IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 9:31:40 GMT
But say I have 20 sell instructions to the value of my holding will each one be changed to (say) 98%, or will the ones sold first stay at 100% and just the last ones become wholly untradeable? Are you perhaps overthinking this? Surely it makes no difference to your sell instruction - they will all remain in place as they are. It's just that they will never be fully satisfied... OK, so every instruction applies to the tradable fraction of the amount. so the issue becomes knowing what the tradable fraction is to tailor discount appropriately.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 9:35:28 GMT
I think this is fairly clear. At present all loans are tradable so you are trading a package of > 500 loans and could sell out completely. If a loan becomes untradeable, that part of your holding is likely to remain stuck indefinately, while trading continues on the rest of the package. In the short term I expect panic selling to provide another opportunity for flippers. Interestingly interest will still be paid on these non tradable loans. EDIT: Why do people think there should be a lowed discount because sales would only be 'the good stuff'. Any loan has the potential
to go bad at any time.because not all the good stuff will go bad, whereas all the bad stuff is already bad
|
|
johni
Member of DD Central
Posts: 369 
Likes: 329
|
Post by johni on Aug 25, 2020 9:37:46 GMT
But some of the bad stuff could come good!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 9:41:24 GMT
But some of the bad stuff could come good! and it is the judgement of the likelihood of these scenarios that make people think discount for selling good loans should be less than for selling a mix of good loans and bad loans.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Aug 25, 2020 9:46:53 GMT
Does the new,I think yellow triangle saying<£01 is not covered by the PF mean that everything above that is covered? This change has obviously been planned for a while. I think the triangle was removed but will return as soon as there are loans not covered. I agree that there maybe should have been a trading suspension. I wonder if the clear statement that re invested interest would buy in at a discount was tied into this. We should still remember that even the bad loans are against assets and generally won't be a 100% loss.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Aug 25, 2020 9:48:22 GMT
But some of the bad stuff could come good! Indeed. This makes assessing a fair price really quite complex, especially for a retail product, as we now have to try and estimate the existing level of PF capacity (from statistics that are always out of date) before working out what might be coming in and out to assess how much might be locked out going forwards, and then what % of the locked out stuff will ultimately be lost. One other thing - does this now mean we're all going to be holding different loans in our respective QAA's too? For example, if I'm investor A with my lump of tradeable and untradeable loans, and then make a sale to investor B, then investor B's QAA will be solely the tradeable loans aspect. As such, they will have different %'s of each loan, right? edit: If i have the right end of the stick, the I suppose that's another aspect in which the QAA now looks a bit more GBBA'ish.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Aug 25, 2020 9:48:39 GMT
so a short time for the flippers to skim
and then the transition to next set of zombie accounts
vile
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 9:49:38 GMT
Does the new,I think yellow triangle saying<£01 is not covered by the PF mean that everything above that is covered? This change has obviously been planned for a while. I think the triangle was removed but will return as soon as there are loans not covered. I agree that there maybe should have been a trading suspension. I wonder if the clear statement that re invested interest would buy in at a discount was tied into this. We should still remember that even the bad loans are against assets and generally won't be a 100% loss.over a time period of many years before recovery and/or any PF payout. "illiquid" probably doesn't do it justice.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 9:52:03 GMT
But some of the bad stuff could come good! Indeed. This makes assessing a fair price really quite complex, especially for a retail product, as we now have to try and estimate the existing level of PF capacity (from statistics that are always out of date) before working out what might be coming in and out to assess how much might be locked out going forwards, and then what % of the locked out stuff will ultimately be lost. One other thing - does this now mean we're all going to be holding different loans in our respective QAA's too? For example, if I'm investor A with my lump of tradeable and untradeable loans, and then make a sale to investor B, then investor B's QAA will be solely the tradeable loans aspect. As such, they will have different %'s of each loan, right? Must be - so back to how if was with the old GBBA then? And no more rebalancing? Hard to work out what exactly one might be buying from someone else's QAA. Edit: GBBA comment crossed with r00lish67!
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Aug 25, 2020 10:03:38 GMT
Indeed. This makes assessing a fair price really quite complex, especially for a retail product, as we now have to try and estimate the existing level of PF capacity (from statistics that are always out of date) before working out what might be coming in and out to assess how much might be locked out going forwards, and then what % of the locked out stuff will ultimately be lost. One other thing - does this now mean we're all going to be holding different loans in our respective QAA's too? For example, if I'm investor A with my lump of tradeable and untradeable loans, and then make a sale to investor B, then investor B's QAA will be solely the tradeable loans aspect. As such, they will have different %'s of each loan, right? Must be - so back to how if was with the old GBBA then? And no more rebalancing? Hard to work out what exactly one might be buying from someone else's QAA. Edit: GBBA comment crossed with r00lish67 ! Not often you can cross-post with the post you're replying to, sorry, constant editing a bad habit of mine  Just to add further fun into the mix, how will the differently sized PF's across QAA/30D/90D operate with regards to loans becoming untradeable? Are we going to end up with different loans or pieces of loans locked down across the accounts because, say, the 90D account had less PF remaining than the QAA when another loan becomes troubled? I'm sure it'll all become clearer, but it does seem very complex at first blush.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradley02 on Aug 25, 2020 10:08:24 GMT
A 10% discount for buyers currently offers a opportunity missed in a few weeks maybe ?
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Aug 25, 2020 10:12:08 GMT
A 10% discount for buyers currently offers a opportunity missed in a few weeks maybe ? Just passed 11.5% ...
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 10:13:36 GMT
Must be - so back to how if was with the old GBBA then? And no more rebalancing? Hard to work out what exactly one might be buying from someone else's QAA. Edit: GBBA comment crossed with r00lish67 ! Not often you can cross-post with the post you're replying to, sorry, constant editing a bad habit of mine Just to add further fun into the mix, how will the differently sized PF's across QAA/30D/90D operate with regards to loans becoming untradeable? Are we going to end up with different loans or pieces of loans locked down across the accounts because, say, the 90D account had less PF remaining than the QAA when another loan becomes troubled? I'm sure it'll all become clearer, but it does seem very complex at first blush. it's complex enough for me to add a % or two to the discount at which I'd be happy to get out. I suppose the "easy" way out would be if the performing loans contributions to the PF is sufficient to balance new bad loans. But if that happens, would people get rebalanced again then? Since all loans will now be "good loans" covered by the ringfencing/PF?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 10:14:34 GMT
A 10% discount for buyers currently offers a opportunity missed in a few weeks maybe ? Just passed 11.5% ... That's a fair price IMHO. But what do I know.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Aug 25, 2020 10:15:41 GMT
Must be - so back to how if was with the old GBBA then? And no more rebalancing? Hard to work out what exactly one might be buying from someone else's QAA. Edit: GBBA comment crossed with r00lish67 ! , sorry, constant editing a bad habit of mine Just to add further fun into the mix, how will the differently sized PF's across QAA/30D/90D operate with regards to loans becoming untradeable? Are we going to end up with different loans or pieces of loans locked down across the accounts because, say, the 90D account had less PF remaining than the QAA when another loan becomes troubled? I'm sure it'll all become clearer, but it does seem very complex at first blush. surely we can re-edit a couple of times more to make it interesting?
|
|
