unmadem
Member of DD Central
Posts: 377 
Likes: 181
|
Post by unmadem on Nov 11, 2015 9:34:12 GMT
Makes AC's less open to complaints about dithering but reduces crowd due diligence ? There'll still be a several day window for crowd due diligence. That may give us enough time to ask questions but not necessarily time for AC to get answers from the borrower !
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Nov 11, 2015 10:16:49 GMT
I anticipate frequent empty "upcoming" lists in the next few weeks then ... nothing to look forward to ... as would be the case today. Surely more encouraging to us (and less hassle for you) to just drop drawdown dates completely until underwriting is called, stating that questions regarding drawdown dates will not be responded to until near certainty (e.g. underwriting called) is likely. I agree with OG; AC again appear to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist & in the process further disadvantaging lenders. Similar to the new Q&A where any awkward questions just get deleted & only "the right questions" are allowed - AC will never resolve ongoing problems, such as drawdown delays or imaginary buffers, by ignoring relevant questions or even worse completely erasing or hiding the evidence. AH, Chris & AC in general have previously always been open & honest, even about mistakes/problems/difficult situations please don't start changing that now.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Nov 11, 2015 10:47:10 GMT
Loans won't be shown in the preview list until underwriter funds have been called. AC again appear to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist ... I think that AC are fixing a real problem. Now that it is clear that the £20m-£30m of new loans per month are going to be mostly smaller loans the existing upcoming loans would be a nightmare. There would be hundreds of loans on it. With the new system there will still be 20+ loans on the page with underwriting called. We will need more automation for the manual account!
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Nov 11, 2015 12:08:29 GMT
Loans won't be shown in the preview list until underwriter funds have been called. AC again appear to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist ... I think that AC are fixing a real problem. Now that it is clear that the £20m-£30m of new loans per month are going to be mostly smaller loans the existing upcoming loans would be a nightmare. There would be hundreds of loans on it. With the new system there will still be 20+ loans on the page with underwriting called. We will need more automation for the manual account! Presumably this problem will arise just after Father Xmas has been & before the Easter Bunny appears!
Back in the real world; IF we ever get to a point where there are simply too many loans, either address it then or code a simple watch list (or similar filter) so those who are overwhelmed with the volume of offerings can narrow down to the few that interest them. Personally, as a soon to be shareholder, I would be over the moon with chris spending his valuable time solving such problems but I no longer believe in the man in a red suit or the bringer of Easter eggs & I simply do not see this as a problem any time soon - Given there is currently £500m in unsatisfied institutional funding already committed & we are only a few months away from the potentially massive ISA fund demands I think that having too many loans to choose from will be a very unlikely problem that we will need to deal with in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 11, 2015 18:00:27 GMT
I think that AC are fixing a real problem. Now that it is clear that the £20m-£30m of new loans per month are going to be mostly smaller loans the existing upcoming loans would be a nightmare. There would be hundreds of loans on it. With the new system there will still be 20+ loans on the page with underwriting called. We will need more automation for the manual account! Presumably this problem will arise just after Father Xmas has been & before the Easter Bunny appears!
Back in the real world; IF we ever get to a point where there are simply too many loans, either address it then or code a simple watch list (or similar filter) so those who are overwhelmed with the volume of offerings can narrow down to the few that interest them. Personally, as a soon to be shareholder, I would be over the moon with chris spending his valuable time solving such problems but I no longer believe in the man in a red suit or the bringer of Easter eggs & I simply do not see this as a problem any time soon - Given there is currently £500m in unsatisfied institutional funding already committed & we are only a few months away from the potentially massive ISA fund demands I think that having too many loans to choose from will be a very unlikely problem that we will need to deal with in the foreseeable future.
We're addressing a real issue where the customer service team get a large volume of enquiries asking for updates on loans that won't draw down for many weeks, which then means having to chase up the credit, sales and legals teams to get an accurate picture of where the loan is in the pipeline. This saps resources that are better put to use answering genuine questions about the loan specifics. Lenders also frequently complain on this forum about drawdown times and forecast dates, which the revised process allows us to firm up. Couple that to marketing emails being automatically sent whenever a loan is added to the preview list we can actually be proactive in informing the whole user base of new loans, and lenders can make an informed decision around when to fund their accounts. Regarding your previous grumble about the Q&A this was to improve the quality of the questions asked and the answers given, not to be used as a way to censor valid questions. When the new process went live I invited any unhappy lenders to send me examples of where their valid question had been wrongly censored and to date I've had a single response where the lender was clearly broadcasting their opinion and not asking a question. As I explained at the time that is not the function of the Q&A and is of no benefit to other lenders. It's not a discussion forum, it's not a soap box, it's a place to ask questions about the loans where the platform can provide additional information to help lenders make informed lending decisions. Both changes have been driven by the customer services team and their report back to board on the Q&A changes was that it has been a big success. If you can provide information to the contrary then I can challenge that viewpoint. Remember this forum represents less than 10% of our active lenders, and even then how many people have taken the time to complain about this proposed change or the change to the Q&A?
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Nov 11, 2015 18:32:38 GMT
Presumably this problem will arise just after Father Xmas has been & before the Easter Bunny appears!
Back in the real world; IF we ever get to a point where there are simply too many loans, either address it then or code a simple watch list (or similar filter) so those who are overwhelmed with the volume of offerings can narrow down to the few that interest them. Personally, as a soon to be shareholder, I would be over the moon with chris spending his valuable time solving such problems but I no longer believe in the man in a red suit or the bringer of Easter eggs & I simply do not see this as a problem any time soon - Given there is currently £500m in unsatisfied institutional funding already committed & we are only a few months away from the potentially massive ISA fund demands I think that having too many loans to choose from will be a very unlikely problem that we will need to deal with in the foreseeable future.
We're addressing a real issue where the customer service team get a large volume of enquiries asking for updates on loans that won't draw down for many weeks, which then means having to chase up the credit, sales and legals teams to get an accurate picture of where the loan is in the pipeline. This saps resources that are better put to use answering genuine questions about the loan specifics. Lenders also frequently complain on this forum about drawdown times and forecast dates, which the revised process allows us to firm up. The obvious answer would be to streamline your systems so that loans could be processed in a reasonable & predictable time frame, as seems to be possible on many of your competitor platforms but given your system takes longer than most OG had the solution a few post previously, only give a definitive date once u/w funds are called. Once investors know the system they can accept it - what they don't accept is being told certain dates then repeatedly being let down by delays (which may be out of your control) especially those that are predictable such as missing drawdowns when u/w hasn't even been called because communication is so poor between depts. Couple that to marketing emails being automatically sent whenever a loan is added to the preview list we can actually be proactive in informing the whole user base of new loans, and lenders can make an informed decision around when to fund their accounts. Hope this works Regarding your previous grumble about the Q&A this was to improve the quality of the questions asked and the answers given, not to be used as a way to censor valid questions. When the new process went live I invited any unhappy lenders to send me examples of where their valid question had been wrongly censored and to date I've had a single response where the lender was clearly broadcasting their opinion and not asking a question. As I explained at the time that is not the function of the Q&A and is of no benefit to other lenders. It's not a discussion forum, it's not a soap box, it's a place to ask questions about the loans where the platform can provide additional information to help lenders make informed lending decisions. Both changes have been driven by the customer services team and their report back to board on the Q&A changes was that it has been a big success. If you can provide information to the contrary then I can challenge that viewpoint. Remember this forum represents less than 10% of our active lenders, and even then how many people have taken the time to complain about this proposed change or the change to the Q&A? To be honest if AC did the job properly in the first instance the majority of complaints wouldn't even arise, not wanting to rake over old ground but if buffers were calculated correctly & displayed for each loan there would be no need for investors to have to chase the details. If AC posted updates & payments on the dates promised (or explanations of the delays) then investors wouldn't need to chase them up. When loans appear to be going bad (K**t springs to mind) action needs to be swift & decisive but investors were told not to worry as AC knew best for nearly 12 months, before finally accepting investors calls for a vote & LPA receiver to be appointed. AC are not the only experts in debt management & loan monitoring; investors own DD is often more accurate & up to date as they are incentivised by risking their own money, as the length of the forum threads will testify. I asked a Q about the size of the L**ds buffer deficit that was deemed unsuitable & still no explanation of the shortfall has been provided - AC may not think this is relevant but lenders do & rather than being deleted it should be answered, even in an amended form.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 11, 2015 19:00:07 GMT
Butch Cassidy - If you have a specific question that you want answered that is being censored then PM me about it and I'll give the lender team a kick if I think you have a valid point. In terms of streamlining our processes, this is something we will always be actively reviewing and working on but you have to remember we take proper security and go to great lengths to make sure that security is properly protected for lenders prior to drawing the loan. I won't name names but to give some examples of where other platforms take shortcuts there's at least one that sorts out security, such as registering charges upon properties, after the loan has already drawn down. Whilst we were discussing a loan with a borrower they told us that another platform they were getting pricing from had visited them, decided sorting the security was too difficult and time consuming, so they made a couple of tweaks and put this £100k loan through on just personal guarantees. We routinely see loans that we've rejected appearing on other platforms. Others do all the legals with their own lawyers instead of insisting upon independent advice for the borrower, something that could directly affect recoveries should a loan go bad. We will not compromise on the quality of our work in terms of taking and securing security, and that is borne out in the recoveries we've had to date. But in turn that leads to involvement of third parties and puts timings out of our direct control. We can take a good guess at timings but if third parties are not as co-operative or timely as we'd like then that is always going to lead to draw down delays and dates being pushed back. We have a few ideas on how to improve that situation that are being put in place without compromising quality, of which one is to reduce / remove visibility but make sure that the hopper is full enough that there are plenty of loans becoming visible with imminent draw down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Nov 11, 2015 19:50:47 GMT
Butch Cassidy - If you have a specific question that you want answered that is being censored then PM me about it and I'll give the lender team a kick if I think you have a valid point. In terms of streamlining our processes, this is something we will always be actively reviewing and working on but you have to remember we take proper security and go to great lengths to make sure that security is properly protected for lenders prior to drawing the loan. I won't name names but to give some examples of where other platforms take shortcuts there's at least one that sorts out security, such as registering charges upon properties, after the loan has already drawn down. Whilst we were discussing a loan with a borrower they told us that another platform they were getting pricing from had visited them, decided sorting the security was too difficult and time consuming, so they made a couple of tweaks and put this £100k loan through on just personal guarantees. We routinely see loans that we've rejected appearing on other platforms. Others do all the legals with their own lawyers instead of insisting upon independent advice for the borrower, something that could directly affect recoveries should a loan go bad. We will not compromise on the quality of our work in terms of taking and securing security, and that is borne out in the recoveries we've had to date. But in turn that leads to involvement of third parties and puts timings out of our direct control. We can take a good guess at timings but if third parties are not as co-operative or timely as we'd like then that is always going to lead to draw down delays and dates being pushed back. We have a few ideas on how to improve that situation that are being put in place without compromising quality, of which one is to reduce / remove visibility but make sure that the hopper is full enough that there are plenty of loans becoming visible with imminent draw down. I am glad this is something we can both agree on; AC's main USP is it's strong asset backed security & one of the main reasons it represents my largest P2P holding (& a significant future equity investment). I am delighted that you are willing to maintain your high standards & still walk away from unsuitable deals, even though pressure from investors & competitors is often intense to push more volume. AC are still learning from previous mistakes/difficulties/problems & whilst ever they are open & honest with investors they will continue to benefit from our goodwill. This forum can be a good source of both information & ideas, as well as the inevitable complaints & rants! Investors just need to be kept informed, as it is our money that is being risked, so removing information, censoring/deleting Q's is always treated with suspicion & ought only to be done for very good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 16, 2015 13:01:00 GMT
The Underwriters call has gone out for
#204 The Heating & Renewables Business
still expecting to be drawn 20 November
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 16, 2015 13:19:29 GMT
Pricing to Risk.
AC must be very confident in this start-up company to offer this at just 9% with 73%+ LTV.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,335
Likes: 11,558
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 16, 2015 14:09:10 GMT
Pricing to Risk. AC must be very confident in this start-up company to offer this at just 9% with 73%+ LTV. Theyve got previous on AC, 4 of em, all repaid, though one was extended. Recall some issues. Give it a miss myself
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 16, 2015 17:11:04 GMT
Pricing to Risk. AC must be very confident in this start-up company to offer this at just 9% with 73%+ LTV. Theyve got previous on AC, 4 of em, all repaid, though one was extended. Recall some issues. Give it a miss myself I wonder if AC bypassed their underwriters on this one as well? It's a tiny loan, so they certainly could use the QAA to fund it, and I doubt they'd need to tie QAA money up for long as I expect it will be fully funded by pre-bids, despite the low interest rate and high LTV. And even if it weren't fully funded by MLIA pre-bids, the GBBA is bound to be looking for an opportunity to acquire a chunk of this loan. My own experimental GBBA was funded over two months ago and still is only 86% deployed, so the GBBA must still be short of investments. (When Loan #211 drew down on 10/Nov, my GBBA picked up a bit of that, but only a tiny bit -- £0.0000000000000000021 worth, to be precise.) Given my rather poor performance in trying to predict the maximum allocation of #211 at drawdown, I think I'll refrain from making a guesstimate for #204. Would anyone else care to hazard a guess?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 16, 2015 18:12:31 GMT
I appreciate there was a Lender Vote as he was unable to repay the 4th tranche when due (he took an extra 6mnths), but it's the way he seems to have paid it off. He had some fairly big problems to my mind but worked his business (I imagine) and was good to his word he then did pay off the loan. That's credit to him. I notice that the new business has different security; now 2nd charges etc. rather than the more convincing first plus etc. The 2nd Charges down grade it for me but its his character that makes me put in a pre-bid.
Can I ask what happened to the first business? I'm assuming it was liquidated by the owners.
EDIT Sorry I'm talking about Loan #204, and the Borrowers previous loan(s).
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Nov 16, 2015 18:30:04 GMT
Pricing to Risk. AC must be very confident in this start-up company to offer this at just 9% with 73%+ LTV. Theyve got previous on AC, 4 of em, all repaid, though one was extended. Recall some issues. Give it a miss myself But the business is 5 months old? Do you mean the owner?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 16, 2015 18:38:16 GMT
Can I ask what happened to the first business? I'm assuming it was liquidated by the owners. : There's a reasonable description of what happened in the Credit Report for the new loan.
|
|
