p2pfan
Member of DD Central
Full-Time Investor
Posts: 781 
Likes: 889
|
Post by p2pfan on Aug 16, 2020 11:49:39 GMT
I think the access accounts have always been an accident waiting to happen. AGREED. Anyone who didn’t see that by design (mis-design, over-reliance) the AAs were a liquidity event awaiting to happen were, at best, unfortunately naive. Anyone who still doesn’t get it, with the benefit of hindsight, ... well, probably best not to comment about them. Whilst the early design can be somewhat forgiven, especially in the early year or two, the over-long and over-reliance AC placed on the AA accounts (particularly the QAA) is less excusable. The 90DAA account should have been introduced a lot earlier and followed up by 180DA and 360DA with corresponding steps in interest rate differentials driven by a much lower and less attractive rate for the short term accounts. Agree with you both. AC, in their genius wisdom, have now made the returns on the 90DAA and 300DAA more or less the same (0.1% differential), whereas they should surely be encouraging stability and long-termism by making the 90DAA more rewarding. You're right in that there is a major issue with the growing ratio of toxic loans in the AAs. As AC will not write them off as part of their devious plans to (a) manipulate their figures to look good - like other P2P platforms, they keep loans as "pending" for years so they don't have to declare them as having defaulted in their published data - and (b) to avoid have to pay out lenders from the PF which they reticent to use as its depletion reduces their ability to use it as a marketing gimmick.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 16, 2020 11:57:47 GMT
I think the access accounts have always been an accident waiting to happen. AGREED. Anyone who didn’t see that by design (mis-design, over-reliance) the AAs were a liquidity event awaiting to happen were, at best, unfortunately naive. Anyone who still doesn’t get it, with the benefit of hindsight, ... well, probably best not to comment about them. Whilst the early design can be somewhat forgiven, especially in the early year or two, the over-long and over-reliance AC placed on the AA accounts (particularly the QAA) is less excusable. The 90DAA account should have been introduced a lot earlier and followed up by 180DA and 360DA with corresponding steps in interest rate differentials driven by a much lower and less attractive rate for the short term accounts. Yes, the liquidity risk on the QAA was there and had been discussed in this forum - though the QAA survived the stress test of the new FCA rules. However, the interest rate for the QAA was so much better than that for an instant-access savings account, and it justified taking the risk - pre-Covid. Personally I was silly enough to keep too much in awaiting the bonus due on 6 April. It's easy to blame AC, or FCA, or the Virus, but I think we should blame ourselves if we were stuck with too much in these accounts. Either for not understanding the product, or for deciding to take the risk.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71 
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Aug 16, 2020 12:24:44 GMT
AGREED. Anyone who didn’t see that by design (mis-design, over-reliance) the AAs were a liquidity event awaiting to happen were, at best, unfortunately naive. Anyone who still doesn’t get it, with the benefit of hindsight, ... well, probably best not to comment about them. Whilst the early design can be somewhat forgiven, especially in the early year or two, the over-long and over-reliance AC placed on the AA accounts (particularly the QAA) is less excusable. The 90DAA account should have been introduced a lot earlier and followed up by 180DA and 360DA with corresponding steps in interest rate differentials driven by a much lower and less attractive rate for the short term accounts. Yes, the liquidity risk on the QAA was there and had been discussed in this forum - though the QAA survived the stress test of the new FCA rules. However, the interest rate for the QAA was so much better than that for an instant-access savings account, and it justified taking the risk - pre-Covid. Personally I was silly enough to keep too much in awaiting the bonus due on 6 April. It's easy to blame AC, or FCA, or the Virus, but I think we should blame ourselves if we were stuck with too much in these accounts. Either for not understanding the product, or for deciding to take the risk.
Sorry Blender but I will respectfully and totally disagree with you. I don't share that mentality which I've seen many times in this forum. So, if someone is mugged on the street, it's their fault because they are on the street. If you some is rapped, it's their fault because they are looking or acting too provocative. I understand my examples might be too extreme but I feel they are straight to the point. No offence intended.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Aug 16, 2020 12:41:22 GMT
Yes, the liquidity risk on the QAA was there and had been discussed in this forum - though the QAA survived the stress test of the new FCA rules. However, the interest rate for the QAA was so much better than that for an instant-access savings account, and it justified taking the risk - pre-Covid. Personally I was silly enough to keep too much in awaiting the bonus due on 6 April. It's easy to blame AC, or FCA, or the Virus, but I think we should blame ourselves if we were stuck with too much in these accounts. Either for not understanding the product, or for deciding to take the risk.
Sorry Blender but I will respectfully and totally disagree with you. I don't share that mentality which I've seen many times in this forum. So, if someone is mugged on the street, it's their fault because they are on the street. If you some is rapped, it's their fault because they are looking or acting too provocative. I understand my examples might be too extreme but I feel they are straight to the point. No offence intended. Equating a debatably unclear level of P2P platform liquidity risk with rape? Yes, that might just be a bit extreme there, just possibly. I think we need some comparisons of Assetz with the Third Reich thrown in just to bring things down to a sensible level. 
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 16, 2020 12:45:35 GMT
Yes, the liquidity risk on the QAA was there and had been discussed in this forum - though the QAA survived the stress test of the new FCA rules. However, the interest rate for the QAA was so much better than that for an instant-access savings account, and it justified taking the risk - pre-Covid. Personally I was silly enough to keep too much in awaiting the bonus due on 6 April. It's easy to blame AC, or FCA, or the Virus, but I think we should blame ourselves if we were stuck with too much in these accounts. Either for not understanding the product, or for deciding to take the risk.
Sorry Blender but I will respectfully and totally disagree with you. I don't share that mentality which I've seen many times in this forum. So, if someone is mugged on the street, it's their fault because they are on the street. If you some is rapped, it's their fault because they are looking or acting too provocative. I understand my examples might be too extreme but I feel they are straight to the point. No offence intended. Not going to expand on the someone getting raped comparison - wholly inappropriate, imo. As for being mugged, would you walk down a street that had a sign at each end saying "Risk Warning: Muggers operate in on this street!". Furthermore, and more to @blenders point, I think, if you did choose to walk down that street, with full knowledge of the warnings signs, would you stuff all your savings in your back pocket before doing so? I think it's simply a question of taking responsibility for one's own decisions. Whether it's a) investing at all when having not taken the trouble of investigating and understanding the products, or b) over-investing in spite of being aware of the risks. Will there be exceptions to a) and b)? Possibly. However, I suspect the vast majority who find themselves " stuck with too much in these accounts" - which is blender 's basis for the comment - will sit with in one or both of those camps.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 16, 2020 12:47:34 GMT
Hi gmitz . You are comparing your experience with the Access accounts with being the victim of a violent criminal assault? There is no comparison, except that you feel a victim of your experience. I do not. Your feelings and opinion are as valid as those of any other forum member, and I respect them equally.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 16, 2020 12:47:40 GMT
Sorry Blender but I will respectfully and totally disagree with you. I don't share that mentality which I've seen many times in this forum. So, if someone is mugged on the street, it's their fault because they are on the street. If you some is rapped, it's their fault because they are looking or acting too provocative. I understand my examples might be too extreme but I feel they are straight to the point. No offence intended. Equating a debatably unclear level of P2P platform liquidity risk with rape? Yes, that might just be a bit extreme there, just possibly. I think we need some comparisons of Assetz with the Third Reich thrown in just to bring things down to a sensible level. Could we then invoke Godwin's Law? Please? Pretty please??  
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Aug 16, 2020 12:53:19 GMT
Sorry Blender but I will respectfully and totally disagree with you. I don't share that mentality which I've seen many times in this forum. So, if someone is mugged on the street, it's their fault because they are on the street. If you some is rapped, it's their fault because they are looking or acting too provocative. I understand my examples might be too extreme but I feel they are straight to the point. No offence intended. Not going to expand on the someone getting raped comparison - wholly inappropriate, imo. As for being mugged, would you walk down a street that had a sign at each end saying "Risk Warning: Muggers operate in on this street!". Furthermore, and more to @blenders point, I think, if you did choose to walk down that street, with full knowledge of the warnings signs, would you stuff all your savings in your back pocket before doing so? I think it's simply a question of taking responsibility for one's own decisions. Whether it's a) investing at all when having not taken the trouble of investigating and understanding the products, or b) over-investing in spite of being aware of the risks. Will there be exceptions to a) and b)? Possibly. However, I suspect the vast majority who find themselves " stuck with too much in these accounts" - which is blender 's basis for the comment - will sit with in one or both of those camps. I thought I made my point clear. Just because there is a sign "Risk Warning: Muggers operate in on this street!", it doesn't give justification to muggers to mug you.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Aug 16, 2020 13:01:01 GMT
Hi gmitz . You are comparing your experience with the Access accounts with being the victim of a violent criminal assault? There is no comparison, except that you feel a victim of your experience. I do not. Your feelings and opinion are as valid as those of any other forum member, and I respect them equally. Obviously you missed my point. What I am saying is when something bad happened to you Blender it's not necessarily your fault.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 16, 2020 13:02:58 GMT
I thought I made my point clear. Just because there is a sign "Risk Warning: Muggers operate in on this street!", it doesn't give justification to muggers to mug you. Do you consider there to be any circumstances under which investors in QAA should be responsible for their own investment decisions? Particularly when it comes down the size of their investment? (Which is, I think, the basis of blender 's comment and my reply, but a basis which you seem to be ignoring.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Aug 16, 2020 16:00:45 GMT
Does anybody know the fundamentals of the FCA stress test?
I wonder if it was based around rapid investor exit, or based on higher than expected default risks. (One leading to a sudden crash like a train, the other leading to a slow decline instability like an eroding building)
Would be interesting. (I don't place much faith in the FCA, didn't' before the P2P either)
Perhaps the outcome is more focused on capital preservation than liquidity. Arguably the latter is less damaging.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 16, 2020 16:59:26 GMT
If you are referring to my post (maybe not) I was meaning the stress caused to the Access accounts by the FCA requirement to self declare as a sophisticated investor, or agree to limit to 10% of investments in p2p. Accounts such as the access accounts are designed to look easy to operate and to exit, and therefore can attract savers familiar with term accounts, but unfamiliar with lending. That will have caused an exit from QAA in December, which the QAA survived - though there was an incentive made for new money to compensate. The way that AC got through that without any failure to provide repayments gave me confidence in the product's liquidity. Then came Covid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Aug 16, 2020 17:20:20 GMT
If you are referring to my post (maybe not) I was meaning the stress caused to the Access accounts by the FCA requirement to self declare as a sophisticated investor, or agree to limit to 10% of investments in p2p. Accounts such as the access accounts are designed to look easy to operate and to exit, and therefore can attract savers familiar with term accounts, but unfamiliar with lending. That will have caused an exit from QAA in December, which the QAA survived - though there was an incentive made for new money to compensate. The way that AC get through that without any failure to provide repayments gave me confidence in the product's liquidity. Then came Covid. I also felt the same way, so continued to keep a holding in the accounts. I don't' regret that per say, but black swan events are just that. I don't think anybody was dumb to invest in AC or the AA's (unless they overexposed to ridiculous levels) because holding cash entirely with no investments is by far one of the easiest ways to stay poor in the modern world. Diversification has been difficult over the past 3 years between assets types. TIPS, Gold, Capital Gearing Trust are all ALT but P2P had the speciality of it keeping your capital intact (in theory) inside the AA's so no downside risk whilst making short term investments in the AA. My biggest risk factor I put in my mind has always been platform failure. Would like some information on what AC intends to do in the retail field now. If they have an end goal to get the AA's back to pre-COVID (I have no idea if this is possible) or get to that level with adjustments be nice if they come out and say it. Seems like we all just strapped in the for the ride, whilst the men upstairs do what they think needs doing. Ignorance or animosity towards investors has always been apart of AC in the past and was present through this crisis. We'll be told when we can behave! I think sometimes there are justfied reasons given some of the sh*t I've read on this board makes it dangerous for certain topics to be discussed before it devolves into *fraud* *scam* *Ponzi* whatever bull u wanna post next
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 985
Likes: 687
|
Post by alender on Aug 16, 2020 22:26:30 GMT
I think the access accounts have always been an accident waiting to happen. AGREED. Anyone who didn’t see that by design (mis-design, over-reliance) the AAs were a liquidity event awaiting to happen were, at best, unfortunately naive. Anyone who still doesn’t get it, with the benefit of hindsight, ... well, probably best not to comment about them. Whilst the early design can be somewhat forgiven, especially in the early year or two, the over-long and over-reliance AC placed on the AA accounts (particularly the QAA) is less excusable. The 90DAA account should have been introduced a lot earlier and followed up by 180DA and 360DA with corresponding steps in interest rate differentials driven by a much lower and less attractive rate for the short term accounts.
This begs the question did AC see these as a liquidity event awaiting to happen or are they at best, unfortunately naive, either way they should not have been advertising and offering these accounts to retail investors.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Aug 17, 2020 8:09:48 GMT
AGREED. Anyone who didn’t see that by design (mis-design, over-reliance) the AAs were a liquidity event awaiting to happen were, at best, unfortunately naive. Anyone who still doesn’t get it, with the benefit of hindsight, ... well, probably best not to comment about them. Whilst the early design can be somewhat forgiven, especially in the early year or two, the over-long and over-reliance AC placed on the AA accounts (particularly the QAA) is less excusable. The 90DAA account should have been introduced a lot earlier and followed up by 180DA and 360DA with corresponding steps in interest rate differentials driven by a much lower and less attractive rate for the short term accounts.
This begs the question did AC see these as a liquidity event awaiting to happen or are they at best, unfortunately naive, either way they should not have been advertising and offering these accounts to retail investors.
👍
|
|
