jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
GBBA
Nov 22, 2015 9:50:17 GMT
Post by jonah on Nov 22, 2015 9:50:17 GMT
Is there a withdrawal bug? I think I've seen this previously but I definitely had this today.
I asked for £20 to be withdrawn from GBBA. I had 2p uninvested which moved and then various loan parts were sold to generate the remaining cash. However the withdrawal stopped after only getting to a total of 12.79. I assume that I've not lost 7.21 somewhere, but it would be nice it the action continued until it reached the total requested.
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Dec 1, 2015 18:13:41 GMT
Post by mrclondon on Dec 1, 2015 18:13:41 GMT
On loan #210 Q&A (at time of writing in Upcoming Loans) the folowing answer was given in response to a second question requesting clarification of this loans eligibility for GBBA "The broad criteria for the Great British Business Account ("GBBA") is detailed on our website, under the following link: www.assetzcapital.co.uk/our-investor-accounts/gb-account/
Please see sub-heading: Automatic Loan Selection and Diversification
At this time, it is not possible for us to indicate whether a loan will be included in the GBBA until it has drawn down."
andrewholgate I genuinely don't understand this answer, even after reading the referred to link. It would be really helpful if it could be spelt out in language that an average idiot would understand which of the GBBA eligibility criteria could be assesed differently for this loan between today and drawdown. As written there must be a strong implication that the GBBA eligibility can not be stated now as the LTV stated on the loan page / credit report is not definititive. If so why would any lender (not just GBBA) commit to bidding on a loan whose LTV is not fixed ?
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Dec 1, 2015 18:44:09 GMT
Post by chris on Dec 1, 2015 18:44:09 GMT
On loan #210 Q&A (at time of writing in Upcoming Loans) the folowing answer was given in response to a second question requesting clarification of this loans eligibility for GBBA "The broad criteria for the Great British Business Account ("GBBA") is detailed on our website, under the following link: www.assetzcapital.co.uk/our-investor-accounts/gb-account/
Please see sub-heading: Automatic Loan Selection and Diversification
At this time, it is not possible for us to indicate whether a loan will be included in the GBBA until it has drawn down."
andrewholgate I genuinely don't understand this answer, even after reading the referred to link. It would be really helpful if it could be spelt out in language that an average idiot would understand which of the GBBA eligibility criteria could be assesed differently for this loan between today and drawdown. As written there must be a strong implication that the GBBA eligibility can not be stated now as the LTV stated on the loan page / credit report is not definititive. If so why would any lender (not just GBBA) commit to bidding on a loan whose LTV is not fixed ? I'm sure Andy will come back with a more complete answer but if my memory is correct back when we launched the accounts we designed a box on the loan page to show both account eligibility and your current holding in each account in that loan. There was a lot of discussion at that time as to whether this was good practice or not and I believe we ultimately decided against displaying either for compliance reasons - whilst it was probably okay it could influence lender decision on whether to invest or not and also skirted too close to giving advice. As things stand the investment criteria are provided for the accounts but from there on it's down to lenders to make their own lending decisions.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
GBBA
Dec 1, 2015 22:30:33 GMT
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 1, 2015 22:30:33 GMT
I'm sure Andy will come back with a more complete answer but if my memory is correct back when we launched the accounts we designed a box on the loan page to show both account eligibility and your current holding in each account in that loan. There was a lot of discussion at that time as to whether this was good practice or not and I believe we ultimately decided against displaying either for compliance reasons - whilst it was probably okay it could influence lender decision on whether to invest or not and also skirted too close to giving advice. As things stand the investment criteria are provided for the accounts but from there on it's down to lenders to make their own lending decisions. If it's OK for AC to tell me how much of a loan I'm already holding in my MLIA when I look at a loan's web page, how can it not be OK to also tell me how much of that same loan I'm exposed to via my GBBA and/or GEIA? I realise that it's up to me to make my own lending decisions, but how can I do that sensibly if AC withhold the information I need in order to do that? And especially so if it might "influence lender decision on whether to invest or not". chris : Thanks for your input. I look forward to hearing what andrewholgate has to say about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 1, 2015 22:42:21 GMT
I'm sure Andy will come back with a more complete answer but if my memory is correct back when we launched the accounts we designed a box on the loan page to show both account eligibility and your current holding in each account in that loan. There was a lot of discussion at that time as to whether this was good practice or not and I believe we ultimately decided against displaying either for compliance reasons - whilst it was probably okay it could influence lender decision on whether to invest or not and also skirted too close to giving advice. As things stand the investment criteria are provided for the accounts but from there on it's down to lenders to make their own lending decisions. If it's OK for AC to tell me how much of a loan I'm already holding in my MLIA when I look at a loan's web page, how can it not be OK to also tell me how much of that same loan I'm exposed to via my GBBA and/or GEIA? I realise that it's up to me to make my own lending decisions, but how can I do that sensibly if AC withhold the information I need in order to do that? And especially so if it might "influence lender decision on whether to invest or not". chris : Thanks for your input. I look forward to hearing what andrewholgate has to say about this. The philosophy of the platform is that the investment accounts are black box investment machines, and you should not be basing your investment decisions on what the system is doing for you if you use those accounts. Those accounts are protected by a provision fund and also look at the overall diversification of that fund and all lenders within the account when making investment decisions, on top of the published criteria. I'm sure some sophisticated lenders will want to take into account the GEIA and GBBA investment behaviour, just as there will always be some that look to find ways to "game" the systems we put in place. That's your prerogative as lenders and something you are free to choose to do, but we're not going to modify the site to put that information prominently in front of less sophisticated lenders. It may seem silly but I personally think it would be a matter of time before someone just mirrored the GBBA or GEIA investment strategy in the MLIA thinking they were being clever as had the same investments but were getting the full return instead of 7%, only for them to be caught out when they end up with losses not covered by a provision fund. We have a mechanism coming in Q1 where by lenders can flag themselves as being advanced users / sophisticated lenders so that we can simplify the user interface a little for the majority and give the sophisticated users even more options. Perhaps we can revisit this then.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Dec 1, 2015 23:01:07 GMT
If after flagging myself as a sophisticated lender, I then decide (or it becomes apparent) that actually I'm not as sophisticated as I think I am need to be, will I be able to revert to a more comfortable (onesie and slippers) non-sophisticated lender status, or even switch between the two to test my sophistication level periodically?
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Dec 1, 2015 23:44:44 GMT
Post by mrclondon on Dec 1, 2015 23:44:44 GMT
A fascinating discussion, but I'm still in the dark as to why the question on loan #210 was answered the way it was, and more importantly whether an external regulator would view
"At this time, it is not possible for us to indicate whether a loan will be included in the GBBA until it has drawn down."
as being a fair and not misleading statement. I would suggest it isn't on the grounds that a) the criteria for GBBA eligibility are rule based and the asessement of those criteria will not change in the 3 days prior to drawdown, and b) AC's policy as stated by their technical director is to refrain from disclosing to lenders loan eligibility for GBBA. As such that answer would appear to be wrong, and a more appropriate answer would be
"It is our policy not to disclose whether a specific loan is eligibile for the GBBA as to do so might be construed as investment advice which AC is not permitted to provide."
If the grounds for refusing to disclose eligibility is to avoid it being construed as investment advice, the point of draw down of the loan is irrelevant given the loan will (hopefully) remain tradable in the MLIA.
Personally I have zero interest in the GBBA or any similiar packaged account, and the loan eligibility criteria of such accounts is irrelevant in my due dilligence of a loan. However at a platform risk level (and as a future shareholder) I am greatly concerned by answers such as this one.
|
|
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
Dec 2, 2015 1:07:21 GMT
Post by sqh on Dec 2, 2015 1:07:21 GMT
A fascinating discussion, but I'm still in the dark as to why the question on loan #210 was answered the way it was, and more importantly whether an external regulator would view "At this time, it is not possible for us to indicate whether a loan will be included in the GBBA until it has drawn down."
as being a fair and not misleading statement. I would suggest it isn't on the grounds that a) the criteria for GBBA eligibility are rule based and the asessement of those criteria will not change in the 3 days prior to drawdown, and b) AC's policy as stated by their technical director is to refrain from disclosing to lenders loan eligibility for GBBA. As such that answer would appear to be wrong, and a more appropriate answer would be "It is our policy not to disclose whether a specific loan is eligibile for the GBBA as to do so might be construed as investment advice which AC is not permitted to provide."
If the grounds for refusing to disclose eligibility is to avoid it being construed as investment advice, the point of draw down of the loan is irrelevant given the loan will (hopefully) remain tradable in the MLIA. Personally I have zero interest in the GBBA or any similiar packaged account, and the loan eligibility criteria of such accounts is irrelevant in my due dilligence of a loan. However at a platform risk level (and as a future shareholder) I am greatly concerned by answers such as this one. It is very strange when you consider that loans 199, 201, 204, 208 and 209, all specifically state that they are eligible for the GBBA, and four of them haven't drawndown yet. It must be a policy change from loan #210 onwards, or AC are misinterpreting the question. The question asks will it be included in the GBBA, not is it eligible. Perhaps AC are thinking we don't know if any loan units will be available for the GBBA, after MLIA targets are met.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 2, 2015 7:29:13 GMT
If after flagging myself as a sophisticated lender, I then decide (or it becomes apparent) that actually I'm not as sophisticated as I think I am need to be, will I be able to revert to a more comfortable (onesie and slippers) non-sophisticated lender status, or even switch between the two to test my sophistication level periodically? Yes. The final interface is yet to be decided but it will either be a tick box or a tick box dressed up with a couple of questions before it.
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Dec 2, 2015 7:34:21 GMT
sqh likes this
Post by chris on Dec 2, 2015 7:34:21 GMT
It is very strange when you consider that loans 199, 201, 204, 208 and 209, all specifically state that they are eligible for the GBBA, and four of them haven't drawndown yet. It must be a policy change from loan #210 onwards, or AC are misinterpreting the question. The question asks will it be included in the GBBA, not is it eligible. Perhaps AC are thinking we don't know if any loan units will be available for the GBBA, after MLIA targets are met. The policy hasn't been changed, indeed it is an old policy from when the accounts were first conceived so my knowledge could even be out of date. It could be someone misinterpreting the question or trying to be too literal with it and wanting to know whether the GBBA would actually invest (which is only decided for certain at run time) not just whether or not it could invest if it chose to do so based upon the eligibility criteria.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Dec 20, 2015 20:56:49 GMT
Hi all, Is GBBA starting to work properly now or does it still need more deal flow? I ask because friends and family are asking about my returns but I don't think the MLIA is suitable for them. Did the daftness about emails asking for vote A or B decisions about loans that weren't chosen ever get resolved? It's a regulatory requirement, as we understand it, for all lenders to be included regardless of whether they selected the loans or used an automated solution. No getting around that I'm afraid. GBBA is starting to work well, idle cash is massively down and we expect it to approach full deployment next week with only individual diversification rules holding back some newer investors. Jan / Feb should have plenty of qualifying loans which will help get new investors fully deployed and we're working on a new solution to smoothing out the liquidity to ensure that new lenders can deploy cash quickly if not instantly. First piece of that puzzle is already in place but we need a few more loans for it to come together.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
GBBA
Dec 20, 2015 22:02:51 GMT
Post by sl75 on Dec 20, 2015 22:02:51 GMT
It's a regulatory requirement, as we understand it, for all lenders to be included regardless of whether they selected the loans or used an automated solution. No getting around that I'm afraid. It strikes me that there is a perfectly reasonable way around it - to define the terms of the provision fund associated with the account so that loans are transferred to it at full price the moment that trading is suspended in the loan. Then it would be the PF that is holding the loan at the time of the relevant vote, rather than the individual GBBA investors. It would of course require the relevant provision fund to be sufficiently well funded to cover the balance of as many loan units as are likely to be in "trading suspended" status simultaneously within the account(s) it is covering.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
GBBA
Dec 20, 2015 22:08:12 GMT
Post by ben on Dec 20, 2015 22:08:12 GMT
would think would make it hard as others would be invested in the loan in the normal account
|
|
|
|
GBBA
Dec 20, 2015 22:31:02 GMT
Post by chris on Dec 20, 2015 22:31:02 GMT
It's a regulatory requirement, as we understand it, for all lenders to be included regardless of whether they selected the loans or used an automated solution. No getting around that I'm afraid. It strikes me that there is a perfectly reasonable way around it - to define the terms of the provision fund associated with the account so that loans are transferred to it at full price the moment that trading is suspended in the loan. Then it would be the PF that is holding the loan at the time of the relevant vote, rather than the individual GBBA investors. It would of course require the relevant provision fund to be sufficiently well funded to cover the balance of as many loan units as are likely to be in "trading suspended" status simultaneously within the account(s) it is covering. No idea if that would work or not, will suggest it to the relevant people. Regardless it's a legal requirement that the provision fund is discretionary (as I understand it) so we couldn't make it automatic, but there may be a phrase that would cover that.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
GBBA
Dec 21, 2015 11:47:13 GMT
Post by am on Dec 21, 2015 11:47:13 GMT
It strikes me that there is a perfectly reasonable way around it - to define the terms of the provision fund associated with the account so that loans are transferred to it at full price the moment that trading is suspended in the loan. Then it would be the PF that is holding the loan at the time of the relevant vote, rather than the individual GBBA investors. It would of course require the relevant provision fund to be sufficiently well funded to cover the balance of as many loan units as are likely to be in "trading suspended" status simultaneously within the account(s) it is covering. No idea if that would work or not, will suggest it to the relevant people. Regardless it's a legal requirement that the provision fund is discretionary (as I understand it) so we couldn't make it automatic, but there may be a phrase that would cover that. 1) Would this not mean the lender ends up with cash in the GBBA, which it might not be possible to reinvest at the time, so it would lead to lenders losing income. 2) It's probably not feasible to give the loan back to the original lender when it comes out of suspension, so it would have to be sold on the secondary market, and depending on what triggered suspension it may not be readily saleable.
|
|
