|
|
Post by garreh on May 15, 2020 13:05:36 GMT
Interesting observation, the live investors has reduced from 2,983 on 8/4/20 to 2,965 on 13/5/20 however the average investment has changed from £12,126 to £12,176 which is approx 0.41% or approx 5% pa which is accounted for by interest added.
The Total available facility less the loans outstanding and the money in the deployment pool wast £3,897,918 on 8/4/20 and now stands at £2,811,412, if this is reduced to >£0 GS will have more funds that that commitments so hopefully these can start to be distributed to lenders if they can find away allowed in the T&Cs, opening up full withdraw system will no doubt end up with too much money flowing out of the platform and quickly take this <£0.
If it stayed at this level (big if) in about 3 months there would be approx £1m a month which is around 5% per month of investors funds, more than enough to pay interest.
Perhaps there are fewer live investors due to some having passed away. Didn't consider that, but even still during a Liquidity Event I don't think it would allow for withdrawing/closing of accounts during this event. Chris's explanation of "dormant" accounts seems most likely. Sorry if I offended anyone by making those "accusations", sometimes the pessimistic side gets the better of me. I'm sure there is an innocent explanation for the reduction in investors. Overall the stats definitely seem to be heading in the right direction. It would be intriguing to know what criteria GS hope to achieve in order to end the Liquidity Event.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 15, 2020 14:21:48 GMT
Perhaps there are fewer live investors due to some having passed away. Didn't consider that, but even still during a Liquidity Event I don't think it would allow for withdrawing/closing of accounts during this event. Chris's explanation of "dormant" accounts seems most likely. Sorry if I offended anyone by making those "accusations", sometimes the pessimistic side gets the better of me. I'm sure there is an innocent explanation for the reduction in investors. Overall the stats definitely seem to be heading in the right direction. It would be intriguing to know what criteria GS hope to achieve in order to end the Liquidity Event. It's not so much about offence (and absolutely no need to apologise!  ) - just that I think sometimes people should be a bit more careful on this forum what they say. It is a public forum, after all, and platforms could (rightly) get quite upset about their reputations being damaged by accusations being made without any evidence. It's highly unlikely, but you don't want to be sued! 
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 972 
Likes: 662
|
Post by alender on May 15, 2020 15:16:33 GMT
Interesting observation, the live investors has reduced from 2,983 on 8/4/20 to 2,965 on 13/5/20 however the average investment has changed from £12,126 to £12,176 which is approx 0.41% or approx 5% pa which is accounted for by interest added.
The Total available facility less the loans outstanding and the money in the deployment pool wast £3,897,918 on 8/4/20 and now stands at £2,811,412, if this is reduced to >£0 GS will have more funds that that commitments so hopefully these can start to be distributed to lenders if they can find away allowed in the T&Cs, opening up full withdraw system will no doubt end up with too much money flowing out of the platform and quickly take this <£0.
If it stayed at this level (big if) in about 3 months there would be approx £1m a month which is around 5% per month of investors funds, more than enough to pay interest.
Perhaps there are fewer live investors due to some having passed away. I think they may have a different definition of live unless it is taken from the dead parrot sketch.
Joking aside, I assume to be a live investor you must have money invested otherwise you would not be an investor so it is interesting that this has reduced in a lock down. Could be accounts with just a few £s in which case you can still request a withdraw when it is in the holding as I don't think it goes back on the market until there is £20 thus reducing your account to 0 and therefore no longer an investor. Perhaps the residual amounts from lenders who got most out before the lockdown. This would also explain why the Average investment has not changed outside of the interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by garreh on May 16, 2020 14:44:47 GMT
I would assume to be a live investor as well. Or maybe I'm not. If I claim to be dead can I get my money out? 😂
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 16, 2020 21:55:26 GMT
I would assume to be a live investor as well. Or maybe I'm not. If I claim to be dead can I get my money out? 😂 Nice one, but unfortunately not, even if dead, it will not speed up the process!! Your cash will remain locked in. I am wondering if Growth Street see a future after the virus? Or if they are planning a wind-down now?
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 972
Likes: 662
|
Post by alender on May 17, 2020 7:43:59 GMT
I would assume to be a live investor as well. Or maybe I'm not. If I claim to be dead can I get my money out? 😂 You could take a leaf out Hotblack Desiato (hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy) book who was incredibly rich and once spent a year dead for tax reasons.
It may be a good point that if someone dies and is stuck in P2P perhaps for years it will prove a real problem to close down the estate especially as AC is handling it with small payments here and there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on May 17, 2020 16:51:04 GMT
I guess investors panicking has contributed to this event, an essentially self-centered response. Every man for himself. No, GS have created the problem by declaring a 'liquidity event' which spooked investors at a time when the extent of borrower defaults was unknown and the government support for borrowers wasn't in place. Had they bided their time and considered that most would need no more than a short payment holiday, they wouldn't have knee jerked into a 90 day countdown to a 'resolution event' and caused a likely run on the bank.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 17, 2020 17:10:56 GMT
I guess investors panicking has contributed to this event, an essentially self-centered response. Every man for himself. No, GS have created the problem by declaring a 'liquidity event' which spooked investors at a time when the extent of borrower defaults was unknown and the government support for borrowers wasn't in place. Had they bided their time and considered that most would need no more than a short payment holiday, they wouldn't have knee jerked into a 90 day countdown to a 'resolution event' and caused a likely run on the bank. I don't think you understand what caused the Liquidity Event. The platform can only function as long as investors don't withdraw more money than is on loan - but we did. GS declaring a LE wasn't a choice... there was about to not be enough money to go around. That is to say, your "run on the bank" was already happening. Just like it has done at every single other platform. It had nothing to do with borrower defaults.
|
|
Mucho P2P
Member of DD Central
Posts: 946
Likes: 1,635
|
Post by Mucho P2P on May 17, 2020 17:25:27 GMT
No, GS have created the problem by declaring a 'liquidity event' which spooked investors at a time when the extent of borrower defaults was unknown and the government support for borrowers wasn't in place. Had they bided their time and considered that most would need no more than a short payment holiday, they wouldn't have knee jerked into a 90 day countdown to a 'resolution event' and caused a likely run on the bank. I don't think you understand what caused the Liquidity Event. The platform can only function as long as investors don't withdraw more money than is on loan - but we did. GS declaring a LE wasn't a choice... there was about to not be enough money to go around. That is to say, your "run on the bank" was already happening. Just like it has done at every single other platform. It had nothing to do with borrower defaults. Sorry chris1200 I have to disagree with you. Not only was I inputting cash to the platform at the time, not removing cash. Post liquidity event, I contacted GS to enquire about a capital injection into the company............The "stupidity" of the reply I received, was a clear indication that ......................(you can fill in the spaces as words fail me due to the response I received from GS!).
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 17, 2020 17:28:33 GMT
I don't think you understand what caused the Liquidity Event. The platform can only function as long as investors don't withdraw more money than is on loan - but we did. GS declaring a LE wasn't a choice... there was about to not be enough money to go around. That is to say, your "run on the bank" was already happening. Just like it has done at every single other platform. It had nothing to do with borrower defaults. Sorry chris1200 I have to disagree with you. Not only was I inputting cash to the platform at the time, not removing cash. Post liquidity event, I contacted GS to enquire about a capital injection into the company............The "stupidity" of the reply I received, was a clear indication that ......................(you can fill in the spaces as words fail me to the response I received from GS!). Ugh. Yes, so, funnily enough, what you alone as an investor were doing isn't very relevant. What matters is the overall liquidity of the platform. And, no, I can't fill in the gaps. Maybe you might like to fill us in. It also has nothing to do with why the LE was caused, it has to do with how they might remedy it. [Edit: deleted my rebuke which, although, I still feel is fair, I also recognise isn't very helpful  ]
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on May 17, 2020 17:50:02 GMT
No, GS have created the problem by declaring a 'liquidity event' which spooked investors at a time when the extent of borrower defaults was unknown and the government support for borrowers wasn't in place. Had they bided their time and considered that most would need no more than a short payment holiday, they wouldn't have knee jerked into a 90 day countdown to a 'resolution event' and caused a likely run on the bank. I don't think you understand what caused the Liquidity Event. The platform can only function as long as investors don't withdraw more money than is on loan - but we did. GS declaring a LE wasn't a choice... there was about to not be enough money to go around. That is to say, your "run on the bank" was already happening. Just like it has done at every single other platform. It had nothing to do with borrower defaults. Ok I'll accept that maybe your assessment is correct but that being the case isn't it also the case that the platform is lending almost everything it has so it does't take more than a few spooked investors withdrawing to trigger a problem? And then GS compounds the problem by instead of attracting replacement investors it goes and spooks all the others by issuing a liquidity event.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 17, 2020 17:53:00 GMT
I don't think you understand what caused the Liquidity Event. The platform can only function as long as investors don't withdraw more money than is on loan - but we did. GS declaring a LE wasn't a choice... there was about to not be enough money to go around. That is to say, your "run on the bank" was already happening. Just like it has done at every single other platform. It had nothing to do with borrower defaults. And then GS compounds the problem by instead of attracting replacement investors it goes and spooks all the others by issuing a liquidity event. While I disagree with your second sentence (it's really not anywhere near as simple as you suggest - especially given the current economic climate - to rapidly solicit such investment), I agree with your first question that I've bolded. In retrospect, the GS model is quite bizarre and I feel a little silly for not having thought about it more before investing myself. I understood the LE and RE processes, but I didn't think enough about how easily they could be caused given the lack of requirement for a willing investor to be ready to take up your capital if you chose to withdraw.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 974
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on May 17, 2020 18:16:46 GMT
While I disagree with your second sentence (it's really not anywhere near as simple as you suggest - especially given the current economic climate - to rapidly solicit such investment), I agree with your first question that I've bolded. In retrospect, the GS model is quite bizarre and I feel a little silly for not having thought about it more before investing myself. I understood the LE and RE processes, but I didn't think enough about how easily they could be caused given the lack of requirement for a willing investor to be ready to take up your capital if you chose to withdraw. Well, perhaps, but is it really different from, say, the RS Access account or the AC Access Accounts? Yes, of course there are plenty of differences in the detail but all of these accounts offered apparent liquidity which was never going to be there when the brown stuff hit the fan. I think GS get good marks for their honesty - the Liquidity and Resolution events were well defined up and clearly visible up front.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 17, 2020 18:20:28 GMT
While I disagree with your second sentence (it's really not anywhere near as simple as you suggest - especially given the current economic climate - to rapidly solicit such investment), I agree with your first question that I've bolded. In retrospect, the GS model is quite bizarre and I feel a little silly for not having thought about it more before investing myself. I understood the LE and RE processes, but I didn't think enough about how easily they could be caused given the lack of requirement for a willing investor to be ready to take up your capital if you chose to withdraw. Well, perhaps, but is it really different from, say, the RS Access account or the AC Access Accounts? Yes, of course there are plenty of differences in the detail but all of these accounts offered apparent liquidity which was never going to be there when the brown stuff hit the fan. I think GS get good marks for their honesty - the Liquidity and Resolution events were well defined up and clearly visible up front. Yes, it's different for exactly the reason I just identified. RS and AC always required liquidity for withdrawals. GS did not, which is exactly why there is no clear means to deal with the problem now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on May 17, 2020 18:23:43 GMT
Ok I'll accept that maybe your assessment is correct but that being the case isn't it also the case that the platform is lending almost everything it has so it does't take more than a few spooked investors withdrawing to trigger a problem? And then GS compounds the problem by instead of attracting replacement investors it goes and spooks all the others by issuing a liquidity event. While I disagree with your second sentence (it's really not anywhere near as simple as you suggest - especially given the current economic climate - to rapidly solicit such investment), I agree with your first question that I've bolded. In retrospect, the GS model is quite bizarre and I feel a little silly for not having thought about it more before investing myself. I understood the LE and RE processes, but I didn't think enough about how easily they could be caused given the lack of requirement for a willing investor to be ready to take up your capital if you chose to withdraw. Granted attracting investment at the moment might be difficult but as much as I hate AC they've manage to attract investment with cash backs and recently secured £15m from BBI. And now the govt is falling over itself to get platforms to offer it's BBLS and CBILS loans. So I really don't think GS had to shoot itself in the foot at the first hurdle.
|
|
) - just that I think sometimes people should be a bit more careful on this forum what they say. It is a public forum, after all, and platforms could (rightly) get quite upset about their reputations being damaged by accusations being made without any evidence. It's highly unlikely, but you don't want to be sued! 
]