mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 11, 2015 19:37:59 GMT
I got £54.56 I'm a quite moderate lender, and struggle to reinvest redemptions and repayments, so goodness knows how heavier "operatives" can keep their money on the platform. : I'm afraid the simple answer is that they can't. As of today, AC still are expecting #199 to draw down tomorrow. If there are as many lenders wanting a piece of #199 as wanted a piece of #209, then the allocation would be about 5.3 times as much, which would be about £290. If anything, I'd expect the demand for #199 to be greater than that for #209 -- the LTV is lower, the interest rate is higher, and people probably will have money left over that they thought they were going to need for #209. We may be lucky to get £250 each tomorrow. One of the downsides of AC's switch to not showing loans as upcoming until underwriting has been called is that it gives us very little encouragement that anything at all is coming -- and certainly no incentive to keep funds available in anticipation of future loans. We just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope that the pipeline is full and will be producing jam tomorrow. I can't believe how incredibly optimistic I was being yesterday with my "We may be lucky to get £250 each tomorrow." 
If £40 is all we can expect to be allocated from £950k loan then we're wasting our time here. Underwriters could have decided to release only the minimum 50% required. (It seems pretty obvious that they could earn 11% of any parts they retained and yet still have near-instant access to their funds via the SM whenever they need their money for another underwriting opportunity.) However, that still would mean nearly 12,000 £40 allocations. Do AC have that many active investors? If not, then where did the rest of the released loan parts go? Is the GBBA still underinvested? (My tiny GBBA has only 0.16% uninvested, but it may not be representative.) With the cap on the QAA having been lifted recently, perhaps some of #199 went there so that the QAA will have some income with which to pay the 3.75% it owes to QAA investors. And perhaps a big chunk of #199 went to AC's institutional investors. (AC may have obligations to supply loans to them that they've been unable to fulfil because of the recent slow deal flow.) I'm afraid all we can do is speculate!  As an alternative to that... chris: You were kind enough to warn us in advance that 75% of the #218 WT was going to the GEIA as a one-off because AC needed to get some loan parts into it. Because of that info, we were pleasantly surprised when the maximum allocation turned out to be £656. #218 was less than half the size of today's #199, yet the #218 allocations were 16 times as large as today's. Clearly something has happened to produce such inconsistent results. Can you give us any clues as to what was so different today? Was today another one-off? Or was today an indication of what we can expect to happen in the near term? (I'm not asking about the long term because it's rather obvious that depends on the deal flow, and that seems to be rather unpredictable.)
|
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Dec 11, 2015 19:46:25 GMT
Oh well, there's always SS Things are not (IMHO) particularly good over on planet SS either. The way they divvy up loans as a proportion of what you ask for means you have to ask for many times more than you want which to me is wrong; I don't like having to game the system to get what I want. So I'm standing still at SS and sliding backwards on Assetz through getting shrapnel when I ask for thousands. I support MT when I can but deal flow is erratic, and hope they don't succumb to pressure to copy SS as the way forwards. TC is the only place I get the amounts I want of the loans I am interested in. But what the future holds there is anybody's guess. Interesting times.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 11, 2015 19:50:41 GMT
I find it very alarming that AC decide to give a much bigger allocation to GBBA holders at a reduced rate, pocketing the difference (albeit going into PF). The excess return goes into the PF only until the PF has been built up to the desired level. Then the excess goes to AC's bottom line. Oh well, there's always SS There certainly is right now, but who knows what the P2P/B landscape will be like six months or a year from now?
|
|
Bagman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 209 
Likes: 131
|
Post by Bagman on Dec 11, 2015 20:48:22 GMT
Nice work AC.. launch a loan with a laughable £40 each at 5.08pm on a Friday afternoon and then skip off to the pub for early Xmas drinkies and nice weekend off.
Perhaps the furore will have died down when they all get back to work on Monday.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Dec 11, 2015 21:41:19 GMT
Sadly, there is no purpose in waiting until Monday for more unfulfilled rhetoric from Andrew and Stuart. (There's nothing much Chris can say; he just has to try and make the system work as requested by the top table). It is clear that Assetz Capital cannot deliver. Ironic really, that AC chases institutional backup, but doesn't even have the through flow to satisfy their underwriters and retail lenders. A £40 allocation from a £950K loan, following a £55 allocation from a £178K loan means I have little prospect of even reinvesting my repayments and cash from repayed loans* (unless playing AC's 7% and 3.75% games). And I am only a moderate five figure lender already cut back by the last year's relative dearth of opprtunities. Others must be in an even more depressing situation, though of course the remedy for all of us is clear.
*I have many "buy" settings, but of course hardly anyone is selling, and I am not going to overexpose myself on individual loans, with AC's record of loans becoming "distressed".
By the way, does anyone recall which other two (?) loans were quietly removed from "upcoming" this afternoon, or does my memory play tricks?
£95 allocation from £1,280,000.
Not good enough.
|
|
ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Dec 11, 2015 22:08:34 GMT
......................and I am not going to overexpose myself on individual loans ...................I'm sure we'd all rather you didn't overexpose yourself at all OG 
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Dec 11, 2015 22:10:05 GMT
The NI windmill is now due to drawdown in January (15th) apparently.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Dec 11, 2015 22:11:06 GMT
......................and I am not going to overexpose myself on individual loans ...................I'm sure we'd all rather you didn't overexpose yourself at all OG In certain cases any exposure can but too much 
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 11, 2015 22:35:53 GMT
By the way, does anyone recall which other two (?) loans were quietly removed from "upcoming" this afternoon, or does my memory play tricks? No idea, if only there was list somewhere!  Would be sensible to have it somewhere in this thread, maybe even at the beginning. It would be quite helpful and probably look like this p2pindependentforum.com/post/50070You been on the banana beer again?  Edit: Hang on, what other loans, everything that was there yesterday is still there (except GDL)? Now Im confused
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 11, 2015 22:41:32 GMT
By the way, does anyone recall which other two (?) loans were quietly removed from "upcoming" this afternoon, or does my memory play tricks? : This may be a memory problem, though I can't say whether it's yours or mine... I would have said that there were only four loans on the Upcoming list after yesterday's drawdown, so the fact that there are three remaining after today's drawdown leads me to think that nothing has disappeared. Anybody here keeping records?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 11, 2015 22:43:47 GMT
By the way, does anyone recall which other two (?) loans were quietly removed from "upcoming" this afternoon, or does my memory play tricks? : This may be a memory problem, though I can't say whether it's yours or mine... I would have said that there were only four loans on the Upcoming list after yesterday's drawdown, so the fact that there are three remaining after today's drawdown leads me to think that nothing has disappeared. Anybody here keeping records? Oh I give up! (Tongue in cheek comment right?) 
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 11, 2015 23:06:47 GMT
oldgrumpy : I'm afraid the simple answer is that they can't. As of today, AC still are expecting #199 to draw down tomorrow. If there are as many lenders wanting a piece of #199 as wanted a piece of #209, then the allocation would be about 5.3 times as much, which would be about £290. If anything, I'd expect the demand for #199 to be greater than that for #209 -- the LTV is lower, the interest rate is higher, and people probably will have money left over that they thought they were going to need for #209. We may be lucky to get £250 each tomorrow. One of the downsides of AC's switch to not showing loans as upcoming until underwriting has been called is that it gives us very little encouragement that anything at all is coming -- and certainly no incentive to keep funds available in anticipation of future loans. We just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope that the pipeline is full and will be producing jam tomorrow. I can't believe how incredibly optimistic I was being yesterday with my "We may be lucky to get £250 each tomorrow."
If £40 is all we can expect to be allocated from £950k loan then we're wasting our time here. Underwriters could have decided to release only the minimum 50% required. (It seems pretty obvious that they could earn 11% of any parts they retained and yet still have near-instant access to their funds via the SM whenever they need their money for another underwriting opportunity.) However, that still would mean nearly 12,000 £40 allocations. Do AC have that many active investors? If not, then where did the rest of the released loan parts go? Is the GBBA still underinvested? (My tiny GBBA has only 0.16% uninvested, but it may not be representative.) With the cap on the QAA having been lifted recently, perhaps some of #199 went there so that the QAA will have some income with which to pay the 3.75% it owes to QAA investors. And perhaps a big chunk of #199 went to AC's institutional investors. (AC may have obligations to supply loans to them that they've been unable to fulfil because of the recent slow deal flow.) I'm afraid all we can do is speculate! As an alternative to that... chris : You were kind enough to warn us in advance that 75% of the #218 WT was going to the GEIA as a one-off because AC needed to get some loan parts into it. Because of that info, we were pleasantly surprised when the maximum allocation turned out to be £656. #218 was less than half the size of today's #199, yet the #218 allocations were 16 times as large as today's. Clearly something has happened to produce such inconsistent results. Can you give us any clues as to what was so different today? Was today another one-off? Or was today an indication of what we can expect to happen in the near term? (I'm not asking about the long term because it's rather obvious that depends on the deal flow, and that seems to be rather unpredictable.) Sorry for the delay in responding. I've read through everyone's posts and whilst I don't agree with much of the analysis and some of the speculation clearly we've not handled this draw down well, something which has now been discussed amongst the relevant directors. The QAA is holding a fairly substantial sum in this loan as we need to build up the interest buffer, however we've recalculated what we have to hold in order to meet our obligations and based on the expected drawdowns over the next few weeks and over the weekend we'll be releasing another £250k in this loan solely to the MLIA. The GBBA will be barred from participating in that release. I'll also have a think about possible flags or notes on a loan if there are future situations whereby we expect availability to be limited so that expectations are managed. There is a delicate balancing act occurring at the moment whilst we get the deal flow back to where it should be. There are several more loans due to draw in December, a fairly healthy level expected in January, with more in February. I've said it several times before but it's worth repeating - there's a place for all types and sizes of lenders with AC, including underwriters and those that prefer the MLIA, and our team is working flat out to make sure we have loans attractive to all coming through the pipeline. I've also had further internal discussions about loan visibility and putting in place published guidelines. One of the managers has taken that project on and will come back to the board with a proposal likely in the form of "we'll always try to give the lenders x days notice before a loan draws down, with an enforced minimum of y days". Don't know what x and y will be yet, but something like 5 and 2 would seem reasonable to me if combined with an automatic email to all lenders.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 11, 2015 23:36:27 GMT
By the way, does anyone recall which other two (?) loans were quietly removed from "upcoming" this afternoon, or does my memory play tricks? No idea, if only there was list somewhere! Would be sensible to have it somewhere in this thread, maybe even at the beginning. It would be quite helpful and probably look like this p2pindependentforum.com/post/50070 Oops! Now that I've followed the link, it does all look famiiar, so I'm sure I've seen it before. My apologies for forgetting it. ilmoro: Thanks for maintaining the table. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding the chart below it. Can you please explain exactly what the two axes are? I presume the X-axis is loan size in £k, but what is the Y-axis? The chart title suggests it is the allocation, in percent, ranging from 1 to 6, but what is it percent of? PS. Having stared at the chart a bit more, I think the percentage is of the whole loan, so that when this week's data points are added, they will be at (£178k, 0.03065%) and (£950k, 0.00423%). Have I got that right? Considering the range of the Y values, I wondered if there was any merit in making the Y-axis logarithmic, but this week's seemingly nonsensical results make me wonder if there will be any trend to detect at all.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 11, 2015 23:55:24 GMT
The QAA is holding a fairly substantial sum in this loan as we need to build up the interest buffer, however we've recalculated what we have to hold in order to meet our obligations and based on the expected drawdowns over the next few weeks and over the weekend we'll be releasing another £250k in this loan solely to the MLIA. : Thanks for taking the time to respond to the questions raised here. One more bit of guidance would be helpful... Can you give us at least a rough idea how £250k compares to the amount allocated to all MLIAs on Friday? If I leave my buying instructions for #199 in place, and every other MLIA that had a pre-bid were to do the same, would the £250k release result in a further allocation of something like double the previous amount? Or a bigger factor? Or a smaller one? I ask because I have taken most of the free cash I had available for my originally hoped-for #199 allocation and redeployed it elsewhere. If the new release might produce an allocation ten times as big as Friday's, then I need to sell some loan parts right now for there to be enough cash available to cover such a potential allocation.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,337
Likes: 11,562
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 12, 2015 0:23:57 GMT
No idea, if only there was list somewhere! Would be sensible to have it somewhere in this thread, maybe even at the beginning. It would be quite helpful and probably look like this p2pindependentforum.com/post/50070 Oops! Now that I've followed the link, it does all look famiiar, so I'm sure I've seen it before. My apologies for forgetting it. ilmoro : Thanks for maintaining the table. I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding the chart below it. Can you please explain exactly what the two axes are? I presume the X-axis is loan size in £k, but what is the Y-axis? The chart title suggests it is the allocation, in percent, ranging from 1 to 6, but what is it percent of? PS. Having stared at the chart a bit more, I think the percentage is of the whole loan, so that when this week's data points are added, they will be at (£178k, 0.03065%) and (£950k, 0.00423%). Have I got that right? Considering the range of the Y values, I wondered if there was any merit in making the Y-axis logarithmic, but this week's seemingly nonsensical results make me wonder if there will be any trend to detect at all. Found it amusing. Yes, you are correct on the axes. Im sure there is a way of labelling them in Excel but I cant find it. Logs, I vaguely remember they featured in my Maths A level back in the distant past, though given I was ill at the time and actually ended up unconscious in two of of the three constituent exams its a bit foggy. Again something that Im sure Excel will do but ... Not sure the graph actually has much value but I shall proably have a play tomorrow. Edit Or I could just edit the image to add labels. Sometimes I astound even myself with my stupidity
|
|
As an alternative to that...
Would be sensible to have it somewhere in this thread, maybe even at the beginning. It would be quite helpful and probably look like this
