upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479 
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Aug 15, 2015 6:49:28 GMT
As a newcomer to AC my holdings have mainly been derived from Shrapnel. It prompts me to ask is the source of this just other people selling or are their other possibilities ?
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Aug 15, 2015 7:54:55 GMT
I assume that if a medium chunk of a loan is sold on Ac, that if there is more demand than the size of the sale, then the loan is divided between the various folk who want that loan. Do a sensible loan sale can generate a lot of smaller pieces for a number of people.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Aug 15, 2015 7:59:24 GMT
Yes, sales of loans where demand exceeds supply (no units shown as being available) are spread across as many lenders as have targets unfulfilled, down to a minimum shrapnel size of £1
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 15, 2015 8:07:44 GMT
As a newcomer to AC my holdings have mainly been derived from Shrapnel. It prompts me to ask is the source of this just other people selling or are their other possibilities ? Depends what you mean by shrapnel. When loan units are sold they are split up and divided amongst all the potential buyers. If it's less than £1 available per buyer then they're divided into £1 units and distributed at random. If it's more than £1 per buyer then they are distributed equally. Any excess allocated beyond a buyer's targets are then divided equally amongst the other buyers. Bought loan units are then joined back with any other holdings each buyer has so that they typically end up with one loan units per loan. Transactions can occur for smaller amounts where there are excesses being distributed (e.g. a buyer wanted 75p and was allocated £1, then someone else would be randomly allocated the 25p), where the seller is trying to sell something like £1.15p, or if the seller is just trying to sell a tiny amount. The automated accounts are often guilty of this as there's not enough leeway in their holdings and they can oscillate around a 1p sale. New algorithm to greatly reduce that is currently being tested prior to go live.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Aug 15, 2015 8:27:13 GMT
AIUI when a new loan draws down half of Underwriters holdings are sold there and then automatically, after that they can then control how much is sold and when (if any).
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 15, 2015 8:57:42 GMT
AIUI when a new loan draws down half of Underwriters holdings are sold there and then automatically, after that they can then control how much is sold and when (if any). They're divided into two pools, one in the underwriter's MLIA which are not automatically sold, with the rest in a special "Compulsory Sale Account". When choosing to fund a loan the underwriters can choose the proportion of the two pools but the Compulsory Sale pool must be at least 50% of their investment. They can sell or retain the MLIA portion as they see fit.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Aug 16, 2015 10:58:48 GMT
Many thanks all . informative. I had wondered whether some of the shrapnel came from the underwriters. Not being very scientific I roughly estimated that for each loan the number of active holders was probably modest so why would other holders be buying and selling like traders. I thought that most holders probably held for the duration of the loan , there probably is not a lot of relevant new information flying about. I wondered whether underwriters have different concerns and some of the shrapnel was for their cash needs.
Either way I have found it interesting and have slowly build what I feel is a workable investment for me. It take time on some of these more complex investment systems to make it work for you.
I do watch the reports (very sad I know) and wonder about the volume of loan parts flying about. As a programmer myself I have some sympathy for how difficult it must be to produce stable algorithms that work in all cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 16, 2015 17:57:52 GMT
Many thanks all . informative. I had wondered whether some of the shrapnel came from the underwriters. Not being very scientific I roughly estimated that for each loan the number of active holders was probably modest so why would other holders be buying and selling like traders. I thought that most holders probably held for the duration of the loan , there probably is not a lot of relevant new information flying about. I wondered whether underwriters have different concerns and some of the shrapnel was for their cash needs. Either way I have found it interesting and have slowly build what I feel is a workable investment for me. It take time on some of these more complex investment systems to make it work for you. I do watch the reports (very sad I know) and wonder about the volume of loan parts flying about. As a programmer myself I have some sympathy for how difficult it must be to produce stable algorithms that work in all cases. Over 10 million loan units to keep track of, including historic ones that have been split apart and sold or merged with others, and counting! Accrued interest is the fun one. Recursively tracking back to any arbitrary period of time to work out who owned what so we know how much interest applies to their holding. Thankfully my SQL isn't too shabby.
|
|
warn
Member of DD Central
Curmudgeon
Posts: 638
Likes: 659
|
Post by warn on Aug 17, 2015 7:47:06 GMT
Thankfully my SQL isn't too shabby. SQL?? Looxury! Why, when I were a lad... . 
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2015 8:20:58 GMT
Years ago I worked in the main office of Creda near Bristol in a large open plan office from the 1930s with lots of art deco features and gallery around the edge for management to watch the workers. Being the lad in the corner I was sent to clear out an old cupboard I came across a photo of the same office when it was first established. It was called the "computer room" then and was full of men doing manual calculations as in your picture (the men were the computers), they were doing the calcs for the design of aircraft as it was to become part of the Avro organisation. Could have been the same picture.
|
|
upland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 479
Likes: 175
|
Post by upland on Aug 17, 2015 10:11:48 GMT
Many thanks all . informative. I had wondered whether some of the shrapnel came from the underwriters. Not being very scientific I roughly estimated that for each loan the number of active holders was probably modest so why would other holders be buying and selling like traders. I thought that most holders probably held for the duration of the loan , there probably is not a lot of relevant new information flying about. I wondered whether underwriters have different concerns and some of the shrapnel was for their cash needs. Either way I have found it interesting and have slowly build what I feel is a workable investment for me. It take time on some of these more complex investment systems to make it work for you. I do watch the reports (very sad I know) and wonder about the volume of loan parts flying about. As a programmer myself I have some sympathy for how difficult it must be to produce stable algorithms that work in all cases. Over 10 million loan units to keep track of, including historic ones that have been split apart and sold or merged with others, and counting! Accrued interest is the fun one. Recursively tracking back to any arbitrary period of time to work out who owned what so we know how much interest applies to their holding. Thankfully my SQL isn't too shabby. The ones that I dont understand are where it buys and sells a loan part for the same capital value all in about a minute. I am no better off so why bother ? I have seen where it possibly buys again a part of the same value. Hopefully the SQL indexes are 64 bit as you would probably run out if they were only 32 bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 17, 2015 10:44:02 GMT
Over 10 million loan units to keep track of, including historic ones that have been split apart and sold or merged with others, and counting! Accrued interest is the fun one. Recursively tracking back to any arbitrary period of time to work out who owned what so we know how much interest applies to their holding. Thankfully my SQL isn't too shabby. The ones that I dont understand are where it buys and sells a loan part for the same capital value all in about a minute. I am no better off so why bother ? I have seen where it possibly buys again a part of the same value. Hopefully the SQL indexes are 64 bit as you would probably run out if they were only 32 bit. They're 64 bit but even with 32 bits we could have ~2.1 billion loan units before we'd run out of IDs. The reason it's doing that is because it's trying to diversify but can't buy into the loan it wants to so it buys back into the one with availability to keep your cash deployed, before trying again. I'm currently coding an improvement that should eliminate this in the new marketplace.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 17, 2015 12:42:14 GMT
Now it all makes sense  thanks chris |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Aug 31, 2015 6:02:46 GMT
Over 10 million loan units to keep track of, including historic ones that have been split apart and sold or merged with others, and counting! Accrued interest is the fun one. Recursively tracking back to any arbitrary period of time to work out who owned what so we know how much interest applies to their holding. Thankfully my SQL isn't too shabby. Clearly you know what you're doing (!), but might it not stabilize things to impose a minimum transaction value (purchase/sale) of, say, one pound? Ought to reduce the "manic" buying and selling of parts worth a few pence, and might start to consolidate the millions of tiny parts into larger packets.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 31, 2015 7:52:03 GMT
Over 10 million loan units to keep track of, including historic ones that have been split apart and sold or merged with others, and counting! Accrued interest is the fun one. Recursively tracking back to any arbitrary period of time to work out who owned what so we know how much interest applies to their holding. Thankfully my SQL isn't too shabby. Clearly you know what you're doing (!), but might it not stabilize things to impose a minimum transaction value (purchase/sale) of, say, one pound? Ought to reduce the "manic" buying and selling of parts worth a few pence, and might start to consolidate the millions of tiny parts into larger packets. Then we get grumbles that the last portion of accounts and loans can't sell, something I already get grumbles about even when it's a fraction of a penny as there's a minimum 1p sale at the moment. Hopefully the next update will address many of the issues, although I can't be 100% sure until it's in wide real world use.
|
|
thanks