|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 16, 2015 20:11:07 GMT
That's why I like multiple people thinking... An answer to a question I couldn't come up with in a matter of minutes. yes these ideas have merit for sure
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2015 15:47:16 GMT
The average withdrawal number is now up to 0.01 seconds. ... and has now doubled to 0.02 seconds. I'm a little slow sometimes... It has occurred to me recently that as long as there's a queue of funds waiting to get into the QAA, the "time to withdraw" has to be virtually nil, doesn't it? A request by Lender A to withdraw £XXX will not require any QAA holdings to change in any way. It will be dealt with by taking £XXX of Lender B's money that's in the queue and putting it into Lender A's account, while making the appropriate accounting entries. In that situation, the transaction will take place in microseconds regardless of the state of the Aftermarket. It does, however, make the quoted average time to withdraw look impressively small!
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 17, 2015 16:27:44 GMT
... and has now doubled to 0.02 seconds. I'm a little slow sometimes... It has occurred to me recently that as long as there's a queue of funds waiting to get into the QAA, the "time to withdraw" has to be virtually nil, doesn't it? A request by Lender A to withdraw £XXX will not require any QAA holdings to change in any way. It will be dealt with by taking £XXX of Lender B's money that's in the queue and putting it into Lender A's account, while making the appropriate accounting entries. In that situation, the transaction will take place in microseconds regardless of the state of the Aftermarket. It does, however, make the quoted average time to withdraw look impressively small! As long as there's a queue or cash reserves or an investment that can be instantly disposed of then it'll be measured in milliseconds. The reported time actually inflates the time a little as we start measuring from the beginning of the transaction as a whole to when the funds are released. So at the moment we'd just about cope with the full £1m being withdrawn but that obviously changes depending on the investments made.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Sept 17, 2015 19:41:34 GMT
I like that the hover overs for MLIA free cash etc show how much is in QAA. Can I suggest that it would be nice if the lent from idle funds hover over did the reverse, ie provided a breakdown on how much from each account?
I realise that this is duplicate information but it feels natural given the hover overs already there.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 11:28:26 GMT
Hi guys, I've been offline for the last 2 weeks so have returned to find a load of things have changed to AC. To help me understand what has happened could someone explain about 1) the new "cash waiting deal"? To me it looks like a way for AC to pay a low rate of interest to flush cash out people's accounts which then picks up the shrapnel so that exisiting targets never get replenished, hence they "pay Peter less to steal take from Paul". If so it look pretty dodgy. Please set me straight before I start to take a position on this. 2) As to the new target box for new loans, is there an single page where all the features are explained with the calcs behind them? Confused and a bit frustrated that AC can come up with this highly complicated stuff yet still do not hit its loan drawdown dates, if they had done this there would have been no need for this new mechanism
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 20, 2015 11:44:58 GMT
Hi guys, I've been offline for the last 2 weeks so have returned to find a load of things have changed to AC. To help me understand what has happened could someone explain about 1) the new "cash waiting deal"? To me it looks like a way for AC to pay a low rate of interest to flush cash out people's accounts which then picks up the shrapnel so that exisiting targets never get replenished, hence they "pay Peter less to steal take from Paul". If so it look pretty dodgy. Please set me straight before I start to take a position on this. 2) As to the new target box for new loans, is there an single page where all the features are explained with the calcs behind them? Confused and a bit frustrated that AC can come up with this highly complicated stuff yet still do not hit its loan drawdown dates, if they had done this there would have been no need for this new mechanism I don't think that the IT guys can do much about the draw down dates, but they could do more with online help and user guides. I think that one of the most important thing to notice is that the new buy/sell is not an overall holding target, but you are targeting how much you want to buy or sell. If you had some targets in they were converted to buy or sell orders. I don't understand your point (1). They created an account which acts a bit like a way of paying interest on cash waiting to be invested either by a future draw down, or normal secondary activity. To protected themselves somewhat AC capped it at £1m during the early stages, but it filled very quickly. Once loans start drawing down this should free up some room and those in the queue should be able to enter. The QAA should reach some sort of (possibly dynamic) equilibrium quite soon and therefore won't be a net buyer any more, until they increase the overall cap.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2015 11:54:16 GMT
Thanks Bigfoot, I guess my concern in (1) is that many of my old targets are below their old holding (more so than before I went off line), now, from reading the details this am, I see that this new account takes precedence over individual's accounts so my old "targets" are partially not being filled up because the account is taking them, hence the account is being paid 3.75% while I am no longer being paid say 10%. I guess the 6.25% is going somewhere??
You may be right that this is a one off £1M but if AC change their mind, as if that ever happens, what is to stop them going to £10m.
So maybe my next question is, who is getting the 6.25%?
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Sept 20, 2015 12:24:58 GMT
Thanks Bigfoot, I guess my concern in (1) is that many of my old targets are below their old holding (more so than before I went off line), now, from reading the details this am, I see that this new account takes precedence over individual's accounts so my old "targets" are partially not being filled up because the account is taking them, hence the account is being paid 3.75% while I am no longer being paid say 10%. I guess the 6.25% is going somewhere?? You may be right that this is a one off £1M but if AC change their mind, as if that ever happens, what is to stop them going to £10m. So maybe my next question is, who is getting the 6.25%? The spread isn't that big (don't know exact level as it's a black box account) but most is held in cash hence the quick exit. Top brass previously indicated it in the 60-90% range held as cash. To achieve the 3.75 (plus a bit for it's operation?) my guess is closer to 60 than 90. Nothing to stop them increasing the global cap, in fact there has been strong hints to that effect, but I guess the account is going to be organically capped by deal flow, more activity/flow can support a bigger cap. One of the touted advantages of it was the ability to earn something on money waiting to be deployed (shrapnelator/drawdowns) but the biggest problem at the current level is more and more money seeing 3.75% with instant access as a good alternative to bank/bs deposit accounts at <2%. This is taking up so much that it's not performing as hoped because there is a growing queue waiting to get in not earning anything and 'waiting to be deployed' money is likely to get deployed before getting in to QAA. (and that's sayin' something)
|
|
gt94sss2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 281
Likes: 137
|
Post by gt94sss2 on Sept 20, 2015 13:59:56 GMT
Nothing to stop them increasing the global cap, in fact there has been strong hints to that effect, but I guess the account is going to be organically capped by deal flow, more activity/flow can support a bigger cap. One of the touted advantages of it was the ability to earn something on money waiting to be deployed (shrapnelator/drawdowns) but the biggest problem at the current level is more and more money seeing 3.75% with instant access as a good alternative to bank/bs deposit accounts at <2%. This is taking up so much that it's not performing as hoped because there is a growing queue waiting to get in not earning anything and 'waiting to be deployed' money is likely to get deployed before getting in to QAA. (and that's sayin' something) I presume the QAA is 'profitable' for AC - as a shareholder I certainly hope so and that it will increase in size from the current £1m. 3.75% isn't a bad rate of interest but if most can't find enough accounts paying between 3%-5% for instant access on cash - with FSCS protection/no capital risk, they are not trying hard enough. (of course if you have £100,000's spare to play with then you may run out of suitable accounts!) In fact, if AC lower the rate to far (and in my view 3% or below would be too far) then they may encounter the opposite problem where investors just take any uninvested cash and keep it elsewhere - lowering liquidity on the platform. The big problem, as has been said before, is that the loans are just not there at the moment. From before the launch of QAA, I have had cash waiting for investment in both my GEIA and GBBA accounts - and the majority is still not invested. If not for QAA, I would have removed my cash from the platform. A couple of questions come to mind about how QAA works (apols if they have already been answered): 1. If one has uninvested funds in the cash/GEIA/GBBA accounts which are currently in QAA, and moves the funds to a different account- does it remain in the QAA or leave and go back to the queue. 2. As above, if funds are in the cash account and move to a direct investment in the QAA (or vice versa) do they remain in the £1m cap or lose their place. It would be helpful if AC could give an estimate of the amount of queued cash waiting to get into the account or perhaps more usefully, when one's non QAA cash is likely to get in - something like Ratesetter do when showing where your money is in the queue to be lent out..
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 20, 2015 14:05:14 GMT
Hi guys, I've been offline for the last 2 weeks so have returned to find a load of things have changed to AC. To help me understand what has happened could someone explain about 1) the new "cash waiting deal"? To me it looks like a way for AC to pay a low rate of interest to flush cash out people's accounts which then picks up the shrapnel so that exisiting targets never get replenished, hence they "pay Peter less to steal take from Paul". If so it look pretty dodgy. Please set me straight before I start to take a position on this. 2) As to the new target box for new loans, is there an single page where all the features are explained with the calcs behind them? Confused and a bit frustrated that AC can come up with this highly complicated stuff yet still do not hit its loan drawdown dates, if they had done this there would have been no need for this new mechanism The QAA account holds a mixture of cash and loans. Cash is rapidly churning in and out. So what happens if one of the loans goes really bad and the PF won't cover it? Cash will have continued to churn between the date of the initial default and the final outcome. Who takes the hit? AC's only answer to this question is that it is unlikely to happen.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 20, 2015 14:32:48 GMT
Thanks Bigfoot, I guess my concern in (1) is that many of my old targets are below their old holding (more so than before I went off line), now, from reading the details this am, I see that this new account takes precedence over individual's accounts so my old "targets" are partially not being filled up because the account is taking them, hence the account is being paid 3.75% while I am no longer being paid say 10%. I guess the 6.25% is going somewhere?? You may be right that this is a one off £1M but if AC change their mind, as if that ever happens, what is to stop them going to £10m. So maybe my next question is, who is getting the 6.25%? I think that the reason your targets are not filling has much more to do with the lack of new loans on the site. I see only one loan drawn since the 10th August. It is the draw downs that release other loans from other investors diversifying and underwriters making room. The priority given to the QAA might be a concern, but my guess is that at the moment it is buying a higher proportion of not very much. The fund holds a high proportion of cash, which pays no interest. The fund contributes to the provision fund. AC will take some of the rest. AC have said that they started off small and will, most likely, increase the global cap on the QAA. My view, FWIW, is that either AC start to bring the much promised 3-4 loans per week, and increasing from there, and the QAA priority won't matter much, or they don't and it won't matter much for different reasons.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Sept 20, 2015 15:21:57 GMT
A couple of questions come to mind about how QAA works (apols if they have already been answered): 1. If one has uninvested funds in the cash/GEIA/GBBA accounts which are currently in QAA, and moves the funds to a different account- does it remain in the QAA or leave and go back to the queue. 2. As above, if funds are in the cash account and move to a direct investment in the QAA (or vice versa) do they remain in the £1m cap or lose their place. It would be helpful if AC could give an estimate of the amount of queued cash waiting to get into the account or perhaps more usefully, when one's non QAA cash is likely to get in - something like Ratesetter do when showing where your money is in the queue to be lent out.. For 1 and 2 the answer was is that they leave tha QAA and have to requeue. For the last part, chris has suggested it is somewhere on the to do list, but there isn't any eta at this point.
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 20, 2015 20:15:48 GMT
Thanks Bigfoot, I guess my concern in (1) is that many of my old targets are below their old holding (more so than before I went off line), now, from reading the details this am, I see that this new account takes precedence over individual's accounts so my old "targets" are partially not being filled up because the account is taking them, hence the account is being paid 3.75% while I am no longer being paid say 10%. I guess the 6.25% is going somewhere?? You may be right that this is a one off £1M but if AC change their mind, as if that ever happens, what is to stop them going to £10m. So maybe my next question is, who is getting the 6.25%? The spread isn't that big (don't know exact level as it's a black box account) but most is held in cash hence the quick exit. Top brass previously indicated it in the 60-90% range held as cash. To achieve the 3.75 (plus a bit for it's operation?) my guess is closer to 60 than 90. Nothing to stop them increasing the global cap, in fact there has been strong hints to that effect, but I guess the account is going to be organically capped by deal flow, more activity/flow can support a bigger cap. One of the touted advantages of it was the ability to earn something on money waiting to be deployed (shrapnelator/drawdowns) but the biggest problem at the current level is more and more money seeing 3.75% with instant access as a good alternative to bank/bs deposit accounts at <2%. This is taking up so much that it's not performing as hoped because there is a growing queue waiting to get in not earning anything and 'waiting to be deployed' money is likely to get deployed before getting in to QAA. (and that's sayin' something) Quite right re "The spread isn't that big (don't know exact level as it's a black box account) but most is held in cash hence the quick exit." - its a very small spread. We dont make much from this lending - less than a normal account but it's a good service for lenders with spare cash to lift average returns. We have a plan to avoid this account just pulling in long term money seeking this quick access 3.75% and blocking the sweep benefit. Give us a short while.
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 20, 2015 20:17:33 GMT
Hi guys, I've been offline for the last 2 weeks so have returned to find a load of things have changed to AC. To help me understand what has happened could someone explain about 1) the new "cash waiting deal"? To me it looks like a way for AC to pay a low rate of interest to flush cash out people's accounts which then picks up the shrapnel so that exisiting targets never get replenished, hence they "pay Peter less to steal take from Paul". If so it look pretty dodgy. Please set me straight before I start to take a position on this. 2) As to the new target box for new loans, is there an single page where all the features are explained with the calcs behind them? Confused and a bit frustrated that AC can come up with this highly complicated stuff yet still do not hit its loan drawdown dates, if they had done this there would have been no need for this new mechanism The QAA account holds a mixture of cash and loans. Cash is rapidly churning in and out. So what happens if one of the loans goes really bad and the PF won't cover it? Cash will have continued to churn between the date of the initial default and the final outcome. Who takes the hit? AC's only answer to this question is that it is unlikely to happen. Everyone would have a little exposure at the time it happened and we would consider what to do using the PF at that time.
|
|
gnasher
Member of DD Central
Posts: 207
Likes: 146
|
Post by gnasher on Sept 21, 2015 4:33:52 GMT
To an extent I find that my money is "trapped" in the QAA. Let me explain.
I moved a largish amount in when it was introduced using the direct to QAA reference on the website, I only did this to avoid a 2 step process of CA first then MLIA and auto sweep into QAA as the QAA was filling up fast. Now all that money appears as my "Direct Investment" pot. If I want to use that to invest in the MLIA, which is my purpose for all of that money over time, I have to move some of it back to my CA, then assign it to MLIA. When I have done that of course it is outside the QAA as that money is now at the back of the queue.
This serves as a disincentive to me to use that money in my MLIA cash pot to wait for invesment opportunities, hence decreases the churn in the QAA - not a good thing I would say.
|
|