ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 27, 2020 20:26:33 GMT
It is believed that the SM will work upon the AA holdings which have been 'withdrawn' , which have served any notice period, and are in the withdrawal queue awaiting cash. Effectively the discounting allows your queued withdrawals to jump the queue according to the value of discount offered (though the actual queue position is maintained if you remove the discount). Presumably they apply your highest discounts to your holdings nearest to the front of the queue. You don't get to choose what loans are sold, you just withdrawal a value, and the good people at Assetz then work their magic, black (box) magic. You don't get to choose what to buy, you just buy at best. On the subject of what visibility of the available discounts should or will be available, opinion is divided. We shall see, or not. So you think it will be something like that.....Investor A has £1000 to withdraw and is No69 in the queue and offers 10% discount, investor B is No1 but is looking for better deal while investor C placed 10 in the queue likes the deal and buys out Investor A. Now investor A is No10 and has £900, investor C is No69, £100 richer and investor B still waits for bigger discount....No, this is not going to work and it's wrong on so many levels. Sorry that makes no sense at all, its not musical chairs or Swap Shop. Assuming nobody else has offered discounts. Investor A would move from no69 to no1 with his discount. Everyone less than n069, moves back one place, everyone after 69 stays put. Investor C hasn't got any money as its already committed to the QAA, so moves to No11. Investor B would become no2 behind investor A. Investor D who has uninvested money buys Investor A £1000 so Investor A is out with £900, Investor B is n01 again, investor C back to no10, everyone before no69 moves back to their previous place, and everyone after 69 also moves forward 1. Investor D has £1000 holding but isn't in the queue, but should he wish to withdraw would be at the back unless he offers a discount when he would be at the front. If nobody bought Investor A at 10% discount and he decided he didn't want to exit at less than par, he would return to no69 and everything would revert to where it started.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 27, 2020 20:35:00 GMT
Your Access account holding is an indivisible fixed proportion of the total access accounts holdings good, bad and cash; you don't get to pick and choose which loans, defaulted or otherwise you're selling.
So determine what discounted value you place on getting out of that basket early, and others, such as myself, may buy-in at that discounted price to par.
Providing someone is dumb enough to buy something without knowing what it is and into what can turn really quickly into a Ponzi scheme. They know exactly what is in it. Its a prorata holding in all loans & cash held by the AA in proportion to the ratio of the amount offered to the total size of the AA. So if the QAA holds £1m of 227, and you buy £1m of the QAA totalling £100m, you get £10k of 227 Edit: or they have no idea but wouldn't have any idea if they were investing in the AA anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravitykillz on Jun 27, 2020 23:23:18 GMT
They seem to be paying me 50p a week on a 1k investment in the 30 day account.
If I can leave with a 1 or 2% fee I will do it and move the money into shares or possibly loanpad or crowdproperty where I feel it is safer and withdrawable.
I dont need the money but I dont like not being able to access it or even know when I could access it. If assetz could give us a date when things would return to normal I would be more comfortable. But not knowing makes me more uncomfortable. And 50p a week is ridiculous. Ratesetter returned my funds in 5 weeks. With Assetz it is almost 3 months.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 27, 2020 23:40:02 GMT
They seem to be paying me 50p a week on a 1k investment in the 30 day account. If I can leave with a 1 or 2% fee I will do it and move the money into shares or possibly loanpad or crowdproperty where I feel it is safer and withdrawable. I dont need the money but I dont like not being able to access it or even know when I could access it. If assetz could give us a date when things would return to normal I would be more comfortable. But not knowing makes me more uncomfortable. And 50p a week is ridiculous. Ratesetter returned my funds in 5 weeks. With Assetz it is almost 3 months. 1 or 2% would be a great deal for a seller. As a buyer it would take a lot more to tempt me in (at least double figures discount) given how many loans are in default, late, or heading for trouble, the clearly inadequate cash reserve/PF in the access accounts, and the poor liquidity one is taking on. Fortunately, it be will a market and that will decide the "right" price. Unless of course AC adopted the ridiculous idea of limiting the discounts to 1% that some have suggested in this thread.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jun 28, 2020 8:29:17 GMT
They seem to be paying me 50p a week on a 1k investment in the 30 day account. If I can leave with a 1 or 2% fee I will do it and move the money into shares or possibly loanpad or crowdproperty where I feel it is safer and withdrawable. I dont need the money but I dont like not being able to access it or even know when I could access it. If assetz could give us a date when things would return to normal I would be more comfortable. But not knowing makes me more uncomfortable. And 50p a week is ridiculous. Ratesetter returned my funds in 5 weeks. With Assetz it is almost 3 months. 1 or 2% would be a great deal for a seller. As a buyer it would take a lot more to tempt me in (at least double figures discount) given how many loans are in default, late, or heading for trouble, the clearly inadequate cash reserve/PF in the access accounts, and the poor liquidity one is taking on. Fortunately, it be will a market and that will decide the "right" price. Unless of course AC adopted the ridiculous idea of limiting the discounts to 1% that some have suggested in this thread. suggested "1% more than the largest discount that has not cleared within the last 7 days" (which I believe to be unfair to sellers as they are capable of setting their own discounts)
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Jun 28, 2020 9:16:26 GMT
Might seem radical - how about offering an interest rate that makes investors want to invest.
All Assetz have done over the past 4 months is to the detriment of investors - maybe just maybe offering them a better deal might tempt them - the likes of bridge crowd / easy money don’t seem to have a problem with tempting new investors to part with cash.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jun 28, 2020 10:00:12 GMT
Might seem radical - how about offering an interest rate that makes investors want to invest. All Assetz have done over the past 4 months is to the detriment of investors - maybe just maybe offering them a better deal might tempt them - the likes of bridge crowd / easy money don’t seem to have a problem with tempting new investors to part with cash. Given that interest rates are fixed on the underlying loans, the only way to significantly increase the effective interest rate on the access accounts' SM is to discount. Current rates on the (no)access accounts with virtually zero liquidity and inadequate PF are obviously too low for new investors. AC have I believe said they will be offering better interest rates on new loans, as eg BC are already doing.
|
|
gmitz
Posts: 71
Likes: 22
|
Post by gmitz on Jun 28, 2020 10:16:37 GMT
So you think it will be something like that.....Investor A has £1000 to withdraw and is No69 in the queue and offers 10% discount, investor B is No1 but is looking for better deal while investor C placed 10 in the queue likes the deal and buys out Investor A. Now investor A is No10 and has £900, investor C is No69, £100 richer and investor B still waits for bigger discount....No, this is not going to work and it's wrong on so many levels. Sorry that makes no sense at all, its not musical chairs or Swap Shop. Assuming nobody else has offered discounts. Investor A would move from no69 to no1 with his discount. Everyone less than n069, moves back one place, everyone after 69 stays put. Investor C hasn't got any money as its already committed to the QAA, so moves to No11. Investor B would become no2 behind investor A. Investor D who has uninvested money buys Investor A £1000 so Investor A is out with £900, Investor B is n01 again, investor C back to no10, everyone before no69 moves back to their previous place, and everyone after 69 also moves forward 1. Investor D has £1000 holding but isn't in the queue, but should he wish to withdraw would be at the back unless he offers a discount when he would be at the front. If nobody bought Investor A at 10% discount and he decided he didn't want to exit at less than par, he would return to no69 and everything would revert to where it started. That was my sarcastic point, it make no sense. There is no queue in the QAA and there won't be QAA's either if a secondary market is introduce. With the QAA secondary market introduced, AC doesn't have to fulfil their commitments to every retail investor who invested in those accounts precisely because they were advertised as Quick, 30 & 90 days. Can't anyone see that?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jun 28, 2020 11:00:01 GMT
That was my sarcastic point, it make no sense. There is no queue in the QAA and there won't be QAA's either if a secondary market is introduce. With the QAA secondary market introduced, AC doesn't have to fulfil their commitments to every retail investor who invested in those accounts precisely because they were advertised as Quick, 30 & 90 days. Can't anyone see that? There appears to be a modest but crucial few words missing from your there, something like "...in normal market conditions..." perhaps ?
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Jun 28, 2020 11:20:47 GMT
Quick question or two about the MLA SM. I've looked for a guide as to how it functions on the AC website, but wasn't successful. Have a I missed something? I then figured there'd probably be an explanation on here and found this thread in which AC's Chris provided this: " There is no queue, there is a pool. Several times a day the system matches all buyers against all sellers and distributes the transactions. Both sides are matched using a bottom up approach where all buyers / sellers are allocated an equal value of purchases / sales, with any excesses beyond those wanted redistributed amongst everyone else. This optimises the markets for fair distribution amongst as many lenders as possible.
It also does away with the fastest finger first nature of other platforms and all the headaches that ensue, such as the advantage given by bots, autobid tools, API access, etc." That thread was from 3yrs ago. Is this, in essence, how it still works? |
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 28, 2020 12:17:14 GMT
Quick question or two about the MLA SM. I've looked for a guide as to how it functions on the AC website, but wasn't successful. Have a I missed something? I then figured there'd probably be an explanation on here and found this thread in which AC's Chris provided this: " There is no queue, there is a pool. Several times a day the system matches all buyers against all sellers and distributes the transactions. Both sides are matched using a bottom up approach where all buyers / sellers are allocated an equal value of purchases / sales, with any excesses beyond those wanted redistributed amongst everyone else. This optimises the markets for fair distribution amongst as many lenders as possible.
It also does away with the fastest finger first nature of other platforms and all the headaches that ensue, such as the advantage given by bots, autobid tools, API access, etc." That thread was from 3yrs ago. Is this, in essence, how it still works? Yes, AIUI
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 28, 2020 12:17:20 GMT
Might seem radical - how about offering an interest rate that makes investors want to invest. All Assetz have done over the past 4 months is to the detriment of investors - maybe just maybe offering them a better deal might tempt them - the likes of bridge crowd / easy money don’t seem to have a problem with tempting new investors to part with cash.I've no idea about easyMoney, but BridgeCrowd really isn't a comparable like-for-like alternative to AC. For a start, it's NOT a peer-to-peer lender, so capital losses can't be offset against interest income (for those lending in a personal capacity, anyway). Secondly, there's the small matter of the minimum £5k holding per loan (and £5k multiples thereafter). There's no ISA option (nor really likely ever to be one) and their loans are unregulated bridging finance, so there's little in the way of regulatory protection if things go off the rails. Development finance is a highly competitive market (or certainly was pre-pandemic) and Assetz will only be successful in growing their loan book if they're competitive against the challenger banks and the traditional sources of property development funding.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Jun 28, 2020 12:22:39 GMT
Quick question or two about the MLA SM. I've looked for a guide as to how it functions on the AC website, but wasn't successful. Have a I missed something? I then figured there'd probably be an explanation on here and found this thread in which AC's Chris provided this: " There is no queue, there is a pool. Several times a day the system matches all buyers against all sellers and distributes the transactions. Both sides are matched using a bottom up approach where all buyers / sellers are allocated an equal value of purchases / sales, with any excesses beyond those wanted redistributed amongst everyone else. This optimises the markets for fair distribution amongst as many lenders as possible.
It also does away with the fastest finger first nature of other platforms and all the headaches that ensue, such as the advantage given by bots, autobid tools, API access, etc." That thread was from 3yrs ago. Is this, in essence, how it still works? Yes, except that the cycle time is now a lot quicker - instead of several times a day it is now a few times an hour, I think.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jun 28, 2020 12:35:11 GMT
Sorry that makes no sense at all, its not musical chairs or Swap Shop. Assuming nobody else has offered discounts. Investor A would move from no69 to no1 with his discount. Everyone less than n069, moves back one place, everyone after 69 stays put. Investor C hasn't got any money as its already committed to the QAA, so moves to No11. Investor B would become no2 behind investor A. Investor D who has uninvested money buys Investor A £1000 so Investor A is out with £900, Investor B is n01 again, investor C back to no10, everyone before no69 moves back to their previous place, and everyone after 69 also moves forward 1. Investor D has £1000 holding but isn't in the queue, but should he wish to withdraw would be at the back unless he offers a discount when he would be at the front. If nobody bought Investor A at 10% discount and he decided he didn't want to exit at less than par, he would return to no69 and everything would revert to where it started. That was my sarcastic point, it make no sense. There is no queue in the QAA and there won't be QAA's either if a secondary market is introduce. With the QAA secondary market introduced, AC doesn't have to fulfil their commitments to every retail investor who invested in those accounts precisely because they were advertised as Quick, 30 & 90 days. Can't anyone see that? I couldn't tell as your response to a perfectly balanced and logical description of how it might work was a load of unrelated nonsense, with people swapping positions in queues when they bought AA holdings. The one thing we do know is there will be a queue, ordered by discount and entry time. Oh and as BB pointed out AC doesn't have any commitments, merely target parameters.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Jun 28, 2020 14:24:24 GMT
That was my sarcastic point, it make no sense. There is no queue in the QAA and there won't be QAA's either if a secondary market is introduce. With the QAA secondary market introduced, AC doesn't have to fulfil their commitments to every retail investor who invested in those accounts precisely because they were advertised as Quick, 30 & 90 days. Can't anyone see that? I couldn't tell as your response to a perfectly balanced and logical description of how it might work was a load of unrelated nonsense, with people swapping positions in queues when they bought AA holdings. The one thing we do know is there will be a queue, ordered by discount and entry time. Oh and as BB pointed out AC doesn't have any commitments, merely target parameters. The way I like to look at it is that there is just one queue now for 'purchase' at par and all the matured QAA withdrawal requests will stay in that queue until they are turned into cash (we hope). Within that queue I believe that some holdings will be offered at a discount, and when there is cash to 'purchase' holdings, these discounted holdings are served first, in order firstly of discount-size and then secondly, seniority. They do not come out of the par queue when a discount offer is made - they maintain their position for par sales and the regular sprinkling of pennies, or in case the discount is removed. aiui I describe it functionally - they may implement it with coloured beads on wires or in jam jars for all I care. As long as it is tomorrow.
|
|
