blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 11, 2020 10:20:06 GMT
We have been waiting for the facility to trade our access accounts for months now. What has happened to it, please, Assetz? Some of us need access to our capital. We thought we were investing in a term account, but at present it looks like we purchased an annuity. Is that the new plan? What is happening, please?
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Jun 11, 2020 10:28:03 GMT
We have been waiting for the facility to trade our access accounts for months now. What has happened to it, please, Assetz? Some of us need access to our capital. We thought we were investing in a term account, but at present it looks like we purchased an annuity. Is that the new plan? What is happening, please? Having a look through the FAQ's, it currently says: "One of the initiatives we’re actively working on is a new marketplace facility for the Access Accounts, which we hope to deliver towards the end of June 2020"
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Jun 11, 2020 11:21:29 GMT
There is mention of discounts but how is this going to work/look from either end of the transaction? For the seller, they have a 'blended' portfolio of loan parts which they will 'put up' for sale. One assumes for the buyer the amount of discount visible is then a fixed percentage spread across the same 'estate' in a prorata fashion.
Of course the buyer gets a slate of loan parts which then go into 'an escrow'. They've paid their money they've recieved an 'uplift' and must then await redemption via discretionary AC payout. Is that how it's intended to work?
Will this be queue driven also in the Ratesetter sense? There should be certainty for the seller specifiying a discount so a visisble queue with the option to change your mind seems a reasonable way to go.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jun 11, 2020 11:36:52 GMT
There is mention of discounts but how is this going to work/look from either end of the transaction? For the seller, they have a 'blended' portfolio of loan parts which they will 'put up' for sale. One assumes for the buyer the amount of discount visible is then a fixed percentage spread across the same 'estate' in a prorata fashion.
Of course the buyer gets a slate of loan parts which then go into 'an escrow'. They've paid their money they've recieved an 'uplift' and must then await redemption via discretionary AC payout. Is that how it's intended to work?
Will this be queue driven also in the Ratesetter sense? There should be certainty for the seller specifiying a discount so a visisble queue with the option to change your mind seems a reasonable way to go.
I assume the ownership of the underlying loans will simply be transferred from the seller's account to the buyer's, as happens with discounted selling on the MLA market.
|
|
savernake
Member of DD Central
Posts: 174
Likes: 142
|
Post by savernake on Jun 11, 2020 11:41:28 GMT
There is mention of discounts but how is this going to work/look from either end of the transaction? For the seller, they have a 'blended' portfolio of loan parts which they will 'put up' for sale. One assumes for the buyer the amount of discount visible is then a fixed percentage spread across the same 'estate' in a prorata fashion.
Of course the buyer gets a slate of loan parts which then go into 'an escrow'. They've paid their money they've recieved an 'uplift' and must then await redemption via discretionary AC payout. Is that how it's intended to work?
Will this be queue driven also in the Ratesetter sense? There should be certainty for the seller specifiying a discount so a visisble queue with the option to change your mind seems a reasonable way to go.
I agree that position in the queue should be visible to the seller at all times. It would be useful to be able to input a % discount and see instantly where your new position in the queue would be before you hit the 'sell' button. Otherwise its all just guesswork, and you could end up selling at a far greater discount than you actually needed to.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Jun 11, 2020 11:43:12 GMT
There is mention of discounts but how is this going to work/look from either end of the transaction? For the seller, they have a 'blended' portfolio of loan parts which they will 'put up' for sale. One assumes for the buyer the amount of discount visible is then a fixed percentage spread across the same 'estate' in a prorata fashion.
Of course the buyer gets a slate of loan parts which then go into 'an escrow'. They've paid their money they've recieved an 'uplift' and must then await redemption via discretionary AC payout. Is that how it's intended to work?
Will this be queue driven also in the Ratesetter sense? There should be certainty for the seller specifiying a discount so a visisble queue with the option to change your mind seems a reasonable way to go.
As cb25 said. I think you're making it more complicated than it need be. Remember that all holders of the AAs have exactly the same mix of loan parts - what you actually own is a percentage of the whole portfolio. One person sells that percentage to another, at whatever price is agreed. If the buyer chooses to try to withdraw on AC's usual terms (whatever they might be at that point), they can.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Jun 11, 2020 11:45:16 GMT
There is mention of discounts but how is this going to work/look from either end of the transaction? For the seller, they have a 'blended' portfolio of loan parts which they will 'put up' for sale. One assumes for the buyer the amount of discount visible is then a fixed percentage spread across the same 'estate' in a prorata fashion.
Of course the buyer gets a slate of loan parts which then go into 'an escrow'. They've paid their money they've recieved an 'uplift' and must then await redemption via discretionary AC payout. Is that how it's intended to work?
Will this be queue driven also in the Ratesetter sense? There should be certainty for the seller specifiying a discount so a visisble queue with the option to change your mind seems a reasonable way to go.
I agree that position in the queue should be visible to the seller at all times. It would be useful to be able to input a % discount and see instantly where your new position in the queue would be before you hit the 'sell' button. Otherwise its all just guesswork, and you could end up selling at a far greater discount than you actually needed to. More complications. Why would the buying and selling not work much as MLA loan parts are bought and sold at a discount right now? The seller specifies the discount they are prepared to sell at, the buyer specifies the minimum discount they'll buy at.
|
|
rscal
Posts: 985
Likes: 537
|
Post by rscal on Jun 11, 2020 12:58:37 GMT
I agree that position in the queue should be visible to the seller at all times. It would be useful to be able to input a % discount and see instantly where your new position in the queue would be before you hit the 'sell' button. Otherwise its all just guesswork, and you could end up selling at a far greater discount than you actually needed to. More complications. Why would the buying and selling not work much as MLA loan parts are bought and sold at a discount right now? The seller specifies the discount they are prepared to sell at, the buyer specifies the minimum discount they'll buy at. Ok. I did not appreciate that all AA holdings are already distributed equally. If it is a true secondary market like the MLA could a buyer later choose to sell (at either par or discount?) If AC wants AAs to have a future - and keep them open, which makes sense from a marketing point of view also - I assume the changes will amount to adding a 'invest/sell' feature (... I think we've covered all the ground there!)
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jun 11, 2020 13:03:32 GMT
More complications. Why would the buying and selling not work much as MLA loan parts are bought and sold at a discount right now? The seller specifies the discount they are prepared to sell at, the buyer specifies the minimum discount they'll buy at. Ok. I did not appreciate that all AA holdings are already distributed equally. If it is a true secondary market like the MLA could a buyer later choose to sell (at either par or discount?) If AC wants AAs to have a future - and keep them open, which makes sense from a marketing point of view also - I assume the changes will amount to adding a 'invest/sell' feature (... I think we've covered all the ground there!) I would hope and expect the answer to be "of course". Why should the buyer have to keep the purchased units for ever? On the MLA, units you buy at a discount are indistinguishable from ones you purchased at par. I'd expect this new market to act the same.
The expectation that a purchaser might be able to buy access account units at (say) 10% discount and sell them on later at no/lower discount might be the cause of a lot of the early trading. I'd certainly be up for some of that (depending on the initial discount).
|
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 11, 2020 13:14:05 GMT
I think there are still far too many people here labouring under the illusion that P2P behaves like a savings account, it isn't, never was and never will be.
Although I have a tiny bit of sympathy for asking for more information about queue positions before placing discounted sell orders, IMO it's a step too far, you wouldn't expect to be told that share prices were going to rise or fall before buying or selling (it's illegal if you do) so why does anyone expect anything different for P2P investments? Showing people their queue position is likely to cause people to game the system whereas if nobody knows anything then everyone gets the exact same choice which is fair.
The ability to sell at a discount is for distressed sales by people that need (part of) their money quickly, even a whiff of people being able to game it for profit is a very big No No IMO.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jun 11, 2020 13:28:03 GMT
I think there are still far too many people here labouring under the illusion that P2P behaves like a savings account, it isn't, never was and never will be. Although I have a tiny bit of sympathy for asking for more information about queue positions before placing discounted sell orders, IMO it's a step too far, you wouldn't expect to be told that share prices were going to rise or fall before buying or selling (it's illegal if you do) so why does anyone expect anything different for P2P investments? Showing people their queue position is likely to cause people to game the system whereas if nobody knows anything then everyone gets the exact same choice which is fair. The ability to sell at a discount is for distressed sales by people that need (part of) their money quickly, even a whiff of people being able to game it for profit is a very big No No IMO. AC have set the precedent in the MLA of letting potential sellers/buyers know all existing discounts on offer and how much (£) is on offer at that discount. Would be odd - and I would expect people to complain - if the access accounts market was different.
What do you mean by "even a whiff of people being able to game it for profit is a very big No No IMO"? Isn't trading to make a profit an essential part of markets? If somebody is happy to sell their units at a discount, what concern is it of theirs whether the purchasers keeps hold of them or sells them on at a profit?
|
|
|
|
Post by honda2ner on Jun 11, 2020 13:58:16 GMT
I think there are still far too many people here labouring under the illusion that P2P behaves like a savings account, it isn't, never was and never will be. Although I have a tiny bit of sympathy for asking for more information about queue positions before placing discounted sell orders, IMO it's a step too far, you wouldn't expect to be told that share prices were going to rise or fall before buying or selling (it's illegal if you do) so why does anyone expect anything different for P2P investments? Showing people their queue position is likely to cause people to game the system whereas if nobody knows anything then everyone gets the exact same choice which is fair. The ability to sell at a discount is for distressed sales by people that need (part of) their money quickly, even a whiff of people being able to game it for profit is a very big No No IMO. AC have set the precedent in the MLA of letting potential sellers/buyers know all existing discounts on offer and how much (£) is on offer at that discount. Would be odd - and I would expect people to complain - if the access accounts market was different.
What do you mean by "even a whiff of people being able to game it for profit is a very big No No IMO"? Isn't trading to make a profit an essential part of markets?
Absolutely, making a profit is what it's all about. My point is that distressed sales by lots of extra investors being forced to discount by a whale that is close to the front of the queue is morally repugnant. The decision to set a discount should be driven by need and other competing sellers discounts (exactly as the MLA works). By allowing people to see where they are in the queue will give some an unfair advantage over others. Now some may argue that those people should be rewarded for seeing the writing on the wall and putting in withdrawal requests earlier but IMO as the queue will move quicker once discounts are allowed everyone benefits so there is less need to double reward some people. I don't have a problem with people buying at a discount being as viciously capitalist as they like, it's just the possibility of investor A deliberately blocking the queue in order to force discounting by others less fortunate which investor A then buys from to profit. AC could stipulate that people in the queue can't buy at a discount but that then creates lots more problems and is very messy. Much simpler to just offer a straightforward discount with nobody having a clue where in the queue they are so that their decision is based solely on need and not profit. Edit: Sorry cb25, I meant to add this is relating to the selling queue only, buyers should still see all discounts on offer in order to make a logical decision on risk/reward.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 11, 2020 15:02:29 GMT
Many thanks for the useful replies, especially that it is hoped to be here in June. Let's keep this simple and quick, and not invasive of existing processes or it will never be here. Hopefully it can be dispensed with when there is no queue for access withdrawals. My understanding is that it is for selling access accounts, in whole or part, where the necessary withdrawal notice has been served and completed. Ie it is in the withdrawal queue, which is currently extruding cash in fits through an extremely small orifice. I can offer £x of my Access account capital in the queue at a particular discount to other investors, and can make (and remove) multiple offers and bids. Sale could be manual or automatic, and title to the loan parts in it will simply change from the seller to the buyer - the cash goes the other way. The part that is sold first would logically be that closest to the head of the queue, which requires the least discount. I don't need to see the queue and to cause the complexity and delay in the coding that might require. I just need to see the bids and offers that already exist. Like the Ablrate SM, which is excellent. Keep it a simple non-invasive add-on, please.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Jun 11, 2020 15:40:22 GMT
Many thanks for the useful replies, especially that it is hoped to be here in June. Let's keep this simple and quick, and not invasive of existing processes or it will never be here. Hopefully it can be dispensed with when there is no queue for access withdrawals. My understanding is that it is for selling access accounts, in whole or part, where the necessary withdrawal notice has been served and completed. Ie it is in the withdrawal queue, which is currently extruding cash in fits through an extremely small orifice. I can offer £x of my Access account capital in the queue at a particular discount to other investors, and can make (and remove) multiple offers and bids. Sale could be manual or automatic, and title to the loan parts in it will simply change from the seller to the buyer - the cash goes the other way. The part that is sold first would logically be that closest to the head of the queue, which requires the least discount. I don't need to see the queue and to cause the complexity and delay in the coding that might require. I just need to see the bids and offers that already exist. Like the Ablrate SM, which is excellent. Keep it a simple non-invasive add-on, please. Not sure where this assumption comes from of there being a queue. The MLA secondary market operates perfectly well without one.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 11, 2020 16:29:30 GMT
"Withdrawals from our Access Accounts are slower than usual as we are no longer operating in normal market conditions as a result of Coronavirus. There is currently a queuing [sic] system in place, click here to find out more."
Front page. That's the queue we wish to jump by selling our access holdings to other lenders. Presumably the capital sold will still be in the same place in the queue once it has been bought and sold - just the name of the owner changed. The MLA is entirely separate. I have sold my modest holdings in that at a small discount, and withdrawn the cash. When things went wrong I had already given notice on a part of the 90day account, which had expired. However I foolishly decided to leave that cash in the QAA, because it qualified for the promotion which was to pay on 6 April. I did not need the cash until June. We learn from our mistakes.
|
|
