|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 22, 2014 15:11:44 GMT
I do agree and have instigate the poll and related thread in order to capture user feedback on how best to deal with it. The "always on" nature of manual invest is a side effect of the underlying systems it has been built upon that have to work in an always on way. That I can't change easily but I have a plan with the amortising of the target. With the greatest of respect to the ingeniousness of the new system, a system that doesn't have a "do nothing" option seems to me fundamentally flawed. As mentioned on the other thread, a target represented in the database by a "null" value or an absent record (depending on exact schema and what other fields are in the same record) can be used to represent the "do nothing" option. This should then be the default for any user who had never set an AI target for a loan, nor performed any action on the new system to cause the target to become anything other than the default. Using that solution, a "null" target could, in calculations where "null" isn't valid, be replaced with the actual current investment amount, so that rather than any need to actively amortise the target, it would simply always appear as exactly equal to the current investment. The relevant database queries then need consider (e.g.) only those users who have a target set for the loan under consideration, rather than all users, thereby needing to access fewer records, and potentially improving the overall efficiency of the system. If a target is set for a particular loan (whether manually, or as the result of matching one of the yet-to-launch products), the system should of course seek to maintain that target by buying or selling portions of the loan unit as necessary. However, if no target is set, the system should leave that loan well alone - neither buying nor selling portions of the loan on behalf of the user. To be clear - a brand new user, or a user who never enabled AI on the old site, would have the target for ALL loans initially "not set". Only if they actively opt in to some product that causes a target to be set would they gain a target for any loan. It is not quite the same issue, I have no problem with having separate statements for each of the accounts, in fact I actively welcome it if they are truly separate accounts since I use a full double entry accounting system. However my problem is that the separate statements that we now have do not adhere to basic accounting rules and so cannot be reconciled.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 22, 2014 15:18:31 GMT
I am going to scream (again) in a moment.  Having switched the MLA to withdraw Repayments and Interest, gone through and reset all the MAI targets to what they should be for amortising loans to amortise and what I actually bought not what I might have put in the AI before it was edited or disabled, put up for sale all the loan parts that the MAI bought that I don't want and had not instructed it to buy plus a few more to release funds for a shadow bid settlement, I note that my Cash holding has increased but not by the expected full amount. Ok thinks me, I will check my statement to see what has and hasn't been sold. So since all yesterdays MAI transactions were in the statement accessed via the three bars Icon on the MLA summary I go there and what do I find absolutely no transaction records beyond those the MAI made yesterday. So I go the the reports tab and click on the statement (which supposedly only reposts CA transactions) and low and behold all the transactions that have taken place today, presumably since I switched off automatic reinvestment, are in this report. This is now a major reconciliation nightmare as it appears that my CA is selling loans in my MLA, and it will potentially only get worse if I stay with AC and dabble in up coming their Green and Automated products. If the CA and MLA are separate accounts then there should be entries for the loan sales in the MLA statement and matching pairs of transfer entries in both the CA and MLA to show the transfer of the funds from the MLA to the CA. After all I have a matching pair of transactions showing cash being transferred from the CA to the MLA You have more than one virtual bank account with AC now. One is your cash account, you have one each for each of the products. When you withdraw funds payments can be redirected straight to your cash balance, hence appearing on your cash statement. You have one statement per virtual bank account. We could route everything via the product account and then back to the cash account but no doubt we'd then be criticised for all the extraneous transactions. But I don't because the statements don't follow basic double entry accounting rules and thus are unreconcilable. My CA statement is showing sales that occurred in my MLA where if they were truly separate accounts and followed basic account rules the sales in the MLA would appear in the MLA statement and there would be corresponding pairs of entries to cover the transfers from the MLA to the CA. I am assuming this error is occurring because I am routing all income in the MLA directly to the CA in order to overcome the MAI issue
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Oct 22, 2014 15:26:01 GMT
batchoy, I'll have to admit I was also anticipating that the transactions would be double accounted as you've described. Out of interest do your cash account transactions say which account the latest received payments to which you have referred have been transferred from? If so then it should at least be possible to reconstruct the cash movement between accounts from the records in their current form.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 22, 2014 15:31:25 GMT
batchoy, I'll have to admit I was also anticipating that the transactions would be double accounted as you've described. Out of interest do your cash account transactions say which account the latest received payments to which you have referred have been transferred from? If so then it should at least be possible to reconstruct the cash movement between accounts from the records in their current form. They are double entry but against the loan account itself. I can see the issue and if people agree money should still flow from the loan to the investment account and then back to the cash account then I'll add it to the to do list.
|
|
mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 187 
Likes: 121
|
Post by mike on Oct 22, 2014 15:35:26 GMT
chris can you change the auto log out frequency to longer or make it a user setting. It's getting on my wick lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 22, 2014 15:36:33 GMT
chris can you change the auto log out frequency to longer or make it a user setting. It's getting on my wick lol! There's a plan to make it user configurable but that's going to take a few days for us to get to. It's 20 minutes of inactivity at the moment, with only page loads counting as activity.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
Member is Online
|
Post by pikestaff on Oct 22, 2014 15:42:17 GMT
batchoy, I'll have to admit I was also anticipating that the transactions would be double accounted as you've described. Out of interest do your cash account transactions say which account the latest received payments to which you have referred have been transferred from? If so then it should at least be possible to reconstruct the cash movement between accounts from the records in their current form. They are double entry but against the loan account itself. I can see the issue and if people agree money should still flow from the loan to the investment account and then back to the cash account then I'll add it to the to do list. I don't think it matters very much provided it is clear what the cash relates to. Those people who like to prove every single cash flow - something I do on TC but have never felt the need to do on AC - should be able to cope either way, once they get used to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 22, 2014 15:50:43 GMT
They are double entry but against the loan account itself. I can see the issue and if people agree money should still flow from the loan to the investment account and then back to the cash account then I'll add it to the to do list. I don't think it matters very much provided it is clear what the cash relates to. Those people who like to prove every single cash flow - something I do on TC but have never felt the need to do on AC - should be able to cope either way, once they get used to it. I think it will get worse with the addition of further products as heralded in the upgrade. The entries in the CA statement only indicate which loan was sold they do not indicate which account the loans where held in when that sale occurred, so if you have two or more accounts that maybe contain the same loans and you have all of them set to transfer income to the CA it will be the devils own job of working out which account the loan was held in when it was sold.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 22, 2014 15:53:17 GMT
batchoy, I'll have to admit I was also anticipating that the transactions would be double accounted as you've described. Out of interest do your cash account transactions say which account the latest received payments to which you have referred have been transferred from? If so then it should at least be possible to reconstruct the cash movement between accounts from the records in their current form. No they only refer to the loan that was sold, which marginally OK with a single account but gets increasingly difficult with multiple accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Oct 22, 2014 15:53:54 GMT
batchoy, I'll have to admit I was also anticipating that the transactions would be double accounted as you've described. Out of interest do your cash account transactions say which account the latest received payments to which you have referred have been transferred from? If so then it should at least be possible to reconstruct the cash movement between accounts from the records in their current form. They are double entry but against the loan account itself. I can see the issue and if people agree money should still flow from the loan to the investment account and then back to the cash account then I'll add it to the to do list. , I'm still not clear. If I have two different amounts of the same loan held in two different accounts and have "withdraw repayments" selected in both accounts, with the current set-up would I be able to identify the individual interest and capital repayments from the cash account transaction records and see which account the payments came from? If so, then I think I reckon I'd be happy with that, though I think I'd probably prefer the more thorough approach if given a choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 22, 2014 15:56:03 GMT
batchoy, I'll have to admit I was also anticipating that the transactions would be double accounted as you've described. Out of interest do your cash account transactions say which account the latest received payments to which you have referred have been transferred from? If so then it should at least be possible to reconstruct the cash movement between accounts from the records in their current form. They are double entry but against the loan account itself. I can see the issue and if people agree money should still flow from the loan to the investment account and then back to the cash account then I'll add it to the to do list. If they are truly separate accounts then they need to be accounted for as such and the moment the system is reporting them as neither one thing or the other but a mishmash of single and separate accounts depending on what your settings are.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 22, 2014 15:57:46 GMT
They are double entry but against the loan account itself. I can see the issue and if people agree money should still flow from the loan to the investment account and then back to the cash account then I'll add it to the to do list. , I'm still not clear. If I have two different amounts of the same loan held in two different accounts and have "withdraw repayments" selected in both accounts, with the current set-up would I be able to identify the individual interest and capital repayments from the cash account transaction records and see which account the payments came from? If so, then I think I'm be okay with that, though I think I'd probably prefer the more thorough approach if given a choice. I can either add the account name to the transaction or I can route through both accounts. I think the latter will cause more confusion for the casual users who do not reconcile everything and want to see activity so I think I'd prefer the former, but I haven't decided either way yet so can be swayed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Oct 22, 2014 16:12:04 GMT
chris, I'm still not clear. If I have two different amounts of the same loan held in two different accounts and have "withdraw repayments" selected in both accounts, with the current set-up would I be able to identify the individual interest and capital repayments from the cash account transaction records and see which account the payments came from? If so, then I think I'm be okay with that, though I think I'd probably prefer the more thorough approach if given a choice. I can either add the account name to the transaction or I can route through both accounts. I think the latter will cause more confusion for the casual users who do not reconcile everything and want to see activity so I think I'd prefer the former, but I haven't decided either way yet so can be swayed. , If you're considering compiling a single combined download of all transactions relating to all accounts (with an extra column added containing an account reference), as I think you've indicated in a previous post that you are, then it seems the first approach (just adding the account name or number to the transaction text) would be ideal. And presumably simpler programming too?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Oct 22, 2014 16:21:03 GMT
Surely the risk level has decreased as LTV is reduced, even if you had acquired 100% of the loan? Good point. I'm glad there's a valid reason for me liking to keep my amount topped up, even if I didn't know what it was  Normally the longer you hold a loan the more time there is for things to go wrong, be it a company issue or a global one, even if the ltv is apparently improving.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 22, 2014 16:45:48 GMT
chris, I'm still not clear. If I have two different amounts of the same loan held in two different accounts and have "withdraw repayments" selected in both accounts, with the current set-up would I be able to identify the individual interest and capital repayments from the cash account transaction records and see which account the payments came from? If so, then I think I'm be okay with that, though I think I'd probably prefer the more thorough approach if given a choice. I can either add the account name to the transaction or I can route through both accounts. I think the latter will cause more confusion for the casual users who do not reconcile everything and want to see activity so I think I'd prefer the former, but I haven't decided either way yet so can be swayed. Either these are separate accounts and AC is a professional organisation in which cases the statements for the accounts must follow proper double entry rules with purchases and sales in investment accounts recorded in the statement for that account so that it balances, and movements between accounts are recorded in both accounts or the whole thing has turned into an amateurish game, and I have hit my second potential killer issue with the AC platform as it is now constituted.
|
|
