r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 11:04:54 GMT
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 5, 2020 11:04:54 GMT
Indeed. The interest haircut on existing investments but not new ones is exactly what LW did. However, unless you do something (penalty exit fees) people just exit the old investments and buy new ones. Although perhaps that is where the Access money has an advantage over 1 year/5 year money - they may let Access money go (there is already a subsequent freeze on reinvesting) and top up PF from the longer term tied money. All of which might suggest ditching the 5 year money now for "only" a 1.5% ish fee and keeping the Access money instead. Decisions, decisions. Yeah, tough one. Do we have any view on how much is invested in each respective market? My gut says that they would have to impose some sort of haircut on access withdrawal in that scenario. Even if it's still a reasonable return, I think people really don't like being told they're going to receive 25% (or whatever) less than they signed up for. I've not seen that mentioned anywhere though, and it would probably require some lateral interpretation of the Ts and C's (although bet it's possible somehow). In the case of LW, their haircut to existing investors only (in theory) keeps PF cash at zero, they've pretty much said it's not going to move upwards from that. So I do wonder what sort of level of protection new investors would have if we hit that scenario. It's all a bit grey though, who really knows of the full implications. At this stage, I'd rather reconcile how we in theory have 1.17x the amount of interest coverage we need, 2.57x the amount of capital cover we need, and yet are rapidly running out of actual cash in the kitty. How can RS declare a stabilisation event at this point whilst simultaneously saying we have more than we need due to the ICR being above 100%? Hopefully, the answer is that they're not going to.....because.......
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 11:12:27 GMT
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 5, 2020 11:12:27 GMT
Indeed. The interest haircut on existing investments but not new ones is exactly what LW did. However, unless you do something (penalty exit fees) people just exit the old investments and buy new ones. Although perhaps that is where the Access money has an advantage over 1 year/5 year money - they may let Access money go (there is already a subsequent freeze on reinvesting) and top up PF from the longer term tied money. All of which might suggest ditching the 5 year money now for "only" a 1.5% ish fee and keeping the Access money instead. Decisions, decisions. Yeah, tough one. Do we have any view on how much is invested in each respective market? My gut says that they would have to impose some sort of haircut on access withdrawal in that scenario. Even if it's still a reasonable return, I think people really don't like being told they're going to receive 25% (or whatever) less than they signed up for. I've not seen that mentioned anywhere though, and it would probably require some lateral interpretation of the Ts and C's (although bet it's possible somehow). In the case of LW, their haircut to existing investors only (in theory) keeps PF cash at zero, they've pretty much said it's not going to move upwards from that. So I do wonder what sort of level of protection new investors would have if we hit that scenario. It's all a bit grey though, who really knows of the full implications. At this stage, I'd rather reconcile how we in theory have 1.17x the amount of interest coverage we need, 2.57x the amount of capital cover we need, and yet are rapidly running out of actual cash in the kitty. How can RS declare a stabilisation event at this point whilst simultaneously saying we have more than we need due to the ICR being above 100%? Hopefully, the answer is that they're not going to.....because....... .....because right up until the time they do it they say they won't do it. I doubt they'd pre-empt it too much, as there would be (as there would have been with LW if they had been clearer) a run for the hills. The more we discuss this, the more I am tempted to take a bit out now, not all, and see how it develops. Greed (hankering after that juicy 7.1%) has a risk of overruling rationality (the fundamentals are worsening).
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 11:15:19 GMT
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 5, 2020 11:15:19 GMT
Annoyingly, the last loans in to Access for me were >9%. Does anyone know, the "last in first out" principle, does that get reset each time the Access loans are renewed (i.e. monthly) or does it go back to the actual order of initial matching (like in the 5 year/1 year)?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Mar 5, 2020 11:17:48 GMT
Annoyingly, the last loans in to Access for me were >9%. Does anyone know, the "last in first out" principle, does that get reset each time the Access loans are renewed (i.e. monthly) or does it go back to the actual order of initial matching (like in the 5 year/1 year)? Believe it boils down to it selecting the day prior's contracts first and then the highest rate on that day. e.g. if you did it today, then it would sell 04/03 contracts first. Not done it for a while though, so that's second hand. Irritatingly, my 9.1% contracts are mostly mixed in on the same day as my 4% contracts!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 5, 2020 11:36:06 GMT
I've got some lowish ones - ~6% - renewing in a day or so - will try it with them and report back to make sure they are sold rather than the 9.9% ones!
|
|
aju
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,484
Likes: 917
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 13:05:51 GMT
Post by aju on Mar 5, 2020 13:05:51 GMT
its interesting for me in that I have had some access loans that were lent out in December for >4% but they they closed this few days. Each one had >8 months left in them and I checked the finished loan details and it just says 0 for repayments left as they have either been closed by the borrower (paid the loan down) or they have been reassigned as I think some seem to be suggesting in the last few posts.
How does one know what the loan closure was. I've not seen any mention of PF fund take over in of my loans so I wouldn;t know how to determine that either.
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 13:07:18 GMT
Post by puddleduck on Mar 5, 2020 13:07:18 GMT
I average 5.8% and have had no provision fund payouts since 9th December.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,860
Likes: 1,591
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 13:15:23 GMT
Post by benaj on Mar 5, 2020 13:15:23 GMT
its interesting for me in that I have had some access loans that were lent out in December for >4% but they they closed this few days. Each one had >8 months left in them and I checked the finished loan details and it just says 0 for repayments left as they have either been closed by the borrower (paid the loan down) or they have been reassigned as I think some seem to be suggesting in the last few posts. How does one know what the loan closure was. I've not seen any mention of PF fund take over in of my loans so I wouldn;t know how to determine that either. I checked some of my repaid loans. It's quite interesting. I have £0 repaid from PF since December, but one of the borrower who recently "repaid" the loan, the PF has made a repayment on behalf of the borrower, but the loan has been "repaid". I suppose the borrower was a little bit late before I acquired the loan and then settled the loan early.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 1,444
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 13:31:09 GMT
Post by jlend on Mar 5, 2020 13:31:09 GMT
its interesting for me in that I have had some access loans that were lent out in December for >4% but they they closed this few days. Each one had >8 months left in them and I checked the finished loan details and it just says 0 for repayments left as they have either been closed by the borrower (paid the loan down) or they have been reassigned as I think some seem to be suggesting in the last few posts. How does one know what the loan closure was. I've not seen any mention of PF fund take over in of my loans so I wouldn;t know how to determine that either. I checked some of my repaid loans. It's quite interesting. I have £0 repaid from PF since December, but one of the borrower who recently "repaid" the loan, the PF has made a repayment on behalf of the borrower, but the loan has been "repaid". I suppose the borrower was a little bit late before I acquired the loan and then settled the loan early. The PF makes interest and capital payments if the borrower is even a day late. There are thousands of PF payments that are very quickly repaid. There is a huge churn through the PF.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 1,087
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 14:51:20 GMT
Post by ashtondav on Mar 5, 2020 14:51:20 GMT
But Access is the nearest P2P equivalent of an instant access account! Precisely - and at the 7.1% I have it is unbeatable. But the other instant access accounts - eg AC QAA - seem a bit more secure at the moment, and the Q is whether the extra 3% interest is worth it for now. Does anyone know, if there is a haircut at RS, is it published anywhere how they would do it? Do they just cut interest rates across the board, or is there some sort of lock in or haircut of capital if you exit early? Why do you consider AC accounts to be more secure than RS. Because the loans are asset backed?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 15:01:08 GMT
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 5, 2020 15:01:08 GMT
Precisely - and at the 7.1% I have it is unbeatable. But the other instant access accounts - eg AC QAA - seem a bit more secure at the moment, and the Q is whether the extra 3% interest is worth it for now. Does anyone know, if there is a haircut at RS, is it published anywhere how they would do it? Do they just cut interest rates across the board, or is there some sort of lock in or haircut of capital if you exit early? Why do you consider AC accounts to be more secure than RS. Because the loans are asset backed? Yes - asset backed, and (as far as we know) not an issue of depletion of the PF cash in the QAA. But as I said - "seem"!
|
|
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 17:19:35 GMT
Post by Undecided on Mar 5, 2020 17:19:35 GMT
Annoyingly, the last loans in to Access for me were >9%. Does anyone know, the "last in first out" principle, does that get reset each time the Access loans are renewed (i.e. monthly) or does it go back to the actual order of initial matching (like in the 5 year/1 year)? Wow, how did you manage to get 9% in Access?
|
|
tomp
Member of DD Central
Posts: 144
Likes: 75
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 17:24:32 GMT
Post by tomp on Mar 5, 2020 17:24:32 GMT
There was a small panic few months ago. People were reporting slow withdrawals and rates went up for a short period
|
|
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 17:26:38 GMT
Post by Undecided on Mar 5, 2020 17:26:38 GMT
Whilst that is just a rough-and-ready calculation, I think that needs some explanation from RateSetter - were there significant one-offs? are we going to revert back to the mean with some PF cash uplifts in the near future? (but if so, why are the forecasts still implying a decline after 3 months of big falls?). RateSetter haven't posted on here since January. Would it be worth emailing them directly about this before we all run for the exit.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
PF
Mar 5, 2020 17:30:38 GMT
Post by IFISAcava on Mar 5, 2020 17:30:38 GMT
Annoyingly, the last loans in to Access for me were >9%. Does anyone know, the "last in first out" principle, does that get reset each time the Access loans are renewed (i.e. monthly) or does it go back to the actual order of initial matching (like in the 5 year/1 year)? Wow, how did you manage to get 9% in Access? I got matched up to 9.9%! temporary blip and took advantge of it late one Sunday night
|
|