14 GMT
The PFs as a whole just continue their strong growth in cash levels - I believe each PF has a public balance in £ value in the detail of each account on the public website.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Jul 11, 2019 15:11:52 GMT
And I understand that is the same for each access account PF level disclosure.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jul 11, 2019 15:51:20 GMT
And I understand that is the same for each access account PF level disclosure. Hi stuartassetzcapital I think my question was confusing. The coverage ratios are as follows on the website QAA 6.57x 30DAA 5.32x 90DAA 1.72x So I take it from this for me the 90DAA is currently higher risk than the 30DAA which is higher risk than the QAA, albeit all 3 PF have sufficient cover for expected losses. My question was, are there plans to move some of the PF pots of cash to level out the PF coverage ratios across the 3 access accounts?
|
|
p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781 
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Jul 14, 2019 23:44:40 GMT
And I understand that is the same for each access account PF level disclosure. Hi stuartassetzcapital I think my question was confusing. The coverage ratios are as follows on the website QAA 6.57x 30DAA 5.32x 90DAA 1.72x So I take it from this for me the 90DAA is currently higher risk than the 30DAA which is higher risk than the QAA, albeit all 3 PF have sufficient cover for expected losses. My question was, are there plans to move some of the PF pots of cash to level out the PF coverage ratios across the 3 access accounts? That's an important question and I'd be very keen to know as well. On the basis of these coverage ratios, the 90DAA seems like a much riskier investment compared to QAA and 30DAA? Is there any intention to balance out the PF coverage ratio between these three accounts and make the 90DAA "safer"?
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368 
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Jul 15, 2019 8:29:23 GMT
That's an important question and I'd be very keen to know as well. On the basis of these coverage ratios, the 90DAA seems like a much riskier investment compared to QAA and 30DAA? Is there any intention to balance out the PF coverage ratio between these three accounts and make the 90DAA "safer"? Well if you think about it, the 30 day needs less coverage than the QAA and the 90 day needs even less. This is because the QAA would need money to cover all loans all the time. The 30 day only needs to cover those loans that have been queued for withdrawal and only in thirty days time. Similar for 90 day. If there were to be net reducing access account balances then you should expect to see the PF as a percentage increase because if AC are smart, and I’m sure they are, they will adjust PF allocations dynamically. Don’t not realise that the PF “pots” aren’t really physical money in a separate bank account that is static forever, it’s all money that belongs to AC that they can use as they see fit within their promise to you as a lender to make sufficient amounts available to compensate for expected losses that may occur several months after every possible avenue for recovery is exhausted. No, it's not supposed to be a ponzi scheme. Each account should always have sufficient provision fund to cover all future expected losses, regardless of whether someone has requested to withdraw the money. If an account does not have sufficient provision fund to cover these expected losses then investors should have the amounts relating to the these loans frozen until they are resolved (at least that's my understanding of how it works).
|
|
jayjay
Member of DD Central
Posts: 264
Likes: 116
|
Post by jayjay on Jul 15, 2019 8:33:47 GMT
There seems to be confusion here between the two separate (if at times related) risks that these term accounts carry. The risk of loans defaulting and the liquidity risk that people want their money back quickly. You need a provision fund for the former and a cash float for the latter.
I therefore find the language confusing as to what is available to cover what. It is quite possible to imagine a situation where there are long queues to exit these accounts without a single default.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Jul 15, 2019 9:05:56 GMT
Hi stuartassetzcapital I think my question was confusing. The coverage ratios are as follows on the website QAA 6.57x 30DAA 5.32x 90DAA 1.72x So I take it from this for me the 90DAA is currently higher risk than the 30DAA which is higher risk than the QAA, albeit all 3 PF have sufficient cover for expected losses. My question was, are there plans to move some of the PF pots of cash to level out the PF coverage ratios across the 3 access accounts? That's an important question and I'd be very keen to know as well. On the basis of these coverage ratios, the 90DAA seems like a much riskier investment compared to QAA and 30DAA? Is there any intention to balance out the PF coverage ratio between these three accounts and make the 90DAA "safer"? The next quarterly updates for the PFs due on 30 June should appear on the AC website shortly I assume. I don't know how much of a lag there usually is in publishing the figures. I would have thought a few weeks. I have asked them.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Aug 22, 2019 10:09:26 GMT
... Summary as I understand it:
The new 90DAA has a rate of 5.75%, but if you keep money invested until at least 22 Aug (no withdrawal notice before 24 May, and 90 days after that to effect the withdrawal), you get an extra 1% cashback on top. ... Just noticed a "significant" net decrease in the invested total for the 90DAA (58.4...M, which is about 0.4M below the 58.8...M I recorded early evening on 20th), and realised that today is the date I'd calculated on the launch of the account/promotion.
So anyone else who noticed it, the reason seems nothing more than people who "only invested for the cashback" taking their money back from the account, and there was a corresponding increase in the QAA that more than offset this.
Perhaps there'll be a few more days of net decreases in the account while the additional boost provided by the launch promotion fully unwinds... the advantage to AC is that for this promotion they've necessarily had 90 days notice of all the intended withdrawals, and have presumably planned for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Aug 22, 2019 11:46:52 GMT
... Summary as I understand it:
The new 90DAA has a rate of 5.75%, but if you keep money invested until at least 22 Aug (no withdrawal notice before 24 May, and 90 days after that to effect the withdrawal), you get an extra 1% cashback on top. ... Just noticed a "significant" net decrease in the invested total for the 90DAA (58.4...M, which is about 0.4M below the 58.8...M I recorded early evening on 20th), and realised that today is the date I'd calculated on the launch of the account/promotion.
So anyone else who noticed it, the reason seems nothing more than people who "only invested for the cashback" taking their money back from the account, and there was a corresponding increase in the QAA that more than offset this.
Perhaps there'll be a few more days of net decreases in the account while the additional boost provided by the launch promotion fully unwinds... the advantage to AC is that for this promotion they've necessarily had 90 days notice of all the intended withdrawals, and have presumably planned for it.
Also take into consideration, active investors will often que withdrawals, only to reinvest the released funds later that day back into the 90DAA (and 30DAA) . I even do this so that if I need any of the cash, its closer to me than the full 90 days. I believe they update every 24 hours so some of that cash will likely go back in, mine will.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Aug 22, 2019 12:33:52 GMT
Also take into consideration, active investors will often que withdrawals, only to reinvest the released funds later that day back into the 90DAA (and 30DAA) . I even do this so that if I need any of the cash, its closer to me than the full 90 days. I believe they update every 24 hours so some of that cash will likely go back in, mine will. I've got mine directed to QAA (full balance) so I suppose, doing that, I would redeposit and then create a fresh 90 day withdrawal mandate (effectively taking out an optional amount) Is that how you'd do that?
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Aug 22, 2019 12:46:55 GMT
... Summary as I understand it:
The new 90DAA has a rate of 5.75%, but if you keep money invested until at least 22 Aug (no withdrawal notice before 24 May, and 90 days after that to effect the withdrawal), you get an extra 1% cashback on top. ... Just noticed a "significant" net decrease in the invested total for the 90DAA (58.4...M, which is about 0.4M below the 58.8...M I recorded early evening on 20th), and realised that today is the date I'd calculated on the launch of the account/promotion.
So anyone else who noticed it, the reason seems nothing more than people who "only invested for the cashback" taking their money back from the account, and there was a corresponding increase in the QAA that more than offset this.
Perhaps there'll be a few more days of net decreases in the account while the additional boost provided by the launch promotion fully unwinds... the advantage to AC is that for this promotion they've necessarily had 90 days notice of all the intended withdrawals, and have presumably planned for it.
I really don't think that's significant or enough data to call a trend. The balance has gone up over £3m so far this month:- 22/08/2019 12:01 58,959,179 21/08/2019 12:01 58,869,803 20/08/2019 12:01 58,826,832 19/08/2019 12:01 58,741,413 18/08/2019 12:01 58,665,883 17/08/2019 12:01 58,567,384 16/08/2019 12:01 58,421,026 15/08/2019 12:01 58,240,743 14/08/2019 12:01 58,062,416 13/08/2019 12:01 57,979,464 12/08/2019 12:01 57,863,542 11/08/2019 12:01 57,818,185 10/08/2019 12:01 57,782,792 09/08/2019 12:01 57,587,778 08/08/2019 12:01 57,446,178 07/08/2019 12:01 57,329,201 06/08/2019 12:01 57,236,905 05/08/2019 12:01 56,958,074 04/08/2019 12:01 56,701,891 03/08/2019 12:01 56,681,186 02/08/2019 12:01 56,611,596 01/08/2019 12:01 55,793,695 31/07/2019 12:01 55,676,690
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Aug 22, 2019 13:01:30 GMT
Also take into consideration, active investors will often que withdrawals, only to reinvest the released funds later that day back into the 90DAA (and 30DAA) . I even do this so that if I need any of the cash, its closer to me than the full 90 days. I believe they update every 24 hours so some of that cash will likely go back in, mine will. I've got mine directed to QAA (full balance) so I suppose, doing that, I would redeposit and then create a fresh 90 day withdrawal mandate (effectively taking out an optional amount) Is that how you'd do that? Yes exactly. Of course I would still only invest for the same reasons as running the full 90 day Withdrawal. But it is a easy thing to repeat every 3 months for what can actually be a nice advantage if you need some of that cash in the medium term future.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Aug 22, 2019 13:27:48 GMT
I really don't think that's significant or enough data to call a trend. The balance has gone up over £3m so far this month:- Your figures have the benefit of being taken consistently at the same time each day, reducing intra-day effects. It looks like you also sampled closer to the peak, so the drop seems to be around £0.5M.
Time stamps in your data seem to be wrong - it definitely wasn't 58,959,179 at 12:01 today, so perhaps you meant 00:01, or you're working in a different time zone?
In the context of the established trend of monotonically increasing totals, which seemed to average nearly 150k increase per day, I'd say that a sudden drop of 0.5M is significant enough to check if there was any obvious explanation for it... and the point was that having realised the explanation I thought I'd share to avoid anyone else being alarmed. If a short-term downward trend were to emerge over the next few days, the same explanation would likely also apply.
Plotting your figures together with the more sporadic data points I have (including the additional data point from this morning), it's definitely significantly below the established trend from the data you supplied.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Aug 22, 2019 15:24:44 GMT
I really don't think that's significant or enough data to call a trend. The balance has gone up over £3m so far this month:- Your figures have the benefit of being taken consistently at the same time each day, reducing intra-day effects. It looks like you also sampled closer to the peak, so the drop seems to be around £0.5M.
Time stamps in your data seem to be wrong - it definitely wasn't 58,959,179 at 12:01 today, so perhaps you meant 00:01, or you're working in a different time zone?
In the context of the established trend of monotonically increasing totals, which seemed to average nearly 150k increase per day, I'd say that a sudden drop of 0.5M is significant enough to check if there was any obvious explanation for it... and the point was that having realised the explanation I thought I'd share to avoid anyone else being alarmed. If a short-term downward trend were to emerge over the next few days, the same explanation would likely also apply.
Plotting your figures together with the more sporadic data points I have (including the additional data point from this morning), it's definitely significantly below the established trend from the data you supplied.
It's set as a 12hr clock so the snaps are actually a minute past midnight (confusing yes but its a daily snap so doesn't really matter). The series does sometimes fall (ie £300k 27-28 July), guess its best to see where in trends in the next few days.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Aug 23, 2019 12:10:34 GMT
I've got mine directed to QAA (full balance) so I suppose, doing that, I would redeposit and then create a fresh 90 day withdrawal mandate (effectively taking out an optional amount) Is that how you'd do that? Yes exactly. Of course I would still only invest for the same reasons as running the full 90 day Withdrawal. But it is a easy thing to repeat every 3 months for what can actually be a nice advantage if you need some of that cash in the medium term future. I have just received my 90day balance and slipped (a large chunk of) it instantly from QAA into 30DAA with an immediate notice to withraw in the same way but in 30 days times. [90 days is not attractive for the extra rate to me and I was patient only because of the 1% cashback offer. The 30DAA works as a good stand-in and I have used it to queue withdrawals before now.]
|
|
