alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981 
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Mar 31, 2020 22:14:37 GMT
alender - I'm curious as to how much you think you need to have invested for pro-rata withdrawals from the access accounts to have given you more cash thus far than the flat payment system? Please tell me after all you are the one with this information
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Mar 31, 2020 22:15:31 GMT
alender - I'm curious as to how much you think you need to have invested for pro-rata withdrawals from the access accounts to have given you more cash thus far than the flat payment system? Rather than us having to guess why don't you disclose some more information Chris? You must realise that the flat rate withdrawal system has caused a total outrage and is completely unjustifiable in the context of a proportional ownership access account system. Forcing large investors to bail out small investors is an absolutely baffling business decision with no justification apart from vague comments about preventing large investors "gaming the system". Is this is reason to penalise every other large investor? Perfectly justified as has been explained ad nauseam. When there's a shortage he with the most money should not take all leaving nothing for everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 31, 2020 22:17:28 GMT
AC need a government bailout in my view with a flood of cash to invest in new loans to survive this in my view. Banks were bailed out as they got loads of cash come in....AC needs the same to survive. stuartassetzcapital Do you understand that you need a bailout from the government? What is the update on this matter and the outcome from last weeks FT article? |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 31, 2020 22:21:56 GMT
alender - I'm curious as to how much you think you need to have invested for pro-rata withdrawals from the access accounts to have given you more cash thus far than the flat payment system? Please tell me after all you are the one with this information To have received a penny more under the pro-rata system than the flat rate system, with the payments made so far, my estimate is that you'd need to have over £85k invested in a single access account. Under that and you've benefitted from the flat rate system. I also estimate that if you have under £1m invested in a single access account then your time to 100% return of capital would be quicker with the flat rate system. The reasoning for the flat rate system was much like a bank putting a withdrawal limit in place, or supermarkets rationing toilet paper. It's not designed to punish those with deep pockets, its aim is to spread liquidity during a time when it's restricted. As liquidity improves we'll switch to a different solution, such as pro-rata or queue order, until such time as the restrictions can be lifted entirely.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 31, 2020 22:22:31 GMT
Rather than us having to guess why don't you disclose some more information Chris? You must realise that the flat rate withdrawal system has caused a total outrage and is completely unjustifiable in the context of a proportional ownership access account system. Forcing large investors to bail out small investors is an absolutely baffling business decision with no justification apart from vague comments about preventing large investors "gaming the system". Is this is reason to penalise every other large investor? Perfectly justified as has been explained ad nauseam. When there's a shortage he with the most money should not take all leaving nothing for everyone else. No, he should be forced to give it all away to everyone else until in the end he is left with virtually nothing. Thats fair isn't it? A proportional system means everyone gets the same proportion of there money back - everyone would receive half, three quarters or whatever. Everyone should be treated fairly. "proportion" mike, I know its a big word and you are having trouble understanding it but do try and make the odd coherent comment from time to time
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 31, 2020 22:23:40 GMT
AC need a government bailout in my view with a flood of cash to invest in new loans to survive this in my view. Banks were bailed out as they got loads of cash come in....AC needs the same to survive. stuartassetzcapital Do you understand that you need a bailout from the government? What is the update on this matter and the outcome from last weeks FT article? In the email this is somewhat addressed, they are (2 banks?) and have est institutional lenders to help fund loans once the inevitable stream of them come though once this crisis is over. These measures taken place today are to support the platform before all that happens, to make sure we even get to that point in one piece. My take on it anyway, AC can better address that. Would be nice if BoE or the British Business bank funded even more, to bump up investor confidence.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Mar 31, 2020 22:24:54 GMT
Perfectly justified as has been explained ad nauseam. When there's a shortage he with the most money should not take all leaving nothing for everyone else. No, he should be forced to give it all away to everyone else until in the end he is left with virtually nothing. Thats fair isn't it? A proportional system means everyone gets the same proportion of there money back - everyone would receive half, three quarters or whatever. Everyone should be treated fairly. "proportion" mike, I know its a big word and you are having trouble understanding it but do try and make the odd coherent comment from time to time Want a dummy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 31, 2020 22:26:58 GMT
Perfectly justified as has been explained ad nauseam. When there's a shortage he with the most money should not take all leaving nothing for everyone else. No, he should be forced to give it all away to everyone else until in the end he is left with virtually nothing. Thats fair isn't it? A proportional system means everyone gets the same proportion of there money back - everyone would receive half, three quarters or whatever. Everyone should be treated fairly. "proportion" mike, I know its a big word and you are having trouble understanding it but do try and make the odd coherent comment from time to time I think Chris comment is, there is always a bigger fish. It is possible there is a investor with pure millions in the queue and not having this system could end up with us getting 4 GBP over 40 GBP in a repayment, even for those with 100k invested it could be that bleak of repayments if it were the case. I have no idea, its really upto AC to answer. But thats the speculation he's giving forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 31, 2020 22:29:05 GMT
Please tell me after all you are the one with this information To have received a penny more under the pro-rata system than the flat rate system, with the payments made so far, my estimate is that you'd need to have over £85k invested in a single access account. Under that and you've benefitted from the flat rate system. I also estimate that if you have under £1m invested in a single access account then your time to 100% return of capital would be quicker with the flat rate system. The reasoning for the flat rate system was much like a bank putting a withdrawal limit in place, or supermarkets rationing toilet paper. It's not designed to punish those with deep pockets, its aim is to spread liquidity during a time when it's restricted. As liquidity improves we'll switch to a different solution, such as pro-rata or queue order, until such time as the restrictions can be lifted entirely. Can you substantiate how you have come to that conclusion with the flat rate system? Maybe use figures to demonstrate this... chris
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 31, 2020 22:29:19 GMT
No, he should be forced to give it all away to everyone else until in the end he is left with virtually nothing. Thats fair isn't it? A proportional system means everyone gets the same proportion of there money back - everyone would receive half, three quarters or whatever. Everyone should be treated fairly. "proportion" mike, I know its a big word and you are having trouble understanding it but do try and make the odd coherent comment from time to time Want a dummy? We don't need one when we've got you
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Mar 31, 2020 22:30:40 GMT
After locking up their funds enforcing a fee (non tax deductible as I understand) on the face value of the investment not the true MTM value - To mark to market would likely mean taking active discounting in the aftermarket as the current loan value, ignoring the security value and LTV protection. That opportunity to discount already exists in the MLA account. We aren't doing that within the Access Accounts as we don't have evidence that any MLA discounts are correct or even required. The fee only applies to non defaulted loans so likely there are no reductions in face value at present and therefore it is calculated correctly. We operate in an illiquid market, as is the nature our our lending, and unlike property funds who cannot MTM at present because they have no faith in values and have no equity protection from losses, we do have that protection and so are not discounting loans that have been performing up to this time. So by keeping the AA accounts open for investment you are effectively asking for investors to place funds in a product where you do have an idea of the MTM and the only thing we can be certain of is that defaults are expected therefore the MTM is lower than the face value they will be charged a fee even if the interest rate is dropped to 0.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 31, 2020 22:38:54 GMT
After locking up their funds enforcing a fee (non tax deductible as I understand) on the face value of the investment not the true MTM value - To mark to market would likely mean taking active discounting in the aftermarket as the current loan value, ignoring the security value and LTV protection. That opportunity to discount already exists in the MLA account. We aren't doing that within the Access Accounts as we don't have evidence that any MLA discounts are correct or even required. The fee only applies to non defaulted loans so likely there are no reductions in face value at present and therefore it is calculated correctly. We operate in an illiquid market, as is the nature our our lending, and unlike property funds who cannot MTM at present because they have no faith in values and have no equity protection from losses, we do have that protection and so are not discounting loans that have been performing up to this time. So by keeping the AA accounts open for investment you are effectively asking for investors to place funds in a product where you do have an idea of the MTM and the only thing we can be certain of is that defaults are expected therefore the MTM is lower than the face value they will be charged a fee even if the interest rate is dropped to 0.
By keeping them open, he is asking investors to make the choice themselves. The product is still generating a interest return, it is upto the investor if they understand the underlying risk of doing so. Seems alot of people dont' understand that and they are already invested anyway.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Mar 31, 2020 22:42:23 GMT
Please tell me after all you are the one with this information To have received a penny more under the pro-rata system than the flat rate system, with the payments made so far, my estimate is that you'd need to have over £85k invested in a single access account. Under that and you've benefitted from the flat rate system. I also estimate that if you have under £1m invested in a single access account then your time to 100% return of capital would be quicker with the flat rate system. The reasoning for the flat rate system was much like a bank putting a withdrawal limit in place, or supermarkets rationing toilet paper. It's not designed to punish those with deep pockets, its aim is to spread liquidity during a time when it's restricted. As liquidity improves we'll switch to a different solution, such as pro-rata or queue order, until such time as the restrictions can be lifted entirely. Thought you only (unofficially) answered technical questions, not money ones? 
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Mar 31, 2020 22:43:45 GMT
Please tell me after all you are the one with this information To have received a penny more under the pro-rata system than the flat rate system, with the payments made so far, my estimate is that you'd need to have over £85k invested in a single access account. Under that and you've benefitted from the flat rate system. I also estimate that if you have under £1m invested in a single access account then your time to 100% return of capital would be quicker with the flat rate system. The reasoning for the flat rate system was much like a bank putting a withdrawal limit in place, or supermarkets rationing toilet paper. It's not designed to punish those with deep pockets, its aim is to spread liquidity during a time when it's restricted. As liquidity improves we'll switch to a different solution, such as pro-rata or queue order, until such time as the restrictions can be lifted entirely. So basically no-one has a clue where they stand. A proportional access account queue system is changed overnight into a pool with a flat rate payout. Then, maybe, at some point in the future it will change again to a "different solution" - maybe pro-rata, maybe a queue. These changes are incredibly ill conceived, cause great uncertainty and give the impression that you don't have a clue what to do.
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Mar 31, 2020 22:45:21 GMT
Please tell me after all you are the one with this information To have received a penny more under the pro-rata system than the flat rate system, with the payments made so far, my estimate is that you'd need to have over £85k invested in a single access account. Under that and you've benefitted from the flat rate system. I also estimate that if you have under £1m invested in a single access account then your time to 100% return of capital would be quicker with the flat rate system. The reasoning for the flat rate system was much like a bank putting a withdrawal limit in place, or supermarkets rationing toilet paper. It's not designed to punish those with deep pockets, its aim is to spread liquidity during a time when it's restricted. As liquidity improves we'll switch to a different solution, such as pro-rata or queue order, until such time as the restrictions can be lifted entirely. This is not born at by the evidence in Alexk post
At the time of writing, #1194 has been repaid, of which I my principal was 154.90 and my account today received only 26.01. Assuming that this amount was due to this only (which is not..probably only 17.08 was), then >83% of my principal was withheld by AC (without my concent).
I will be keeping a check for future repayments againt my loan book to see how this pans out
Yes I do have over that amount, which UK bank has every put withdrawal limits in place, did not know there was a link between my investments in a supermarket and how many toilet rolls I could buy before the crisis.
Please explain how you got your estimate if you have under £1m invested in a single access account then your time to 100% return of capital would be quicker with the flat rate system as I cannot understand how this can be the case. At present I have lost all confidence in AC and seeing most of my money again
|
|
