picnicman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 238 
Likes: 216
|
Post by picnicman on Jun 12, 2020 9:18:35 GMT
#590 has repaid £732,948 today. #1237 has repaid £245,686 These should trigger more AA withdrawal repayments. and cb25 - I assume there is a way that you discover this - do you get notification if you are in MLA when such loans repay or is there some other tracking method you use? Cheers P
|
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 12, 2020 10:05:52 GMT
I really have no idea why you are asking for, or expecting, 30 days notice in these circumstances. Notice is relevant when customers have some choices to make. What would you be doing differently if you knew that this change was coming? Moving your money to another platform? I'd go further and say that when you are dealing with major issues then it might be the case that giving any notice at all of a change would be the wrong thing to do. As an analogy - if there are tax changes then we expect plenty of notice of changes to (say) pension rules so that we can get our affairs in order - but we get no notice at all of most changes in petrol or alcohol duty. I don't think that applies in the case of this particular change, but the principle stands. More generally, insisting on notice periods just for the sake of them will only serve to slow down action, at a time when that's really the last thing we need. Nevertheless, let's look at notice from another angle, not just whether the firm should deign to tell customers what it is changing. Some customer withdrawals are from notice accounts. In a notice account with another type of institution, or in other types of arrangements or contracts, it might be usual to expect that if the terms were varied at shorter notice than the access notice, the latter might be varied or waived. For one instance, if a building society reduces interest on some types of notice account, it might allow instant withdrawals without the usual interest penalty. For a different sort of case, affected by the virus, some holiday firms extended deadlines for paying the ramaining balance on a holiday while it was unclear whether it would happen. Thus my mother didn't pay the remainder due some time in April for a holiday in June. What is the philosophy of notice on a savings account or similar anyway? We might assume that the holding institution has to plan to make some changes during the time. Apparently not at AC. A 90 day withdrawal request in January, before any panic or unusual market conditions, was overtaken in priority by instant withdrawal requests made after the unusual market conditions announcement had been made, thus implying AC had no particular processing to do in the 90 days. I think they should have made some concession to that notice they'd known about for some time already, instead of just dumping it in back of the much larger instant queue when its 90 days was up. Comparing P2P with a savings account means you should not be in P2P. The fact that so many people seem to have made the same mistake is breathtaking. P2P investments are like stocks and shares (hence all the warnings on every webpage AC has). The AC board can do pretty much anything it pleases as long as it doesn't explicity breach the very loose t's & c's, all us investors can do is vote with our feet. Let's say I had invested in Centrica bonds and I disagree with their decision to lay off thousands of staff, do I have any power to fight the boards decision? Nope.
|
|
puddleduck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 537
Likes: 489
|
Post by puddleduck on Jun 12, 2020 10:23:33 GMT
#590 has repaid £732,948 today. #1237 has repaid £245,686 These should trigger more AA withdrawal repayments. and cb25 - I assume there is a way that you discover this - do you get notification if you are in MLA when such loans repay or is there some other tracking method you use? Cheers P I get the info from loan updates, I sort MLA via last updated date order. Both of those part redemptions have now triggered two AA repayments.
|
|
andy5
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
|
Post by andy5 on Jun 12, 2020 10:31:01 GMT
Nevertheless, let's look at notice from another angle, not just whether the firm should deign to tell customers what it is changing. Some customer withdrawals are from notice accounts. In a notice account with another type of institution, or in other types of arrangements or contracts, it might be usual to expect that if the terms were varied at shorter notice than the access notice, the latter might be varied or waived. For one instance, if a building society reduces interest on some types of notice account, it might allow instant withdrawals without the usual interest penalty. For a different sort of case, affected by the virus, some holiday firms extended deadlines for paying the ramaining balance on a holiday while it was unclear whether it would happen. Thus my mother didn't pay the remainder due some time in April for a holiday in June. What is the philosophy of notice on a savings account or similar anyway? We might assume that the holding institution has to plan to make some changes during the time. Apparently not at AC. A 90 day withdrawal request in January, before any panic or unusual market conditions, was overtaken in priority by instant withdrawal requests made after the unusual market conditions announcement had been made, thus implying AC had no particular processing to do in the 90 days. I think they should have made some concession to that notice they'd known about for some time already, instead of just dumping it in back of the much larger instant queue when its 90 days was up. Comparing P2P with a savings account means you should not be in P2P. The fact that so many people seem to have made the same mistake is breathtaking. P2P investments are like stocks and shares (hence all the warnings on every webpage AC has). The AC board can do pretty much anything it pleases as long as it doesn't explicity breach the very loose t's & c's, all us investors can do is vote with our feet. Let's say I had invested in Centrica bonds and I disagree with their decision to lay off thousands of staff, do I have any power to fight the boards decision? Nope. Sorry, but kindly do not patronise me by treating my post as more simple than it really is. It is fact that withdrawals on the 90 day notice account, made in good time before any panic or unusual conditions, were overtaken in priority by instant account requests made after the unusual market conditions announcement was made. Some of the latter (including me, so I'm not making this up *) had over 50% of their funds in a couple of weeks, and 100% in about a month, while the 90 day account has had about 8% so far. I am suggesting it is wrong that the 90 day account was put at the back of the instant queue behind people who made their requests 60 to 80 days later. It implies that AC apply no specific actions at all in the notice period, in which case notice doesn't necessarily have to be that long, and could thus be partly waived. * - just to add, I wasn't panicking. Some MLA loans matured, and that money was moved against my instructions to the wrong account, thus put in the queue. Even so, it all came within a month, some after the 90 days was up on my other account.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jun 12, 2020 11:49:27 GMT
puddleduck and cb25 - I assume there is a way that you discover this - do you get notification if you are in MLA when such loans repay or is there some other tracking method you use? Cheers P I get the info from loan updates, I sort MLA via last updated date order. Both of those part redemptions have now triggered two AA repayments. picnicman The other thing I look for is Live Loans that display 0% Annual Rate because, when AC received funds to redeem the loan, they often leave the loan on the Live Loans queue whilst funds are distributed and only then move it to the Repaid Loans queue. AC tend to add a Lender Update along the lines of "funds have been received to redeem this loan, trading has been disabled whilst funds are distributed" and clear the Annual Rate to 0%.
Seeing 0% Annual Rate alone isn't enough, you have to check the Lender Update, because loans can also show 0% Annual Rate if they're past their final repayment date and AC have yet to extend the loan (either at their discretion or as a result of a Lender Vote).
As well as sorting loans by Annual Rate, I also sort them by date last updated as puddleduck mentions.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jun 12, 2020 13:46:53 GMT
Loan #619 has been redeemed, £83K
|
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 12, 2020 15:51:33 GMT
Comparing P2P with a savings account means you should not be in P2P. The fact that so many people seem to have made the same mistake is breathtaking. P2P investments are like stocks and shares (hence all the warnings on every webpage AC has). The AC board can do pretty much anything it pleases as long as it doesn't explicity breach the very loose t's & c's, all us investors can do is vote with our feet. Let's say I had invested in Centrica bonds and I disagree with their decision to lay off thousands of staff, do I have any power to fight the boards decision? Nope. Sorry, but kindly do not patronise me by treating my post as more simple than it really is. It is fact that withdrawals on the 90 day notice account, made in good time before any panic or unusual conditions, were overtaken in priority by instant account requests made after the unusual market conditions announcement was made. Some of the latter (including me, so I'm not making this up *) had over 50% of their funds in a couple of weeks, and 100% in about a month, while the 90 day account has had about 8% so far. I am suggesting it is wrong that the 90 day account was put at the back of the instant queue behind people who made their requests 60 to 80 days later. It implies that AC apply no specific actions at all in the notice period, in which case notice doesn't necessarily have to be that long, and could thus be partly waived. * - just to add, I wasn't panicking. Some MLA loans matured, and that money was moved against my instructions to the wrong account, thus put in the queue. Even so, it all came within a month, some after the 90 days was up on my other account. I was wrong. You shouldn't be in P2P or in a notice account either as what you are suggesting is that not only did you not see any of the liquidity warnings but you also failed to grasp that 90 days notice meant errrr, 90 days notice. It should be starkly obvious that P2P is not a savings account so the 90 days notice is if there is liquidity, that's what all the warnings said. Somehow you believe that you should get the higher rate of interest from the 90DAA but also jump ahead of QAA investors in the withdrawal queue even though they took a lower interest rate in exchange for better liquidity. That's a very selfish point of view and completely unreasonable. I wasn't trying to be patronising, I just misunderstood your last two posts as they are extremely bizarre.
|
|
andy5
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
|
Post by andy5 on Jun 12, 2020 22:53:43 GMT
Sorry, but kindly do not patronise me by treating my post as more simple than it really is. It is fact that withdrawals on the 90 day notice account, made in good time before any panic or unusual conditions, were overtaken in priority by instant account requests made after the unusual market conditions announcement was made. Some of the latter (including me, so I'm not making this up *) had over 50% of their funds in a couple of weeks, and 100% in about a month, while the 90 day account has had about 8% so far. I am suggesting it is wrong that the 90 day account was put at the back of the instant queue behind people who made their requests 60 to 80 days later. It implies that AC apply no specific actions at all in the notice period, in which case notice doesn't necessarily have to be that long, and could thus be partly waived. * - just to add, I wasn't panicking. Some MLA loans matured, and that money was moved against my instructions to the wrong account, thus put in the queue. Even so, it all came within a month, some after the 90 days was up on my other account. I was wrong. You shouldn't be in P2P or in a notice account either as what you are suggesting is that not only did you not see any of the liquidity warnings but you also failed to grasp that 90 days notice meant errrr, 90 days notice. It should be starkly obvious that P2P is not a savings account so the 90 days notice is if there is liquidity, that's what all the warnings said. Somehow you believe that you should get the higher rate of interest from the 90DAA but also jump ahead of QAA investors in the withdrawal queue even though they took a lower interest rate in exchange for better liquidity. That's a very selfish point of view and completely unreasonable. I wasn't trying to be patronising, I just misunderstood your last two posts as they are extremely bizarre. 90 days notice is 90 days notice, but Assetz doesn't do anything in the 90 days. Ok, due to current liquidity it looks more like somewhere between 900 and 9000. Some of my realisations were placed in the QAA against my wishes, and still came out completely in a month. The 90 day notice not only had the 90 days but then went at the back of a queue like the qaa, and were overtaken by some instant requests after that. Thus we have comments above by some people with large holdings suggesting it was unfair to them that small accounts have been helped so much. Some of that help is withdrawal of £100 in a month at the rate of £2 or £3 a day, while at almost the same time some of it for others it was several hundred in a couple of weeks. Not quite the same. Observations not far away from that some customers are too thick to deserve it are not needed.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,335
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 13, 2020 10:24:36 GMT
Comparing P2P with a savings account means you should not be in P2P. The fact that so many people seem to have made the same mistake is breathtaking. P2P investments are like stocks and shares (hence all the warnings on every webpage AC has). The AC board can do pretty much anything it pleases as long as it doesn't explicity breach the very loose t's & c's, all us investors can do is vote with our feet. Let's say I had invested in Centrica bonds and I disagree with their decision to lay off thousands of staff, do I have any power to fight the boards decision? Nope. Sorry, but kindly do not patronise me by treating my post as more simple than it really is. It is fact that withdrawals on the 90 day notice account, made in good time before any panic or unusual conditions, were overtaken in priority by instant account requests made after the unusual market conditions announcement was made. Some of the latter (including me, so I'm not making this up *) had over 50% of their funds in a couple of weeks, and 100% in about a month, while the 90 day account has had about 8% so far. I am suggesting it is wrong that the 90 day account was put at the back of the instant queue behind people who made their requests 60 to 80 days later. It implies that AC apply no specific actions at all in the notice period, in which case notice doesn't necessarily have to be that long, and could thus be partly waived. * - just to add, I wasn't panicking. Some MLA loans matured, and that money was moved against my instructions to the wrong account, thus put in the queue. Even so, it all came within a month, some after the 90 days was up on my other account. Actually it isn't a fact, its more the opposite. Currently all withdrawals have equal priority. A 90 day request that should have entered the queue after all instant access requests made during its notice period is treated exactly the same, receiving an equal share of any free cash or a prorata share of any redemptions. It has in actual fact temporarily jumped the queue. Once the queue is re-established with the introduction of the SM on AA it will move back to the point it entered the instant withdrawal queue as per normal conditions. Otherwise you do seem be misunderstanding how notice accounts work. Triggering a notice period doesn't simultaneously enter you into the withdraw queue. That would be like being able to reserve a parking space at the supermarket 90mins before you are due to arrive. All giving notice does is signal forward liquidity requirements to AC and the inability for them to meet those forward liquidity requirements will have been a small part of triggering the withdrawal freeze. Normally what AC would be doing is making sure there was sufficient cash available to meet the request on its due date, possibly using mitigating strategies like promotions, institutional funding etc to ensure free cash is available.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 13, 2020 12:03:32 GMT
Actually it isn't a fact, its more the opposite. Currently all withdrawals have equal priority. A 90 day request that should have entered the queue after all instant access requests made during its notice period is treated exactly the same, receiving an equal share of any free cash or a prorata share of any redemptions. It has in actual fact temporarily jumped the queue. Once the queue is re-established with the introduction of the SM on AA it will move back to the point it entered the instant withdrawal queue as per normal conditions. Otherwise you do seem be misunderstanding how notice accounts work. Triggering a notice period doesn't simultaneously enter you into the withdraw queue. That would be like being able to reserve a parking space at the supermarket 90mins before you are due to arrive. All giving notice does is signal forward liquidity requirements to AC and the inability for them to meet those forward liquidity requirements will have been a small part of triggering the withdrawal freeze. Normally what AC would be doing is making sure there was sufficient cash available to meet the request on its due date, possibly using mitigating strategies like promotions, institutional funding etc to ensure free cash is available. I wonder which we will see first, the SM or Haley's comet
|
|
|
|
Post by skip on Jun 13, 2020 20:15:00 GMT
Have a look here:
under the Section "What is the speed of withdrawal likely to be?"
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Jun 13, 2020 20:57:44 GMT
Have a look here:
under the Section "What is the speed of withdrawal likely to be?"
Whilst we hoped to be able to publish the speed of withdrawals once more data became available .......
Struggling to understand why a lot of data is required to publish speed of withdrawls. If you have today's data, you can publish it tomorrow.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 747
Likes: 656
|
Post by dead-money on Jun 13, 2020 21:27:55 GMT
Probably waiting for a number which isn't measured in Decades...
|
|
|
|
Post by amassivezebra on Jun 14, 2020 14:58:43 GMT
Probably waiting for a number which isn't measured in Decades... If I'm not mistaken, all of the money invested in Assetz Capital is loaned out to specific borrowers and pretty much all these borrowers have taken out loans for a period of five years or less. So in theory, all of our money should be repaid within five years of the beginning of the coronavirus crisis. Yes, this viewpoint is overly simplistic because some borrowers may default on their loans or receive loan extensions, but I do think we can realistically expect to receive the vast majority of our funds in the next few years. To simply uplift the current rate of repayment across the remaining balance of withdrawal requests would be misleading because the economy is likely to recover and access to cash (and thereby sources of refinancing for borrowers) is likely to increase as we find a way out of the coronavirus pandemic.
|
|
andy5
Posts: 40
Likes: 13
|
Post by andy5 on Jun 14, 2020 16:49:59 GMT
Sorry, but kindly do not patronise me by treating my post as more simple than it really is. It is fact that withdrawals on the 90 day notice account, made in good time before any panic or unusual conditions, were overtaken in priority by instant account requests made after the unusual market conditions announcement was made. Some of the latter (including me, so I'm not making this up *) had over 50% of their funds in a couple of weeks, and 100% in about a month, while the 90 day account has had about 8% so far. I am suggesting it is wrong that the 90 day account was put at the back of the instant queue behind people who made their requests 60 to 80 days later. It implies that AC apply no specific actions at all in the notice period, in which case notice doesn't necessarily have to be that long, and could thus be partly waived. * - just to add, I wasn't panicking. Some MLA loans matured, and that money was moved against my instructions to the wrong account, thus put in the queue. Even so, it all came within a month, some after the 90 days was up on my other account. Actually it isn't a fact, its more the opposite. Currently all withdrawals have equal priority. A 90 day request that should have entered the queue after all instant access requests made during its notice period is treated exactly the same, receiving an equal share of any free cash or a prorata share of any redemptions. It has in actual fact temporarily jumped the queue. Once the queue is re-established with the introduction of the SM on AA it will move back to the point it entered the instant withdrawal queue as per normal conditions. Otherwise you do seem be misunderstanding how notice accounts work. Triggering a notice period doesn't simultaneously enter you into the withdraw queue. That would be like being able to reserve a parking space at the supermarket 90mins before you are due to arrive. All giving notice does is signal forward liquidity requirements to AC and the inability for them to meet those forward liquidity requirements will have been a small part of triggering the withdrawal freeze. Normally what AC would be doing is making sure there was sufficient cash available to meet the request on its due date, possibly using mitigating strategies like promotions, institutional funding etc to ensure free cash is available. Well, I don't think I'm misunderstanding notice. And I'm not asserting what you suggest with your car park analogy. If instant notice withdrawals are requested 77 and 112 days after a 90 day notice request, which would you expect to be paid back first? Why was the first of those able to be paid back in full? Did things go so steeply downhill in just 2 weeks? Maybe the answer is indeed yes, but there were already some discussions on here about problems, before the firm's formal notice of unusual market conditions. Except it wasn't a formal notice, as they didn't tell everyone at the same time, and some not at all. There was also, apparently (I discovered here but not from the firm), on some occasion, a poll of some account holders, except not everybody affected by that was given a chance to vote, as again some just weren't informed (but even so it's possible their votes may have been assumed by default to be cast a certain way (but I admit this is a detail I don't understand)). Another also, a different notice that I did receive came with rather unfortunate timing relative to some transactions it possibly affected (but never mind as this money all came out) I say again, if the firm made changes without informing people, and those changes affected decisions that some of those people with notice accounts might have chosen to make at certain times, some consideration should have been given to waiving part of the notice period. This point is not the same as saying I want or need some snobby comments by better people here telling me I simply don't understand notice. When did the firm say anything to me about the so-called unusual market conditions? At some point there was a lazily worded email that referred backwards unquantified but several days with a phrase as some of you may be aware. Errm, how? That just isn't good enough. It's quite possible that some people who leave their accounts for months on end don't know at least half of what the firm has been up to. That isn't good enough either.
|
|
