|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 12, 2015 16:10:53 GMT
Chris - thanks that is reassuring but where can we find details of who these individuals are and therefore what their credibility is? Hi Our in house compliance is carried out by Andy Sheppard, just see the about us page. hugely experienced. So we are FCA compliant and have their permission to operate in this area. Our legal and tax structuring was done by DWF and Grant Thornton. If you aren't sure about a company then, as SteveT says, you must not invest through that company so best DYOR I would suggest and also feel free to ring in and speak to our lender team who would be delighted to help.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 12, 2015 16:12:57 GMT
chris, still not seeing my idle funds in the QAA despite the fix yesterday. Are my funds progressing up the queue, am I just being too impatient? (has the churn on the QAA settled?) Queuing up and the churn has settled. There's around £400k sat in the queue of which somewhere around £250k is eligible (i.e. doesn't take lenders over their personal allowance of £25k). Now the aftermarket churn has settled it'll probably take a bit longer to work through. Yes it's because the £1m is full and their is a modest date ordered queue to come into the account which I guess you are in. We will be reviewing increasing (or even maybe decreasing) the account size weekly and will always base this on the size of the queue as that is one of the dozen factors that drive that decision as liquidity is key.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 12, 2015 16:22:45 GMT
We don't wish to publish the full strategy as it's a competitive advantage but what we do publish must be true and we want to be as transparent as possible. Bottom line is we most certainly will not be investing in larger/ less popular loans as we want high certainty of sale, secondly we don't want to have to sell any longer term hold loans unless all the cash is expended on liquidity, thirdly we want cash liquidity available to be typically well over half the account size. Give it a try and see and watch the performance that we will publish (along the lines of "X% of all access requests were fulfilled in 1 minute or less in the last 7 days") Stuart, coming back on this, can you explain what the QAA has invested in if not in the larger / less popular loans? When the account went live there was only really the trade finance and Mersey care home loans with units available. These are most certainly the least popular and biggest loans (respectively) on the site. What exactly has the QAA invested in if not these loans? The QAA account won't have a published loan list (unlike the other accounts) as it isnt designed that way but what it will invest in (after maintaining a very large cash balance) is a diversified mix of loans that have substantial current demand and will sell very quickly if liquidity demands required it. Many of these loans would have an instantaneous sale in the MLIA and a few would have expected sale speed of up to four weeks maximum. The design is to use data mining to calculate an investment mix and cash balance mix that delivers the coupon and also aims for as close as possible to 100% (but likely to vary between 60-90% most of the time) of the account being instantly accessible if requested. Any balance would be calculated to clear into cash within 1-4 weeks. That's as good as we can get this account and it's likely it is by far the most liquid P2P account on the market but would welcome feedback. Of course if any unusual market conditions arose the longest time someone would have at least some cash in the account could be up to the longest term of the longest loan in the account and that's why it pays 3.75%. If we kept it all in cash then it would pay 0% pa as we are not a licensed deposit taker like a bank and therefore cant pay interest on uninvested cash, that just isn't legal. That's as much as we can disclose (and it's a lot) without giving a blueprint to the competitors who eventually try to copy our ideas !
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741 
Likes: 498
|
Post by jo on Sept 12, 2015 16:23:47 GMT
Chris - thanks that is reassuring but where can we find details of who these individuals are and therefore what their credibility is? Hi Our in house compliance is carried out by Andy Sheppard, just see the about us page. hugely experienced. So we are FCA compliant and have their permission to operate in this area. Our legal and tax structuring was done by DWF and Grant Thornton. If you aren't sure about a company then, as SteveT says, you must not invest through that company so best DYOR I would suggest and also feel free to ring in and speak to our lender team who would be delighted to help. Shhh! Don't mention the 'no compete' clause.  
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 12, 2015 16:24:07 GMT
I don't think that this is investing in the normal way from the secondary market. Before the QAA was released there were three loans available with a monitoring event 45, 68, and 123. I think that these are currently suspended. Apart from that I see the difference in the amount available on the aftermarket totalling £109k. 51k (165) Care Home 28k (180) Wind Turbine 28k (104-111 but not all in between) Trade Finance total 2k (173 and 169) 1k in each of the lend to let. That doesn't seem like enough. Of course some people have pulled money out of the Green Fund to put it into QAA which will have released wind turbines which the QAA might have purchased. Or perhaps the QAA underwrites small loans or invoice financing, or something else? I had supposed, perhaps naiively, that they were holding back a portfolio of loans specifically for the QAA launch. Now that would be telling ! we have c £6m being drawn from early this week onwards that are fully funded and legals almost complete.
|
|
trevor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 557
Likes: 381
|
Post by trevor on Sept 12, 2015 21:20:48 GMT
I suspect I'll get some protest for this post. I have the view that £25k individual max in the QAA is too much. Just 40 lenders with £25k fills it. If you have £25k in buying instructions, that's OK. But if you're just using it as an excellent savings account with no intention to lend then surely AC that's not the point of the QAA. Either limit the individual max to the amount an individual has in buying instruction or increase the £1m max (or perhaps a bit of both)
|
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Sept 13, 2015 5:06:24 GMT
I suspect I'll get some protest for this post. I have the view that £25k individual max in the QAA is too much. Just 40 lenders with £25k fills it. If you have £25k in buying instructions, that's OK. But if you're just using it as an excellent savings account with no intention to lend then surely AC that's not the point of the QAA. Either limit the individual max to the amount an individual has in buying instruction or increase the £1m max (or perhaps a bit of both) I tend to agree. If, and it is a big if as we don't really know how people are going to use the account, if the QAA is used for static money, savings, then the static money will be "bed blocking" in that (assuming the account is at its overall max) when we investors use money from the QAA we'll only be able to get money back into the QAA and earning interest when other investors use money from the account. Will savers hear of the account and use it with no intention of investing in loans "properly"? Will they understand that it is not quite as safe as their building society or bank (not guaranteed by the government)? On the other hand, having landed on the site for the QAA will they be encouraged to move into "proper" p2b investment? Perhaps the individual max could be set relative to the amount an individual actually has invested in loans? If you have £5000 invested in loans you can have £5000 in the QAA? Something like that.
|
|
skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Sept 13, 2015 5:20:39 GMT
I suspect I'll get some protest for this post. I have the view that £25k individual max in the QAA is too much. Just 40 lenders with £25k fills it. If you have £25k in buying instructions, that's OK. But if you're just using it as an excellent savings account with no intention to lend then surely AC that's not the point of the QAA. Either limit the individual max to the amount an individual has in buying instruction or increase the £1m max (or perhaps a bit of both) I tend to agree. If, and it is a big if as we don't really know how people are going to use the account, if the QAA is used for static money, savings, then the static money will be "bed blocking" in that (assuming the account is at its overall max) when we investors use money from the QAA we'll only be able to get money back into the QAA and earning interest when other investors use money from the account. Will savers hear of the account and use it with no intention of investing in loans "properly"? Will they understand that it is not quite as safe as their building society or bank (not guaranteed by the government)? On the other hand, having landed on the site for the QAA will they be encouraged to move into "proper" p2b investment? Perhaps the individual max could be set relative to the amount an individual actually has invested in loans? If you have £5000 invested in loans you can have £5000 in the QAA? Something like that. I also agree it should be a % of one's loans. As it is only a holding account I think it should be limited to say 10-20% of the amount one has in loans.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 13, 2015 5:30:24 GMT
At the moment there are 250 investors lending in the QAA with the cash split about 55/45 in favour of direct investment to swept idle cash. Given the demand we're likely to increase the global investment limit within a couple of weeks which will reduce the relative size of personal limit to the global limit.
I would have thought that setting the max amount as being relative to your other holdings would exacerbate the perceived problem not solve it as those investing up to the £25k limit are going to be those with deeper pockets and larger holdings anyway, at least generally.
It's in our interests to keep this account working as planned so we've created a whole load of back office reports and figures to show exactly what's happening and we'll set policy based on actual usage. If there's a problem with swept funds not being able to get into the account then we can always split the global limit in two and keep part of it for swept funds and part for direct investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Sept 13, 2015 7:24:38 GMT
<Requote of original post removed by Admin> Your post is somewhat insulting and below the level we allow on here Please be polite and constructive (this is a rule)and discuss within the rules of the forum. You are making some bold statements which I assume you back up with reasoned argument and discussion. Admin Note:
p2pwiz appears to have deleted all three of his/her posts. Given the potentially libellous nature of one of his/her posts, the requotes and discussion of p2pwiz's posts have been hidden from public view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Barlow on Sept 13, 2015 10:09:37 GMT
Back to the QAA mechanics, how about setting individual limits at say 100% of the net funds lent (excluding via QAA) in the last 3 months, with a max of £25K? This should then benefit those who are actively adding money to the platform to invest in loans.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 13, 2015 10:36:27 GMT
I tend to agree. If, and it is a big if as we don't really know how people are going to use the account, if the QAA is used for static money, savings, then the static money will be "bed blocking" in that (assuming the account is at its overall max) when we investors use money from the QAA we'll only be able to get money back into the QAA and earning interest when other investors use money from the account. Will savers hear of the account and use it with no intention of investing in loans "properly"? Will they understand that it is not quite as safe as their building society or bank (not guaranteed by the government)? On the other hand, having landed on the site for the QAA will they be encouraged to move into "proper" p2b investment? Perhaps the individual max could be set relative to the amount an individual actually has invested in loans? If you have £5000 invested in loans you can have £5000 in the QAA? Something like that. I also agree it should be a % of one's loans. As it is only a holding account I think it should be limited to say 10-20% of the amount one has in loans. I suggested that earlier, except that I also suggested minimum (so that new investors aren't excluded) and maximum (to stop big hitters taking up the whole amount) caps.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 13, 2015 11:30:27 GMT
Back to the QAA mechanics, how about setting individual limits at say 100% of the net funds lent (excluding via QAA) in the last 3 months, with a max of £25K? This should then benefit those who are actively adding money to the platform to invest in loans. That would hurt those with loans redeeming but with nothing to invest in straight away. It should be possible to be a good AC member without having an ever increasing balance. I suspect I'll get some protest for this post. I have the view that £25k individual max in the QAA is too much. Just 40 lenders with £25k fills it. If you have £25k in buying instructions, that's OK. But if you're just using it as an excellent savings account with no intention to lend then surely AC that's not the point of the QAA. Either limit the individual max to the amount an individual has in buying instruction or increase the £1m max (or perhaps a bit of both) I'm sure that when the account has been running for a while AC will be able to select better limits. If there is a large 'deposit' base who are not intending to lend the money then AC should be quite happy and would be able to increase the total cap. If everyone is a lender then when a large loan draws down there will be a significant demand on the QAA; surprisingly often two or more draw down on the same day. If the activity of some people is uncorrelated to new loan activity this might make the QAA more stable.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 13, 2015 13:45:33 GMT
The problem with increasing the cap is that AC will have to, I assume, reserve more "good" loans for the QAA, and they may be in short supply.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 13, 2015 13:59:47 GMT
The problem with increasing the cap is that AC will have to, I assume, reserve more "good" loans for the QAA, and they may be in short supply. Two things:- 1) if AC can't increase the number of loans per month to the 10-20 promised very soon, and then continue to expand from there over the following months then I expect the success of the QAA will be academic; 2) with only one or two exceptions most loans become good loans quite quickly, I'd think in time that both the care home and wind turbine loans will be a good loans.
|
|
