ian
Posts: 342
Likes: 226
|
Post by ian on Sept 27, 2020 21:44:55 GMT
Hi Stuart Final question Eagerly awaiting responses - For a number of years you have given new investors preferential rates to the detriment of current investors; Typically an additional 1% for investing for 6 month. Presently you reward new investors with a 7.5 - 10% discount when investing in the access accounts. (Little wonder we feel a tad aggrieved). Have you ever considered rewarding loyalty giving long term investors or investors with larger balances? To reiterate the point exactly what is the incentive to keep funds invested? Anyone wishing to remain invested is better off withdrawing funds & then reinvesting at 8 - 10% discount. Observation - possibly the biggest consequence of the SM is that the most profitable way to stay invested now, is to put one's money on withdrawal, get the payout, & then re-invest at discount - repeat. As an organisation made great play of investors “Gaming the Market” - that’s exactly what you’ve created! Finally - AC have introduced additional fees (borrower & lender) to enhance their margin, whilst reducing lender interest rates. The only party not suffering any loss of return is AC itself. Indeed you could argue AC potentially have the benefit of enhanced earnings from default interest / fees - which is not passed on to the Access Account / GBBA investors. Will AC consider passing on some of the upside to investors ? After all you did say cash & profits were up at AC. Stuart never said profits were up, stop making things up. Reference post in forthcoming-loan-redemptions 7/9/20 “ Cash up and profits looking good for the year.”
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Sept 28, 2020 7:57:44 GMT
You are effectively prevented from doing due diligence on a loan that you couldn't actually manually invest in in any case due to its suspension, yes. P2P doesn't conceal much information, or at least it doesn't if it wishes to have a meaningful and fair manual lending marketplace, but sometimes it must avoid wild disregard of lenders' best interests and be limited in what is published at sensitive moments. I thought it was established we agreed on the sensitive information point. However not all the information concealed can be in that category and its absence renders any worthwhile understanding of the loan impossible. Where we would seem to be at odds is 'in a black box' versus manual need for due diligence. Unless I am misunderstanding how it works you are not guaranteeing repayment of the loan in an access environment? Despite a fund to offer that as a possibility, as a consequence, to me understanding that loan to a certain extent is important in an invest or not decision (relating to the entire product). If I am misunderstanding that position, then possibly there is no need for any information. If nothing else I now know you are not a 9 till 5 man, that deserves some credit.
This is why the Access Accounts will continue to trade at discount. It's now impossible to place a true value on a holding. No facts or figures provided on value of bad loans, amount ringfenced, amount covered by provisions, how much capital loss too expect, how much might become untradeable, etc., etc.
As the good loans repay and the accounts are wound down you'll be left with an increasing proportion of bad loans of unquantifiable value.
Until AC starts to provide regular in-depth stats on their loan book I can't see why anyone would buy in to the Access accounts for anything except short-term speculation.
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,692 
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Sept 28, 2020 8:09:05 GMT
This is why the Access Accounts will continue to trade at discount. It's now impossible to place a true value on a holding. No facts or figures provided on value of bad loans, amount ringfenced, amount covered by provisions, how much capital loss too expect, how much might become untradeable, etc., etc.
As the good loans repay and the accounts are wound down you'll be left with an increasing proportion of bad loans of unquantifiable value.
Until AC starts to provide regular in-depth stats on their loan book I can't see why anyone would buy in to the Access accounts for anything except short-term speculation. I agree. I don't have the time or inclination to read the runes of each and every loan, even if that were possible. All I want to see is AC's view of what in sum is anticipated to go out, what is anticipated to come in, and in what shape that will leave the PF's in the long run.
|
|
ceejay
Posts: 975
Likes: 1,149
|
Post by ceejay on Sept 28, 2020 9:01:51 GMT
You are effectively prevented from doing due diligence on a loan that you couldn't actually manually invest in in any case due to its suspension, yes. P2P doesn't conceal much information, or at least it doesn't if it wishes to have a meaningful and fair manual lending marketplace, but sometimes it must avoid wild disregard of lenders' best interests and be limited in what is published at sensitive moments. I thought it was established we agreed on the sensitive information point. However not all the information concealed can be in that category and its absence renders any worthwhile understanding of the loan impossible. Where we would seem to be at odds is 'in a black box' versus manual need for due diligence. Unless I am misunderstanding how it works you are not guaranteeing repayment of the loan in an access environment? Despite a fund to offer that as a possibility, as a consequence, to me understanding that loan to a certain extent is important in an invest or not decision (relating to the entire product). If I am misunderstanding that position, then possibly there is no need for any information. If nothing else I now know you are not a 9 till 5 man, that deserves some credit. I think the "black box" versus "manual" is the key point here. If you can't buy a loan manually, then as stuart says there is no need for non-investors to be poking around and it may well be in lenders' interests to keep it so. While it won't actually be an issue in every case, the no-access rule is simple and effective. But, as others are saying, if you want to assess the value of the Access accounts you probably wouldn't start by analysing all of the loans that are in it - what matters are the gross figures of cash held, expected losses, future funding requirements or whatever. While the AAs were working properly none of that mattered, but now we are being asked to assess a discounted value it really does. This is a new scenario for AC to get hold of, so I'm not entirely surprised we haven't got there yet, but I would certainly urge them to consider how we can be properly informed in this market.
|
|
dead-money
Rocket to the Moon
Posts: 746
Likes: 654
|
Post by dead-money on Sept 28, 2020 9:19:33 GMT
I thought it was established we agreed on the sensitive information point. However not all the information concealed can be in that category and its absence renders any worthwhile understanding of the loan impossible. Where we would seem to be at odds is 'in a black box' versus manual need for due diligence. Unless I am misunderstanding how it works you are not guaranteeing repayment of the loan in an access environment? Despite a fund to offer that as a possibility, as a consequence, to me understanding that loan to a certain extent is important in an invest or not decision (relating to the entire product). If I am misunderstanding that position, then possibly there is no need for any information. If nothing else I now know you are not a 9 till 5 man, that deserves some credit. I think the "black box" versus "manual" is the key point here. If you can't buy a loan manually, then as stuart says there is no need for non-investors to be poking around and it may well be in lenders' interests to keep it so. While it won't actually be an issue in every case, the no-access rule is simple and effective. But, as others are saying, if you want to assess the value of the Access accounts you probably wouldn't start by analysing all of the loans that are in it - what matters are the gross figures of cash held, expected losses, future funding requirements or whatever. While the AAs were working properly none of that mattered, but now we are being asked to assess a discounted value it really does. This is a new scenario for AC to get hold of, so I'm not entirely surprised we haven't got there yet, but I would certainly urge them to consider how we can be properly informed in this market. Indeed and in the absence of aggregate numbers from AC, analysis of the individual loans becomes the only option. Out of 507 loans 48 are in default, of the top ten holdings four are in default with capital writedowns and a notional value of £15M.
How much of that should we write-off or discount? Nobody knows...
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 28, 2020 9:24:10 GMT
I thought it was established we agreed on the sensitive information point. However not all the information concealed can be in that category and its absence renders any worthwhile understanding of the loan impossible. Where we would seem to be at odds is 'in a black box' versus manual need for due diligence. Unless I am misunderstanding how it works you are not guaranteeing repayment of the loan in an access environment? Despite a fund to offer that as a possibility, as a consequence, to me understanding that loan to a certain extent is important in an invest or not decision (relating to the entire product). If I am misunderstanding that position, then possibly there is no need for any information. If nothing else I now know you are not a 9 till 5 man, that deserves some credit.
This is why the Access Accounts will continue to trade at discount. It's now impossible to place a true value on a holding. No facts or figures provided on value of bad loans, amount ringfenced, amount covered by provisions, how much capital loss too expect, how much might become untradeable, etc., etc.
As the good loans repay and the accounts are wound down you'll be left with an increasing proportion of bad loans of unquantifiable value.
Until AC starts to provide regular in-depth stats on their loan book I can't see why anyone would buy in to the Access accounts for anything except short-term speculation.
More in depth and regular statistics than required from a regulatory point of view is intended as soon as practical. However to say that cash in the PF that is ringfenced for every single loan that requires it has some kind of different provision amount isn't correct. The provision is the ring fencing, and of course that can change over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 28, 2020 9:27:01 GMT
I thought it was established we agreed on the sensitive information point. However not all the information concealed can be in that category and its absence renders any worthwhile understanding of the loan impossible. Where we would seem to be at odds is 'in a black box' versus manual need for due diligence. Unless I am misunderstanding how it works you are not guaranteeing repayment of the loan in an access environment? Despite a fund to offer that as a possibility, as a consequence, to me understanding that loan to a certain extent is important in an invest or not decision (relating to the entire product). If I am misunderstanding that position, then possibly there is no need for any information. If nothing else I now know you are not a 9 till 5 man, that deserves some credit. I think the "black box" versus "manual" is the key point here. If you can't buy a loan manually, then as stuart says there is no need for non-investors to be poking around and it may well be in lenders' interests to keep it so. While it won't actually be an issue in every case, the no-access rule is simple and effective. But, as others are saying, if you want to assess the value of the Access accounts you probably wouldn't start by analysing all of the loans that are in it - what matters are the gross figures of cash held, expected losses, future funding requirements or whatever. While the AAs were working properly none of that mattered, but now we are being asked to assess a discounted value it really does. This is a new scenario for AC to get hold of, so I'm not entirely surprised we haven't got there yet, but I would certainly urge them to consider how we can be properly informed in this market. Indeed. We have the data and wish to publish it in a clear form. The regulatory requirement for disclosure is very long term and doesn't really provide this information and we would like to fix that as soon as practical.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 28, 2020 9:40:06 GMT
I think the "black box" versus "manual" is the key point here. If you can't buy a loan manually, then as stuart says there is no need for non-investors to be poking around and it may well be in lenders' interests to keep it so. While it won't actually be an issue in every case, the no-access rule is simple and effective. But, as others are saying, if you want to assess the value of the Access accounts you probably wouldn't start by analysing all of the loans that are in it - what matters are the gross figures of cash held, expected losses, future funding requirements or whatever. While the AAs were working properly none of that mattered, but now we are being asked to assess a discounted value it really does. This is a new scenario for AC to get hold of, so I'm not entirely surprised we haven't got there yet, but I would certainly urge them to consider how we can be properly informed in this market. Indeed and in the absence of aggregate numbers from AC, analysis of the individual loans becomes the only option. Out of 507 loans 48 are in default, of the top ten holdings four are in default with capital writedowns and a notional value of £15M.
How much of that should we write-off or discount? Nobody knows...
We do know, the ringfencing covers the current fair price for the loan versus its par value. There is a ringfencing process description on the website and assuming that a larger provision for losses is required at any given moment (via a discount on the marketplace) is each lender's choice but that would be different to our own point in time assessment with all the data available to us. We endeavor to immediately feed new information through to the loan records and also the ringfencing cash in the Access Accounts and will suspend a loan if time is needed to fully assess that. It has been suggested on here that the marketplace discount is more to do with people wanting to force liquidity higher than its natural level at par value and over £10m of loan holdings have been liquidated in that way in a few weeks. So clearly a lot of people think the discounts are fair value and they see that as more than compensating for the risk in the book, otherwise why would they be buying that volume ? Its everyone's choice to personally decide that the losses on the loan book will be larger than current provision fund and that the provision fund wont pay out on those in the future and we can hear that people would like to know the forecast but unfortunately we are forbidden for forecasting anything to do with future provision fund contributions etc and so remain silent on that. Perhaps we can reveal monthly actual contributions versus new ringfencing to see if that is positive or negative trend but that is fraught with regulatory issues too. As it happens there was a surge in spare AA PF cash in the last month versus new provisions but will it continue in that trend or is it too soon to see PF spare cash growing faster than ringfencing requirement ? I am personally working on finding a compliant way to disclose all of this but it isn't at all easy without ignoring the rules.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Sept 28, 2020 9:54:48 GMT
Indeed and in the absence of aggregate numbers from AC, analysis of the individual loans becomes the only option. Out of 507 loans 48 are in default, of the top ten holdings four are in default with capital writedowns and a notional value of £15M.
How much of that should we write-off or discount? Nobody knows...
We do know, the ringfencing covers the current fair price for the loan versus its par value. There is a ringfencing process description on the website and assuming that a larger provision for losses is required at any given moment (via a discount on the marketplace) is each lender's choice but that would be different to our own point in time assessment with all the data available to us. We endeavor to immediately feed new information through to the loan records and also the ringfencing cash in the Access Accounts and will suspend a loan if time is needed to fully assess that. It has been suggested on here that the marketplace discount is more to do with people wanting to force liquidity higher than its natural level at par value and over £10m of loan holdings have been liquidated in that way in a few weeks. So clearly a lot of people think the discounts are fair value and they see that as more than compensating for the risk in the book, otherwise why would they be buying that volume ? Its everyone's choice to personally decide that the losses on the loan book will be larger than current provision fund and that the provision fund wont pay out on those in the future and we can hear that people would like to know the forecast but unfortunately we are forbidden for forecasting anything to do with future provision fund contributions etc and so remain silent on that. Perhaps we can reveal monthly actual contributions versus new ringfencing to see if that is positive or negative trend but that is fraught with regulatory issues too. As it happens there was a surge in spare AA PF cash in the last month versus new provisions but will it continue in that trend or is it too soon to see PF spare cash growing faster than ringfencing requirement ? I am personally working on finding a compliant way to disclose all of this but it isn't at all easy without ignoring the rules. Would it be possible to provide the current stats more frequently as a starter? For example providing this weekly? www.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/90-day-access-account/key-account-informationIs there anything in the regulations preventing more frequent publication of existing stats? And this more frequently? Last updated in April. And split out by the remaining access account loans only? www.assetzcapital.co.uk/loan-performanceThese are not perfect but would be a start in terms of visibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 28, 2020 10:36:38 GMT
We do know, the ringfencing covers the current fair price for the loan versus its par value. There is a ringfencing process description on the website and assuming that a larger provision for losses is required at any given moment (via a discount on the marketplace) is each lender's choice but that would be different to our own point in time assessment with all the data available to us. We endeavor to immediately feed new information through to the loan records and also the ringfencing cash in the Access Accounts and will suspend a loan if time is needed to fully assess that. It has been suggested on here that the marketplace discount is more to do with people wanting to force liquidity higher than its natural level at par value and over £10m of loan holdings have been liquidated in that way in a few weeks. So clearly a lot of people think the discounts are fair value and they see that as more than compensating for the risk in the book, otherwise why would they be buying that volume ? Its everyone's choice to personally decide that the losses on the loan book will be larger than current provision fund and that the provision fund wont pay out on those in the future and we can hear that people would like to know the forecast but unfortunately we are forbidden for forecasting anything to do with future provision fund contributions etc and so remain silent on that. Perhaps we can reveal monthly actual contributions versus new ringfencing to see if that is positive or negative trend but that is fraught with regulatory issues too. As it happens there was a surge in spare AA PF cash in the last month versus new provisions but will it continue in that trend or is it too soon to see PF spare cash growing faster than ringfencing requirement ? I am personally working on finding a compliant way to disclose all of this but it isn't at all easy without ignoring the rules. Would it be possible to provide the current stats more frequently as a starter? For example providing this weekly? www.assetzcapital.co.uk/invest/our-accounts/90-day-access-account/key-account-informationIs there anything in the regulations preventing more frequent publication of existing stats? And this more frequently? Last updated in April. And split out by the remaining access account loans only? www.assetzcapital.co.uk/loan-performanceThese are not perfect but would be a start in terms of visibility. The former is probably easy but should be the one improved, the latter is the regulatory once a year update and cant be changed. We are working on it.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Sept 28, 2020 10:56:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 28, 2020 11:03:21 GMT
New regulations came in in December 19.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Sept 28, 2020 11:08:22 GMT
New regulations came in in December 19. You updated in January 2020 and April 2020 in the new regulatory format. Should we assume the next one will be April 2021? Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 28, 2020 11:16:26 GMT
New regulations came in in December 19. You updated in January 2020 and April 2020 in the new regulatory format. Should we assume the next one will be April 2021? Thanks Those are updated quarterly and is clearly overdue but is done and in the queue to be published having checked. It is the individual account pages that could potentially be updated more often and I have suggested that is done.
|
|
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 28, 2020 11:20:13 GMT
You updated in January 2020 and April 2020 in the new regulatory format. Should we assume the next one will be April 2021? Thanks Those are updated quarterly and is clearly overdue but is done and in the queue to be published having checked. It is the individual account pages that could potentially be updated more often and I have suggested that is done. Is the one due next month done as well?
|
|
