|
|
Post by chris on Mar 31, 2020 22:45:39 GMT
Thought you only (unofficially) answered technical questions, not money ones?  True, and I've probably overstepped my mark. I just wanted to correct some of the misinformation. You could have £240k invested (£80k in each of the QAA, 30DAA, and 90DAA) and be benefitting from the pro-rata system.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 31, 2020 22:48:16 GMT
Thought you only (unofficially) answered technical questions, not money ones? True, and I've probably overstepped my mark. I just wanted to correct some of the misinformation. You could have £240k invested (£80k in each of the QAA, 30DAA, and 90DAA) and be benefitting from the pro-rata system. How? please explain chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Mar 31, 2020 22:51:43 GMT
Thought you only (unofficially) answered technical questions, not money ones? True, and I've probably overstepped my mark. I just wanted to correct some of the misinformation. You could have £240k invested (£80k in each of the QAA, 30DAA, and 90DAA) and be benefitting from the pro-rata system. Just like that, the arguments are over 
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 31, 2020 22:55:28 GMT
True, and I've probably overstepped my mark. I just wanted to correct some of the misinformation. You could have £240k invested (£80k in each of the QAA, 30DAA, and 90DAA) and be benefitting from the pro-rata system. How? please explain chris As per the figures in my previous post, you need to have over £85k invested in a single account to have received more cash via pro-rata allocation. Each account is allocated separately at present, so you could have that £80-85k in each of the three access accounts, hence the £240-255k figure. This was calculated by running the calculation through the system, so I can't really show the working. You'll have to take it or leave it, it wasn't actually the reason for the decision to implement the flat allocation, I gave that reasoning before, I was just curious so ran the numbers. Heading to bed now so won't reply again, but will try and spend some more time on the forum tomorrow albeit with a more technical hat on.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Mar 31, 2020 22:59:47 GMT
Each account is allocated separately for the 30/90/QAA - Does that mean those that are withdrawing cash from 30 day and those that are moving cash from QAA to 30 day will mean quicker payouts for people withdrawing from 30 day access accounts vs the QAA? chris |
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Mar 31, 2020 23:17:29 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? Banks have just announced a dividend cut of 8bn. AC asks for a fraction of a percent to keep them operational.
|
|
copacetic
Member of DD Central
Posts: 306 
Likes: 667
|
Post by copacetic on Mar 31, 2020 23:37:50 GMT
Each account is allocated separately for the 30/90/QAA - Does that mean those that are withdrawing cash from 30 day and those that are moving cash from QAA to 30 day will mean quicker payouts for people withdrawing from 30 day access accounts vs the QAA? chris
"I've just spent the last 4 hours insulting you and your colleagues, repeatedly proclaiming the business is finished and wishing that AC employees don't get paid. Please advise me how I can game withdrawals for my benefit."
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Apr 1, 2020 7:31:24 GMT
Under the crude assumption that the investments are exponentially distributed N(x) = N exp( - a x ), the break even point would be T/N where T is the total in an access account (or overall) and N the number of lenders; that's the same as the average investment per lender in that account. Somebody with an investment below benefits from the all-equal scheme.
The loan book shows a total of ca 400.000.000 and the webpage claims close to 40k lenders. That would give an average investment of around 10k. The number of active lenders could be much smaller, for example 10k lenders would imply 40k average. Chris's number is still much higher, 240k for the access accounts alone, which would indicate that a large amount of money is indeed with the big lenders (in other words, the tail is considerably more heavy than exponential).
I'd assume many of those are institutional.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 1, 2020 7:43:17 GMT
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
Not possible to verify the actual numbers of course but it does make sense. If you have £250k invested (say) then you would initially benefit from a proportional system, but as smaller investors get knocked out (fully repaid) you eventually become a smaller investor (relative to others) yourself and would then start being penalised by the proportional system. Under a true proportional repayment system all investors should be fully repaid on the same date.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 1, 2020 7:45:15 GMT
Each account is allocated separately for the 30/90/QAA - Does that mean those that are withdrawing cash from 30 day and those that are moving cash from QAA to 30 day will mean quicker payouts for people withdrawing from 30 day access accounts vs the QAA? chris
Easy Peasy Just add £80k to each account then youll be able to to get the larger amount.
"I've just spent the last 4 hours insulting you and your colleagues, repeatedly proclaiming the business is finished and wishing that AC employees don't get paid. Please advise me how I can game withdrawals for my benefit."
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 1, 2020 7:55:41 GMT
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
Not possible to verify the actual numbers of course but it does make sense. If you have £250k invested (say) then you would initially benefit from a proportional system, but as smaller investors get knocked out (fully repaid) you eventually become a smaller investor (relative to others) yourself and would then start being penalised by the proportional system. Under a true proportional repayment system all investors should be fully repaid on the same date. So consider a simple scaled down scenario. 8 investors, 5 with £10k in, 1 with £40k, 1 with £85k and 1 with £200k. If £20k is repaid a day the profile would look like this under a flat v proportional repayment system for the £85k investor. They initially benefit under the proportional system but half way through the period them start to lose out. Under a flat rate repayment system they would receive all their money back much quicker. 
|
|
alender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 981
Likes: 683
|
Post by alender on Apr 1, 2020 9:34:52 GMT
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
Not possible to verify the actual numbers of course but it does make sense. If you have £250k invested (say) then you would initially benefit from a proportional system, but as smaller investors get knocked out (fully repaid) you eventually become a smaller investor (relative to others) yourself and would then start being penalised by the proportional system. Under a true proportional repayment system all investors should be fully repaid on the same date. AC should be able to verify the numbers.
To be paid off you assume you are in an ideal world with a constant supply of money to fund the withdrawals and no defaults, this will be a deceasing supply.
All payments come from performing loans, as the performing loans are repaid the payments reduce finally to 0, if you are a small investors you get all you money out, if you are a large investor you are stuck with a load of bad loans. Add into the calculation the AC fees based on what AC say you have in your account but this will not be a true reflection of the loans as AC will have another reason to not default the bad loans. The only way there is any money for withdrawals once all of the performing loans have repaid is through new investments, looks like a ponzi scheme, who will invest with AC now.
However I guess you will get out a bit quicker now as your money is reduced by the AC fees.
The Fees are set at 0.075% per calendar month giving 12 * 0.075% = 0.9%, however this is a simple calculation and does not take into account compound interest, your account will go down 0.075% per month so as you have less money in your account next month to get interest. The Fess will be more than 0.9% per year unless no interest is paid, very clever AC.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasonnewman on Apr 1, 2020 9:35:30 GMT
How? please explain chris As per the figures in my previous post, you need to have over £85k invested in a single account to have received more cash via pro-rata allocation. Each account is allocated separately at present, so you could have that £80-85k in each of the three access accounts, hence the £240-255k figure. This was calculated by running the calculation through the system, so I can't really show the working. You'll have to take it or leave it, it wasn't actually the reason for the decision to implement the flat allocation, I gave that reasoning before, I was just curious so ran the numbers. Heading to bed now so won't reply again, but will try and spend some more time on the forum tomorrow albeit with a more technical hat on. have you got out of bed yet? If so can you please answer the question on how you have come to the conclusion that flat payments are better for accounts with below £85k so we can better understand what you are doing and please illustrate it with figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by westcountryfunder on Apr 1, 2020 9:39:59 GMT
Not at all happy about this new fee, even if it is mentioned as a possibility in T&Cs. In particular, presumably we shall be charged this 0.075% per month even on those loans on which there is no hope of recovery, such as Epping and Ipswich. That really does rub salt into the wound.
Increasingly AC is becoming very skilled in rubbing us all up the wrong way. Forbearance to borrowers should not mean that lenders are asked to bear more than the obvious consequences. So the introduction of lender fees is extremely aggravating.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 1, 2020 9:42:36 GMT
As per the figures in my previous post, you need to have over £85k invested in a single account to have received more cash via pro-rata allocation. Each account is allocated separately at present, so you could have that £80-85k in each of the three access accounts, hence the £240-255k figure. This was calculated by running the calculation through the system, so I can't really show the working. You'll have to take it or leave it, it wasn't actually the reason for the decision to implement the flat allocation, I gave that reasoning before, I was just curious so ran the numbers. Heading to bed now so won't reply again, but will try and spend some more time on the forum tomorrow albeit with a more technical hat on. have you got out of bed yet? If so can you please answer the question on how you have come to the conclusion that flat payments are better for accounts with below £85k so we can better understand what you are doing and please illustrate it with figures. Didn't I already do that?
|
|
