iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141 
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on Sept 7, 2020 18:46:00 GMT
Zero redundancies. Everyone back this month after some were furloughed due to no work to do in loan origination for a bit. Cash up and profits looking good for the year. Retail and CBILS lending now restarted and we have £150m of capacity for CBILS being worked through at pace. That's excellent news Stuart and most reassuring. Would I be right in assuming the lender fee is being removed shortly?
|
|
upperdeane
Member of DD Central
Posts: 493
Likes: 245
|
Post by upperdeane on Sept 7, 2020 18:52:18 GMT
Zero redundancies. Everyone back this month after some were furloughed due to no work to do in loan origination for a bit. Cash up and profits looking good for the year. Retail and CBILS lending now restarted and we have £150m of capacity for CBILS being worked through at pace. That's excellent news Stuart and most reassuring. Would I be right in assuming the lender fee is being removed shortly? Does this mean distributions for those of us with sale orders in QAA have stopped as retail lending restarted? Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 7, 2020 18:54:54 GMT
One day someone will start an informative thread, perhaps called discount tracker, or forthcoming redemptions and it will not immediately be throttled to total unreadability by the same tired old complaints. Perhaps. We do enjoy the banter though, and the pointed remarks. It holds us accountable and keeps it real. The new main website forum that we proposed for asking questions and giving detailed informative answers prevents this forum being at risk of having some information and views that aren't readily accessible by all that don't frequent here. We wouldn't be doing all this if we didn't care about you all, and retail investors generally, and at a personal level it's why we carry on in a masochistic sort of way! We are all human and you can always find fault but in the end real results will win out and we believe in what we are doing and think that you will all mostly like what we do as each year's results are laid out through the cycle. Our fairer growth for all mantra is an ideal but we do accept the reality that imbalance will creep in from time to time as the economy and various stakeholder demands flex, but we do truly believe that there is a sweet spot between all stakeholder demands that we must achieve over the years. And if I was 21 and inexperienced in business then you could call me naive but in reality this is what experience and some grey hairs does for you when you realise that there is a better way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 7, 2020 18:56:44 GMT
Zero redundancies. Everyone back this month after some were furloughed due to no work to do in loan origination for a bit. Cash up and profits looking good for the year. Retail and CBILS lending now restarted and we have £150m of capacity for CBILS being worked through at pace. That's excellent news Stuart and most reassuring. Would I be right in assuming the lender fee is being removed shortly? Yes as we cement the results indicated above we will be looking to do just that.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 7, 2020 19:15:25 GMT
That's excellent news Stuart and most reassuring. Would I be right in assuming the lender fee is being removed shortly? Does this mean distributions for those of us with sale orders in QAA have stopped as retail lending restarted? Cheers We have restarted manual lending but that doesn't affect AA withdrawals. AAs starting to lend again will bring healthy sustainability to the AAs but wont change the current sell order processing and will also help provision funds grow.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Sept 7, 2020 19:21:20 GMT
alanh said here (referring to the SM) "When it was first launched I managed to sell several hundred £k at the rate of £25k - £75k per day at discounts between 5% and 7%"? One has to wonder if those parking large sums of money short term in AA's including 30 and 90 day and wanting to withdraw were the cause of AC having to stop a run and protect the smaller investors that NEEDED the money for living costs not just to make more money. I have no idea if the AA liquidity problem is due to a few large lenders (by amount lent), a mass of small lenders or just a general attempt to exit.
Imo every lender has the same right to get their money back and anybody who really 'needs' their money back shouldn't have been in p2p in the first place, regardless of whether they lent out £500 or £500,000. This isn't directed at you btw, just my view in general.
|
|
Mikeme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 428
Likes: 331
|
Post by Mikeme on Sept 7, 2020 19:52:12 GMT
One has to wonder if those parking large sums of money short term in AA's including 30 and 90 day and wanting to withdraw were the cause of AC having to stop a run and protect the smaller investors that NEEDED the money for living costs not just to make more money. I have no idea if the AA liquidity problem is due to a few large lenders (by amount lent), a mass of small lenders or just a general attempt to exit.
Imo every lender has the same right to get their money back and anybody who really 'needs' their money back shouldn't have been in p2p in the first place, regardless of whether they lent out £500 or £500,000. This isn't directed at you btw, Accepted just my view in general.
That takes us back to 12/03/20 and the decisions taken to the detriment of the few rich/large investors in favour of the large number of small er ones. My analogy again, should first in the queue have the right to all the toilet rolls? Taking that further and assuming the lack of cleanliness of those with no paper caused sickness that affected all it was in majority of peoples best interest to ration. My opinion and as I have said many times I support AC in that decision.
|
|
upperdeane
Member of DD Central
Posts: 493
Likes: 245
|
Post by upperdeane on Sept 7, 2020 20:32:16 GMT
Does this mean distributions for those of us with sale orders in QAA have stopped as retail lending restarted? Cheers We have restarted manual lending but that doesn't affect AA withdrawals. AAs starting to lend again will bring healthy sustainability to the AAs but wont change the current sell order processing and will also help provision funds grow. Thanks for the clarification. Appreciated.
|
|
iann
Posts: 105
Likes: 86
|
Post by iann on Sept 7, 2020 20:38:15 GMT
bradley02 you seem to have duplicated your post Possibly due to mobile data signal?
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Sept 8, 2020 6:37:17 GMT
One has to wonder if those parking large sums of money short term in AA's including 30 and 90 day and wanting to withdraw were the cause of AC having to stop a run and protect the smaller investors that NEEDED the money for living costs not just to make more money. I have no idea if the AA liquidity problem is due to a few large lenders (by amount lent), a mass of small lenders or just a general attempt to exit.
Imo every lender has the same right to get their money back and anybody who really 'needs' their money back shouldn't have been in p2p in the first place, regardless of whether they lent out £500 or £500,000. This isn't directed at you btw, just my view in general.
It’s safe to say that as soon as restricting access to cash were imposed investors would have been prompted to reassess their investments. There is no right answer however I believe had they been proactive & reduced the QAA interest rate to say 2.5% and imposed a 0.5% fee for funds in withdrawal in the 30/90 day accounts (using the funds to top up the PF) I’m sure there would have been much less of a run on the platform.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 8, 2020 7:50:47 GMT
I have no idea if the AA liquidity problem is due to a few large lenders (by amount lent), a mass of small lenders or just a general attempt to exit.
Imo every lender has the same right to get their money back and anybody who really 'needs' their money back shouldn't have been in p2p in the first place, regardless of whether they lent out £500 or £500,000. This isn't directed at you btw, just my view in general.
It’s safe to say that as soon as restricting access to cash were imposed investors would have been prompted to reassess their investments. There is no right answer however I believe had they been proactive & reduced the QAA interest rate to say 2.5% and imposed a 0.5% fee for funds in withdrawal in the 30/90 day accounts (using the funds to top up the PF) I’m sure there would have been much less of a run on the platform. Which would have penalised all those lenders who understood the risks of P2P and were happy to remain invested (whilst potentially helping those who didn't read the risk warnings properly and had treated the QAA like an instant access bank deposit account) It certainly wouldn't have prevented the ending of "normal market conditions" so it's a pretty pointless debate. Anyone who really wants / needs to get their money out instantly can now do so, albeit at a (not unreasonable in the circumstances) cost.
|
|
alanh
Posts: 556
Likes: 560
|
Post by alanh on Sept 8, 2020 8:21:47 GMT
I have no idea if the AA liquidity problem is due to a few large lenders (by amount lent), a mass of small lenders or just a general attempt to exit.
Imo every lender has the same right to get their money back and anybody who really 'needs' their money back shouldn't have been in p2p in the first place, regardless of whether they lent out £500 or £500,000. This isn't directed at you btw, Accepted just my view in general.
That takes us back to 12/03/20 and the decisions taken to the detriment of the few rich/large investors in favour of the large number of small er ones. My analogy again, should first in the queue have the right to all the toilet rolls? Taking that further and assuming the lack of cleanliness of those with no paper caused sickness that affected all it was in majority of peoples best interest to ration. My opinion and as I have said many times I support AC in that decision. A decision which AC were forced to make a complete U turn on several weeks later and revert to the proportional system that it was supposed to be. The trouble is that by then all trust had evaporated into thin air.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Sept 8, 2020 9:01:28 GMT
It’s safe to say that as soon as restricting access to cash were imposed investors would have been prompted to reassess their investments. There is no right answer however I believe had they been proactive & reduced the QAA interest rate to say 2.5% and imposed a 0.5% fee for funds in withdrawal in the 30/90 day accounts (using the funds to top up the PF) I’m sure there would have been much less of a run on the platform. Which would have penalised all those lenders who understood the risks of P2P and were happy to remain invested (whilst potentially helping those who didn't read the risk warnings properly and had treated the QAA like an instant access bank deposit account) It certainly wouldn't have prevented the ending of "normal market conditions" so it's a pretty pointless debate. Anyone who really wants / needs to get their money out instantly can now do so, albeit at a (not unreasonable in the circumstances) cost. Actually that’s the point it wouldn’t effect those who wished to stay invested at all. The choice of reducing interest for accessibility in my view would have had the duel effect of encouraging commitment to longer term & increasing funds into the PF coffers (making the investment more secure). It might ensure only those genuinely wishing to access their cash would press the withdrawal button. AC created a run on their platform. Using the interest rate levers to influence behaviour would have been much more successful in managing cash flow imho.
|
|
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 Sept 8, 2020 9:36:40 GMT
Which would have penalised all those lenders who understood the risks of P2P and were happy to remain invested (whilst potentially helping those who didn't read the risk warnings properly and had treated the QAA like an instant access bank deposit account) It certainly wouldn't have prevented the ending of "normal market conditions" so it's a pretty pointless debate. Anyone who really wants / needs to get their money out instantly can now do so, albeit at a (not unreasonable in the circumstances) cost. Actually that’s the point it wouldn’t effect those who wished to stay invested at all. The choice of reducing interest for accessibility in my view would have had the duel effect of encouraging commitment to longer term & increasing funds into the PF coffers (making the investment more secure). It might ensure only those genuinely wishing to access their cash would press the withdrawal button. AC created a run on their platform. Using the interest rate levers to influence behaviour would have been much more successful in managing cash flow imho. Not sure how AC created a 'run' on the platform, if there even was one. Pretty sure elevated withdrawals was due to uncertainty over the impact of CV19 which caused investors to remove cash from the AA, reducing the cash buffer, which then prompted others to pull cash/turn off sweep as it looked like a liquidity crunch was coming. Cutting the interest rate on the QAA would merely adjust the risk/reward balance negatively and encourage greater withdrawals. Increased withdrawals from the QAA, would boost the risk of the other accounts as holdings in loans increased and funds to provide forbearance were reduced by outflows, likely resulting in increased withdrawals from those accounts not withstanding the imposition of a withdrawal fee (which Im not sure the t&cs allow) Decreasing the rate on the QAA would only boost the QAA PF, it would have no benefit to the other accounts which would likely hold increasing amounts of distressed loans. It doesnt appear to fit AC's stated objective of normalising the accounts.
|
|
ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Sept 8, 2020 10:05:21 GMT
Actually that’s the point it wouldn’t effect those who wished to stay invested at all. The choice of reducing interest for accessibility in my view would have had the duel effect of encouraging commitment to longer term & increasing funds into the PF coffers (making the investment more secure). It might ensure only those genuinely wishing to access their cash would press the withdrawal button. AC created a run on their platform. Using the interest rate levers to influence behaviour would have been much more successful in managing cash flow imho. Not sure how AC created a 'run' on the platform, if there even was one. Pretty sure elevated withdrawals was due to uncertainty over the impact of CV19 which caused investors to remove cash from the AA, reducing the cash buffer, which then prompted others to pull cash/turn off sweep as it looked like a liquidity crunch was coming. Cutting the interest rate on the QAA would merely adjust the risk/reward balance negatively and encourage greater withdrawals. Increased withdrawals from the QAA, would boost the risk of the other accounts as holdings in loans increased and funds to provide forbearance were reduced by outflows, likely resulting in increased withdrawals from those accounts not withstanding the imposition of a withdrawal fee (which Im not sure the t&cs allow) Decreasing the rate on the QAA would only boost the QAA PF, it would have no benefit to the other accounts which would likely hold increasing amounts of distressed loans. It doesnt appear to fit AC's stated objective of normalising the accounts. I’m not sure - I believe if the differential between the QAA & term accounts was greater, along with a on notice of withdrawal penalty, less might have been tempted to withdraw. I can only give you an insight into my behaviour I had 25% of my funds withdrawing every week for 4 weeks. I was happy to retain the funds where they were until AC highlighted the run on the platform. If my 30 day funds were not attracting 5.25% on withdrawal (say 3.25%) then I probably would have at least halved the amount I had queued. As regards the QAA if the interest rate had been dropped to 2% I suspect most would have rolled funds into the 30 day account. - Who knows. The question is would any of us have changed our behaviour if the accounts were performing as before - some undoubtedly yes however AC might have been as a safe haven. For me ACs action signalled a problem and I immediately wanted out. There actions post that, have highlighted issue after issue with the management. I now have absolutely no confidence in their decision making. The irony in my case is I had £50k in easy money @ 8.25% .....because of limited diversification & no provision fund I pulled this and put it into AC..... I should have done the reverse 😩
|
|
