|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Feb 18, 2016 19:42:47 GMT
chris Any chance of 227 drawing down on t’night turn tonight?  Ops director has pulled out of our management call tomorrow to make sure it draws then, so based on that it will be tomorrow. As I understand it it's down to the lawyers now though to just go through the final steps to actually draw funds so it would take something unexpected to stop it drawing tomorrow. Thanks for the info.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 19, 2016 2:54:43 GMT
I see that AC have updated the Estimated Drawdown dates for a number of the Upcoming loans. Earlier Thursday evening there were about 15+ loans that hadn't had underwriting called and were showing a February estimate. That's now changed to 10 February estimates and one March estimate.
I think we've also had a net gain of three loans on that part of the list -- from 35 to 38. I haven't been watching that list closely enough to know if any loans have fallen by the wayside and disappeared from the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 19, 2016 17:44:00 GMT
Ops director has pulled out of our management call tomorrow to make sure it draws then, so based on that it will be tomorrow. As I understand it it's down to the lawyers now though to just go through the final steps to actually draw funds so it would take something unexpected to stop it drawing tomorrow. Thanks for the info. I'm informed that despite the legal docs all being signed today the outgoing bank failed to confirm the amount they require to release the security in time so the banking cutoff time was missed to drawdown the funds. Drawdown will go ahead on Monday now.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Feb 19, 2016 17:57:23 GMT
Par for the course. Another series of consecutive (probably) avoidable delays. What else do we expect? I bet the bank (and other entities) won't want to be penalised for its own inefficiency, but they'll be quick to penalise their customers for such delays.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Feb 19, 2016 18:02:57 GMT
I'm informed that despite the legal docs all being signed today the outgoing bank failed to confirm the amount they require to release the security in time so the banking cutoff time was missed to drawdown the funds. Like all banks, the barstewards wouldn’t have failed if it was to their advantage.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,440
|
Post by agent69 on Feb 19, 2016 18:14:04 GMT
I wonder what sort of hit the QAA will take when this finally draws?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 19, 2016 18:30:26 GMT
I wonder what sort of hit the QAA will take when this finally draws? This is something that has been internally calculated as we have all the data on lender and underwriter targets and cash requirements. It's a fair hit but certainly nothing unmanageable and the kind of thing that we expect to rebound over the course of a handful of weeks. I don't think there's a need to drop the cap at all but that's another possibility as we manage the flow of funds back in to the account.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 19, 2016 18:31:57 GMT
I'm informed that despite the legal docs all being signed today the outgoing bank failed to confirm the amount they require to release the security in time so the banking cutoff time was missed to drawdown the funds. Like all banks, the barstewards wouldn’t have failed if it was to their advantage. Quite. We're a bit grumpy about it but it's always a risk with third parties who aren't really gaining too much were they to be more efficient.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 19, 2016 21:01:17 GMT
Like all banks, the barstewards wouldn’t have failed if it was to their advantage. Quite. We're a bit grumpy about it but it's always a risk with third parties who aren't really gaining too much were they to be more efficient. In this case, there probably wasn't any gain to be had by being more efficient. In fact, the opposite probably is true. By missing the deadline, they'll earn another three days of interest on a healthy sum of money!
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on Feb 19, 2016 21:52:08 GMT
In this case, there probably wasn't any gain to be had by being more efficient. In fact, the opposite probably is true. By missing the deadline, they'll earn another three days of interest on a healthy sum of money! As if..... 
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 20, 2016 2:09:33 GMT
In this case, there probably wasn't any gain to be had by being more efficient. In fact, the opposite probably is true. By missing the deadline, they'll earn another three days of interest on a healthy sum of money! As if..... : Sorry, I don't understand the comment. AIUI, the party that caused the delay was the bank currently holding the loan being refinanced away from them. The longer they can drag out the process, the more interest they earn from the borrower -- while having minimal default risk because they know that as soon as they do the necessary job the loan will be paid off with the proceeds from the AC loan. Is there something I'm missing?
|
|
dermot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 863
Likes: 517
|
Post by dermot on Feb 20, 2016 2:37:31 GMT
I wonder what sort of hit the QAA will take when this finally draws? This is something that has been internally calculated as we have all the data on lender and underwriter targets and cash requirements. It's a fair hit but certainly nothing unmanageable and the kind of thing that we expect to rebound over the course of a handful of weeks. I don't think there's a need to drop the cap at all but that's another possibility as we manage the flow of funds back in to the account. Could you explain the impact on the QAA a little more for a newbie such as myself?
And will it soak up some of the funds waiting in the GBBA?
Ta.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 20, 2016 7:22:21 GMT
This is something that has been internally calculated as we have all the data on lender and underwriter targets and cash requirements. It's a fair hit but certainly nothing unmanageable and the kind of thing that we expect to rebound over the course of a handful of weeks. I don't think there's a need to drop the cap at all but that's another possibility as we manage the flow of funds back in to the account. Could you explain the impact on the QAA a little more for a newbie such as myself?
And will it soak up some of the funds waiting in the GBBA?
Ta. A lot of lenders use the QAA to park funds until such time as loan units they're interested in become available. This is especially true for swept funds where those funds are actually allocated to other accounts and moved back automatically whenever they are needed. In anticipation of the drawdown of this loan several underwriters have already moved funds out of the QAA which is why the balance has stuck around the £8m mark despite several hundred thousand pounds of new investment coming in. Underwriters are also using the sweep function to invest in the QAA their idle funds which will be called upon as soon as the loan draws down. Then you have the retail investors who are using the QAA to sweep idle funds who have set targets against the loan. When the loan draws down and the loan units become available for sale then those targets will be used to sweep funds out of the QAA and back into the MLIA in order to purchase them. This loan is GBBA compatible and will have a similar effect in that swept funds will be pulled out of the QAA and into the GBBA in order to purchase loan units. The unknown part is whether there is a significant portion of lenders who will pull money out of the directly invested portion of funds in order to buy loan units in this loan. So all the above adds up to a net withdrawal of funds from the QAA when this loan draws down which can be mostly calculated but has an error margin. We have to make sure that the cash reserves in the QAA are enough to cover that withdrawal with a further margin on top to account for the usual daily fluctuations and movements of cash. As this is the biggest loan to have drawn down in the history of the platform this is a bit of a test of the QAA and the systems we've put in place, but in reality we should cope comfortably as the figure needed is known and we've made sure there will be more than enough cash in the account, and even the worst case scenario is that withdrawals from the QAA need to enter a queue whilst some other loan units are sold to free up cash. Edit: To be clear the loan is GBBA compatible and will soak up to 20% of your unlent funds up.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Feb 20, 2016 8:12:37 GMT
chris your last line.... Did you mean 20% of unlent funds, or the smaller of 20% of total and your unlent? The former would seem to be a tweak to GBBA algorithm.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 20, 2016 8:13:26 GMT
chris your last line.... Did you mean 20% of unlent funds, or the smaller of 20% of total and your unlent? The former would seem to be a tweak to GBBA algorithm. 20% of your total GBBA portfolio including the unlent cash.
|
|
