duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,878 
Likes: 6,949
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Aug 5, 2016 5:21:27 GMT
Reference loan 174. I note there was an update 10th of July on the activity tab. How does one keep abreast of these activity announcements? I am lending via the MLIA but I did not receive any email in July. Personally I go to 'Your Loans' and then hit the 'Last Updated' button which brings the latest to the top.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 5, 2016 5:36:06 GMT
Fraid not happy . My GBBA had no uninvested cash. Btw I’m not saying I’m certain I have proof about anything (& indeed may be mistaken). As mentioned my concern is more for MLIA investors (which, bar a token marker, I am no longer on this loan - so have nothing to gain) on this or any other deal. Offloading from QAA to GBBA I personally consider less of an issue as both have PF’s (though a GBBA investor may prefer his money not to be invested in loans just as they go wobbly!), but QAA (or any IA) offloads to MLIA does raise questions. Also as to the how & who by levers can be pulled. We have in the past been told that the IA’s were fully automated algorithms with no outside interventions possible. I hope that’s the case, but am struggling to see it. chris presumably can explain. Edit: also the QAA/30D accounts have PF protection as well so it would make little difference if the loan units sat in QA ot GBBA. On the losses yes but on the QAA’s liquidity it might. I’m actually surprised an outside intervention would have been made in this case, if it’s for £50-100k (then again it might be more, we don’t know) of a £30m pot. There were only two sellers of #174 on the day of suspension, the larger one was a private seller who sold under half their holding in the loan at 13:33. That lender is not an underwriter nor are they an employee of Assetz Capital. Having checked them out on LinkedIn I can't see any common connections with AC staff either. The other seller sold less than £100 and likewise had no connection to the platform. I hope that satisfies you that there is categorically no insider trading or manipulation of the IAs. In this instance a private seller has sold into the IAs which should demonstrate that the GBBA was not operating with any special knowledge at that point in time. It was just a lucky sale at the right time by a private investor but with them still having a substantial investment in the loan.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Aug 5, 2016 9:37:35 GMT
Fraid not happy . My GBBA had no uninvested cash. Btw I’m not saying I’m certain I have proof about anything (& indeed may be mistaken). As mentioned my concern is more for MLIA investors (which, bar a token marker, I am no longer on this loan - so have nothing to gain) on this or any other deal. Offloading from QAA to GBBA I personally consider less of an issue as both have PF’s (though a GBBA investor may prefer his money not to be invested in loans just as they go wobbly!), but QAA (or any IA) offloads to MLIA does raise questions. Also as to the how & who by levers can be pulled. We have in the past been told that the IA’s were fully automated algorithms with no outside interventions possible. I hope that’s the case, but am struggling to see it. chris presumably can explain. Edit: also the QAA/30D accounts have PF protection as well so it would make little difference if the loan units sat in QA ot GBBA. On the losses yes but on the QAA’s liquidity it might. I’m actually surprised an outside intervention would have been made in this case, if it’s for £50-100k (then again it might be more, we don’t know) of a £30m pot. Sounds strange why the system would just decide to sell a small amount of your QAA and invest it in the GBBA without your explicit instruction to do so. If you say you have no uninvested cash in your GBBA perhaps you received some interest/capital repayment which just happened to be in the GBBA when #174 came on the market. Like I said, if there had been an explicit sell from QAA directly invested funds you should see this in the QAA transaction history, if it was swept funds you would only see entries in the IA that the funds were directly invested in. Perhaps worth checking if you had some small repayments into your GBBA prior to the purchases. Can you confirm this for us please chris
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Aug 5, 2016 9:43:10 GMT
Fraid not happy . My GBBA had no uninvested cash. Btw I’m not saying I’m certain I have proof about anything (& indeed may be mistaken). As mentioned my concern is more for MLIA investors (which, bar a token marker, I am no longer on this loan - so have nothing to gain) on this or any other deal. Offloading from QAA to GBBA I personally consider less of an issue as both have PF’s (though a GBBA investor may prefer his money not to be invested in loans just as they go wobbly!), but QAA (or any IA) offloads to MLIA does raise questions. Also as to the how & who by levers can be pulled. We have in the past been told that the IA’s were fully automated algorithms with no outside interventions possible. I hope that’s the case, but am struggling to see it. chris presumably can explain. Edit: also the QAA/30D accounts have PF protection as well so it would make little difference if the loan units sat in QA ot GBBA. On the losses yes but on the QAA’s liquidity it might. I’m actually surprised an outside intervention would have been made in this case, if it’s for £50-100k (then again it might be more, we don’t know) of a £30m pot. There were only two sellers of #174 on the day of suspension, the larger one was a private seller who sold under half their holding in the loan at 13:33. That lender is not an underwriter nor are they an employee of Assetz Capital. Having checked them out on LinkedIn I can't see any common connections with AC staff either. The other seller sold less than £100 and likewise had no connection to the platform. I hope that satisfies you that there is categorically no insider trading or manipulation of the IAs. In this instance a private seller has sold into the IAs which should demonstrate that the GBBA was not operating with any special knowledge at that point in time. It was just a lucky sale at the right time by a private investor but with them still having a substantial investment in the loan. Thanks Chris, I never suspected any "insider" activity or diect AC intervention, more someone got wind of issues in the public domain, this is much more likely with someone with a large stake in any loans who monitors them on a daily basis.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on Aug 5, 2016 10:25:43 GMT
I hope that satisfies you that there is categorically no insider trading or manipulation of the IAs. In this instance a private seller has sold into the IAs which should demonstrate that the GBBA was not operating with any special knowledge at that point in time. It was just a lucky sale at the right time by a private investor but with them still having a substantial investment in the loan.
Thanks chris. My question was different (as per my earlier posts) if you could please check, ta. Did the QAA sell any units of loan 174 (& what is its holding now)? I can’t make any sense of what happened or why (£50-100k liquidity on a £30m pot shouldn’t sound like an issue?)
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 5, 2016 12:10:57 GMT
I hope that satisfies you that there is categorically no insider trading or manipulation of the IAs. In this instance a private seller has sold into the IAs which should demonstrate that the GBBA was not operating with any special knowledge at that point in time. It was just a lucky sale at the right time by a private investor but with them still having a substantial investment in the loan.
Thanks chris . My question was different (as per my earlier posts) if you could please check, ta. Did the QAA sell any units of loan 174 (& what is its holding now)? I can’t make any sense of what happened or why (£50-100k liquidity on a £30m pot shouldn’t sound like an issue?) I thought my comment did address that point, but as far as I can see the QAA has never invested in that loan and currently does not invest in that loan. If you have a specific question about your account then please could you relay that to our customer services team as they will be able to investigate for you, but there have been capital and interest repayments in the last couple of days which could explain why you had spare cash. Details will be on your statement.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Aug 5, 2016 20:03:21 GMT
Nice clarity there chris . Whilst I fully expected that response it's good to see. Thank you. |
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,878
Likes: 6,949
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Aug 7, 2016 15:28:32 GMT
#152 paid back yesterday for those that don't long onto their accounts at weekends!
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Aug 9, 2016 16:50:50 GMT
Loan 266 (Recycling man) - Having repaid £4k from a £300k loan the borrower is seeking a CVA.
Looks like not a good time to be in the scrap / recycling business (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/steel-slump-hits-scrap-dynasty-5kg3xbj0b). Also another scrappy on TC looks to be in trouble.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,044
Likes: 4,437
Member is Online
|
Post by agent69 on Aug 10, 2016 17:29:28 GMT
Fairly unimpressive update for 204
Major debtor is having trouble repaying, documentary evidence previously provide by the borrower has proved to be unreliable, and there appears to be strange goings on whereby debts owed by a previous company are appearing on the balance sheet of the borrower.
Where's that exit
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Aug 10, 2016 17:45:38 GMT
Yes, this seems to me to be the most disconcerting to date.
I was sufficiently unsettled by previous updates to ditch my small holding in this loan a while ago.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,878
Likes: 6,949
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Aug 10, 2016 19:13:01 GMT
I do not hold this loan in MLIA but 22p is held by my GBBA, so I received the Email. I know from previous 'discussions' that there is some form of regulatory requirement that all borrowers are notified of certain events but I can't help but think that since the GBBA is supposed to be 'black box' the majority of GBBA lenders will be wondering what on earth this Email means and specifically what does it mean for them, since they probably didn't even know they were invested in the loan.
Whilst I am never a lover of more paperwork perhaps if GBBA lenders have to receive the Email their version should be more tailored to their account.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 10, 2016 19:17:43 GMT
I do not hold this loan in MLIA but 22p is held by my GBBA, so I received the Email. I know from previous 'discussions' that there is some form of regulatory requirement that all borrowers are notified of certain events but I can't help but think that since the GBBA is supposed to be 'black box' the majority of GBBA lenders will be wondering what on earth this Email means and specifically what does it mean for them, since they probably didn't even know they were invested in the loan. Whilst I am never a lover of more paperwork perhaps if GBBA lenders have to receive the Email their version should be more tailored to their account. Or perhaps the emails could be personalised to at least state what value of holding you have in the loan. I have received the email, I have not logged into my account, I do not recal whether I have it in MLIA or whether it's a GBBA holding. And if it is in GBBA, I haven't a clue how to even find out how much of it I might hold. I have no appetite for running off transaction reports and working it out from there.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Aug 10, 2016 20:31:31 GMT
I do not hold this loan in MLIA but 22p is held by my GBBA, so I received the Email. I know from previous 'discussions' that there is some form of regulatory requirement that all borrowers are notified of certain events but I can't help but think that since the GBBA is supposed to be 'black box' the majority of GBBA lenders will be wondering what on earth this Email means and specifically what does it mean for them, since they probably didn't even know they were invested in the loan. Whilst I am never a lover of more paperwork perhaps if GBBA lenders have to receive the Email their version should be more tailored to their account. Or perhaps the emails could be personalised to at least state what value of holding you have in the loan. I have received the email, I have not logged into my account, I do not recal whether I have it in MLIA or whether it's a GBBA holding. And if it is in GBBA, I haven't a clue how to even find out how much of it I might hold. I have no appetite for running off transaction reports and working it out from there. I get emails for #204, Scot Prop & #26 despite the fact I have a zero holding displayed in MLIA. They still appear in My Loans so I guess I have failed to sell that bit of my holding between 20-40dp.
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,878
Likes: 6,949
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Aug 11, 2016 4:51:07 GMT
Or perhaps the emails could be personalised to at least state what value of holding you have in the loan. I have received the email, I have not logged into my account, I do not recal whether I have it in MLIA or whether it's a GBBA holding. And if it is in GBBA, I haven't a clue how to even find out how much of it I might hold. I have no appetite for running off transaction reports and working it out from there. I get emails for #204, Scot Prop & #26 despite the fact I have a zero holding displayed in MLIA. They still appear in My Loans so I guess I have failed to sell that bit of my holding between 20-40dp. You might well have sold everything but have some outstanding accrued interest, I certainly do for a couple of BLs and other loans that I sold out of before they had issues.
|
|
