gmitz
Posts: 71 
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Nov 14, 2019 18:59:08 GMT
The closure of those accounts is bad, very bad. Now, no one can buy me out and my thousands of pounds are locked there for 4-5 years or even more if some loans go bad. If AC remove the only option for investors who want to release their investments from those accounts, AC should do the right thing and move the funds of those investors in the 30 and 90 days accounts. Why can't people buy you out? You can still sell the loans you hold exactly as you could before. In theory, yes but in reality? I wasn't counting on inventors buying my chunks in old loans through MLA, my only hope was someone to invest in GBBA2 thus sooner or later I would have my investments back. I put all my investments in GBBA1 for sale six months before AC closed it down, I still have thousand in it. Now the same would happened with my investments in GBBA2.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Nov 14, 2019 19:03:31 GMT
Furthermore, I am not sure you can sell any particular loan/s from all accounts apart from MLA and if don't have that control over your portfolio, how can you offer discounts!
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Nov 14, 2019 19:09:55 GMT
Furthermore, I am not sure you can sell any particular loan/s from all accounts apart from MLA and if don't have that control over your portfolio, how can you offer discounts! (As things stand) you cannot. Selling your investment amounts to a request to withdraw a certain AMOUNT only. All loans are then offered to the market in some black box form and remain offered until your target amount is achieved (at which point??)
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Nov 14, 2019 19:54:58 GMT
Furthermore, I am not sure you can sell any particular loan/s from all accounts apart from MLA and if don't have that control over your portfolio, how can you offer discounts! (As things stand) you cannot. Selling your investment amounts to a request to withdraw a certain AMOUNT only. All loans are then offered to the market in some black box form and remain offered until your target amount is achieved (at which point??) Exactly, one has no control whatsoever. Assetz should take a very close look at Ablrate's secondary market or just remove the gimmicks and become another RateSetter.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Nov 14, 2019 20:23:44 GMT
(As things stand) you cannot. Selling your investment amounts to a request to withdraw a certain AMOUNT only. All loans are then offered to the market in some black box form and remain offered until your target amount is achieved (at which point??) Exactly, one has no control whatsoever. Assetz should take a very close look at Ablrate's secondary market or just remove the gimmicks and become another RateSetter. Not sure either of these is a forward step. Ratesetter just moved their multiple marketplaces to mimic our single marketplace and doubt ABLrate have the liquidity and scale we have - £14bn+ of secondary market transactions through the MLA ? And also all our accounts feed into the MLA so instructions to sell in GBBA2 for example will be fed into the MLA.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Nov 14, 2019 21:08:16 GMT
Why can't people buy you out? You can still sell the loans you hold exactly as you could before. In theory, yes but in reality? I wasn't counting on inventors buying my chunks in old loans through MLA, my only hope was someone to invest in GBBA2 thus sooner or later I would have my investments back. I put all my investments in GBBA1 for sale six months before AC closed it down, I still have thousand in it. Now the same would happened with my investments in GBBA2. The only difference between GBBA1 and GBBA2 is the rate, that's why after GBAA1 experience I've never touched GBBA2. It's a very bad model imo and they shouldn't have introduced the same thing again as at the time it was already very obvious that the "experiment" is unsuccessful.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Nov 14, 2019 21:42:18 GMT
(As things stand) you cannot. Selling your investment amounts to a request to withdraw a certain AMOUNT only. All loans are then offered to the market in some black box form and remain offered until your target amount is achieved (at which point??) Exactly, one has no control whatsoever. Assetz should take a very close look at Ablrate's secondary market or just remove the gimmicks and become another RateSetter. One of the good features of AC is the range of products (accounts) to fit most types of investors. RS and ABL are rather different. All three have completely different SM systems suited to their sizes and models.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 15, 2019 10:16:56 GMT
The only difference between GBBA1 and GBBA2 is the rate, that's why after GBAA1 experience I've never touched GBBA2. It's a very bad model imo and they shouldn't have introduced the same thing again as at the time it was already very obvious that the "experiment" is unsuccessful. Although I've not used either, I understand there are other relevant differences, in particular:
GBBA2 has a larger selection of loans to choose from, allowing better diversification.
GBBA2 was still open when they implemented the "loan part swapping" feature, so that all investors benefit from this better diversification.
As a result of this, all investors who want to partially liquidate should have at least some exposure to the eligible loans that are more liquid on the SM, and thus be able to do so.
Unclear whether they've left (and will continue to leave) the "loan part swapping" feature activated, but if they do, larger investors should be able to sell part of the more liquid loans, then the system would equalise their exposure by swapping some of the less liquid loans for other investors' chunks of the more liquid loans, and then repeat until the residual holding drops below the size where loan units can still be swapped.
There are a number of other exit strategies that AC could implement and offer to investors with balances "stuck" in these and other legacy accounts.
Amongst my favourites would be to find a way to absorb these legacy accounts' loan holdings into the main Access Accounts' portfolio - this would effectively "buy" the outstanding loan units, but then immediately credit the balance to a new ex-GBBA2 / ex-PSA special access account.
A good fit that occurred to me as I was tossing ideas around with myself might be to launch a "36/60 month income account" or similar backed by the same underlying portfolio as the rest of the access accounts.
For new investors, funds would be locked in for the duration, and this would be reflected in the interest rate (which for series 1 could conveniently match the rates of the PSA / GBBA2 respectively). Former PSA/GBBA2 investors would be given a special version of these accounts which additionally allowed the investment value to be transferred to any of the other range of accounts backed by the same portfolio (QAA / 30DAA / 90DAA). There might be a 30 day opt-out where PSA/GBBA2 investors could insist that they retained the current terms and avoided their residual loans being absorbed into the main "access account" loan book, remaining exposed to the liquidity of the underlying loans. Care would be needed to ensure that neither group was disadvantaged in terms of access to the PFs originally associated with the PSA and GBBA2, but that doesn't seem insurmountable.
The account would be intrinsically time-limited, so the "special terms" for former PSA/GBBA2 investors would only last for a maximum of 36/60 months. At the end of this period, any investors who opted out of their loans being transferred to the new format would hopefully be able to be fully bought out at par by the residual balance of the PF bringing those accounts to a complete close, with any residual surplus in the PF taken by AC as profit, perhaps after topping up the PFs assocated with later series of the accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 15, 2019 10:27:41 GMT
The only difference between GBBA1 and GBBA2 is the rate, that's why after GBAA1 experience I've never touched GBBA2. It's a very bad model imo and they shouldn't have introduced the same thing again as at the time it was already very obvious that the "experiment" is unsuccessful. Although I've not used either, I understand there are other relevant differences, in particular:
GBBA2 has a larger selection of loans to choose from, allowing better diversification.
GBBA2 was still open when they implemented the "loan part swapping" feature, so that all investors benefit from this better diversification.
As a result of this, all investors who want to partially liquidate should have at least some exposure to the eligible loans that are more liquid on the SM, and thus be able to do so.
Unclear whether they've left (and will continue to leave) the "loan part swapping" feature activated, but if they do, larger investors should be able to sell part of the more liquid loans, then the system would equalise their exposure by swapping some of the less liquid loans for other investors' chunks of the more liquid loans, and then repeat until the residual holding drops below the size where loan units can still be swapped.
There are a number of other exit strategies that AC could implement and offer to investors with balances "stuck" in these and other legacy accounts.
Amongst my favourites would be to find a way to absorb these legacy accounts' loan holdings into the main Access Accounts' portfolio - this would effectively "buy" the outstanding loan units, but then immediately credit the balance to a new ex-GBBA2 / ex-PSA special access account.
A good fit that occurred to me as I was tossing ideas around with myself might be to launch a "36/60 month income account" or similar backed by the same underlying portfolio as the rest of the access accounts.
For new investors, funds would be locked in for the duration, and this would be reflected in the interest rate (which for series 1 could conveniently match the rates of the PSA / GBBA2 respectively). Former PSA/GBBA2 investors would be given a special version of these accounts which additionally allowed the investment value to be transferred to any of the other range of accounts backed by the same portfolio (QAA / 30DAA / 90DAA). There might be a 30 day opt-out where PSA/GBBA2 investors could insist that they retained the current terms and avoided their residual loans being absorbed into the main "access account" loan book, remaining exposed to the liquidity of the underlying loans. Care would be needed to ensure that neither group was disadvantaged in terms of access to the PFs originally associated with the PSA and GBBA2, but that doesn't seem insurmountable.
The account would be intrinsically time-limited, so the "special terms" for former PSA/GBBA2 investors would only last for a maximum of 36/60 months. At the end of this period, any investors who opted out of their loans being transferred to the new format would hopefully be able to be fully bought out at par by the residual balance of the PF bringing those accounts to a complete close, with any residual surplus in the PF taken by AC as profit, perhaps after topping up the PFs assocated with later series of the accounts.
Interesting thoughts, but I'm not sure they quite tick the "simplification" box 😉
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Nov 15, 2019 10:47:11 GMT
Exactly, one has no control whatsoever. Assetz should take a very close look at Ablrate's secondary market or just remove the gimmicks and become another RateSetter. Not sure either of these is a forward step. Ratesetter just moved their multiple marketplaces to mimic our single marketplace and doubt ABLrate have the liquidity and scale we have - £14bn+ of secondary market transactions through the MLA ? And also all our accounts feed into the MLA so instructions to sell in GBBA2 for example will be fed into the MLA. I think you are missing my point. Yes, the buzz word across all platforms is " Liquidity", but not for you, for the investors. You, Assetz might have the liquidity but I don't have it. With Ablrate, I can sell everything in an instant, with profit or loss, it doesn't matter. With you, investors need instruction book as teak as "War and Peace" to find or offer investments at discount or premium. With RateSetters, you don't have a say where your money are invested but for a fee, you can have you money the next day. With you, I also don't have a say where my money are invested through GBBAs and I can't have them back for years. You invested 10% of my entire portfolio at the time in a single loan (D...M...Limited). I tried to sell it before this loan turned bad but I couldn't because you where in control who's buy who.
|
|
walktall7
Member of DD Central
Posts: 184
Likes: 35
|
Post by walktall7 on Nov 15, 2019 10:47:30 GMT
I am trying to close my GBB2 ACCOUNT and at the moment in one day i have received 20% of what was in that account. . But if you are doing what I am doing you cannot set it to withdraw to your MLA account . It does not matter how you set up the repayment tab all the funds from my GBB2 go to my cash account . And so every so often I then have to log in to transfedr this money from my cash account to my MLA account . I have been on chat line and there is nothing I can do !!!
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Nov 15, 2019 11:29:45 GMT
I am trying to close my GBB2 ACCOUNT and at the moment in one day i have received 20% of what was in that account. . But if you are doing what I am doing you cannot set it to withdraw to your MLA account . It does not matter how you set up the repayment tab all the funds from my GBB2 go to my cash account . And so every so often I then have to log in to transfedr this money from my cash account to my MLA account . I have been on chat line and there is nothing I can do !!! You should be able to sweep idle funds into the QAA account. There is an option "Invests Idle Funds" for that account on the dashboard.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 15, 2019 11:40:50 GMT
Interesting thoughts, but I'm not sure they quite tick the "simplification" box 😉 There's a reason people don't get me to write end-user documentation...
Compared to the situation before GBBA2/PSA closure that set of ideas seems to me a simplification to most, if not all, relevant parties.
AC's product offering is simplified to "MLA or [various accounts all backed by our big centralised portfolio that we manage for you]", rather than having PSA and GBBA2 with their own unique and hard to comprehend investment rules.
The new accounts do "exactly what it says on the tin" - 36 or 60 months income, so it's simpler for new users to understand the product offering.
Extending the range of account options to include accounts with a longer lock-in time simplifies AC's task of balancing cash flow in and out of the loan book (if the tide turns against AC, there will be portions of the loan book can no longer demand to be liquidated within 90 days).
Existing PSA/GBBA2 investors have a simple way either to liquidate their entire investment or to transfer it into their preferred AC investment product, and as a result have a simpler dashboard which no longer contains relics of old accounts they cannot close and that are no longer offered for re-investment.
A lot of the complexity of my description was figuring out how stuff might work "behind the scenes", covering transition arrangements, and attempting to figure out a way that a 'forced' transition to a new account type could fairly be made the default option (with an "opt out" if legally required), the rationale being that transferring (almost) all the loans in one go simplifies the task of apportioning the provision fund between "old" and "new" accounts compared to doing ad-hoc piecemeal transfers as individual investors choose to activate a transfer option over a period of several months/years.
It's possible that transition arrangements of this kind may still be considered "too complicated", leaving former PSA/GBBA2 investors with an over-complicated investment dashboard that they have no means to tidy up until the last loan in those accounts either gets recovered or repaid by its provision fund.
Ultimately, we'll have to see what direction AC next choose to extend their product range, but at least one "NN month income account" would seem to me a simple, easily understood addition to their product offering, neatly filling the gap between "90 day access" and "potentially decades to access, depending on how long recoveries take". For internal planning purposes, AC would effectively be matching these against amortising loans with NN months remaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by investor1925 on Nov 15, 2019 13:30:21 GMT
All this talk of selling & liquidity baffles me.
Back on 7th April, I decided that I'd use Assetz for my IFISA this year & put ALL my non-ISA accounts up for sale, so that I could transfer them to the ISA account
This included MLA, GBBA2 & PSA.
Half of it went almost immediately, but I've still got over £1k stuck in MLA & GBBA2
As an illustration, I had £1897 in these accounts on 1st June & £1188 on 1st Nov.
I'll be lucky to get it all transferred before the end of the tax year.
Don't talk to me about liquidity.
Still, it's better than FC
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Nov 15, 2019 13:36:31 GMT
Not surprised at this news; I did predict this back in Feb 2019, when 90DAA launched.
"Given the lack of liquidity in PSA and GBBA2 accounts.. Odds on these black box, illiquid accounts will be closed to new business shortly."
NB Also didn't get any email notification and yesterday the FAQ was 404, but seems to be working today.
I've been waiting to completely sell out of GBBA2 / PSA for eighteen months plus now. 12 out of 15 holdings are suspended, fortunately the amounts are small to trivial.
I'm more concerned about pace of recovery process on loan #312, my only suspended MLA loan and I believe also the largest holding in all the Access accounts.
|
|
