adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,918 
Likes: 4,144
|
Post by adrian77 on May 30, 2020 17:26:24 GMT
A mega problem is not a complete disaster which is better: RS treat us as idiots and try and spin us a yarn whilst people with more expertise than I can analyse the figures and have a pretty good idea as to what is going on. We were always going to find out and I think better to be up-front rather than annoying people before they find out the truth? Or damage limitation is modern PR speak.
If we are over-estimating the length of this queue RS are more than welcome to publish the facts and prove us all wrong!
As I have said before I can understand the strategy and better a freeze than a collapse - a common phrase in business is "better to under promise and over deliver" RS seem to me to be doing the opposite!
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 30, 2020 17:51:06 GMT
I agree exactly. RS were very careful with their phrasing. But they wanted a casual investor *not* following this forum to be left with the impression that only 10% of *fund value* had been RYI’d. Exactly one month ago, I posted the same calculation on the forum, showing 37% RYI based on that months published data. Nobody at that time got particularly irate. If you are accusing me of shouting fire in a crowded theatre, I’m just analysing the published data. Everyone’s free to do their own calculation, and I rather expect people to do so. If you believe there’s a different way to munge the performance figures that comes up with a different answer, or you think there’s a logical or arithmetic flaw in what I said, please do post your analysis. I could have a hidden wrong assumption. If you think about it, you’ll realise that the main reason I posted is that I would be more than happy for somebody to poke a hole in the reasoning, and for that to lead to a less worrying conclusion. But it makes no sense to complain “we all know the situation is bad, it’s dangerous to analyse official published data to quantify how bad”. That’s very much why I previously responded to a demand for queue-length as “no point in complaining, RS will tell us the answer soon anyway, we just need to listen properly and think”. Any investor, journalist or analyst can go onto the RS website, directly read the same performance data, and work out the numbers too, it’s not a secret. Okay but... we're only operating within the bounds of this forum. Your calculations etc. are also only going to be viewed by people on this forum. My point was that this forum has already (many times) established this basic position. And even if RS did specifically want investors to believe that... you realise that this is in your interest, right?? I'm neither "getting irate" nor accusing you of anything. But yes, you're right that I shouldn't be so lazy as to just say I don't follow the calculations without trying to investigate myself. Unfortunately, I am currently being that lazy because I don't think it will be worth the effort given I've understood for many weeks now that it's a bloody long queue and putting a number on it isn't going to help me with much at all. Also didn't say anything about it being "dangerous", and slightly odd for you to use quotation marks for this. A mega problem is not a complete disaster which is better: RS treat us as idiots and try and spin us a yarn whilst people with more expertise than I can analyse the figures and have a pretty good idea as to what is going on. We were always going to find out and I think better to be up-front rather than annoying people before they find out the truth? Or damage limitation is modern PR speak. If we are over-estimating the length of this queue RS are more than welcome to publish the facts and prove us all wrong! As I have said before I can understand the strategy and better a freeze than a collapse - a common phrase in business is "better to under promise and over deliver" RS seem to me to be doing the opposite! Ah yes, I must've missed that day of school where we learned the universal law that a "mega problem" is better than a "complete disaster"  You didn't actually respond to my point though. How does it help you for RS to publicly say how bad this is? How exactly are RS treating us as idiots? And what "yarn" are they spinning? My point is that we haven't found anything much out here... this point was always clear and it's one people have made to you before. And, again, I'm not saying anyone's over-estimating the queue length. On the contrary, I'm making the point that we already knew it was an incredibly long queue. That's why RS don't want to publicise how long it is. This is obviously a sensible decision on their part because it protects us as much as it does them. Finally, how are RS over-promising? If anything they're specifically following your maxim by refusing to give people specific times for RYI processing. Haven't you complained about this before on here? I'd also contend that they are 'over-delivering' so far. Many on this forum predicted RYI processing would grind to a halt after the interest rate cut. It hasn't. I'm impressed by this. I really would suggest trying to look at this logically rather than just irrationally wanting RS to engage in some kind of self-flagellation to satisfy your anger.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on May 30, 2020 17:52:34 GMT
A mega problem is not a complete disaster which is better: RS treat us as idiots and try and spin us a yarn whilst people with more expertise than I can analyse the figures and have a pretty good idea as to what is going on. We were always going to find out and I think better to be up-front rather than annoying people before they find out the truth? Or damage limitation is modern PR speak. If we are over-estimating the length of this queue RS are more than welcome to publish the facts and prove us all wrong! As I have said before I can understand the strategy and better a freeze than a collapse - a common phrase in business is "better to under promise and over deliver" RS seem to me to be doing the opposite! In modern PR speak, it would be along the lines of 'owning the story' or something equally cringe-worthy. Maybe RS feel they are actually in 'damage limitation' mode. Tell everyone exactly how big the queue is it'll cause a panic - might even incite those who weren't previously considering an exit to do just that. Don't tell them and, for those that are currently happy, it's a case of 'what you don't know can't hurt you'. Damage limitation from RS' perspective. Edit: crossed with chris1200 - a chris-cross of sorts 
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 30, 2020 17:56:31 GMT
A mega problem is not a complete disaster which is better: RS treat us as idiots and try and spin us a yarn whilst people with more expertise than I can analyse the figures and have a pretty good idea as to what is going on. We were always going to find out and I think better to be up-front rather than annoying people before they find out the truth? Or damage limitation is modern PR speak. If we are over-estimating the length of this queue RS are more than welcome to publish the facts and prove us all wrong! As I have said before I can understand the strategy and better a freeze than a collapse - a common phrase in business is "better to under promise and over deliver" RS seem to me to be doing the opposite! In modern PR speak, it would be along the lines of 'owning the story' or something equally cringe-worthy. Maybe RS feel they are actually in 'damage limitation' mode. Tell everyone exactly how big the queue is it'll cause a panic - might even incite those who weren't previously considering an exit to do just that. Don't tell them and, for those that are currently happy, it's a case of 'what you don't know can't hurt you'. Damage limitation from RS' perspective. Edit: crossed with chris1200 - a chris-cross of sorts Very nice!  No harm in others reinforcing this point though. It's been made so many times already, but there we go...
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,918
Likes: 4,144
|
Post by adrian77 on May 30, 2020 19:21:00 GMT
I am not asking for help - just saying I don't like spin and as I thought I said if RS are upfront and honest then at least it would stifle concerns which may be worse than the true situation
example of a mega-problem from the EU's perspective-- the UK have voted to leave
whereas a complete disaster is that we refuse to negotiate , the financial markets panic and the Euro collapses
Personally I think the Euro will collapse before RS but I am not a mega intellectual like Diane Abbot.
|
|
chris1200
Member of DD Central
Posts: 827
Likes: 508
|
Post by chris1200 on May 30, 2020 19:47:53 GMT
You think RS telling everyone (including the majority who are not on this forum) exactly how huge the queue is would stifle concerns...?  |
|
arby
Member of DD Central
Posts: 910
Likes: 959
|
Post by arby on May 30, 2020 19:49:47 GMT
RS cut the interest rate in half and most people here predicted a precipitous drop in RYI being delivered. I think we've all been pleasantly surprised at the relatively small impact it has had on the return to investors. While returns now aren't guaranteed to continue, the current trajectory is as good as anyone could have hoped for given the situation the world has found itself in. It's not like RS said "we're in lock down with our staff on furlough so no investment releases will be actioned till October at the earliest".
|
|
|
|
Post by diversifier on May 30, 2020 21:38:08 GMT
I suppose they could have lent the money they returned last week, and continue to do so. That would produce a different outcome on your calculation. Arguably they are trying to do the decent thing by releasing as much as possible. Pretty much a no win scenario for them at the moment so maybe a little unfair to say any opinion is the right one currently. In many ways it needs to be viewed in the bigger context and not a simple linear mathematical problem. The consequences of current policy without deviation, definitely is “just a simple linear mathematical problem”. Having said that, I did some more thinking, and I made a mistake in the calculation. TLDR - revised calculation says 19% of total has been RYI’d. The situation is bad, but not as bad as I thought. I forgot that RS have the freedom to do *less* new lending than allowed, using the remainder to pay down the RYI backlog. Therefore it doesn’t uniquely define how much investors are declining to re-lend. However we do have extra information. RS state that they are repaying £4.5m RYI per week (=£19.6m per month). But April AUM reduced by £28.6m. The remaining £9m therefore is the amount that investors are declining to re-lend, out of a total of £48.1m available to re-lend. Ratio = 19%. This still equates to a £150m backlog at the end of April. I’m quite OK with whether RS are “trying to do the decent thing”. They are splitting the funds over which they have discretion 50/50 between RYI and new lending. Seems “fair”. But that doesn’t fix the problem of capital outflow. They can’t just sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. To fix the problem, they need to act yesterday, and hard. There is a simple solution that absolutely works. They just refuse to do it because it reverses the strategy of the past couple of years, and would leave them with a smaller business than they hoped for (but still functional).
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly Drawn Stickman on May 30, 2020 21:58:34 GMT
I suppose they could have lent the money they returned last week, and continue to do so. That would produce a different outcome on your calculation. Arguably they are trying to do the decent thing by releasing as much as possible. Pretty much a no win scenario for them at the moment so maybe a little unfair to say any opinion is the right one currently. In many ways it needs to be viewed in the bigger context and not a simple linear mathematical problem. The consequences of current policy without deviation, definitely is “just a simple linear mathematical problem”. Having said that, I did some more thinking, and I made a mistake in the calculation. TLDR - revised calculation says 19% of total has been RYI’d. The situation is bad, but not as bad as I thought. I forgot that RS have the freedom to do *less* new lending than allowed, using the remainder to pay down the RYI backlog. Therefore it doesn’t uniquely define how much investors are declining to re-lend. However we do have extra information. RS state that they are repaying £4.5m RYI per week (=£19.6m per month). But April AUM reduced by £28.6m. The remaining £9m therefore is the amount that investors are declining to re-lend, out of a total of £48.1m available to re-lend. Ratio = 19%. This still equates to a £150m backlog at the end of April. I’m quite OK with whether RS are “trying to do the decent thing”. They are splitting the funds over which they have discretion 50/50 between RYI and new lending. Seems “fair”. But that doesn’t fix the problem of capital outflow. They can’t just sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. To fix the problem, they need to act yesterday, and hard. There is a simple solution that absolutely works. They just refuse to do it because it reverses the strategy of the past couple of years, and would leave them with a smaller business than they hoped for (but still functional). I have no desire to deconstruct your work, its good you care enough to do it. Not sure what thinking you needed to do I pointed it out in my first line, politely. None of us (ok, the vast majority of us) are looking for an unsuccessful outcome here, we might have different viewpoints, that can be a good thing. However there is an infinite number of possible variables at play, so you will have to allow me my view that it far from a 'simple linear mathematical problem'. Crunch the figures with the variables and I am sure you will get the same answer as me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on May 30, 2020 22:51:38 GMT
I suppose they could have lent the money they returned last week, and continue to do so. That would produce a different outcome on your calculation. Arguably they are trying to do the decent thing by releasing as much as possible. Pretty much a no win scenario for them at the moment so maybe a little unfair to say any opinion is the right one currently. In many ways it needs to be viewed in the bigger context and not a simple linear mathematical problem. The consequences of current policy without deviation, definitely is “just a simple linear mathematical problem”. Having said that, I did some more thinking, and I made a mistake in the calculation. TLDR - revised calculation says 19% of total has been RYI’d. The situation is bad, but not as bad as I thought. I forgot that RS have the freedom to do *less* new lending than allowed, using the remainder to pay down the RYI backlog. Therefore it doesn’t uniquely define how much investors are declining to re-lend. However we do have extra information. RS state that they are repaying £4.5m RYI per week (=£19.6m per month). But April AUM reduced by £28.6m. The remaining £9m therefore is the amount that investors are declining to re-lend, out of a total of £48.1m available to re-lend. Ratio = 19%. This still equates to a £150m backlog at the end of April. I’m quite OK with whether RS are “trying to do the decent thing”. They are splitting the funds over which they have discretion 50/50 between RYI and new lending. Seems “fair”. But that doesn’t fix the problem of capital outflow. They can’t just sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. To fix the problem, they need to act yesterday, and hard. There is a simple solution that absolutely works. They just refuse to do it because it reverses the strategy of the past couple of years, and would leave them with a smaller business than they hoped for (but still functional). They've dropped the £4.5m RYI per week claim now that returns are slowing. The average in May was £3.65m per week.
|
|
|
|
Post by diversifier on May 30, 2020 23:07:53 GMT
The consequences of current policy without deviation, definitely is “just a simple linear mathematical problem”. Having said that, I did some more thinking, and I made a mistake in the calculation. TLDR - revised calculation says 19% of total has been RYI’d. The situation is bad, but not as bad as I thought. I forgot that RS have the freedom to do *less* new lending than allowed, using the remainder to pay down the RYI backlog. Therefore it doesn’t uniquely define how much investors are declining to re-lend. However we do have extra information. RS state that they are repaying £4.5m RYI per week (=£19.6m per month). But April AUM reduced by £28.6m. The remaining £9m therefore is the amount that investors are declining to re-lend, out of a total of £48.1m available to re-lend. Ratio = 19%. This still equates to a £150m backlog at the end of April. I’m quite OK with whether RS are “trying to do the decent thing”. They are splitting the funds over which they have discretion 50/50 between RYI and new lending. Seems “fair”. But that doesn’t fix the problem of capital outflow. They can’t just sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. To fix the problem, they need to act yesterday, and hard. There is a simple solution that absolutely works. They just refuse to do it because it reverses the strategy of the past couple of years, and would leave them with a smaller business than they hoped for (but still functional). They've dropped the £4.5m RYI per week claim now that returns are slowing. The average in May was £3.65m per week. But these figures are based on comparing this weeks (=end April) with previous month. Therefore, this value corresponds to the average over the month of April
|
|
|
|
Post by diversifier on May 30, 2020 23:14:06 GMT
The consequences of current policy without deviation, definitely is “just a simple linear mathematical problem”. Having said that, I did some more thinking, and I made a mistake in the calculation. TLDR - revised calculation says 19% of total has been RYI’d. The situation is bad, but not as bad as I thought. I forgot that RS have the freedom to do *less* new lending than allowed, using the remainder to pay down the RYI backlog. Therefore it doesn’t uniquely define how much investors are declining to re-lend. However we do have extra information. RS state that they are repaying £4.5m RYI per week (=£19.6m per month). But April AUM reduced by £28.6m. The remaining £9m therefore is the amount that investors are declining to re-lend, out of a total of £48.1m available to re-lend. Ratio = 19%. This still equates to a £150m backlog at the end of April. I’m quite OK with whether RS are “trying to do the decent thing”. They are splitting the funds over which they have discretion 50/50 between RYI and new lending. Seems “fair”. But that doesn’t fix the problem of capital outflow. They can’t just sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. To fix the problem, they need to act yesterday, and hard. There is a simple solution that absolutely works. They just refuse to do it because it reverses the strategy of the past couple of years, and would leave them with a smaller business than they hoped for (but still functional). I have no desire to deconstruct your work, its good you care enough to do it. Not sure what thinking you needed to do I pointed it out in my first line, politely. None of us (ok, the vast majority of us) are looking for an unsuccessful outcome here, we might have different viewpoints, that can be a good thing. However there is an infinite number of possible variables at play, so you will have to allow me my view that it far from a 'simple linear mathematical problem'. Crunch the figures with the variables and I am sure you will get the same answer as me. Yes, you did point to the flaw, so thank you!
|
|
adrian77
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,918
Likes: 4,144
|
Post by adrian77 on May 31, 2020 13:27:46 GMT
I have not had the time to go through the above analysis - can I ask - am I correct in thinking we will probably still be on 12/03/20 at the end of June or is that being pessimistic
I thank you
|
|
|
|
Post by danny101 on May 31, 2020 13:36:42 GMT
I suppose they could have lent the money they returned last week, and continue to do so. That would produce a different outcome on your calculation. Arguably they are trying to do the decent thing by releasing as much as possible. Pretty much a no win scenario for them at the moment so maybe a little unfair to say any opinion is the right one currently. In many ways it needs to be viewed in the bigger context and not a simple linear mathematical problem. The consequences of current policy without deviation, definitely is “just a simple linear mathematical problem”. Having said that, I did some more thinking, and I made a mistake in the calculation. TLDR - revised calculation says 19% of total has been RYI’d. The situation is bad, but not as bad as I thought. I forgot that RS have the freedom to do *less* new lending than allowed, using the remainder to pay down the RYI backlog. Therefore it doesn’t uniquely define how much investors are declining to re-lend. However we do have extra information. RS state that they are repaying £4.5m RYI per week (=£19.6m per month). But April AUM reduced by £28.6m. The remaining £9m therefore is the amount that investors are declining to re-lend, out of a total of £48.1m available to re-lend. Ratio = 19%. This still equates to a £150m backlog at the end of April. I’m quite OK with whether RS are “trying to do the decent thing”. They are splitting the funds over which they have discretion 50/50 between RYI and new lending. Seems “fair”. But that doesn’t fix the problem of capital outflow. They can’t just sit tight and hope that the problem will go away. To fix the problem, they need to act yesterday, and hard. There is a simple solution that absolutely works. They just refuse to do it because it reverses the strategy of the past couple of years, and would leave them with a smaller business than they hoped for (but still functional).
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on May 31, 2020 13:58:49 GMT
I have not had the time to go through the above analysis - can I ask - am I correct in thinking we will probably still be on 12/03/20 at the end of June or is that being pessimistic I thank you Not pessimistic, no. If you were to do the simplest of linear extrapolations - number of requests dealt with during May, requests being dealt with at the same rate in June, then I think the end of the 12th would come some time early in July. But beware of such a simple sum. It assumes that the average size of withdrawals remains the same, that the rate of cancelled RYIs remains the same, the mix of withdrawals across the different markets is the same, and above all that the funds available for making releases comes at the same rate. I've very little idea about any of these, though the last one seems the least likely - the total rate of funds returning is falling. So if I had to make a wild stab I'd say the middle of July, but it's no more than a stab. For people much further down the list - you may never get your RYI, as the loan may well mature before then.
|
|
You didn't actually respond to my point though. How does it help you for RS to publicly say how bad this is?
