Jase88
Hope we can talk more as a group before we go in to make our investment's on the peer platform...
Posts: 7 
|
Post by Jase88 on Nov 7, 2014 2:41:18 GMT
Andrew just quick Quote on the forum on under your expertise "Would the Assetz Capital Management Team consider integrating PayPal on the manage funds accounts for everyone for faster transaction's for and an easier way to move money/funds into our client SME account's just like the Go-Cardless account's worked as PayPal is used worldwide an has a very strong reputation on our Dightal world very safe and secure an quick an easy to use" I for one already have it and I can put money into my PayPal from my bank or PayPal can take money directly from my bank account even if I've no funds in my PayPal when I give the GREEN LIGHT" With all this on mind with the New Website more an more member's on the Peer-to-Peer Lending Platform should see that its not the usual complacatied task that our member's most likely are facing with the NO ADD FUNDS (quick link) from the Go-Cardless on our Platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 7, 2014 6:59:27 GMT
Andrew just quick Quote on the forum on under your expertise "Would the Assetz Capital Management Team consider integrating PayPal on the manage funds accounts for everyone for faster transaction's for and an easier way to move money/funds into our client SME account's just like the Go-Cardless account's worked as PayPal is used worldwide an has a very strong reputation on our Dightal world very safe and secure an quick an easy to use" I for one already have it and I can put money into my PayPal from my bank or PayPal can take money directly from my bank account even if I've no funds in my PayPal when I give the GREEN LIGHT" With all this on mind with the New Website more an more member's on the Peer-to-Peer Lending Platform should see that its not the usual complacatied task that our member's most likely are facing with the NO ADD FUNDS (quick link) from the Go-Cardless on our Platform.
The problem with PayPal is when cleared funds are credited to our bank account. PayPal's clearing time was 21 days last time I checked so that would mean that we couldn't credit your Assetz Capital account until the full 21 days after you made the deposit. The only way around this is for us to transfer our own funds in when you make the deposit and then claim them back once your PayPal payment has cleared. Even if we put a £100,000 daily limit on all transfers into the platform via PayPal, which is a small fraction of the transfers we currently get on our busiest days, then we'd need to set aside £2.1m just to cover this service with a large risk of people cancelling transactions. To mitigate against that, and comply with anti-money laundering rules, we'd need to track the level of cleared and uncleared funds per user and restrict withdrawals - so you couldn't transfer money in with PayPal and then withdraw it within that 21 day period. On top of this PayPal charge large fees of 3.4% of the money you transfer in plus 20p. If you deposit £1,000 then we'd be charged £34.20. That would either lead to us charging large fees to lenders or making us massively unprofitable. GoCardless was removed for similar reasons, a 1% fee which was already too much unless we started charging lenders, and a seven day clearing period with an indefinite chargeback period. A debit card solution is on its way but requires co-operation from our bank which is a slow process.
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on Nov 7, 2014 10:27:06 GMT
... The current system of allowing transfers as little as £0.01 and splitting larger transfers into chunks as small as £1 seems great for a technical demonstration of the capabilities of the platform, but these limits seem to me too small for day-to-day practical use... The general consensus on this very forum before the change over was that these small chunks would give everybody a fair chance of holding at least a small part of every loan they wanted, therefore increasing diversification. It's certainly worked for me and, ok, for the first few days, weeks even, there have been major changes for us all to get used to (along with more than a few hiccups) and loads of micro transactions going to and fro. These should start to slow down as the system and all the portfolios it's trying to balance start to settle.
|
|
unmadem
Member of DD Central
Posts: 377
Likes: 181
|
Post by unmadem on Nov 7, 2014 11:59:19 GMT
This is now fixed. Thanks for letting us know. To me it doesn't look like it has been fixed Colin. Instead it looks like it has reverted back to not taking account of any bids. As jim says including the funded bids would be great i.e. the total of "bids" (not shadow bid) on the your bids report. Looks ok now Colin . Good to get an accurate total back. Having the hyperlink to the accepted bids report on the "outstanding bids" text was a nice touch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 7, 2014 12:57:29 GMT
As AC expands there are going to much greater numbers of loans, so the volume of transactions is likely to escalate, hence my suggestion of dividing over-subscribed loans into £10 chunks rather than £1. My vote would also be for a smaller number of larger transactions, rather than a larger number of smaller transactions. The current system of allowing transfers as little as £0.01 and splitting larger transfers into chunks as small as £1 seems great for a technical demonstration of the capabilities of the platform, but these limits seem to me too small for day-to-day practical use. Personally I wouldn't stop at £10, but would increase both these limits 100-fold, so that transfers must always be at least £1, and that multiple counterparties are only sought for a transfer in excess of £100 (allocating up to £100 to each counterparty found), or in cases where the first selected counterparty does not have capacity to match the entire order. This should go a long way towards reducing "spammy" transactions on the statement. In addition, it seems to me that a minimum non-zero holding should be present - whilst someone already holding the loan could freely increase their holding by units as little as £1 (the larger limit proposed above), it would seem to me to make sense that someone with no existing holding should either continue to have no existing holding, or acquire a chunk large enough to be worth the overhead of tracking repayments, informing them by email of changes to the status of the loan and collating replies to votes. £10 would seem a sensible minimum for this (with smaller holdings pre-dating the imposition of a minimum, or holdings which have been reduced below £10 by amortisation both allowed to remain), as indeed would the previous £20 minimum. I'm happy for small bits I don't balance the books at month end. How about the user specifying the level that the Shrapnelator [tm] works at? . I think it wouldbe a nice touch if Lenders can have it work at pence and greater or pounds or £10's & more. [tm] held by mikeb
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 3,242
|
Post by jonno on Nov 7, 2014 13:12:38 GMT
Ton ⓉⓞⓃ,pardon me if I'm speaking (posting) out of turn,but have you been re-shnaprelised (gender wise)  Oops, I mean re-shrapnelised
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 7, 2014 13:17:28 GMT
Ton ⓉⓞⓃ Shrapnelator [tm] Very good!  I put a "new" word on another thread, then found out on google that it was an "old" one! Re Paypal .... yes I do have a Paypal account for eBay, but who in their right mind bothers with a company that ends its TV adverts with a subhuman intoning the inspiring lyrics: "nah-nah-nah-nah-naaaaaaaaaahhhhh!" followed by some cretinous idiot in the other room shouting out, "people rule." 
Banal doesn't describe the half of it! I'd be inclined to forget the B! <behave oldG or LJ will ban you again!> 
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 7, 2014 13:21:05 GMT
Ton ⓉⓞⓃ,pardon me if I'm speaking (posting) out of turn,but have you been re-shnaprelised (gender wise) We had a French master called Geen* Obviously, There was a French master called Geen Who invented a w machine, On the 99th stroke etc.... Certainly being personally re-shrapnelised would bring tears to the eyes ....   * ended up as Chief Education Officer in Bexley * he had a wooden hammer and used to stalk round the classroom whacking the desks with it to keep us awake. We called him Boris.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 3,242
|
Post by jonno on Nov 7, 2014 13:37:20 GMT
I always wondered who invented the washing machine. I'd suspected it was J Edgar Hoover. So, it WAS Boris Geen all the time.Thanks Grumps.  |
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 7, 2014 13:51:27 GMT
Shraplenator is fantastic :-) Returning to other points raised earlier though My feeling is that – concerns re number of transactions aside (which I understand but think is a different problem which AC will find a way of handling) - the vast majority of lenders will prefer the gradual “everyone gets a bit sold off” process rather than the lightning strike lucky hit. In a rapidly growing market like P2P there should be very healthy demand from new lenders for units offered for sale, so non-problematic loans should be taken up very quickly whatever system is adopted. Problematic loan cases might be different though. There’s at least 3 ways these sales could be handled 1. At random (lucky bolt of lightning for someone & maybe nowt for others) 2. Gradual everyone gets a bit sold off 3. First to the exit door (ie first units to be listed are first to get sold off) My guess is that the random one will be the most unpopular with exiting lenders, it’s harder to justify as a “fair” system. 2 & 3 above are fairer & each with its own merits. In a super-charged AC platform operating at the speed of light in a large marketplace of buyers & sellers I’m guessing the difference between these 2 options could even be minimal. Underwriter sell-offs may have to be handled differently says Chris (due to existing formal agreements) , & if so will mean they would have to continue to be marked as different units by the system (in which case I throw my tuppence in again for making this visible to lenders, it’s info sorely missing right now that we used to have before & can only encourage investments). That said, it’s unclear to me anyway what sort of a problem we have with the underwriters for their sell-offs. I can imagine the agreements in place are one of the following: - a. First uw INTO the loan gets first priority to sell-off - b. First to list for sale gets first right to exit (his entire slice) - c. Something more “complex” (over a certain £x underwritten you get the right to jump the exit queue in some way, or maybe simply BIGGEST FIRST) Others have pointed out that in a thriving marketplace there should be little difference as to what system is adopted even for uw’s sell-offs. Wrt the “here & now discussion to be had with uw’s” though, I may well be missing something but surely this can be sorted fairly easily? If the current agreement is a. then the onus is on the uw to get into the loan first (his decision), ditto if it’s b (heck if you’ve stuck a big 5 or 6 figure sum into something surely you should be looking at managing its sale once the loan is offered) & ditto if it’s c. (the rules of the game are clear & uw’s can decide how much to put in based on these) May be missing something, if not what’s the problem chris? Whatever the case, my guess is that if uw’s are edgy about this issue the fundamental reason behind it is the situation we are ALL in now, ie not enough small lenders taking up the slack. So it’s THIS that needs to get sorted out asap. Sorry to bang on about it but just by way of example… loan 120...fairly mainstream AC meat’n’potatoes property loan..mid-size…1st charge…rate in line with where the wind seems to be on AC (with maybe even a cashback/bonus during auction?)… offered to lenders back in July (wow, was hot then I seem to recall)…. & finally drawn down this week… following not exactly on the heels of a long tail of property loans… & there’s still (4 months after being offered to us) two thirds of it sitting on the market. Plus (who knows) maybe more sitting with uw’s & not listed yet? Last point (on the issue of “Strange activity on the AM” raised in another thread), again may have misunderstood but it would seem to me that in all 3 of the above a/b/c scenarios above it would NOT be in the uw’s interests to shuffle any of his positions across loans. So why are they doing this? |
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Nov 7, 2014 13:56:34 GMT
I’m glad anyway that others have raised (& that AC are thinking about) the sales process for loans, not just the purchases. Exit is fundamental to investors, without a clear path out they will put much less in, & some none at all. (Think of the peeps used to buying & selling equities/ETF’s/bonds & the like at the click of a button… the first question they will be asking themselves when looking at P2P for the first time will be… ok, sounds good, but how can I get OUT?!?)
Leading platforms like AC will not only need to have the right algorithms in place but also a very clear & publically declared explanation as to how it works. Linked from somewhere near the top of their homepage most likely..
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 7, 2014 14:09:52 GMT
AC need underwriters to maintain the growth of the platform. Why? There are not enough of us to do it - yet. Underwriters need us, and our money, to buy them out, but we are unable (and/or unwilling) to buy from them (a) because we have a large amount of money stuck in a lot of defaulted loans, money which should have been paid out months ago and would be reinvested, easing the underwriters' position and confidence, and (b) because we are not depositing enough new money onto the platform until we discover the efficacy of AC's procedures in resolving all these defaulting scenarios.
The flaky launch of the new and complex platform, in my view, is subsidiary to the above situation when it comes to easing the secondary market. How much further will underwriters go in AC's much trumpeted target of £100M loans by the end of the year? They have more in these default situations than we do.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Nov 7, 2014 14:49:41 GMT
I’m glad anyway that others have raised (& that AC are thinking about) the sales process for loans, not just the purchases. Exit is fundamental to investors, without a clear path out they will put much less in, & some none at all. (Think of the peeps used to buying & selling equities/ETF’s/bonds & the like at the click of a button… the first question they will be asking themselves when looking at P2P for the first time will be… ok, sounds good, but how can I get OUT?!?) Leading platforms like AC will not only need to have the right algorithms in place but also a very clear & publically declared explanation as to how it works. Linked from somewhere near the top of their homepage most likely.. The current selling algorithm is working well enough for me. I occasionally sell chunks of loans despite there being 4 or 5 figure amounts of the same loan up for sale. I understand that SS prioritise end-lender sales over underwriters in order to reassure lenders that they stand a reasonable chance of liquidising if need be. I'm not saying we necessarily should go that far but I do think quite a few lenders are wary of buying too much of loans they don't think they'll be able to sell.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Nov 7, 2014 14:57:28 GMT
I’m glad anyway that others have raised (& that AC are thinking about) the sales process for loans, not just the purchases. Exit is fundamental to investors, without a clear path out they will put much less in, & some none at all. (Think of the peeps used to buying & selling equities/ETF’s/bonds & the like at the click of a button… the first question they will be asking themselves when looking at P2P for the first time will be… ok, sounds good, but how can I get OUT?!?) Leading platforms like AC will not only need to have the right algorithms in place but also a very clear & publically declared explanation as to how it works. Linked from somewhere near the top of their homepage most likely.. The current selling algorithm is working well enough for me. I occasionally sell chunks of loans despite there being 4 or 5 figure amounts of the same loan up for sale. I understand that SS prioritise end-lender sales over underwriters in order to reassure lenders that they stand a reasonable chance of liquidising if need be. I'm not saying we necessarily should go that far but I do think quite a few lenders are wary of buying too much of loans they don't think they'll be able to sell. It depends on what you are trying to sell, it took over a week to dispose of the bits of the loans that the system purchased on my behalf and against my pre-upgrade instructions following the upgrade
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Nov 7, 2014 15:04:05 GMT
How much further will underwriters go in AC's much trumpeted target of £100M loans by the end of the year? They have more in these default situations than we do. I guess they (and we) will go as far as the first major loss (which I hope never happens). If one of the defaulted loans turns out to be unrecoverable via the security that was taken, it will scare off quite a few lenders. The model looks sound, but still needs to prove itself with a successful and robust recovery of the defaulted loans.
|
|
