andy5
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
|
Post by andy5 on Nov 15, 2019 21:07:25 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. I'm not amused by this decision. First, surely a dim view is to be taken that the firm simply can't be bothered to notify this by email, either in advance or after the fact. Similar to the above post, though not quite the same, I opened an IFISA on Assetz in the last days of the last tax year, just in the 90 day notice account to begin with, and intended to gradually sell the non-ISA holdings and churn these into the ISA. Now I can't do this, so now if I want a bit of money out temporarily I may have to either sell things I can't replace, and don't want to, or sell out of the ISA instead, which means give notice and lose the ISA wrapper on part of the holding. As a new member here, I won't appreciate all the drawback nuances that have been discussed before, but surely the point of the closed accounts was to conveniently achieve spread of risk across plenty of loans, without having to study everything in detail before manual investment. Yes, that also applies to the notice account, but there is the difference: notice. I wonder if the firm will be willing to import loans in specie from non-ISA to ISA for those caught out by this. Somehow I doubt it.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368 
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Nov 15, 2019 21:26:19 GMT
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. With Ablrate, I can sell everything in an instant, with profit or loss, it doesn't matter. Now that just isn't true. The majority of my investment in ABLrate is unsellable (loans 67 and 85 spring to mind). "War and peace" to offer a loan for sale at a discount on AC? It's pretty simple really, just hit sell, type in the amount you want to sell and select the discount you want to sell at. Hardly War and Peace. Fact is, you can sell any unsuspended holding you have in the MLA if you offer it at a big enough discount pretty much instantly (5% should cover it even for the worst loans). The issue here is that you haven't invested in the MLA but in the GBBA2/PSA whose issues/limitations have been very well flagged on this forum. Fair dues you may not have read these threads before investing but I imagine its these issues that have caused AC to close the accounts to new investment to focus on the access accounts and MLA that work well. I think its the right decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Nov 15, 2019 21:41:29 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. I'm not amused by this decision. First, surely a dim view is to be taken that the firm simply can't be bothered to notify this by email, either in advance or after the fact. Similar to the above post, though not quite the same, I opened an IFISA on Assetz in the last days of the last tax year, just in the 90 day notice account to begin with, and intended to gradually sell the non-ISA holdings and churn these into the ISA. Now I can't do this, so now if I want a bit of money out temporarily I may have to either sell things I can't replace, and don't want to, or sell out of the ISA instead, which means give notice and lose the ISA wrapper on part of the holding. As a new member here, I won't appreciate all the drawback nuances that have been discussed before, but surely the point of the closed accounts was to conveniently achieve spread of risk across plenty of loans, without having to study everything in detail before manual investment. Yes, that also applies to the notice account, but there is the difference: notice. I wonder if the firm will be willing to import loans in specie from non-ISA to ISA for those caught out by this. Somehow I doubt it. Selling PSA or GBBA 2 holdings will sell them on the marketplace just like before - it won’t bring new investors into this account but it will permit trading that create an exit like before. We do think that the different interpretations of how these accounts work/worked are part of the reason we closed them, to simplify the proposition and ensure we have the greatest chance to deliver ‘what it says on the tin’ as someone said. I hope that helps.
|
|
andy5
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
|
Post by andy5 on Nov 15, 2019 22:05:47 GMT
We do think that the different interpretations of how these accounts work/worked are part of the reason we closed them, to simplify the proposition and ensure we have the greatest chance to deliver ‘what it says on the tin’ as someone said. I hope that helps. Not really. What different interpretations? You seem to be preferring to blame customers for misunderstanding, rather than your own clarity, or past issues more experienced members here seem to be alluding to, such as allocation algorithms. Are you willing to either allow in specie imports of existing holdings across to the ISA account, and/or waive notice period on the 90 day account? If not, you've made things less flexible for some types of customers, however clever or naive they might be.
And why doesn't your email system tell everyone? I just checked my account profile for emails - every option ticked (default setting, as I've never looked there before)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 16, 2019 9:12:56 GMT
We do think that the different interpretations of how these accounts work/worked are part of the reason we closed them, to simplify the proposition and ensure we have the greatest chance to deliver ‘what it says on the tin’ as someone said. I hope that helps. Not really. What different interpretations? You seem to be preferring to blame customers for misunderstanding, rather than your own clarity, or past issues more experienced members here seem to be alluding to, such as allocation algorithms. Are you willing to either allow in specie imports of existing holdings across to the ISA account, and/or waive notice period on the 90 day account? If not, you've made things less flexible for some types of customers, however clever or naive they might be.
And why doesn't your email system tell everyone? I just checked my account profile for emails - every option ticked (default setting, as I've never looked there before)
About IFISA's, if I understand you, you have to sell then buy it back. It's always been that way, it's part of HMRC's rules. Search the phrase, "bed & ISA"
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Nov 16, 2019 9:40:48 GMT
Now I can't do this, so now if I want a bit of money out temporarily I may have to either sell things I can't replace, and don't want to, or sell out of the ISA instead, which means give notice and lose the ISA wrapper on part of the holding. With a lot of ISAs (flexible ISAs) you can take money out and replace it in the same tax year without affecting you allowance, I don't know if this is allowed for the Assetz IFISA but I am sure Assetz can tell you or perhaps Stuart could tell us. If this is not possible I believe you can also pay other money into a Cash or Stocks and Shares ISA providing the total amount for the year for all ISAs does not exceed £20,000. You can then transfer the other ISAs to the IFSA if you wish but please Do Your Own Research before going this route.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Nov 16, 2019 9:41:52 GMT
We do think that the different interpretations of how these accounts work/worked are part of the reason we closed them, to simplify the proposition and ensure we have the greatest chance to deliver ‘what it says on the tin’ as someone said. I hope that helps. Not really. What different interpretations? You seem to be preferring to blame customers for misunderstanding, rather than your own clarity, or past issues more experienced members here seem to be alluding to, such as allocation algorithms. Are you willing to either allow in specie imports of existing holdings across to the ISA account, and/or waive notice period on the 90 day account? If not, you've made things less flexible for some types of customers, however clever or naive they might be.
And why doesn't your email system tell everyone? I just checked my account profile for emails - every option ticked (default setting, as I've never looked there before)
Hi It is well publicised that the Access Accounts operate differently to the older investment accounts, such as GBBA, of which none are now live for new investment. The Access Accounts were designed to have enhanced liquidity whereas the inability to immediately sell all holdings in say the GBBA that you experienced was always a feature of the design and indeed a feature of P2P where illiquidity should be the base assumption (hold loans till they repay) and anything else is a benefit. Whilst the Access Accounts have delivered around £1.5bn of immediate access when requested this cannot always be assumed to be delivered in all market conditions. this is definitely investment not a savings account and the higher gross target rate has associated risk including not always being certain you can have liquidity upon demand. Nonetheless that is what we seek to deliver where reasonably possible and we have done well to date. We also cannot transfer in-specie holdings from one non ISA account to an ISA account as it’s not legal. Not just in P2P but also equities. Finally, we have noticed, as others have, that some email systems delete some email on receipt and don’t even deliver it to a spam folder unfortunately.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 16, 2019 10:26:23 GMT
I think that Assetz are right to retire the GBBA. They will then have two types of account which match two types of lender. Where you put cash in and the platform chooses the borrowers, then it is best, imo, to match that process with a term account, where expectations of returns and liquidity are clearly understood and managed by the platform (subject to market conditions etc). Where the lender makes the choice of borrowers and can choose what to sell, when, and at what price, then the lender must accept the results of decisions they have made, in the context of the market. To mix these two, as in the GBBA, is to produce a product which is aimed at the consumer lender but is not really suitable in terms of understanding the liquidity, imo (though at least the return is predictable). I think that this is one dimension of the mess that FC are in, in that they provide only one product which mixes a lack of choice and control with a complexity in understanding the raw returns and liquidity, which is inappropriate to the consumer lenders they wish to attract.
On the email question, I had this problem with my BT account which I ran through a POP3 client account with no filters - and still I lost all my Ablrate messages. It turned out that I had to go directly into my BT account through IMAP to gain control of a 'spam' filter which they had set to dump my message without any record. They have improved the filter and changed the default, but if you have an older BT email address, that could be the problem.
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Nov 16, 2019 10:31:04 GMT
It’s a damn shame that there is no option to transfer the “dead in the water” GBBA2&PSA holdings out into the MLA so that discounting and simplification could be achieved. Suspended loans are not tradable at any discount, and the MLA has no provision fund which is currently supposedly protecting the suspended loans in GBBA and PSA. So I don't think transferring to the MLA offers much if any benefit. You'd certainly lose provision fund coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 16, 2019 10:36:35 GMT
The GBBA2 and PSA accounts were dead in the water since the 90 day account was introduced since the tiny bit of extra interest just wasn’t worth it IMHO. It’s a damn shame that there is no option to transfer the “dead in the water” GBBA2&PSA holdings out into the MLA so that discounting and simplification could be achieved. Why AC wants to continue supporting the green, property, gbb accounts for the next five/ten years (yes - it’ll be at least that long) is beyond sense but then AC never passes up an opportunity to make, and keep, things as complex as possible. We're looking into an opt-in option for that, with no promises on timeline as a LOT of competing priorities are being juggled at the moment. But we cannot enforce such an option so would always have to continue supporting those retired accounts. If you move loan units to the MLA then you get an interest rate uplift but you also lose protection from the provision fund, plus the accounts and their statements need to remain for reporting purposes.
|
|
andy5
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
|
Post by andy5 on Nov 16, 2019 11:05:21 GMT
Hi It is well publicised that the Access Accounts operate differently to the older investment accounts, such as GBBA, of which none are now live for new investment. The Access Accounts were designed to have enhanced liquidity whereas the inability to immediately sell all holdings in say the GBBA that you experienced was always a feature of the design and indeed a feature of P2P where illiquidity should be the base assumption (hold loans till they repay) and anything else is a benefit. Whilst the Access Accounts have delivered around £1.5bn of immediate access when requested this cannot always be assumed to be delivered in all market conditions. this is definitely investment not a savings account and the higher gross target rate has associated risk including not always being certain you can have liquidity upon demand. Nonetheless that is what we seek to deliver where reasonably possible and we have done well to date. We also cannot transfer in-specie holdings from one non ISA account to an ISA account as it’s not legal. Not just in P2P but also equities. Finally, we have noticed, as others have, that some email systems delete some email on receipt and don’t even deliver it to a spam folder unfortunately. I haven't experienced that, as I hadn't attempted it yet. It was something I intended to do over the next few months - move the GBBA holdings to the ISA after selling some of the notice account there. It is somewhat illogical to suggest that 90 day notice is an improvement in liquidity and access. If someone wants faster access to part, they now have 4.1% instead of 6.25%. Whatever the reasoning, the fact remains that someone could leave the GBBA untouched for significant lengths of time, and now already a couple of per cent has been churned out into 4% interest unless they keep logging in and moving to the notice account. That is different from equities and bonds in an ISA or other wrapper, which allow reinvestment of income. In contrast this is ejecting income and the amortised return of capital, and the money has to go elsewhere. You haven't noticed what happens in my email system. I receive your updates about forthcoming loans, votes, and so on, so there's no block by my provider, but nothing about this change. And from comment above, perhaps I'm not the only one.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Nov 16, 2019 11:30:02 GMT
With Ablrate, I can sell everything in an instant, with profit or loss, it doesn't matter. Now that just isn't true. The majority of my investment in ABLrate is unsellable (loans 67 and 85 spring to mind). "War and peace" to offer a loan for sale at a discount on AC? It's pretty simple really, just hit sell, type in the amount you want to sell and select the discount you want to sell at. Hardly War and Peace. Fact is, you can sell any unsuspended holding you have in the MLA if you offer it at a big enough discount pretty much instantly (5% should cover it even for the worst loans). The issue here is that you haven't invested in the MLA but in the GBBA2/PSA whose issues/limitations have been very well flagged on this forum. Fair dues you may not have read these threads before investing but I imagine its these issues that have caused AC to close the accounts to new investment to focus on the access accounts and MLA that work well. I think its the right decision. First of all, let's not compare MLA type with GBBA type accounts. Ablrate didn't force you to invest in those loans. At least you know who to be angry with. I have always referred to sellable loans. I have loans in GBBA's which are not suspended but can't sold because no one wants them. Second, with all due respect, can you tell me why did you feel the need to crate a thread in this forum dedicated on selling and buying loans on discount? It's second most visited thread by the way.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 16, 2019 13:52:35 GMT
We do think that the different interpretations of how these accounts work/worked are part of the reason we closed them, to simplify the proposition and ensure we have the greatest chance to deliver ‘what it says on the tin’ as someone said. I hope that helps. Not really. What different interpretations? You seem to be preferring to blame customers for misunderstanding, rather than your own clarity, or past issues more experienced members here seem to be alluding to, such as allocation algorithms. Are you willing to either allow in specie imports of existing holdings across to the ISA account, and/or waive notice period on the 90 day account? If not, you've made things less flexible for some types of customers, however clever or naive they might be.
And why doesn't your email system tell everyone? I just checked my account profile for emails - every option ticked (default setting, as I've never looked there before)
Just gotta read some of the posts on here to see that a lot of people didn't/don't really get how the accounts worked. Many of us preferred to use the access accounts and MLA only, for a variety of reasons. The allocation algorithms were explained accurately at the time, but were just the wrong algorithms: when combined with a discretionary PF, 20% was way too high a maximum per loan, especially when loans could be linked (eg turbines) so that the majority of your funds could be tied up with one borrower.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Nov 16, 2019 18:03:05 GMT
Not really. What different interpretations? You seem to be preferring to blame customers for misunderstanding, rather than your own clarity, or past issues more experienced members here seem to be alluding to, such as allocation algorithms. Are you willing to either allow in specie imports of existing holdings across to the ISA account, and/or waive notice period on the 90 day account? If not, you've made things less flexible for some types of customers, however clever or naive they might be.
And why doesn't your email system tell everyone? I just checked my account profile for emails - every option ticked (default setting, as I've never looked there before)
Just gotta read some of the posts on here to see that a lot of people didn't/don't really get how the accounts worked. Many of us preferred to use the access accounts and MLA only, for a variety of reasons. The allocation algorithms were explained accurately at the time, but were just the wrong algorithms: when combined with a discretionary PF, 20% was way too high a maximum per loan, especially when loans could be linked (eg turbines) so that the majority of your funds could be tied up with one borrower. Everyone knows how the different accounts work and all the reasons why some of us are in this predicament. We are just fuming Assetz will not take responsibility for using wrong algorithm and mostly, didn't do anything to correct its mistake straight away afterwards. I am not sure whether we even had the option to see how our investments were diversified in GBBA accounts at the beginning. Call me cynic, but I even believe, Assetz knew very well what they were doing, they just wanted to fill those risky loans.
|
|
alibaba
Member of DD Central
Posts: 341
Likes: 245
|
Post by alibaba on Nov 16, 2019 20:07:31 GMT
Just gotta read some of the posts on here to see that a lot of people didn't/don't really get how the accounts worked. Many of us preferred to use the access accounts and MLA only, for a variety of reasons. The allocation algorithms were explained accurately at the time, but were just the wrong algorithms: when combined with a discretionary PF, 20% was way too high a maximum per loan, especially when loans could be linked (eg turbines) so that the majority of your funds could be tied up with one borrower. Everyone knows how the different accounts work and all the reasons why some of us are in this predicament. We are just fuming Assetz will not take responsibility for using wrong algorithm and mostly, didn't do anything to correct its mistake straight away afterwards. I am not sure whether we even had the option to see how our investments were diversified in GBBA accounts at the beginning. Call me cynic, but I even believe, Assetz knew very well what they were doing, they just wanted to fill those risky loans. This is a re branding exercise at the expense of early investors, now stuck with considerable amounts in these defunct accounts, with a large number of loans suspended, it will take years to make recoveries and will result in losses of capital, the theory being that the past will be but a distant memory and AC will have learnt from their mistakes at our expense.
|
|
