|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2015 15:11:06 GMT
If I were a share holder I'd be asking about cash and cash-burn figures about now.  |
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Nov 6, 2015 15:48:04 GMT
Ok so ac making a loss this year,needs massive increase in deal flow to meet projections for next year to turn into profit, well at least they need more deals as much as people on this forum want more, the only issue is if ac take their eye off the quality of loans in looking for quantity at any cost.Andrews comments in past are reassuring in this respect but it must be a tough time at the top of ac i for shure are going to be even more picky where my money goes.
Wonder what gross amount of money ac needs to churn to make a go of it any reasonable guesses out there.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Nov 6, 2015 16:37:27 GMT
Wonder what gross amount of money ac needs to churn to make a go of it any reasonable guesses out there. So they were hoping that current investors would value them at £60m. Those are going to want to see upside up to 5x in 5 years, so £300m in 5 years. Fund managers are valued at between 0.5% and 4% of funds under management (FUM). Lets be generous and value AC at 8% of funds under management, so FUM of £3,750m. If we assume an average loan duration of about 2 years they would need to lend £1,875m per year for their shareholders to be very happy. Conversely anything under £375m per year is looking like a loss for shareholders (unless current still high (down from crazy) valuations are sustained at their new lower level). I've guessed five numbers and multiplied them together - I don't know.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 6, 2015 20:02:44 GMT
211 underwriting called (did that just happen or have I not been paying attention again). Drawdown stated as 18th. Will it go early? Drawdown forecast brought forward to 9 November! Wow! That didn't surprise me in the least, particularly once I learned that this loan wasn't offered to AC's underwriter panel. If, as we now suspect, the QAA is being used to underwrite the loan, AC practically don't have to give any notice at all from the time a loan appears as upcoming until it draws down for operational reasons. But they do need to give their lenders a chance to decide how much of a new loan they'd like to have so that they can set their buying targets, and deposit some funds or sell some other holdings if they don't have sufficient cash available. If it wasn't for the fact that nearly all of the current crop of upcoming loans probably would be oversubscribed so that pre-bidding is necessary in order to obtain anything more than shrapnel, AC could bypass the 'upcoming' stage and release these new loans straight into the active market. It has occurred to me that there's another benefit to AC of using the QAA to underwrite loans besides saving underwriting fees. If they stick to their policy that at least half of a new loan must be released to investors upon drawdown, then they can retain the other half within the QAA for a bit so that it can earn interest towards QAA's interest paying obligation. And since they know how much unfulfilled demand there is for any loan, they'll have a very good idea about the liquidity of all the QAA's holdings. The more I think about it, the smarter I think the move to create the QAA was.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 6, 2015 20:29:51 GMT
With the dark QAA pool and new institutional underwriters AC has become a lot more complicated. I don't understand it any more which troubles me. The impact of AC's institutional investors definitely is an unknown, and a potential worry, for me as a retail investor. But I don't think that the possible use of the QAA for underwriting makes any difference to me because the previous underwriting system was an equally 'black box' operation from my vantage point. I'm certainly under no illusions as to where many of the loans are being offered but if I was in the shoes of AC, I'd probably do the same. Easier dealing with a single investor than...... No proof on my part - just putting 2 and 2 together and hopefully making 4. I can understand why bugs4me might think that AC's new institutional investors might be getting in the way of the flow of investment opportunities to AC's retail investors, but I suspect he's putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Aside from the statistics collected and published by the P2PBanking website, AC publish the running total of their lending on the front page of their website. It's showing £83,053,044 as I write this. I haven't tried comparing that total to the total of the loans I can see on the lists of active and repaid loans -- has anyone else? -- but if AC's grand total lending were to include much lending of whole loans via their institutional investors, the effect should be quite noticeable. And if that grand total were to exclude such loans then IMHO AC would be shooting themselves in the foot by making their level of activity look smaller than it really is.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 6, 2015 22:28:17 GMT
With the dearth of alternative opportunities within AC, I'd expect this to be very oversubscribed, with a sub-£1000 maximum allocation. Since writing the above, I see that £270k has been received into lenders' accounts from Loan #41, and £163k from Loan #143, so I think sub-£1000 is going to be a significant overestimate when Loan #211 draws down. Sub-£500 seems more likely now.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Nov 7, 2015 8:38:17 GMT
#199 estimated date is now 4th December.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Nov 7, 2015 12:01:37 GMT
I can understand why bugs4me might think that AC's new institutional investors might be getting in the way of the flow of investment opportunities to AC's retail investors, but I suspect he's putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Aside from the statistics collected and published by the P2PBanking website, AC publish the running total of their lending on the front page of their website. It's showing £83,053,044 as I write this. I haven't tried comparing that total to the total of the loans I can see on the lists of active and repaid loans -- has anyone else? -- but if AC's grand total lending were to include much lending of whole loans via their institutional investors, the effect should be quite noticeable. And if that grand total were to exclude such loans then IMHO AC would be shooting themselves in the foot by making their level of activity look smaller than it really is. Adding all the current loads and all the repaid loans on the current platform gives £73,749,732.54. Whilst I don't know who got the 54p, that is c£9.5m less than the figure mentioned above. Also, my finding numbers of a Saturday after a mikes1531 previous suggestion seems to be habit forming. Hopefully I've not got this one wrong!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,334 
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 7, 2015 13:17:02 GMT
With the dearth of alternative opportunities within AC, I'd expect this to be very oversubscribed, with a sub-£1000 maximum allocation. Since writing the above, I see that £270k has been received into lenders' accounts from Loan #41, and £163k from Loan #143, so I think sub-£1000 is going to be a significant overestimate when Loan #211 draws down. Sub-£500 seems more likely now. Couple of WT #127, 121 due to repay imminently as well (should have been yesterday as well but seem to have been delayed) which will potentially add another 600k into the 'homeless' pot.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Nov 7, 2015 13:53:13 GMT
I can understand why bugs4me might think that AC's new institutional investors might be getting in the way of the flow of investment opportunities to AC's retail investors, but I suspect he's putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Aside from the statistics collected and published by the P2PBanking website, AC publish the running total of their lending on the front page of their website. It's showing £83,053,044 as I write this. I haven't tried comparing that total to the total of the loans I can see on the lists of active and repaid loans -- has anyone else? -- but if AC's grand total lending were to include much lending of whole loans via their institutional investors, the effect should be quite noticeable. And if that grand total were to exclude such loans then IMHO AC would be shooting themselves in the foot by making their level of activity look smaller than it really is. Adding all the current loads and all the repaid loans on the current platform gives £73,749,732.54. Whilst I don't know who got the 54p, that is c£9.5m less than the figure mentioned above. Also, my finding numbers of a Saturday after a mikes1531 previous suggestion seems to be habit forming. Hopefully I've not got this one wrong! A large number of "repaid loans" haven't actually been repaid, instead they've been extended and given new loan numbers, sometimes twice. There are also loans which were partially repaid and given new loan numbers. I wouldn't count these as new lending. If you add all the figures in the "loan amount" columns, the duplicate loans total over £10m. That means the difference is more like £20m. If you believe the accuracy of the quoted figures, you could verify your findings by calculating the average interest rate of all live loans and see if it matches the rate at which the interest counter is accruing. (Hint:group loans of the same interest rate to speed up the calculation.) If the interest is accruing faster than expected then there would be other live loans.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Nov 7, 2015 14:19:06 GMT
I was wrong again then  |
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 7, 2015 18:02:12 GMT
Just noticed the "bids" link on the AC site, under the "reports" button at the top of the page. Is that new or has it been there for ages?
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Nov 7, 2015 18:21:54 GMT
Just noticed the "bids" link on the AC site, under the "reports" button at the top of the page. Is that new or has it been there for ages? Hangover from the "old days" when retail lenders bid on loans prior to drawdown. Not used by retail lenders any more (although maybe still used by underwriters - not sure).
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Nov 8, 2015 19:38:52 GMT
I'm pretty sure that long term, years not months, AC's shareholder's interests will be better served by dealing mostly/exclusively with institutional lenders. And I'm also pretty sure that shareholders interests will be more important to the board than lenders. But that's OK. Nothing stands still. There's still plenty of opportunity to lend in the meantime but individual lenders will probably have to move from platform to platform as they change. Hi John, just to make it clear we see our future as having a substantial retail focus. I am on record saying that at conferences over the last few weeks too. A blend of funding sources is key.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Nov 8, 2015 19:41:13 GMT
S.L. saidSo presumably that £100m gets whittled down by AC DD to just a couple of million by the time it come to the Lenders? We would expect c £10-15m of drawn loans from that.
|
|
