theta
Posts: 46
Likes: 44
|
Post by theta on Aug 21, 2020 6:37:18 GMT
If anyone has any questions at all about our intentions or our fairer growth for all belief then please contact me privately or publicly and I will will respond wherever possible. Thank you. Is the intention for QAA to resume lending? I believe this is needed in order to have capital inflows. 5% discount may not be enough for buying the existing loan book, but 5% in an ongoing lending business is a more attractive proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Aug 21, 2020 7:18:12 GMT
If anyone has any questions at all about our intentions or our fairer growth for all belief then please contact me privately or publicly and I will will respond wherever possible. Thank you. Is the intention for QAA to resume lending? I believe this is needed in order to have capital inflows. 5% discount may not be enough for buying the existing loan book, but 5% in an ongoing lending business is a more attractive proposition. Lending stopped for a number of reasons including ensuring that existing loans were fully funded going forwards and giving us time to assess the economic impact of COVID-19. Those two reasons are well addressed now and we see Access Account investors being able to benefit from new lending again in the near future and we will be providing an update to how and when we intend to do that shortly. There are quite a few considerations to deal with and agree that one benefit of new lending is potential to attract greater inbound investment which helps those who are still wishing to withdraw some capital. We will be announcing the positive impact that the Access Accounts Marketplace has had for investors in a few days.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Aug 21, 2020 7:44:02 GMT
I’m not changing what I have said before one iota, so just to be clear about our intentions, over my dead body will we abandon retail investors whilst retail investors need the interest that we produce even more than ever. If retail needs us then we will support that one way or the other in any way possible. Your support in these difficult ones is important for both us and yourselves. Whilst we could move on and thank you for your support to get set up, as others have done, that is absolutely not our intention nor our reason for founding the company, nor is is it fair. We set up to deliver you income in difficult times and we will continue to do that if we are supported. ... This post is greatly appreciated. As said in the OP, the provision of the SM was the clearest manifestation of that commitment to retail lenders through the ongoing liquidity crisis and it might seem strange that that lenders might think that the SM would be provided without an intention to take the retail business forward. However, a forum like this is the toughest crowd to please and not the place to judge support - we are all suspicious of platforms, with good cause through some bitter experiences - the old FS board was a really dark place. It's a financial service and about the money, and support can best be judged through the way that we lenders manage our accounts, not what a few of us say.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Aug 21, 2020 7:46:53 GMT
Thank you. Is the intention for QAA to resume lending? I believe this is needed in order to have capital inflows. 5% discount may not be enough for buying the existing loan book, but 5% in an ongoing lending business is a more attractive proposition. Lending stopped for a number of reasons including ensuring that existing loans were fully funded going forwards and giving us time to assess the economic impact of COVID-19. Those two reasons are well addressed now and we see Access Account investors being able to benefit from new lending again in the near future and we will be providing an update to how and when we intend to do that shortly. There are quite a few considerations to deal with and agree that one benefit of new lending is potential to attract greater inbound investment which helps those who are still wishing to withdraw some capital. We will be announcing the positive impact that the Access Accounts Marketplace has had for investors in a few days. Are you going to put interest rates up for borrowers & lenders alike. Presently returns are lower for an inferior product (liquidity/interest/security). Surely the way to attract investors is offer higher returns. Clearly borrowers should pay for this, both new borrowers & existing borrowers requiring tranche funding. The Brake you have Put on the access accounts has created a artificial unsustainable market. In short when are you going to let market forces prevail?
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Aug 21, 2020 10:18:35 GMT
Lending stopped for a number of reasons including ensuring that existing loans were fully funded going forwards and giving us time to assess the economic impact of COVID-19. Those two reasons are well addressed now and we see Access Account investors being able to benefit from new lending again in the near future and we will be providing an update to how and when we intend to do that shortly. There are quite a few considerations to deal with and agree that one benefit of new lending is potential to attract greater inbound investment which helps those who are still wishing to withdraw some capital. We will be announcing the positive impact that the Access Accounts Marketplace has had for investors in a few days. Are you going to put interest rates up for borrowers & lenders alike. Presently returns are lower for an inferior product (liquidity/interest/security). Surely the way to attract investors is offer higher returns. Clearly borrowers should pay for this, both new borrowers & existing borrowers requiring tranche funding. The Brake you have Put on the access accounts has created a artificial unsustainable market. In short when are you going to let market forces prevail? Thanks Ian. There are a few factors in interest rates for lenders within the Access Accounts (less for the MLA) and the main ones are borrower rate, AA interest rate, our monitoring margin, the implied difference between those three that goes into the provision fund, and the lender fee too whilst it is around. Even if we started lending on higher rates from the AAs in the short term we would use the increased margin firstly to bolster the provision fund I expect. When the current economic impacts are felt to be fully covered by provision fund balances and growth then we could look to raise AA rates too. Another way to raise AA rates would be to reduce/remove the lender fee and that is also known to be our aim as soon as practicable, principally related to when retail lenders are funding new lending again. There is clear demand for new lending and clear demand for decent interest rates from lenders and also clear demand that the provision fund continues to provide sensible cover for loan risk. Whilst we have to follow some FCA rules in all of that we are otherwise seeking to just balance market forces as you say. The Access Account Marketplace (AAMP) is the main facilitator of that and higher AA rates would attract more capital we agree and given how the AAMP works that flows as a benefit to anyone withdrawing and improves liquidity too. We will be releasing some stats for the AAMP very shortly and there is a lot greater liquidity now as a result of each side of that market trading with each other on top of redemption distributions that remain as they have been for some months but are expected to rise in due course.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Aug 21, 2020 10:56:09 GMT
Are you going to put interest rates up for borrowers & lenders alike. Presently returns are lower for an inferior product (liquidity/interest/security). Surely the way to attract investors is offer higher returns. Clearly borrowers should pay for this, both new borrowers & existing borrowers requiring tranche funding. The Brake you have Put on the access accounts has created a artificial unsustainable market. In short when are you going to let market forces prevail? Thanks Ian. There are a few factors in interest rates for lenders within the Access Accounts (less for the MLA) and the main ones are borrower rate, AA interest rate, our monitoring margin, the implied difference between those three that goes into the provision fund, and the lender fee too whilst it is around. Even if we started lending on higher rates from the AAs in the short term we would use the increased margin firstly to bolster the provision fund I expect. When the current economic impacts are felt to be fully covered by provision fund balances and growth then we could look to raise AA rates too. Another way to raise AA rates would be to reduce/remove the lender fee and that is also known to be our aim as soon as practicable, principally related to when retail lenders are funding new lending again. There is clear demand for new lending and clear demand for decent interest rates from lenders and also clear demand that the provision fund continues to provide sensible cover for loan risk. Whilst we have to follow some FCA rules in all of that we are otherwise seeking to just balance market forces as you say. The Access Account Marketplace (AAMP) is the main facilitator of that and higher AA rates would attract more capital we agree and given how the AAMP works that flows as a benefit to anyone withdrawing and improves liquidity too. We will be releasing some stats for the AAMP very shortly and there is a lot greater liquidity now as a result of each side of that market trading with each other on top of redemption distributions that remain as they have been for some months but are expected to rise in due course. My only observation is that without higher interest rates to lenders you won’t attract investors and therefore won’t address liquidity issues, which attracts bad publicity that further puts off investors - a doom loop. Higher interest rates for investors say 8% for 180days (Needs to be matched to new loans) attracts new investors, increased liquidity satisfied investors - a virtuous circle! BridgeCrowd manage it !
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 21, 2020 11:31:29 GMT
My only observation is that without higher interest rates to lenders you won’t attract investors and therefore won’t address liquidity issues, which attracts bad publicity that further puts off investors - a doom loop. Higher interest rates for investors say 8% for 180days ( Needs to be matched to new loans) attracts new investors, increased liquidity satisfied investors - a virtuous circle! BridgeCrowd manage it ! Brand new loans? No tranches on existing loans? First, wouldn't an issue be that on day one there would possibly be just one or two brand new loans. Would new investors be happy to have such low levels of diversification? The hope would be that further loans are added and the pot rebalanced so that greater diversity was afforded, but hope isn't a great basis for an investment decision and it could take several months, even years to get a basket of bran new loans in sufficient numbers to make the diversification equation palatable. Second, re: this part - if the new money coming in were going solely to the new '180DAA', how would that improve liquidity across all Access Accounts? Can you expand on this, please, 'cos I don't see it. As an aside, if I were to see a 180-day product with limited diversification, offering well above average rates of return (which 8% would be in the current climate for this type of account) I'd be thinking 'Lendy Wealth MkII'  (Sincere apologies for swearing on the AC board.)
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Aug 21, 2020 11:53:08 GMT
My only observation is that without higher interest rates to lenders you won’t attract investors and therefore won’t address liquidity issues, which attracts bad publicity that further puts off investors - a doom loop. Higher interest rates for investors say 8% for 180days ( Needs to be matched to new loans) attracts new investors, increased liquidity satisfied investors - a virtuous circle! BridgeCrowd manage it ! Brand new loans? No tranches on existing loans? First, wouldn't an issue be that on day one there would possibly be just one or two brand new loans. Would new investors be happy to have such low levels of diversification? The hope would be that further loans are added and the pot rebalanced so that greater diversity was afforded, but hope isn't a great basis for an investment decision and it could take several months, even years to get a basket of bran new loans in sufficient numbers to make the diversification equation palatable. Second, re: this part - if the new money coming in were going solely to the new '180DAA', how would that improve liquidity across all Access Accounts? Can you expand on this, please, 'cos I don't see it. As an aside, if I were to see a 180-day product with limited diversification, offering well above average rates of return (which 8% would be in the current climate for this type of account) I'd be thinking 'Lendy Wealth MkII' (Sincere apologies for swearing on the AC board.)
8% seems to be the point at which scammers target offers to part fools from their money; anyone want to buy a hotel room, car parking space, mini-bond...
Given my business can borrow from the bank at <6% or the Govt. at 0-2.5% and that the MLA is now averaging less than 7% on unsuspended loans, there's no way an Access account could offer lenders 8% and be a viable or competitive proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harland Kearney on Aug 21, 2020 11:55:09 GMT
Thanks for your input stuartassetzcapitalAlot of people read this board currently and have done during the crisis. Your input likely answers 100's of investors questions as the thread is read over the coming days/weeks. It puts lenders at ease and allows us to stop speculating and get some real answers. It is very helpful to the future of the business for Retail Lenders. |
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Aug 21, 2020 12:13:37 GMT
All I will say is I’ve invested a significant amount in a competitor of AC which has never lost a penny of investors Money. Personally I won’t invest in anything higher than 50% LTV with interest rate of < 8%. With at least £200k of equity in the property (to cover admin fees if necessary).
My average return is 9.4% ave LTV 41% minimum investment £5k per loan.
Over the past 4 months - Every penny I’ve managed to get out of AC has gone there plus. Presumably- AC could replicate that model.
Maybe if AC charged borrowers additional interest for additional tranches and offered me & you a better return I / We would have not withdrawn everything from AC.
If money is so cheap for borrowers to get elsewhere let then get it from there, and give investors back their redeemed capital. If it’s not; charge the going rate. And before you say agreements are in place - Investors didn’t sign up to open ended funding for ever. Also AC appear to be happy to throw out the terms for lenders but fail to charge the new ‘Norm’ market rate for borrowing.
As a retail product AC has trapped investors in over the past 5 months. If they are to survive long term they need to start enticing investors in.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Aug 21, 2020 12:27:30 GMT
All I will say is I’ve invested a significant amount in a competitor of AC which has never lost a penny of investors Money. Personally I won’t invest in anything higher than 50% LTV with interest rate of < 8%. With at least £200k of equity in the property (to cover admin fees if necessary). My average return is 9.4% ave LTV 41% minimum investment £5k per loan. Over the past 4 months - Every penny I’ve managed to get out of AC has gone there plus. Presumably- AC could replicate that model. Maybe if AC charged borrowers additional interest for additional tranches and offered me & you a better return I / We would have not withdrawn everything from AC. If money is so cheap for borrowers to get elsewhere let then get it from there, and give investors back their redeemed capital. If it’s not; charge the going rate. And before you say agreements are in place - Investors didn’t sign up to open ended funding for ever. Also AC appear to be happy to throw out the terms for lenders but fail to charge the new ‘Norm’ market rate for borrowing. As a retail product AC has trapped investors in over the past 5 months. If they are to survive long term they need to start enticing investors in. Well hopefully you're observing the FCA guidance and not placing more than 10% of your net financial worth in P2P and other unregulated investments.
Also as a sophisticated investor you understand the implicit risks to capital and liquidity that are giving you that expectional return.
And now AC has an active secondary market you are no longer trapped and free to take your monies elsewhere.
|
|
Mousey
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,598 
Likes: 6,768
Member is Online
|
Post by Mousey on Aug 21, 2020 12:49:07 GMT
Also as a sophisticated investor you understand the implicit risks to capital and liquidity that are giving you that expectional return.
That's a pretty pointless statement to make as Assetz have changed almost every single parameter of the accounts since the investment was made prior to March.
The only way to exit now is to take a 6%/7% discount as not even loan repayments are paid back into the investors account now.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Aug 21, 2020 12:55:49 GMT
All I will say is I’ve invested a significant amount in a competitor of AC which has never lost a penny of investors Money. Personally I won’t invest in anything higher than 50% LTV with interest rate of < 8%. With at least £200k of equity in the property (to cover admin fees if necessary). My average return is 9.4% ave LTV 41% minimum investment £5k per loan. Over the past 4 months - Every penny I’ve managed to get out of AC has gone there plus. Presumably- AC could replicate that model. Maybe if AC charged borrowers additional interest for additional tranches and offered me & you a better return I / We would have not withdrawn everything from AC. If money is so cheap for borrowers to get elsewhere let then get it from there, and give investors back their redeemed capital. If it’s not; charge the going rate. And before you say agreements are in place - Investors didn’t sign up to open ended funding for ever. Also AC appear to be happy to throw out the terms for lenders but fail to charge the new ‘Norm’ market rate for borrowing. As a retail product AC has trapped investors in over the past 5 months. If they are to survive long term they need to start enticing investors in. Well hopefully you're observing the FCA guidance and not placing more than 10% of your net financial worth in P2P and other unregulated investments.
Also as a sophisticated investor you understand the implicit risks to capital and liquidity that are giving you that expectional return.
And now AC has an active secondary market you are no longer trapped and free to take your monies elsewhere.
<mod removed> I’m fully aware of the risks associated with investments. That said the product AAs have been marketed to look like a term accounts, with the term now revised to ?? The interest rate revised to ?? We now have another revision with the introduction of the product. The product is now a ???Hybrid between a fixed term Account, a Closed and an Open ended fund, and a tradable instrument? It will be interesting to see what the FCA / FO make of It. It’s not something I would buy into and as I said earlier I doubt it’s something other investors will buy into unless a competitive return is offered.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Aug 21, 2020 13:02:17 GMT
All I will say is I’ve invested a significant amount in a competitor of AC which has never lost a penny of investors Money. Personally I won’t invest in anything higher than 50% LTV with interest rate of < 8%. With at least £200k of equity in the property (to cover admin fees if necessary). My average return is 9.4% ave LTV 41% minimum investment £5k per loan. Over the past 4 months - Every penny I’ve managed to get out of AC has gone there plus. Presumably- AC could replicate that model. Maybe if AC charged borrowers additional interest for additional tranches and offered me & you a better return I / We would have not withdrawn everything from AC. If money is so cheap for borrowers to get elsewhere let then get it from there, and give investors back their redeemed capital. If it’s not; charge the going rate. And before you say agreements are in place - Investors didn’t sign up to open ended funding for ever. Also AC appear to be happy to throw out the terms for lenders but fail to charge the new ‘Norm’ market rate for borrowing. As a retail product AC has trapped investors in over the past 5 months. If they are to survive long term they need to start enticing investors in. The problem with LTV is that the L is fact and the V is at best someone's opinion, and is often pure fiction. Some platforms have never lost any investors money on paper because they keep kicking non-performing loans into the long grass. If someone has an asset with a realistic LTV of <50% I don't know why they have to pay a rate so high that p2p lenders can get >8% share of it.
|
|
iRobot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,680
Likes: 2,477
|
Post by iRobot on Aug 21, 2020 13:03:05 GMT
All I will say is I’ve invested a significant amount in a competitor of AC which has never lost a penny of investors Money. Personally I won’t invest in anything higher than 50% LTV with interest rate of < 8%. With at least £200k of equity in the property (to cover admin fees if necessary). My average return is 9.4% ave LTV 41% minimum investment £5k per loan. Over the past 4 months - Every penny I’ve managed to get out of AC has gone there plus. Presumably- AC could replicate that model. Maybe if AC charged borrowers additional interest for additional tranches and offered me & you a better return I / We would have not withdrawn everything from AC. If money is so cheap for borrowers to get elsewhere let then get it from there, and give investors back their redeemed capital. If it’s not; charge the going rate. And before you say agreements are in place - Investors didn’t sign up to open ended funding for ever. Also AC appear to be happy to throw out the terms for lenders but fail to charge the new ‘Norm’ market rate for borrowing. As a retail product AC has trapped investors in over the past 5 months. If they are to survive long term they need to start enticing investors in. So no answers to my questions, then? Hmmmnnn.... Would like to query this bit though - do AC not already do this via the MLA account? Side note: I also invest with BridgeCrowd and whilst I am entirely happy with BridgeCrowd, I would point out to anyone reading who are unfamiliar with BC that: a) BC do not offer an 'Access'-style account, or anything like it b) BC are not true P2P (not A36H compliant) and therefore losses (when they come) cannot be offset against gains.
|
|
