jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
GBBA
Sept 14, 2015 11:27:43 GMT
Post by jonah on Sept 14, 2015 11:27:43 GMT
Whilst I had the stats to hand... Below are the latest view for my GBBA / GIEA accounts.
GBBA
Currently 30.8% in 165, 21.0% in 168. 32.2% in 28 other loans, the largest being 3.6%. The remaining 15.9% is in cash, although in the QAA so getting some interest. 165 has been the bulk of this account since I opened it and frankly I would like to be spread out more evenly. However, 30 loans and at least 3 due 'soon' (tm) isn't too bad.
GEIA
Currently 27.1% in 180, 20.1% in 90 and 18.6% in 112. The rest is all single figures. 100% of all funds are invested which is an improvement since the QAA / code release went live, with no trading at all since the 11th. The loan spread seems more even than GBBA but with only 12 loans and only one new WT on the horizon, I have concerns about the medium term. Looking forward to see how it copes with the repayment due on the 16th (which I believe is the next date one of the loans it is in is due).
So, sounding very much like a broken record, I think that these accounts are currently broadly doing what it says on the tin, but need new loans to provide greater diversity. I would also very much like to see current figures on the PF status.
|
|
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
|
GBBA
Sept 14, 2015 11:49:50 GMT
Post by sqh on Sept 14, 2015 11:49:50 GMT
There were some GBP 850 available in the Spondon Bridging Loan (74) Sunday and I put in an order for the MLIA which has not been filled only to see that I actually bought some of that loanon Monday in the GBBA paying me 7% instead of the 18% I would get through the direct holding I intended.
Clearly the direct investment requests via MLIA should have first priority otherwise the whole system does not make any sense.
AC represenatives please advise. At 9:08 my MLIA received just £1.64 of that £850 which means there were over 500 buyers. I think this one should be excluded from the GBBA. Technically, it's in default, and should be in monitoring mode.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
GBBA
Sept 14, 2015 12:27:36 GMT
Post by ilmoro on Sept 14, 2015 12:27:36 GMT
There were some GBP 850 available in the Spondon Bridging Loan (74) Sunday and I put in an order for the MLIA which has not been filled only to see that I actually bought some of that loanon Monday in the GBBA paying me 7% instead of the 18% I would get through the direct holding I intended.
Clearly the direct investment requests via MLIA should have first priority otherwise the whole system does not make any sense.
AC represenatives please advise. Chris implied here & here that priority would be given to the investment accounts like the GBBA over the MLIA, but not sure if this has been implemented yet Currently GBBA has no priority but that will be changing with the next software release whereby investment accounts will be given some level of priority, but that will be balanced by the MLIA having discounts (and possibly premiums). All trades will still happen in the same marketplace it's just the products will get a greater share of sales and purchases at par. Exact weighting to be determined, and will likely be tweaked as we see real world usage to make sure that MLIA retains reasonable liquidity even at par.
The algorithm is currently being rewritten for release in the next couple of weeks so not much point documenting it as is.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
GBBA
Sept 14, 2015 13:35:12 GMT
Post by niceguy37 on Sept 14, 2015 13:35:12 GMT
There were some GBP 850 available in the Spondon Bridging Loan (74) Sunday and I put in an order for the MLIA which has not been filled only to see that I actually bought some of that loanon Monday in the GBBA paying me 7% instead of the 18% I would get through the direct holding I intended.
Clearly the direct investment requests via MLIA should have first priority otherwise the whole system does not make any sense.
AC represenatives please advise. Chris implied here & here that priority would be given to the investment accounts like the GBBA over the MLIA, but not sure if this has been implemented yet Currently GBBA has no priority but that will be changing with the next software release whereby investment accounts will be given some level of priority, but that will be balanced by the MLIA having discounts (and possibly premiums). All trades will still happen in the same marketplace it's just the products will get a greater share of sales and purchases at par. Exact weighting to be determined, and will likely be tweaked as we see real world usage to make sure that MLIA retains reasonable liquidity even at par.
The algorithm is currently being rewritten for release in the next couple of weeks so not much point documenting it as is.I must admit that I'll be concerned if all accounts don't share an equal access. Possibly one might suggest that purchases of loans offered at a discount are an advantage to the MLIA, but surely people will only offer a discount if they need to shift loans that no one wants. I use the MLIA to target loans I want, waiting patiently for my share of any shrapnel to come along, now that the primary market is closed to me. I will not be impressed if in practice all I can buy is loans that people have to offer discounts on in order to shift.
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Sept 14, 2015 14:51:16 GMT
Chris implied here & here that priority would be given to the investment accounts like the GBBA over the MLIA, but not sure if this has been implemented yet Currently GBBA has no priority but that will be changing with the next software release whereby investment accounts will be given some level of priority, but that will be balanced by the MLIA having discounts (and possibly premiums). All trades will still happen in the same marketplace it's just the products will get a greater share of sales and purchases at par. Exact weighting to be determined, and will likely be tweaked as we see real world usage to make sure that MLIA retains reasonable liquidity even at par.
The algorithm is currently being rewritten for release in the next couple of weeks so not much point documenting it as is.I must admit that I'll be concerned if all accounts don't share an equal access. Possibly one might suggest that purchases of loans offered at a discount are an advantage to the MLIA, but surely people will only offer a discount if they need to shift loans that no one wants. I use the MLIA to target loans I want, waiting patiently for my share of any shrapnel to come along, now that the primary market is closed to me. I will not be impressed if in practice all I can buy is loans that people have to offer discounts on in order to shift. I agree. Priority access for GBBA and similar would ultimately result in the MLIA being useable only for top ups on larger and problematic loans. This would be a fundamental change in proposition for the investor, and quite an about turn considering that the MLIA was until recently the only way to invest except in the green loans. I wonder how this will affect Assetz lender base, guessing that current investors may largely have joined because they like the MLIA model. The proposed model doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Sept 14, 2015 15:15:38 GMT
I must admit that I'll be concerned if all accounts don't share an equal access. Possibly one might suggest that purchases of loans offered at a discount are an advantage to the MLIA, but surely people will only offer a discount if they need to shift loans that no one wants. I use the MLIA to target loans I want, waiting patiently for my share of any shrapnel to come along, now that the primary market is closed to me. I will not be impressed if in practice all I can buy is loans that people have to offer discounts on in order to shift. I agree. Priority access for GBBA and similar would ultimately result in the MLIA being useable only for top ups on larger and problematic loans. This would be a fundamental change in proposition for the investor, and quite an about turn considering that the MLIA was until recently the only way to invest except in the green loans. I wonder how this will affect Assetz lender base, guessing that current investors may largely have joined because they like the MLIA model. The proposed model doesn't appeal to me. Indeed. We must have equal access to loan parts and a level playing field. Otherwise MLIA lenders will go elsewhere, and AC will be trying to operate the QAA without them. (I don't know what fancy mechanism they have for guaranteeing liquidity, but I would hazard a guess that it does involve having a large pool of MLIA lenders providing a market for loan parts, and I would also hazard a guess that their modelling assumes that this MLIA lender pool sticks around.) The QAA has a lot of potential for AC, both to attract direct savings and also more p2p lenders happy to get something on their idle funds, but I don't think it will be helpful if it comes at the expense of their p2p lending model.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
GBBA
Sept 14, 2015 20:14:59 GMT
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 14, 2015 20:14:59 GMT
Having read the earlier postings from people who found their investments deployed in ten minutes, I decided to give the GBBA a try. So at 2001 this evening I moved a small sum from my MLIA into my GBBA. As I write this, an hour and a quarter later, I find that 100% of my test deposit still is 'Awaiting Investment', and my GBBA statement is devoid of any activity after the initial transfer in. So much for rapid deployment! We'll see what happens tomorrow, but so far I am not impressed. Here's an update... 24 hours after my initial GBBA investment, my account is now 28.1% Currently Invested... and 71.8% Awaiting Investment. Which, you'll note, adds up to 99.9%! Where did the other 0.1% go? Good question. I'd guess it's the victim of rounding, but if I hover over my Total Investment, I can see it is the same as the total of my Currently Invested and my Awaiting Investment -- to 11 decimal places, anyway. While I realise that it's only a few pence that have gone missing, I'd expect it to be rather unsettling to an unsophisticated GBBA investor who knows that they invested £XXX in their shiny new account yesterday and today finds that the account's Total Investment is less than what they started with. It looks like a potential PR disaster to me. But that's JMHO.
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Sept 14, 2015 22:52:42 GMT
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 14, 2015 22:52:42 GMT
Whilst both the GBBA and QAA are good accounts in principle, in practice they are too complicated, unless you have the time, which I haven’t, to spend asking questions or trawling through questions and answers on this forum.
For example, my daughter opened a GBBA account 2 weeks ago, it was fully invested fairly quickly and we now find that approximately one third of it has been sold off and is now awaiting investment. *** is that all about?
AC is the most user unfriendly of P2P/P2B platforms, they seem to have a penchant for convoluted accounts where nothing is intuitive, for example, you hold £400 in a loan in the MLIA and wish to buy a further £100, you are asked for the “maximum amount to invest” now I don’t think I’m obtuse but that can be interpreted 2 ways: Either the maximum amount to invest is the new total of £500 or could it be the maximum amount of extra investment = £100? To my logical mind it’s the first but could someone confirm that please.
I don’t have any problem in using other platforms, so why do I find AC difficult to use?
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Sept 14, 2015 23:01:36 GMT
Whilst both the GBBA and QAA are good accounts in principle, in practice they are too complicated, unless you have the time, which I haven’t, to spend asking questions or trawling through questions and answers on this forum. For example, my daughter opened a GBBA account 2 weeks ago, it was fully invested fairly quickly and we now find that approximately one third of it has been sold off and is now awaiting investment. *** is that all about? AC is the most user unfriendly of P2P/P2B platforms, they seem to have a penchant for convoluted accounts where nothing is intuitive, for example, you hold £400 in a loan in the MLIA and wish to buy a further £100, you are asked for the “maximum amount to invest” now I don’t think I’m obtuse but that can be interpreted 2 ways: Either the maximum amount to invest is the new total of £500 or could it be the maximum amount of extra investment = £100? To my logical mind it’s the first but could someone confirm that please. I don’t have any difficulty in using other platforms, so why do I find AC unclear? I agree it's unclear, and I'm only sure after doing it. On the MLIA, the figure you need to put as "maximum amount to invest" is the additional amount you want, rather than the overall target you want to reach.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 14, 2015 23:05:10 GMT
Whilst both the GBBA and QAA are good accounts in principle, in practice they are too complicated, unless you have the time, which I haven’t, to spend asking questions or trawling through questions and answers on this forum. For example, my daughter opened a GBBA account 2 weeks ago, it was fully invested fairly quickly and we now find that approximately one third of it has been sold off and is now awaiting investment. *** is that all about? AC is the most user unfriendly of P2P/P2B platforms, they seem to have a penchant for convoluted accounts where nothing is intuitive, for example, you hold £400 in a loan in the MLIA and wish to buy a further £100, you are asked for the “maximum amount to invest” now I don’t think I’m obtuse but that can be interpreted 2 ways: Either the maximum amount to invest is the new total of £500 or could it be the maximum amount of extra investment = £100? To my logical mind it’s the first but could someone confirm that please. I don’t have any difficulty in using other platforms, so why do I find AC unclear? I agree it's unclear, and I'm only sure after doing it. On the MLIA, the figure you need to put as "maximum amount to invest" is the additional amount you want, rather than the overall target you want to reach. QED!! You shouldn't have to learn by trial and error it should be clear in the first place. Thanks for the info iren.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
GBBA
Sept 15, 2015 7:30:06 GMT
Post by jonah on Sept 15, 2015 7:30:06 GMT
Whilst both the GBBA and QAA are good accounts in principle, in practice they are too complicated, unless you have the time, which I haven’t, to spend asking questions or trawling through questions and answers on this forum. For example, my daughter opened a GBBA account 2 weeks ago, it was fully invested fairly quickly and we now find that approximately one third of it has been sold off and is now awaiting investment. *** is that all about? AC is the most user unfriendly of P2P/P2B platforms, they seem to have a penchant for convoluted accounts where nothing is intuitive, for example, you hold £400 in a loan in the MLIA and wish to buy a further £100, you are asked for the “maximum amount to invest” now I don’t think I’m obtuse but that can be interpreted 2 ways: Either the maximum amount to invest is the new total of £500 or could it be the maximum amount of extra investment = £100? To my logical mind it’s the first but could someone confirm that please. I don’t have any problem in using other platforms, so why do I find AC difficult to use? My GBBA sold a reasonable chunk close to the end of yesterday. As QAA is full, that cash went from 7% to 0%. Goes back to loan availability I assume. This needs to be fixed before the planned, I'm guessing, marketing push on these packaged accounts as without the background provided by this forum I for one wouldn't at all understand these accounts and their behaviour. In terms of complexity, AC seem to be aiming at sophisticated folk, at least for MLIA. It's probably the most powerful platform out there, but with great power comes... I suspect that a small iteration on their UI in terms of wording would help iron out questions about target vs total. It doesn't need wholesale reform, just the user experience of journey considered. If / when they allow multiple orders per loan for example, I can see some interesting options, but the complexity in explaining all of that could be challenging!
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Sept 15, 2015 12:17:38 GMT
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 15, 2015 12:17:38 GMT
Whilst both the GBBA and QAA are good accounts in principle, in practice they are too complicated, unless you have the time, which I haven’t, to spend asking questions or trawling through questions and answers on this forum. For example, my daughter opened a GBBA account 2 weeks ago, it was fully invested fairly quickly and we now find that approximately one third of it has been sold off and is now awaiting investment. *** is that all about? AC is the most user unfriendly of P2P/P2B platforms, they seem to have a penchant for convoluted accounts where nothing is intuitive, for example, you hold £400 in a loan in the MLIA and wish to buy a further £100, you are asked for the “maximum amount to invest” now I don’t think I’m obtuse but that can be interpreted 2 ways: Either the maximum amount to invest is the new total of £500 or could it be the maximum amount of extra investment = £100? To my logical mind it’s the first but could someone confirm that please. I don’t have any problem in using other platforms, so why do I find AC difficult to use? My GBBA sold a reasonable chunk close to the end of yesterday. As QAA is full, that cash went from 7% to 0%. Goes back to loan availability I assume. This needs to be fixed before the planned, I'm guessing, marketing push on these packaged accounts as without the background provided by this forum I for one wouldn't at all understand these accounts and their behaviour. In terms of complexity, AC seem to be aiming at sophisticated folk, at least for MLIA. It's probably the most powerful platform out there, but with great power comes... I suspect that a small iteration on their UI in terms of wording would help iron out questions about target vs total. It doesn't need wholesale reform, just the user experience of journey considered. If / when they allow multiple orders per loan for example, I can see some interesting options, but the complexity in explaining all of that could be challenging! I agree with your comments with the exception of “AC seem to be aiming at sophisticated folk, at least for MLIA” With respect, I don’t see MLIA, GBBA or QAA as requiring any special level of sophistication, the basic principle of these accounts is straightforward, it’s the practice / operation of them that is illogical, why sell off one third of a GBBA when the holder only has a MLIA but no QAA? That’s a question to AC by the way, not your good self.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
GBBA
Sept 15, 2015 14:21:19 GMT
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 15, 2015 14:21:19 GMT
For example, my daughter opened a GBBA account 2 weeks ago, it was fully invested fairly quickly and we now find that approximately one third of it has been sold off and is now awaiting investment. *** is that all about? My guess is that more people have put money into the GBBA -- even I put a token amount in to see how it works -- and the system felt it had to do something for them. So -- as a result of the lack of GBBA-eligible loan parts on the Aftermarket -- it invested some of their money by dis-investing some of previous investors' money. That's the result of a serious supply/demand imbalance. So, as others have pointed out, AC need to seriously increase the supply side of the equation before letting the marketers start singing the praises of the GBBA to all and sundry and boost the demand side. Putting the cart before the horse will lead, IMHO, to a PR disaster. Hopefully AC are smart enough to know, and avoid, that. PS. I've had zero activity in my test GBBA for over 24 hours now, and it remains just 28.1% invested. Since the QAA is full, my hoped-for 7% return is actually 1.97% at the moment.
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Sept 15, 2015 15:30:02 GMT
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 15, 2015 15:30:02 GMT
For example, my daughter opened a GBBA account 2 weeks ago, it was fully invested fairly quickly and we now find that approximately one third of it has been sold off and is now awaiting investment. *** is that all about? My guess is that more people have put money into the GBBA -- even I put a token amount in to see how it works -- and the system felt it had to do something for them. So -- as a result of the lack of GBBA-eligible loan parts on the Aftermarket -- it invested some of their money by dis-investing some of previous investors' money.This question is aimed at AC. Where does it say anything in your marketing hype about selling parts in the GBBA without the investor’s authority? www.assetzcapital.co.uk/our-investor-accounts/gb-account/In fact where does it say anything, in plain English, about how the account operates?
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
GBBA
Sept 15, 2015 15:41:40 GMT
jonah likes this
Post by am on Sept 15, 2015 15:41:40 GMT
My understanding is that the activity is due to trying to balance individual investors' holdings in the GBBA.
If you leave your account alone, it will sell some stuff in order to buy something else, but if the something became unavailable in the time between decision and sale it buys what was sold back. Except, that recently, on occasion, it has failed to buy stuff back. When I mentioned this a day or so back (see Possible QAA Misfeature - it occurred more or contemporaneously with me setting up the QAA) Chris expressed a hope that it was fixed in the last batch of changes to the algorithm.
If you withdraw money from the account, it sells whatever there is currently demand for. This may then leave you overweight in another loan, so it proceeds to sell some of that as well, leaving you with less money invested in the account.
I've no reason to believe that it specifically takes units away from you for the purpose of allowing others to invest, though any leaks of invested funds would have that effect.
|
|
