alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 13, 2020 9:54:32 GMT
I keep records of these numbers. One year ago the access account balances totalled £180m. Today they total £215m. I don't know where this £2m number comes from but the inflows into the access accounts have never been anywhere remotely near that number even when they were functioning correctly. Now that they have become locked in with a 0.9% interest rate deduction they look uninvestible and thats before any consideration of trustworthyness of the management or survival of the platform. That is not correct, there have been quite a lot of days where net inflows have exceeded £2m, I can give you the dates if you like. Of course there have been days when there have been net withdrawals as well. Conversely, for the average over the past year to have been under £100k per day there must also have been a lot of days with heavy outflows to offset these inflows. Its hardly very useful to quote one side of a data series.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368 
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 13, 2020 9:57:07 GMT
This is because AC promised borrowers money in the future that did not have, it seems a bit like a Ponzi scheme.
No they didn't. They stated that under normal market you should be able to access your money but that it isn't guaranteed. Conditions are not normal so we have defaulted back to the situation where you own a basked of peer to peer loans which is what the underlying investment is.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 13, 2020 9:58:38 GMT
That is not correct, there have been quite a lot of days where net inflows have exceeded £2m, I can give you the dates if you like. Of course there have been days when there have been net withdrawals as well. Conversely, for the average over the past year to have been under £100k per day there must also have been a lot of days with heavy outflows to offset these inflows. Its hardly very useful to quote one side of a data series. Which you know I didn't.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 13, 2020 10:01:43 GMT
This is because AC promised borrowers money in the future that did not have, it seems a bit like a Ponzi scheme.
No they didn't. They stated that under normal market you should be able to access your money but that it isn't guaranteed. Conditions are not normal so we have defaulted back to the situation where you own a basked of peer to peer loans which is what the underlying investment is. No that certainly isn't right. You appear to own a basket of p2p loans but when one of your loans in that basket repays the money is taken away from you and given to other investors. Thats how the small investor bailout works. Obviously it should be working as you describe, but AC decided to change the rules.
|
|
bg
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,368
Likes: 1,929
|
Post by bg on Apr 13, 2020 10:16:34 GMT
No they didn't. They stated that under normal market you should be able to access your money but that it isn't guaranteed. Conditions are not normal so we have defaulted back to the situation where you own a basked of peer to peer loans which is what the underlying investment is. No that certainly isn't right. You appear to own a basket of p2p loans but when one of your loans in that basket repays the money is taken away from you and given to other investors. Thats how the small investor bailout works. Obviously it should be working as you describe, but AC decided to change the rules. This discussion has gone from me trying to explain that capital redemption's do not cause the balance of the Access accounts to increase, to you accusing me of twisting statistics and now onto your usual complaint that has been repeated a million times now. There is nothing of any interest or use on this forum anymore its been completely ruined by 3-4 posters. Time for me to take a break from here. Maybe things will improve in the future.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Apr 13, 2020 10:19:01 GMT
No that certainly isn't right. You appear to own a basket of p2p loans but when one of your loans in that basket repays the money is taken away from you and given to other investors. Thats how the small investor bailout works. Obviously it should be working as you describe, but AC decided to change the rules. This discussion has gone from me trying to explain that capital redemption's do not cause the balance of the Access accounts to increase, to you accusing me of twisting statistics and now onto your usual complaint that has been repeated a million times now. There is nothing of any interest or use on this forum anymore its been completely ruined by 3-4 posters. Time for me to take a break from here. Maybe things will improve in the future. Please don't take a break. Many of us that are not savvy value your insight and knowledge.. Just ignore the complainers and not reply.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Apr 13, 2020 10:25:52 GMT
This discussion has gone from me trying to explain that capital redemption's do not cause the balance of the Access accounts to increase, to you accusing me of twisting statistics and now onto your usual complaint that has been repeated a million times now. There is nothing of any interest or use on this forum anymore its been completely ruined by 3-4 posters. Time for me to take a break from here. Maybe things will improve in the future. Please don't take a break. Many of us that are not savvy value your insight and knowledge.. Just ignore the complainers and not reply. Alternative suggestion for the mods - how about you set up an Alternative AC Board, where the three or so posters who are clogging up this board with their constant stream of inanities can chunter to each other as much as they like without bothering the rest of us? Or, maybe they could just remove themselves to Frank - I gather there are some underused chat boards there just crying out for some life...
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Apr 13, 2020 10:32:24 GMT
No that certainly isn't right. You appear to own a basket of p2p loans but when one of your loans in that basket repays the money is taken away from you and given to other investors. Thats how the small investor bailout works. Obviously it should be working as you describe, but AC decided to change the rules. This discussion has gone from me trying to explain that capital redemption's do not cause the balance of the Access accounts to increase, to you accusing me of twisting statistics and now onto your usual complaint that has been repeated a million times now. There is nothing of any interest or use on this forum anymore its been completely ruined by 3-4 posters. Time for me to take a break from here. Maybe things will improve in the future. I was pointing out that your statement "we all own a basket of p2p loans" is factually incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by pikeman on Apr 13, 2020 10:32:30 GMT
I agree go and moan somewhere else
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Apr 13, 2020 10:34:28 GMT
Italian Mayor Hat On/ Stop playing ping pong and go home  The UK needs some Italian mayors.... Oh and stop talking to trolls 
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Apr 13, 2020 12:41:45 GMT
Some perhaps, but how many? At a quick glance, during 2019 the daily increase in total AAs was over £2m on only a handful of occasions, and AFAICS each time there was a major redemption so I doubt that there was ever £2m in new cash. And that was during the good times with instant or notice access. When the balance in the access accounts increases it is always net new cash (ie deposits minus withdrawals) or interest payments received from borrowers. Capital redemption's have no impact on the account balance. All it does is alter the composition between cash and loans. So if the account balance was £100m made up of £10m cash and £90m loans, if a £2m loan repaid then the account balance would remain at £100m but it would be made up of £12m cash and £88m loans. OK I stand corrected on that point. My main point still stands.
|
|
