|
|
Post by chris on Nov 24, 2015 20:51:42 GMT
I've also asked for confirmation via QnA as to whether this new Armagh WT is GEIA, MLIA or both since I recall some discussion about holding some loans to GEIA only. As of today I understand it to be a 75/25 split in favour of the GEIA to the MLIA however I don't think that's been signed off and it hasn't been coded yet either.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 24, 2015 21:10:19 GMT
this comes back to an earlier post of mine. If the GEIA is to receive significant preference over MLIA for eligible loans then I'm getting pushed that little bit closer to the exit door: that coupled with much shorter timescales to review loans and set targets due to only listing on underwriter calling. Ultimately the preference of such loans to the GEIA has the probable consequence of enabling AC to ultimately increase its margins, unless one believes that the differential between the 9.75-10.5 versus 7% on the likes of WT loans is really needed to back the PF on these.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 24, 2015 22:17:41 GMT
£3K to come from Falmouth (and Cornwall) repayments .... wasn't very hopeful of getting even £500 invested allocation on Armagh. Now after setting a bid there's the suggestion that only a quarter may come MLIA way, = c£125. What to do ....  |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 24, 2015 22:57:31 GMT
this comes back to an earlier post of mine. If the GEIA is to receive significant preference over MLIA for eligible loans then I'm getting pushed that little bit closer to the exit door: that coupled with much shorter timescales to review loans and set targets due to only listing on underwriter calling. Ultimately the preference of such loans to the GEIA has the probable consequence of enabling AC to ultimately increase its margins, unless one believes that the differential between the 9.75-10.5 versus 7% on the likes of WT loans is really needed to back the PF on these. As previously stated this is a temporary measure with this one loan not a new policy due to our requirement to keep the GEIA operating until the deal flow picks up. It's been very under served recently, more so than the MLIA / GBBA. Failing to keep the GEIA ticking over has consequences beyond a few grumpy lenders pulling their cash out. The timescales are under review after lenders raised the issues around crowd due diligence and Q&A response times, as that due diligence is something that is important to us. AH and team are reviewing this and will report back to the board within the next week.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Nov 24, 2015 23:46:17 GMT
this comes back to an earlier post of mine. If the GEIA is to receive significant preference over MLIA for eligible loans then I'm getting pushed that little bit closer to the exit door: that coupled with much shorter timescales to review loans and set targets due to only listing on underwriter calling. Ultimately the preference of such loans to the GEIA has the probable consequence of enabling AC to ultimately increase its margins, unless one believes that the differential between the 9.75-10.5 versus 7% on the likes of WT loans is really needed to back the PF on these. As previously stated this is a temporary measure with this one loan not a new policy due to our requirement to keep the GEIA operating until the deal flow picks up. It's been very under served recently, more so than the MLIA / GBBA. Failing to keep the GEIA ticking over has consequences beyond a few grumpy lenders pulling their cash out. The timescales are under review after lenders raised the issues around crowd due diligence and Q&A response times, as that due diligence is something that is important to us. AH and team are reviewing this and will report back to the board within the next week. I think OG got it right... 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. So just two states of upcoming loan; Underwriting not yet called - peruse at your leisure/ask questions. Underwriting called - act now!
|
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Nov 25, 2015 2:09:44 GMT
The timescales are under review after lenders raised the issues around crowd due diligence and Q&A response times, as that due diligence is something that is important to us. AH and team are reviewing this and will report back to the board within the next week. .... and Assetz did not realise that not letting retail investors look at loans until a couple of days or even a couple of hours before drawdown would make crowd DD impossible? Really? You think things through so little? Sorry, that line "is important to us" sounds just like the irritating platitude "your call is important to us" heard from call centres every thirty seconds while one holds expensively and interminably.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 25, 2015 6:51:43 GMT
The timescales are under review after lenders raised the issues around crowd due diligence and Q&A response times, as that due diligence is something that is important to us. AH and team are reviewing this and will report back to the board within the next week. .... and Assetz did not realise that not letting retail investors look at loans until a couple of days or even a couple of hours before drawdown would make crowd DD impossible? Really? You think things through so little? Sorry, that line "is important to us" sounds just like the irritating platitude "your call is important to us" heard from call centres every thirty seconds while one holds expensively and interminably. I personally didn't connect the dots between the Q&A answer times and the change in visibility, thinking two days should be enough but quickly realising my mistake when it was pointed out here. Two days should be enough to answer questions internally and get them posted, given the reduction in questions about different loans at the same time, so that it's easier to manage the team around those fewer visible loans. In my head I was thinking that SS offer zero opportunity for crowd due diligence and Fantastical Conundrums just don't answer questions half the time, so two days of focused answering should still be good. However I didn't consider the time it takes third parties to answer those questions and received push back from the customer service team when trying to reduce their internal SLA on Q&A response times. The customer service team, who sponsored this change in the first place, have been asked to come back to the board with a revised plan that allows us to maintain crowd due diligence. If the crowd weren't important to me or the business, including the due diligence provided, then why would I have raised this with the board instead of defending the new policy, why would we have collectively asked for changes, and why would I spend so much of my free time at all hours of the day on this forum?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 25, 2015 8:35:57 GMT
this comes back to an earlier post of mine. If the GEIA is to receive significant preference over MLIA for eligible loans then I'm getting pushed that little bit closer to the exit door: that coupled with much shorter timescales to review loans and set targets due to only listing on underwriter calling. Ultimately the preference of such loans to the GEIA has the probable consequence of enabling AC to ultimately increase its margins, unless one believes that the differential between the 9.75-10.5 versus 7% on the likes of WT loans is really needed to back the PF on these. As previously stated this is a temporary measure with this one loan not a new policy due to our requirement to keep the GEIA operating until the deal flow picks up. It's been very under served recently, more so than the MLIA / GBBA. Failing to keep the GEIA ticking over has consequences beyond a few grumpy lenders pulling their cash out. The timescales are under review after lenders raised the issues around crowd due diligence and Q&A response times, as that due diligence is something that is important to us. AH and team are reviewing this and will report back to the board within the next week. well I have to admit then when I read this I thought we were talking about another i.e. second WT loan. If this is still the one and only then as you say it has been covered and put to bed.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 25, 2015 18:26:16 GMT
Underwriting not yet called - peruse at your leisure/ask questions. Underwriting called - act now! too late
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 25, 2015 19:06:52 GMT
Loan #217 £190,000 9% LTV 29.23%
Quick drawdown alert (Friday?)
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 25, 2015 19:27:00 GMT
Loan #217 £190,000 9% LTV 29.23% Quick drawdown alert (Friday?) I checked out the upcoming loans about 30 minutes ago. Where did this come from? If things continue like this might have to eat a bit of humble pie regarding previous comments concerning deal flow.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,055
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 25, 2015 19:32:32 GMT
Loan #217 £190,000 9% LTV 29.23% Quick drawdown alert (Friday?) Company specialises in supplying large quantities of sand? Still if it makes a profit.
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Nov 25, 2015 19:35:06 GMT
Loan #217 £190,000 9% LTV 29.23% Quick drawdown alert (Friday?) I checked out the upcoming loans about 30 minutes ago. Where did this come from? If things continue like this might have to eat a bit of humble pie regarding previous comments concerning deal flow. I think this is just an impression: these loans will have been visible to underwriters for weeks. Now we're only seeing them at "underwriting called" staged, it appears as if they are drawing down much quicker, but it's hard to gauge if there's a real change. Not that I'm complaining...time will tell.
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Nov 25, 2015 19:56:00 GMT
I checked out the upcoming loans about 30 minutes ago. Where did this come from? If things continue like this might have to eat a bit of humble pie regarding previous comments concerning deal flow. I think this is just an impression: these loans will have been visible to underwriters for weeks. Now we're only seeing them at "underwriting called" staged, it appears as if they are drawing down much quicker, but it's hard to gauge if there's a real change. Not that I'm complaining...time will tell. Conventional underwriters only knew of this late yesterday afternoon.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 26, 2015 3:24:46 GMT
However I didn't consider the time it takes third parties to answer those questions and received push back from the customer service team when trying to reduce their internal SLA on Q&A response times. : Thanks for taking up the case here. I really do appreciate it, as I value the DD the lenders do. I can accept that some questions are not easy for the CS team to answer quickly and require input from elsewhere, but consider these two questions asked about Loan #218 on Tuesday... ISTM that they are simple and straightforward enough that they should have been answered sometime on Wednesday. PS. I do realise that you answered part of the first question here, but that doesn't help those who don't frequent the forum.
|
|
