|
|
Post by chris on Nov 22, 2015 15:33:29 GMT
"(I'm promised) there's a steady pipeline and a couple of new sources coming online but the effects won't be felt for another couple of months ...".... blah blah blah!!! Give that one a rest, Chris! It's been going on for over a year. Right you are, we've been defeated and are giving up. Or perhaps not. You can choose to believe or not but I'd be stupid to not trust the rest of the business and believe the pipeline figures that are reported to me. I can see the massive influx of new loans and pricing requests along with offers flowing back the other way. What I do not know is the conversion rate on those nor the time it will take to close, fund and draw down. I guess based on historical data but as the sources and strategy, both marketing and sales, have changed quite drastically it's still a bit of an unknown. "We're currently debating whether or not we should reserve this loan just for the GEIA given how poorly serviced"
What? With Falmouth and Cornwall on the brink of repaying ..... AC are suggesting my £3k+ will be excluded from County Tyrone??? So why have I been invited to place a buying instruction? Is AC really giving me so little alternative but to withdraw my funds? 
I haven't said that's definitely the plan, I said it's being considered. It was raised by a board director as a possible temporary solution, when a final decision has been taken it will be communicated to everyone. Unfortunately the platform isn't just about you, there's several hundred thousand pounds queued up in the GEIA that needs a home too and we need to try and balance supply across all demand. On RateSetter, for example, you don't complain that a 5 year loan isn't available to the 3 year market. Usually we operate one market with multiple methods of investing into any loan but these are not usual market conditions that we're currently facing so we have to make it work as best we can. If the sales team deliver what is promised then this rationing will all be forgotten in the new year.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Nov 22, 2015 15:57:22 GMT
If the sales team deliver what is promised then this rationing will all be forgotten in the new year. Fingers crossed. I (guessing) assume that AC will be pushing the packaged accounts for ISAs in a few months, so having sufficient deal flow is a prerequisite. Given the usual rush in April there is a definite clock on that.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Dec 26, 2015 11:12:23 GMT
As I was looking at my GBBA I thought I would do the same for GEIA. My GEIA is older but also a lot smaller due to my perception of the lesser deal flow. That said, it is 99.46% invested which is pretty good. This I think is in part due to when I invested though, as there were only 2 small purchases in December, 1 in November and none in October. So someone investing more recently could have a very different view of the account.
Looking at top holdings...
180 28.55%
90 20.78%
112 20.11%
So, three 'officially overweight' in this account. The remaining 30.57% is spread over 8 loans, which range from 7.27% to 0.67%, so a reasonable spread at that level.
Similar to my GBBA, I had a habit of removing interest / capital repayments if they didn't get invested after a period of a few weeks, which may have reduced any rebalancing. That said, I did get 1.78% of my account into loan 218 when it was launched.
Again, I've not had a missed payment that I'm aware of, so the PF is achieving it's purpose. At 3.2% it is the most 'healthy' of the AC accounts, I assume in part due to being the oldest account. If I'd had the exact holdings of my GEIA in the manual account, I would be on 9.6% interest instead of 7%, which, when you include the automated nature of the GEIA, seems to be a reasonable trade off for that level of PF, much more reasonable than GBBA currently.
Overall, the biggest concern is the deal flow. The severe lack of it restricts the diversification (probably worsened by my reaction to cash sitting idle) which weakens the accounts proposition. If that could be resolved I suspect that the rest of this account would continue to tick over quite nicely, which I assume the 'set it up and leave it' market is the people AC are targeting for it.
For me, another 7 out of 10, but for different reasons to the GBBA.
|
|
bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1,478
|
Post by bugs4me on Dec 26, 2015 11:42:12 GMT
As I was looking at my GBBA I thought I would do the same for GEIA. My GEIA is older but also a lot smaller due to my perception of the lesser deal flow. That said, it is 99.46% invested which is pretty good. This I think is in part due to when I invested though, as there were only 2 small purchases in December, 1 in November and none in October. So someone investing more recently could have a very different view of the account. Looking at top holdings... 180 28.55% 90 20.78% 112 20.11% So, three 'officially overweight' in this account. The remaining 30.57% is spread over 8 loans, which range from 7.27% to 0.67%, so a reasonable spread at that level. Similar to my GBBA, I had a habit of removing interest / capital repayments if they didn't get invested after a period of a few weeks, which may have reduced any rebalancing. That said, I did get 1.78% of my account into loan 218 when it was launched. Again, I've not had a missed payment that I'm aware of, so the PF is achieving it's purpose. At 3.2% it is the most 'healthy' of the AC accounts, I assume in part due to being the oldest account. If I'd had the exact holdings of my GEIA in the manual account, I would be on 9.6% interest instead of 7%, which, when you include the automated nature of the GEIA, seems to be a reasonable trade off for that level of PF, much more reasonable than GBBA currently. Overall, the biggest concern is the deal flow. The severe lack of it restricts the diversification (probably worsened by my reaction to cash sitting idle) which weakens the accounts proposition. If that could be resolved I suspect that the rest of this account would continue to tick over quite nicely, which I assume the 'set it up and leave it' market is the people AC are targeting for it. For me, another 7 out of 10, but for different reasons to the GBBA. When I was involved in the GEIA for a short period of time the fund also exceeded it's own 20% rule but I was never able to achieve more than 80% invested. Maybe I should have given it more time but as there were zero green projects being listed then it was really at the mercy of waiting for someone to 'bail out' of their existing qualifying green investment. What I've always wondered is what the true rate is taking into account idle funds waiting investment. 7% for what is basically a passive account is good but of course that is subject to being 100% fully invested. Unfortunately I do not possess the necessary Excel skills to work out what my true rate was during the short period I was in the GEIA but it certainly wasn't 7%. Whilst having a PF in the background is good, I do not feel it's enough compensation unless that 7% is genuinely achieved.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 5, 2016 21:24:52 GMT
What I've always wondered is what the true rate is taking into account idle funds waiting investment. 7% for what is basically a passive account is good but of course that is subject to being 100% fully invested. Unfortunately I do not possess the necessary Excel skills to work out what my true rate was during the short period I was in the GEIA but it certainly wasn't 7%. Whilst having a PF in the background is good, I do not feel it's enough compensation unless that 7% is genuinely achieved. The good news is that the introduction of the QAA with its 'sweep' function has helped considerably. In the pre-QAA days, a GEIA that was 75% invested was actually earning 5.25%. Now, a 75% invested GEIA -- with the other 25% in the QAA -- would be earning 6.19%. That's still not the advertised 7%, but it's a big improvement on 5.25%. PS. I haven't a clue whether being 75% invested is a reasonable possibility for a new GEIA investment considering the current shortage of new GEIA-eligible loans.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741 
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Jan 6, 2016 15:09:49 GMT
What I've always wondered is what the true rate is taking into account idle funds waiting investment. 7% for what is basically a passive account is good but of course that is subject to being 100% fully invested. Unfortunately I do not possess the necessary Excel skills to work out what my true rate was during the short period I was in the GEIA but it certainly wasn't 7%. Whilst having a PF in the background is good, I do not feel it's enough compensation unless that 7% is genuinely achieved. I've been invested in this for exactly 1 year - almost always 100% invested. My achieved yield is 4.2%. If I add in accrued interest, it rises to a touch over 5%. Which puzzles me - any downtime has been short and only for tiny amounts.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Jan 6, 2016 15:25:41 GMT
Not been in it long enough to know what the real rate is but I have same with Lending Works does not seem to work out at 6.1% advertised mine works out at closer to 5% when you include downtime inital time etc
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Feb 8, 2016 19:23:37 GMT
Following on from p2pindependentforum.com/post/82016 which was my position at the end of last year... Currently at 99.88% invested, which can't really be complained about. There have been a raft of small purchases so far this year, mainly in the last 2 weeks. Almost like there is a deal flow coming (or people have concerns with maintenance!). Either way, I have 11 loans with parts in. The top three are: 180 28.2% 90 20.5% 112 20.0% So, I'm now down to 2 loans which are 'overweight' from my previous 3, although this is through purchases of additional units in other loans from interest payments rather than any sales. I suspect that whilst loan 90 may be addressed that way, 180 may take quite some time to get below the 'limit'. The PF is now down to 3.1%. I assume that this is due to growth on the account, not payouts, as I haven't seen any of the relevant loans being impacted. Overall, this seems to continue to pretty much do what it says. I do intended when I have slightly more time to have a look at the totals more closely, after some comments last week on the partial withdrawals, but that is one for another day. |
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Apr 24, 2016 18:24:40 GMT
The following is a continuation of discussion that started in the GBBA thread, but it really belongs in a GEIA thread so I've put it here... mikes1531 - worked it out, you're fully invested now. : I am indeed! That's brilliant. Thanks for sorting this out. Now if you could do the same for my GEIA...  (But I expect that's due to a shortage of GEIA-eligible loans rather than an IT issue.) Is your account maxxed out on 218, 225 & 241? My MLIA accounts have been picking these up on a very regular basis (no I'm not complaining!) OK sometimes just the odd £ but at other times £100+. I don't think it could be. I opened it in Nov.'14 and it might have maxxed out on some loans at that time because there weren't that many available, but I've added nothing to it since then, so it's very unlikely to have been able to max out on any loans made since then -- which would include the three mentioned above -- because all it's had to invest since then is a few bits of interest and capital repayments. So perhaps it is 'stuck' in the same way my GBBA was stuck. Can you give it a kick, chris ? Either AC/ chris did something, or the GEIA algorithm finally took a good look at my account and decided to put my idle funds to work. (Whatever the reason, I'm grateful.) My GEIA bought some of #112 on 19/Apr, and on 20/Apr it bought 89 milli-pence of #145 and some more #112. I was surprised to see that on my Dashboard my GEIA's Total Investment no longer is divided between Awaiting Investment and Currently Invested like it used to be -- and like my GBBA still is. Does anyone know if that's normal? |
|
nush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 396
Likes: 113
|
Post by nush on Apr 24, 2016 19:25:32 GMT
I was surprised to see that on my Dashboard my GEIA's Total Investment no longer is divided between Awaiting Investment and Currently Invested like it used to be -- and like my GBBA still is. Does anyone know if that's normal? still the same for me, maybe you are full invested in the GEIA account so nothing waiting to be invested
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Apr 24, 2016 19:40:02 GMT
Awaiting investment disappears if you are fully invested.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 28, 2016 7:47:38 GMT
Awaiting investment disappears if you are fully invested. ... and the withdrawal target also disappears if there isn't one... [and maybe there are some other context-sensitive figures that appear only when they're relevant?] USUALLY they shouldn't both appear at the same time, but there were some historic bugs (presumably fixed long ago) that failed to use repayments towards a withdrawal target, giving the very confusing scenario of having a withdrawal target and an "awaiting investment" at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Apr 30, 2016 9:36:21 GMT
Another loan drew this week and quite a lot more in the active pipeline so we expect this account to go on yes. This is in the face of the reduced FIT tariffs and we still expect the number of construction projects to fall over time unless financing costs for proven technology projects falls a little too to match the reduced FIT tariff subsidies. Everything would still need to be priced for risk as a floor for the rate and the Provision Fund would continue.
We are also seeing a number of refinance opportunities that have passed the construction 'risk' phase and are operational wind turbines etc - we are considering whether we should bring these in too to this account (a Series II of the account) but would need to lower the interest rate a little to match the reduced risk. We haven't launched a Series II of any account yet so to clarify this wouldn't stop existing investments made in Series I from producing return, its just that Series I would be mothballed and go into run off and unless people withdrew cash from it that caused loan unit sales they would stay in the loans till repayment. Interest would not be reinvested and would go into the Series II if it was requested to be auto reinvested. New investments into GEIA would automatically go into Series II. Series I would only be visible for those with investments in it to avoid confusion.
If we did bring in operational projects through refinancing of other lender's more expensive original 'construction phase' loans we would anticipate a rate that was around 5-6% and we could grow the account substantially and given the government lack of support this remains a popular way for people to support renewables even if the Government doesnt want to any more (even now supporting a return to Nuclear)
Would welcome any comments from interested parties.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Apr 30, 2016 13:18:47 GMT
I must admit I've been wondering how long until the rate drops for GIEA. Given the government policy it seems inevitable. Assuming that GBBA retains its rate, I would expect the demand for GIEA won't be huge but a reasonable diverse, reasonably protected account could have some demand. Depending on the numbers, I'd like a small slice.
|
|
jjc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 414
Likes: 632
|
Post by jjc on May 24, 2016 16:37:54 GMT
stuartassetzcapital, good to hear (yr post 30/4) you still have plans for GEIA, some thoughts here my side: Refi of operational turbines: better prospects than new builds now as you say, & if you can get the financing costs down to where you’re aiming I imagine you will be able to compete with the regional banks etc often pitching for this business. I like green loans but as someone with perhaps a bit of experience in this field would make the following cautionary remarks: a. Construction risk I’ve always regarded as modest (for any half-decent developer), not sure this moves the dial much for me b. single turbine WT sites even if operational are (imo) still loaded with risk. Wind is a fickle resource & performance uneven, with to my mind in many cases on these single WT on-a- farm deals rather guesstimated AEP’s. If the wind drops (or simply was estimated wrongly) on a certain hill in Scotland/Wales etc what will that mean for my investment? c. I think risk has actually increased on WT deals: - developer & O&M party risk is greater (more likelihood of those still scraping by folding, harder to find new partners to step-in, less leverage to negotiate suitable terms) - turbine manufacturer / warranty support / spare parts availability risks have also increased. The reason for this is the large 40-50% + drop in wind deployment across many European markets in 2016 (Germany most notably - which had kept many operators afloat). In the past suppliers could make up shortfalls in demand from other nearby markets in Europe, this will now be difficult/impossible. The largest suppliers may still be able to deploy turbines in distant markets (US, India, LatAm, PRC) but these will be in the 2-5+MW class (if not larger for offshore), raising questions as to the survivability (& service support/parts availability) for the <500kW class turbines typically used on P2P WT deals. - Wholesale market pricing uncertainty / risk has increased. Deals where modelling has been based on higher expected prices will be particularly vulnerable - Refi / secondary market sale risk has increased. 18M ago operators were bullish about renewable assets almost across the board as an asset class, they are much more scrupulous now (particularly on wind, due to its far more variable performance) & will examine performance track record & O&M contracts/processes in place with a fine comb before committing funds - Monitoring & performance tracking on these deals leaves a lot to be desired. Not sure if risk has actually increased per se (very hard to tell when the benchmarks used to measure performance are unclear), a look at AC’s Gen Reports illustrates how hard it is to do this. (Loan 106 a recent example of material news coming to light many months after the fact, more widely though it’s impossible to guage performance when we don’t know how the benchmark has been calculated, if special site-specific adjustments have been made, & why they were made). - On AC I think there’s a (potentially serious?) issue of lack of transparency as to how GEIA operates, whether purchases of particular loans can be suspended (or weightings changed, or units off-loaded by GEIA etc) – these risks are passed onto MLIA investors (& under the current scheme of things are impossible to identify let alone quantify). This would constitute an additional risk specific to AC’s loans, which I would very probably require a premium on vs. other market opportunities. (As an aside this risk extends to all other loans eligible for AC’s automated accounts on which we invest manually.) Some references for other market opportunities (the following are all publicly listed funds paying 6.2 – 7.5% for a diversified portfolio of operating assets.) Buy & sell them at a click on very liquid markets. The Renewables Investment Group (TRIG) - solar & wind farms in UK/IE/FR
Greencoat Capital (UKW) – wind farms
Bluefield Solar (BSIF) – solar parks
Foresight Solar (FSFL) – solar parks
John Laing Environmental (JLEN) – solar, wind & waste
Next Energy Solar (NESF) - solar parks
These, to my mind, are a world away from AC’s (or other P2P single turbine) deals, developed & monitored using sophisticated software, passed serious duedil by experienced renewables investment funds with strong O&M contracts in place etc. You’re basically buying into large portfolios of geographically diversified professionally managed wind farms/solar parks etc. If I can get 7% on large solar parks (no moving parts, very predictable output) already in operation I’d need to think carefully before investing heavily into GEIA (let alone single WT on-a-farm deals via MLIA where I could be up against a GEIA “fund manager” with more info &/or tools at his disposal than me.) Downing mentioned by samford71 is another player, serious track record & credentials in renewables (who have sold on a number of their assets to some of the above funds when their original offer reached EIS term.) They now have their own crowdfunding site www.downingcrowd.co.uk will be interesting to see how that develops. Some forumites might be interested in a new opp launched last week – Share Solar on Abundance Generation - £1.3m new raise for solar at 7% (6.5% + 0.5% bonus). These are 20Y deals, with assets already in operation for 4Y. They’re looking to raise a total of £10m, so much more to come. AG also already have IFISA authorisation I believe. I agree that a GEIA2 at 5-6% could well still prove to be popular, but discerning investors might wish to consider how that compares to the above where, for a similar if not higher rate, you can buy into a more diversified, professionally managed set of operating assets with very large liquid markets you can trade in & out of at a click. I like AC but have significantly reduced my green loan exposure due to the reasons explained above. Question – what are the MLIA rates likely to be for GEIA2 qualifying loans? Any non-wind deals on the horizon eg. AD, PV & perhaps also biomass / RHI deals, where the energy resource & performance are both more predictable? Apologies for length, but thought some useful context for other investors too.
|
|
(But I expect that's due to a shortage of GEIA-eligible loans rather than an IT issue.) 
