mogish
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,011
Likes: 497
|
Post by mogish on Sept 8, 2022 17:13:41 GMT
andrew bailey is like a headless chicken on the whole damm lot of it. How does this guy hang on to top jobs? He hasnt done anything that I can find that's been positive in any of his roles.
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Sept 24, 2022 7:39:41 GMT
Loanpad access account v Assetzcapital access account is a no brainer regardless of your brain size.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 24, 2022 8:01:31 GMT
Loanpad access account v Assetzcapital access account is a no brainer regardless of your brain size. I don't see it that way. AC access pays 3.9% v LP's 3.2%. AC has a Protection Fund; LP does not. I would still favour the LP account. The main reason for investing in an instant access account is the access. AC access was very severely constipated during Covid, LP access was unaffected. Then there's the fact that AC changed the access priority rules without warning...
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Sept 24, 2022 9:00:03 GMT
Loanpad access account v Assetzcapital access account is a no brainer regardless of your brain size. I don't see it that way. AC access pays 3.9% v LP's 3.2%. AC has a Protection Fund; LP does not. I would still favour the LP account. The main reason for investing in an instant access account is the access. AC access was very severely constipated during Covid, LP access was unaffected. Then there's the fact that AC changed the access priority rules without warning...
Inside my brain, I was typing Loanpad 60 day acccess account (4.3%) v Assetzcapital 30 day access (4.1%) and 90 day access (4.5%) accounts.
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 24, 2022 18:55:04 GMT
I don't see it that way. AC access pays 3.9% v LP's 3.2%. AC has a Protection Fund; LP does not. I would still favour the LP account. The main reason for investing in an instant access account is the access. AC access was very severely constipated during Covid, LP access was unaffected. Then there's the fact that AC changed the access priority rules without warning...
Inside my brain, I was typing Loanpad 60 day acccess account (4.3%) v Assetzcapital 30 day access (4.1%) and 90 day access (4.5%) accounts.
I wonder what will happen to these accounts when banks will start offering 3% on IA and more on penalty free notice accounts. I think we might see such scenario in very near future. Can AC and LP afford to raise their rates to say 5% IA and 6.5% on 90 days. We know the answer for AC . Not sure about LP, but I suspect they will find it very challenging to chase this rapid BoE interest rise (at least in the short term).
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 24, 2022 19:04:58 GMT
Loanpad access account v Assetzcapital access account is a no brainer regardless of your brain size. I don't see it that way. AC access pays 3.9% v LP's 3.2%. AC has a Protection Fund; LP does not. I would still favour the LP account. The main reason for investing in an instant access account is the access. AC access was very severely constipated during Covid, LP access was unaffected. Then there's the fact that AC changed the access priority rules without warning... Me too. So far LP was far more reliable. But what will happen in the event of mass exodus? Will they be able to keep to their access commitments?
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 24, 2022 19:51:32 GMT
I don't see it that way. AC access pays 3.9% v LP's 3.2%. AC has a Protection Fund; LP does not. I would still favour the LP account. The main reason for investing in an instant access account is the access. AC access was very severely constipated during Covid, LP access was unaffected. Then there's the fact that AC changed the access priority rules without warning... Me too. So far LP was far more reliable. But what will happen in the event of mass exodus? Will they be able to keep to their access commitments? Clearly not. There's currently less than £1m in unallocated cash on the platform, so that couldn't service withdrawal requests for more than 1.3% of the total invested cash on the platform without resorting to their "extra liquidity providers". And we've no idea of how much extra liquidity is contracted to be provided. However, what we do know is: 1. At the start of covid there were significant volumes of withdraw requests, such that the amount of unassigned cash was reduced to zero, and all withdraw requests were honoured (next day for Classic and after 60 days for Premium). Unlike the fiasco at AC. 2. The majority of cash will be invested in the Premium Accounts, so the platform can stop new lending and use 60 days worth of repayments to further fund withdraw requests. There's over £9.3m due to be repaid over the next 60 days. Of course, some of these won't repay on time, but others will repay early. 3. Any new deposits could also be used to service withdrawal requests. I haven't seen a single week since the early covid withdrawal run where net deposits haven't been positive by at least £100k, and usually much more. 4. Less than £2.5m of the invested cash is due to repay in beyond a year's time (less than 3,5% of invested cash). 5. At the end of the day this is P2P, so we shouldn't be investing cash if we're not prepared to accept losses or delays.
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Sept 24, 2022 20:28:07 GMT
Me too. So far LP was far more reliable. But what will happen in the event of mass exodus? Will they be able to keep to their access commitments? Clearly not. There's currently less than £1m in unallocated cash on the platform, so that couldn't service withdrawal requests for more than 1.3% of the total invested cash on the platform without resorting to their "extra liquidity providers". And we've no idea of how much extra liquidity is contracted to be provided. However, what we do know is: 1. At the start of covid there were significant volumes of withdraw requests, such that the amount of unassigned cash was reduced to zero, and all withdraw requests were honoured (next day for Classic and after 60 days for Premium). Unlike the fiasco at AC. 2. The majority of cash will be invested in the Premium Accounts, so the platform can stop new lending and use 60 days worth of repayments to further fund withdraw requests. There's over £9.3m due to be repaid over the next 60 days. Of course, some of these won't repay on time, but others will repay early. 3. Any new deposits could also be used to service withdrawal requests. I haven't seen a single week since the early covid withdrawal run where net deposits haven't been positive by at least £100k, and usually much more. 4. Less than £2.5m of the invested cash is due to repay in beyond a year's time (less than 3,5% of invested cash). 5. At the end of the day this is P2P, so we shouldn't be investing cash if we're not prepared to accept losses or delays. People are overlooking the significance of a major, major piece of information in the LP CEO livestream with Financial Thing last October - www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWspJb66WaASee @ 18:10 mins - LP has an option to sell its loans back to the lending partners. If this worked as advertised, LP could in theory quickly liquidate loans still in progress, in order to meet this hypothetical rush of panic withdrawal requests. This goes well beyond what most platforms can do.
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 24, 2022 21:01:32 GMT
Me too. So far LP was far more reliable. But what will happen in the event of mass exodus? Will they be able to keep to their access commitments? Clearly not. There's currently less than £1m in unallocated cash on the platform, so that couldn't service withdrawal requests for more than 1.3% of the total invested cash on the platform without resorting to their "extra liquidity providers". And we've no idea of how much extra liquidity is contracted to be provided. However, what we do know is: 1. At the start of covid there were significant volumes of withdraw requests, such that the amount of unassigned cash was reduced to zero, and all withdraw requests were honoured (next day for Classic and after 60 days for Premium). Unlike the fiasco at AC. 2. The majority of cash will be invested in the Premium Accounts, so the platform can stop new lending and use 60 days worth of repayments to further fund withdraw requests. There's over £9.3m due to be repaid over the next 60 days. Of course, some of these won't repay on time, but others will repay early. 3. Any new deposits could also be used to service withdrawal requests. I haven't seen a single week since the early covid withdrawal run where net deposits haven't been positive by at least £100k, and usually much more. 4. Less than £2.5m of the invested cash is due to repay in beyond a year's time (less than 3,5% of invested cash). 5. At the end of the day this is P2P, so we shouldn't be investing cash if we're not prepared to accept losses or delays. I think one of the reasons for AC's Covid "fiasco" was that their loan book has a large proportion of loans to hospitality industry which was closed down, whereas LP is solely property (at a slower pace, but building works and property sales were still going ahead). Covid and inflation are different scenarios. This time round investors will be withdrawing because the rates are no longer competitive.
|
|
firedog
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 380
|
Post by firedog on Sept 24, 2022 21:25:49 GMT
Live data, though, seems to show that investors aren't – yet– withdrawing. Both number of investors, and average investment, continuing a modest rise.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 24, 2022 21:34:51 GMT
Clearly not. There's currently less than £1m in unallocated cash on the platform, so that couldn't service withdrawal requests for more than 1.3% of the total invested cash on the platform without resorting to their "extra liquidity providers". And we've no idea of how much extra liquidity is contracted to be provided. However, what we do know is: 1. At the start of covid there were significant volumes of withdraw requests, such that the amount of unassigned cash was reduced to zero, and all withdraw requests were honoured (next day for Classic and after 60 days for Premium). Unlike the fiasco at AC. 2. The majority of cash will be invested in the Premium Accounts, so the platform can stop new lending and use 60 days worth of repayments to further fund withdraw requests. There's over £9.3m due to be repaid over the next 60 days. Of course, some of these won't repay on time, but others will repay early. 3. Any new deposits could also be used to service withdrawal requests. I haven't seen a single week since the early covid withdrawal run where net deposits haven't been positive by at least £100k, and usually much more. 4. Less than £2.5m of the invested cash is due to repay in beyond a year's time (less than 3,5% of invested cash). 5. At the end of the day this is P2P, so we shouldn't be investing cash if we're not prepared to accept losses or delays. I think one of the reasons for AC's Covid "fiasco" was that their loan book has a large proportion of loans to hospitality industry which was closed down, whereas LP is solely property (at a slower pace, but building works and property sales were still going ahead). Covid and inflation are different scenarios. This time round investors will be withdrawing because the rates are no longer competitive. That one's easily solved
|
|
|
Post by overthehill on Sept 25, 2022 8:03:30 GMT
Live data, though, seems to show that investors aren't – yet– withdrawing. Both number of investors, and average investment, continuing a modest rise.
It will be very difficult to increase rates of any P2P black box account because the majority of the loans will be at lower rates for years.
Which is why I said some time ago that borrower and lender rates were going in the wrong direction, been obvious since the Russian invasion. P2P were pushing the envelope for as long as possible, can't really blame them, all those long term loans at 5% and the shorter term loans with inevitable extensions due to much more expensive refinancing next time.
Now it's going to be a bigger liquidity crisis. Lenders in P2P with no SM will also be stuck on low rates. Lenders in individual loans at low rates will have the best chance to turnover their capital, many started months ago.
|
|
|
Post by Duane Dibley on Sept 25, 2022 12:45:02 GMT
Live data, though, seems to show that investors aren't – yet– withdrawing. Both number of investors, and average investment, continuing a modest rise. Isn't the point though that once that does change then it's already too late? As we saw with AC sentiment can change in the blink of an eye. It's an interesting discussion and I can see the merits in both sides, though while I am undecided I have been reducing my holding in LP naturally over the last few months.
|
|
|
Post by nooneere on Sept 25, 2022 15:23:11 GMT
Live data, though, seems to show that investors aren't – yet– withdrawing. Both number of investors, and average investment, continuing a modest rise. Isn't the point though that once that does change then it's already too late? As we saw with AC sentiment can change in the blink of an eye. It's an interesting discussion and I can see the merits in both sides, though while I am undecided I have been reducing my holding in LP naturally over the last few months. Sorry if I am hammering this too much, but I don't like to see investors worrying unnecessarily. To repeat my previous post in more telegraphic terms, LP is IMMUNE from liquidity problems due to an investor withdrawal stampede. Watch the video referenced if you don't understand. The discussion about rates relative to FCSC-protected accounts is all valid, and a matter of personal psychology to be honest, but the AC liquidity precedent is a red herring.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Sept 25, 2022 15:38:42 GMT
Isn't the point though that once that does change then it's already too late? As we saw with AC sentiment can change in the blink of an eye. It's an interesting discussion and I can see the merits in both sides, though while I am undecided I have been reducing my holding in LP naturally over the last few months. Sorry if I am hammering this too much, but I don't like to see investors worrying unnecessarily. To repeat my previous post in more telegraphic terms, LP is IMMUNE from liquidity problems due to an investor withdrawal stampede. Watch the video referenced if you don't understand. The discussion about rates relative to FCSC-protected accounts is all valid, and a matter of personal psychology to be honest, but the AC liquidity precedent is a red herring. To say that they're "immune from liquidity problems" it's not true. LP can request that lending partners repay loans early, but there's no obligation on the lending partners to comply. And it's very unlikely that they would all be in a position to repay all loans in full. If they had that much free cash readily available they wouldn't be selling off parts of them to Loanpad.
|
|