sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Sept 14, 2015 17:34:54 GMT
... the one number I hope AC avoids is the FSCS limit as I would hope that they don't get any confusion or issues with regulators. The FSCS limit is relevant for uninvested cash in a P2P marketplace... each retail investor could claim their share of the relevant platform's holding account from the relevant bank. If the FSCS limit is exceeded, it will be of critical importance for retail investors to know exactly how much of their QAA is held in "loans" and how much in "cash", as the "cash" amount would be potentially subject to the FSCS limit. As AC are not providing sufficient reporting to allow retail investors to determine their cash exposure (in particular the QAA doesn't even have the minimal acceptable reporting of how much is "awaiting investment" and how much is "invested" like the other accounts), it seems to me that they need to keep the limit sufficiently below the FSCS limit that it shouldn't be an issue. Edit: regarding the £24k overshoot... pure speculation, but I wonder if the £1M limit is intentionally "soft" - so that when an investor gets to the front of the queue, the entire cash amount gets taken all at once... Once someone with a large amount in the queue reaches the front, it'd take the lot, and gradually dwindle the total down as other investors withdraw funds, buy loan parts (using idle cash temporarily invested in the QAA), etc., until the total once again drops below £1M allowing the next person in the queue to have a top-up, etc.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 14, 2015 17:36:32 GMT
As AC are not providing sufficient reporting to allow retail investors to determine their cash exposure ( in particular the QAA doesn't even have the minimal acceptable reporting of how much is "awaiting investment" and how much is "invested" like the other accounts), it seems to me that they need to keep the limit sufficiently below the FSCS limit that it shouldn't be an issue. It does for me.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Sept 14, 2015 17:42:34 GMT
As AC are not providing sufficient reporting to allow retail investors to determine their cash exposure ( in particular the QAA doesn't even have the minimal acceptable reporting of how much is "awaiting investment" and how much is "invested" like the other accounts), it seems to me that they need to keep the limit sufficiently below the FSCS limit that it shouldn't be an issue. It does for me. I've not done a "direct" investment in QAA (there doesn't seem much point!), so mine just shows an amount "Lent from idle funds", with no indication anywhere I can see how much of that is REALLY invested, and how much is held as cash.
|
|
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
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 14, 2015 17:45:49 GMT
Uh oh. Somethings not behaving right QAA currently 24k over its limit. Does this mean that there is at least £24K ahead of me in the queue? I might withdraw it and put it to use somewhere as it is earning nowt while it's waiting. No idea. In the absence of any contrary statement from AC, Im assuming its broke. Either way my spare cash aint in it due to the GBBA suddenly deciding it needed to reduce its holdings in #165 (25% of my small GBBA investment, why now?) and needing free cash in MLIA ready for tomorrows drawdown (maybe!)
|
|
mikeb
Posts: 1,072
Likes: 472
|
Post by mikeb on Sept 14, 2015 18:35:54 GMT
Oh by the way andrewholgate, if it's not too rude, what does a "backstairs billy" do? I know what "Backdoor Bob" did, if that helps. No, not that... He used to use VNC to remotely visit people's machines and remotely administer (tinker) with them. Sometimes freaking them out, as they were using the machine at the time "Just call me Backdoor Bob" he said. Despite the fact his name was Tony
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Sept 14, 2015 19:20:50 GMT
... the one number I hope AC avoids is the FSCS limit as I would hope that they don't get any confusion or issues with regulators. The FSCS limit is relevant for uninvested cash in a P2P marketplace... each retail investor could claim their share of the relevant platform's holding account from the relevant bank. If the FSCS limit is exceeded, it will be of critical importance for retail investors to know exactly how much of their QAA is held in "loans" and how much in "cash", as the "cash" amount would be potentially subject to the FSCS limit. As AC are not providing sufficient reporting to allow retail investors to determine their cash exposure (in particular the QAA doesn't even have the minimal acceptable reporting of how much is "awaiting investment" and how much is "invested" like the other accounts), it seems to me that they need to keep the limit sufficiently below the FSCS limit that it shouldn't be an issue. This is intriguing and something I hadn't previously considered. I don't use Barclays personally, so assume no other p2p / broker etc I use does (unlikely but ignoring that) this would suggest that if the 85k (soon to be 75k) per person limit was applied, everyone should be filling up with QAA cash as you can't really* beat that rate at an Fscs protected account. I don't know if the personal part and therefore the guarantee would apply. * I know you can do 6% in regular savers and 5% or 4% in current accounts etc, I'm meaning once you have filled your 'safe' money.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 14, 2015 19:51:13 GMT
I'd prefer a limit related to the level of buying instructions an investor has -- encouraging investors to keep money available to cover those, which should be the principal raison d'être for the QAA -- though I'd worry about investors gaming the system. I'm not clear on what "problem" people are trying to "fix" with these myriad suggestions about ever-more-complex ways to calculate different limits for the QAA. sl75: AIUI, the problem AC were trying to solve with the QAA was that lenders weren't leaving much idle funds in their accounts so that they could increase their holdings to their targets when parts became available -- either because other lenders selling or because underwriters releasing parts immediately after drawdown. I expect many were doing that because idle funds reduce lenders returns and most 'active' investors try very hard to avoid that. Since the QAA allows lenders to earn 3.75% on what would have been idle funds, AC might have expected more funds to be made available, which would help uptake of newly drawndown loans and Aftermarket liquidity. As an extra bonus, AC could use a goodly proportion of the additional funds provided to sop up parts of their loans, and contribute to their bottom line the difference between the interest rate on the loans in the QAA and the amount paid out on QAA holdings plus any contributions to the Protection Fund. The problem I -- and others -- are trying to fix with limit suggestions, is that the 3.75% QAA rate is sufficiently attractive to expect that some people will use it to park money they otherwise might have put in banks and building societies. With the current overall QAA limit of £1M, all it would take is for 40 people to 'park' £25k each in the QAA for the new account to stop functioning as designed for active AC investors since their idle funds would become truly idle again, always queued for the QAA but never getting in. If AC were to be able to increase the overall QAA limit to the point where it isn't actually limiting then, yes, the problem would go away. And while a modest increase might achieve that right now, once the word spreads about the QAA and it starts showing up in the Best Buy tables of comparison websites I'd expect the punters to come flooding in and swamp the original purpose of the QAA. IMHO, AC need to be planning now what they're going to do to deal with the deluge.
|
|
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
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 14, 2015 20:27:52 GMT
I'm not clear on what "problem" people are trying to "fix" with these myriad suggestions about ever-more-complex ways to calculate different limits for the QAA. sl125: AIUI, the problem AC were trying to solve with the QAA was that lenders weren't leaving much idle funds in their accounts so that they could increase their holdings to their targets when parts became available -- either because other lenders selling or because underwriters releasing parts immediately after drawdown. I expect many were doing that because idle funds reduce lenders returns and most 'active' investors try very hard to avoid that. Since the QAA allows lenders to earn 3.75% on what would have been idle funds, AC might have expected more funds to be made available, which would help uptake of newly drawndown loans and Aftermarket liquidity. As an extra bonus, AC could use a goodly proportion of the additional funds provided to sop up parts of their loans, and contribute to their bottom line the difference between the interest rate on the loans in the QAA and the amount paid out on QAA holdings plus any contributions to the Protection Fund. The problem I -- and others -- are trying to fix with limit suggestions, is that the 3.75% QAA rate is sufficiently attractive to expect that some people will use it to park money they otherwise might have put in banks and building societies. With the current overall QAA limit of £1M, all it would take is for 40 people to 'park' £25k each in the QAA for the new account to stop functioning as designed for active AC investors since their idle funds would become truly idle again, always queued for the QAA but never getting in. If AC were to be able to increase the overall QAA limit to the point where it isn't actually limiting then, yes, the problem would go away. And while a modest increase might achieve that right now, once the word spreads about the QAA and it starts showing up in the Best Buy tables of comparison websites I'd expect the punters to come flooding in and swamp the original purpose of the QAA. IMHO, AC need to be planning now what they're going to do to deal with the deluge. Is that what AC were trying to do though, provide an account for existing lenders to store cash they would subsequently invest in one of the other funds or provide a mass market account with a reasonable rate that would draw funds into AC from less sophisticated investors. The email and the account info place more emphasis on the account as a standalone investment rather than a place to park funds, which is the lowest account feature listed. I see it as the lowest level of the their strategy to appeal to the widest possible market, in which case the cap is going to have to be raised significantly because at the moment its not even fulfilling the secondary objective.
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Sept 14, 2015 20:41:34 GMT
I'm not clear on what "problem" people are trying to "fix" with these myriad suggestions about ever-more-complex ways to calculate different limits for the QAA. sl125: AIUI, the problem AC were trying to solve with the QAA was that lenders weren't leaving much idle funds in their accounts so that they could increase their holdings to their targets when parts became available -- either because other lenders selling or because underwriters releasing parts immediately after drawdown. I expect many were doing that because idle funds reduce lenders returns and most 'active' investors try very hard to avoid that. Since the QAA allows lenders to earn 3.75% on what would have been idle funds, AC might have expected more funds to be made available, which would help uptake of newly drawndown loans and Aftermarket liquidity. As an extra bonus, AC could use a goodly proportion of the additional funds provided to sop up parts of their loans, and contribute to their bottom line the difference between the interest rate on the loans in the QAA and the amount paid out on QAA holdings plus any contributions to the Protection Fund. The problem I -- and others -- are trying to fix with limit suggestions, is that the 3.75% QAA rate is sufficiently attractive to expect that some people will use it to park money they otherwise might have put in banks and building societies. With the current overall QAA limit of £1M, all it would take is for 40 people to 'park' £25k each in the QAA for the new account to stop functioning as designed for active AC investors since their idle funds would become truly idle again, always queued for the QAA but never getting in. If AC were to be able to increase the overall QAA limit to the point where it isn't actually limiting then, yes, the problem would go away. And while a modest increase might achieve that right now, once the word spreads about the QAA and it starts showing up in the Best Buy tables of comparison websites I'd expect the punters to come flooding in and swamp the original purpose of the QAA. IMHO, AC need to be planning now what they're going to do to deal with the deluge. Noooo - surely the problem that AC were trying to solve with the QAA is that AC have near zero marketing exposure. Several years ago I was seeing FC adverts on tube trains - the only AC advert I've seen was cookie based (so great, they know I already invest - useless). AC need exposure. Personally I'd have made it £10k to begin with as 100 people is a better sample size than 40. Either way, the idea is great - instant access (my account said 0 seconds!). As you say at the end, AC need to learn in the next few weeks how the account works, increase the £1m to £10m and then to £100m and then they'll get newspaper coverage and all aspects of their business will take off. The 3.75% will lead into people committing for longer and getting 7% which will lead to general education where you can get 10% - magic. I have to say that as a top seedrs investor I was worried for the last few months, but if AC can execute on rapidly growing the QAA pot (as they should given the data they have and some quant skills) then they should be playing with the big boys. But FC are now switching to fixed interest auctions so they've got to execute as the QAA is a great idea but now it's live the cat is out of the bag.
|
|
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
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 14, 2015 20:49:52 GMT
sl125: AIUI, the problem AC were trying to solve with the QAA was that lenders weren't leaving much idle funds in their accounts so that they could increase their holdings to their targets when parts became available -- either because other lenders selling or because underwriters releasing parts immediately after drawdown. I expect many were doing that because idle funds reduce lenders returns and most 'active' investors try very hard to avoid that. Since the QAA allows lenders to earn 3.75% on what would have been idle funds, AC might have expected more funds to be made available, which would help uptake of newly drawndown loans and Aftermarket liquidity. As an extra bonus, AC could use a goodly proportion of the additional funds provided to sop up parts of their loans, and contribute to their bottom line the difference between the interest rate on the loans in the QAA and the amount paid out on QAA holdings plus any contributions to the Protection Fund. The problem I -- and others -- are trying to fix with limit suggestions, is that the 3.75% QAA rate is sufficiently attractive to expect that some people will use it to park money they otherwise might have put in banks and building societies. With the current overall QAA limit of £1M, all it would take is for 40 people to 'park' £25k each in the QAA for the new account to stop functioning as designed for active AC investors since their idle funds would become truly idle again, always queued for the QAA but never getting in. If AC were to be able to increase the overall QAA limit to the point where it isn't actually limiting then, yes, the problem would go away. And while a modest increase might achieve that right now, once the word spreads about the QAA and it starts showing up in the Best Buy tables of comparison websites I'd expect the punters to come flooding in and swamp the original purpose of the QAA. IMHO, AC need to be planning now what they're going to do to deal with the deluge. Noooo - surely the problem that AC were trying to solve with the QAA is that AC have near zero marketing exposure. Several years ago I was seeing FC adverts on tube trains - the only AC advert I've seen was cookie based (so great, they know I already invest - useless). AC need exposure. Personally I'd have made it £10k to begin with as 100 people is a better sample size than 40. Either way, the idea is great - instant access (my account said 0 seconds!). As you say at the end, AC need to learn in the next few weeks how the account works, increase the £1m to £10m and then to £100m and then they'll get newspaper coverage and all aspects of their business will take off. The 3.75% will lead into people committing for longer and getting 7% which will lead to general education where you can get 10% - magic. I have to say that as a top seedrs investor I was worried for the last few months, but if AC can execute on rapidly growing the QAA pot (as they should given the data they have and some quant skills) then they should be playing with the big boys. But FC are now switching to fixed interest auctions so they've got to execute as the QAA is a great idea but now it's live the cat is out of the bag. Yep. The're plenty of AC ads out there on the web. Come across them in the most random places, but still low key. They need to do a fluff piece in one or more of the papers (tired of the usual suspects) but I suspect they need to sort a few of the issue loans out before they do, otherwise the critics will kick them. Perhaps they should all dress up as minions, theyve got a Stuart & a Dave after all
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 14, 2015 21:27:42 GMT
Noooo - surely the problem that AC were trying to solve with the QAA is that AC have near zero marketing exposure. Yep. The're plenty of AC ads out there on the web. Come across them in the most random places, but still low key. Perhaps it's just me and the websites I visit, but I seem to have seen a lot of AC ads lately. But OTOH they all seem to be aimed at SMEs needing to borrow money. There's nothing wrong with that, as AC need to increase their deal flow, but those ads have nothing to do with the QAA.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Sept 14, 2015 22:15:30 GMT
...A "finger in the air" guess for where the limits might be within a few weeks would be around £10M total account limit, with the individual investment limit possibly up to £100k... I think/hope there's absolutely no chance of that happening. The only things that the QAA can invest in are cash (eanring no interest) and liquid loans on the platform. There is not nearly enough "loose" money in liquid loans on the platform to support a QAA of £10m and it would soak up all the liquidity. Remember that the QAA gets priority on sales. I'm already uncomfortable about the impact of a £1m QAA if there's a liquidity crunch. A £10m QAA would terrify me. I would reduce the individual limit before significantly expanding the QAA. It should be a home for funds awaiting investment, not a current account alternative.
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Sept 14, 2015 22:17:30 GMT
The QAA is a really decent product but there is no point marketing it heavily to draw in vast numbers of lenders unless AC actually has some decent loan deal flow on the other side. Other platforms are leaving AC in the dust in volume terms (in the P2B space: FC, Wellesey, LendInvest, TC, SS) so it's clear either AC isn't competitive with borrowers or doesn't have the relationship managers. It's that side that needs sorting out first. As an underwriter, I was sitting with precisely zero units to sell prior to the launch of the QAA. With the exception of a few disliked loans and the biggest loan, there has been no issue this year with selling down anything sensibly priced very quickly because there has been such a shortage of supply. You're right. There are now loans on the aftermarket from only two borrowers, the MTFP and the Expat L2L, and it appears we're about to see one of the tranches of the MTFP sell out for the first time: there's only a sliver of tranche 2 left. AC can't market the QAA to lenders as there's nothing to market. I've had money queued since the day after launch that hasn't entered. No one in their right mind would spend money marketing a product they don't have: all they would achieve is to alienate investors who might come on board later when product is available.
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Sept 14, 2015 22:35:02 GMT
...A "finger in the air" guess for where the limits might be within a few weeks would be around £10M total account limit, with the individual investment limit possibly up to £100k... I think/hope there's absolutely no chance of that happening. The only things that the QAA can invest in are cash (eanring no interest) and liquid loans on the platform. There is not nearly enough "loose" money in liquid loans on the platform to support a QAA of £10m and it would soak up all the liquidity. Remember that the QAA gets priority on sales. I'm already uncomfortable about the impact of a £1m QAA if there's a liquidity crunch. A £10m QAA would terrify me. I would reduce the individual limit before significantly expanding the QAA. It should be a home for funds awaiting investment, not a current account alternative. I share your concern about the potential effect of the QAA on MLIA liquidity in certain conditions. I'm using the QAA because it's there and I'm making the best of AC's offering as it now is. That doesn't mean I think it's improved the overall proposition. Coupled with the idea that the GBBA will have priority over the MLIA in loan allocation, I don't feel things are going the right way for me as an MLIA investor.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Sept 14, 2015 23:02:28 GMT
...A "finger in the air" guess for where the limits might be within a few weeks would be around £10M total account limit, with the individual investment limit possibly up to £100k... I think/hope there's absolutely no chance of that happening. The only things that the QAA can invest in are cash (eanring no interest) and liquid loans on the platform. There is not nearly enough "loose" money in liquid loans on the platform to support a QAA of £10m and it would soak up all the liquidity. Remember that the QAA gets priority on sales. I'm already uncomfortable about the impact of a £1m QAA if there's a liquidity crunch. A £10m QAA would terrify me. ISTM that the QAA needs to aim to be substantially larger than the largest individual loan that AC arrange, so that it has the liquidity to feed into any new loan that might be about to draw down... the largest loans are multiple millions, so the QAA needs to grow to a position where it can cover that. There is the implicit assumption in a £10M QAA that AC would have to get a few more loans to draw down within that time, in order that there'll be sufficient loans in the system to keep the QAA suitably stocked up with loan units (and further loans in the pipeline so that the QAA queue keeps moving). This still seems AC's main weak point - technically marvellous systems that would do all sorts of clever things if only they had the flow of new loans in the system! Edit: looking at the present pipeline, though, I see there are no truly huge loans coming soon, so I guess my finger in the air over-estimated the next gust of wind!
|
|