sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 9, 2015 13:44:59 GMT
I don't like this bit. I don't think there should be different mechanisms for doing that whether you have the QAA sweep switched on or off. I prefer it being transparent, and that seems to make more sense for most users. I agree that a direct transfer of idle cash from one account to another, without the need to go to the "cash account" first should be available whether QAA sweep is switched on or off. In the case that QAA sweep is switched on, this should transfer between the QAA sub-accounts, and in the case that QAA sweep is switched off, it should transfer between the cash sub-accounts. I can accept that to a degree but there are users that want to invest directly in the QAA and it seems counter intuitive to expect them to leave cash lying around in another account so that it's swept automatically. I'd instead suggest a move in the opposite direction. If the necessary tweaks were made so that balances can be transferred directly between accounts and directly withdrawn to the bank, without the need to make an explicit transfer to the "cash account" first, the QAA itself can be used as a de-facto cash account (and the UI updated accordingly). The equivalent tweak to allow DEPOSITS to be made into any of the accounts has already been done, so why not also transfers and withdrawals? With those changes, for those who currently use the QAA sweep functionality, the cash account effectively disappears (or has zero balance), as the cash balance in the cash account and the cash balance in the QAA account are merged (because both are awaiting QAA investment), and the invested amount in the QAA and the swept funds from the cash account are merged. For those who do not use the QAA sweep functionality, they would continue to explicitly transfer funds between cash to QAA as before. Conceptually, "cash awaiting investment in X" can be considered as a sub-account of cash, or as a sub-account of X. The cash can be readily moved from the cash account to any given account X, Y, Z (and as above it would also be useful to be able to transfer cash directly from account X to account Y, without having to put it as unallocated cash at all. In the same way, "QAA assets that will be liquidated the moment I can invest in X" can be considered as a sub-account of the QAA or as a sub-account of X. Similar functionality to transfer these assets between the QAA and any given account X, Y, Z should be added (and even better if it can be re-allocated directly from X to Y).
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Oct 9, 2015 13:54:11 GMT
The systems are also unnecessarily complicated... In the case that QAA sweep is switched on, this should transfer between the QAA sub-accounts, and in the case that QAA sweep is switched off, it should transfer between the cash sub-accounts. ...If the necessary tweaks were made so that balances can be transferred directly between accounts and directly withdrawn to the bank, without the need to make an explicit transfer to the "cash account" first, the QAA itself can be used as a de-facto cash account (and the UI updated accordingly). The equivalent tweak to allow DEPOSITS to be made into any of the accounts has already been done, so why not also transfers and withdrawals? Conceptually, "cash awaiting investment in X" can be considered as a sub-account of cash, or as a sub-account of X. The cash can be readily moved from the cash account to any given account X, Y, Z (and as above it would also be useful to be able to transfer cash directly from account X to account Y, without having to put it as unallocated cash at all. In the same way, "QAA assets that will be liquidated the moment I can invest in X" can be considered as a sub-account of the QAA or as a sub-account of X. Similar functionality to transfer these assets between the QAA and any given account X, Y, Z should be added (and even better if it can be re-allocated directly from X to Y). !
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 9, 2015 14:03:18 GMT
The systems are also unnecessarily complicated... [snip technical description of ways the system can be simplified] ! The process of simplifying isn't necessarily in itself simple to describe, especially when needing to consider transitional arrangements for how the unnecessarily complication can be removed. Your point is? Chris seems to have designed a system that involves needless complication - they already removed part of that (you can deposit funds directly into an investment account). But the complication of needing to transfer funds back to the cash account before they can be withdrawn or transferred to another account can be removed too. The simplifying effect would be that, for QAA users, the cash account effectively disappears completely.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 9, 2015 14:09:47 GMT
I too am slightly losing the will to live (or at least to keep reading this thread).
The cash management side of AC has always struck me as pretty simple; you transfer cash into / out of the Cash Account for onward investment in whichever account you want. Or (handy new innovation) transfer it straight into the investment account of your choice. And now we have the further option of having the system automatically sweep idle cash from our other account(s) into something that (in theory) will pay a modest return in the meantime (if/when it has capacity).
It really doesn't need to get any more complicated than this.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Oct 9, 2015 14:13:10 GMT
It really doesn't need to get any more complicated than this. Am I losing the plot here? Why is it simpler to be forced to make two transfers (one into the cash account, and one into the account you really wanted the funds) than to be able to make one (directly into the account you wanted the funds in in the first place)? Why is it simpler to have two accounts both of which have funds invested in the QAA and not available for any purpose without explicit user action, rather than one? For me, it seems obvious that allowing the user to perform the one intended action directly is simpler (for the user) than forcing them to perform two actions? I don't really understand how anyone else believes otherwise!
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Oct 9, 2015 14:19:02 GMT
It really doesn't need to get any more complicated than this. Am I losing the plot here? Why is it simpler to be forced to make two transfers (one into the cash account, and one into the account you really wanted the funds) than to be able to make one (directly into the account you wanted the funds in in the first place)? Why is it simpler to have two accounts both of which have funds invested in the QAA and not available for any purpose without explicit user action, rather than one? For me, it seems obvious that allowing the user to perform the one intended action directly is simpler (for the user) than forcing them to perform two actions? I don't really understand how anyone else believes otherwise! I agree with stevet, the ability to transfer directly into each account of your choice makes it simple enough for me. re. bigfoots ! comment, for me it simply came across as a joke (possibly at your expense, but a joke nonetheless that lightened the thread). I wouldn't be too disheartened.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Oct 9, 2015 14:20:29 GMT
I was (mostly) joking. My real point is that chris and his team can't win. If they test every feature and wait until compliance has documented every help popup we will all complain that updates are taking too long to come through. The QAA isn't that complicated. If you transfer money into the QAA it goes in (when there is room) and stays in until you transfer it out. If you tick a box labelled 'Invest Idle Funds' your idle funds get invested (if there is room) in the QAA and returned when needed. Some people are cross because it is full, others are cross because they bogged up and transferred their money straight in and didn't test it until it was too late and then missed a draw down. There was plenty of time on the first day to play about, which is what a number of people did. AC has one big problem, has had it for many months and this isn't it. Edit:Crossed with above two posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 9, 2015 14:31:36 GMT
In this instance I don't think the issue is with the implementation it's in the help text, or lack of, that surrounds it. I'm working with the marketing / content team on improving that as I can't do everything myself. Eureka!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 9, 2015 14:45:30 GMT
It really doesn't need to get any more complicated than this. Am I losing the plot here? Why is it simpler to be forced to make two transfers (one into the cash account, and one into the account you really wanted the funds) than to be able to make one (directly into the account you wanted the funds in in the first place)? Why is it simpler to have two accounts both of which have funds invested in the QAA and not available for any purpose without explicit user action, rather than one? For me, it seems obvious that allowing the user to perform the one intended action directly is simpler (for the user) than forcing them to perform two actions? I don't really understand how anyone else believes otherwise! Common IT department logic today. This is going back 25 years or more but the best IT person I have ever known was really a Financial Director who actually listened to what the end users, operations and production, required and specified then produced a system that bl**dy well worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 9, 2015 14:53:52 GMT
One other question comes to mind:
Has anyone with money in the QAA actually seen it do what it is claimed to do?
And please don’t ask me what I think it should do as I don’t know after all the comments on this thread.
Anyway, onwards and upwards, can we get the thread to 50 pages?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 9, 2015 15:07:21 GMT
One other question comes to mind: Has anyone with money in the QAA actually seen it do what it is claimed to do? And please don’t ask me what I think it should do as I don’t know after all the comments on this thread. Anyway, onwards and upwards, can we get the thread to 50 pages? Yes, I switched on sweeping idle funds from my MLIA on the first day and it immediately swept all my idle cash into the QAA (before the DART money arrived in force). Since then, it has swept funds out on at least 3 occasions, most recently to purchase as much of my 194 target as was possible (ie. it cleared out my QAA entirely). Works a treat, other than the fact there's now a stonking great queue to get back in.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 9, 2015 15:33:34 GMT
One other question comes to mind: Has anyone with money in the QAA actually seen it do what it is claimed to do? And please don’t ask me what I think it should do as I don’t know after all the comments on this thread. Anyway, onwards and upwards, can we get the thread to 50 pages? Yes, I switched on sweeping idle funds from my MLIA on the first day and it immediately swept all my idle cash into the QAA (before the DART money arrived in force). Since then, it has swept funds out on at least 3 occasions, most recently to purchase as much of my 194 target as was possible (ie. it cleared out my QAA entirely). Works a treat, other than the fact there's now a stonking great queue to get back in. Well fair enough, it would appear to do what it says on the can.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Oct 9, 2015 15:34:08 GMT
If my bank said 'xell, great news! We have a new queue system in place, first £1billion in gets 4% and then its one £ out one £ in based on the queue. And we are applying this to your current account which currently pays about 0 interest' I think I would be pleased whether or not I ever made the £1b.
Can't see how QAA has made things worse for anyone? Maybe you posters of pages of comments can explain how things have got worse. The only excuse I can see if if you actively chose to put your cash in a 3.75% account. Didn't you get what you wanted?
What a waste of everyones time this thread is. I need to stop clicking it.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Oct 9, 2015 15:40:41 GMT
If my bank said 'xell, great news! We have a new queue system in place, first £1billion in gets 4% and then its one £ out one £ in based on the queue. And we are applying this to your current account which currently pays about 0 interest' I think I would be pleased whether or not I ever made the £1b. Can't see how QAA has made things worse for anyone? Maybe you posters of pages of comments can explain how things have got worse. The only excuse I can see if if you actively chose to put your cash in a 3.75% account. Didn't you get what you wanted? What a waste of everyones time this thread is. I need to stop clicking it. It reminds me of some of the interminable threads on the Ratesetter board (one of my reasons for giving up using Ratesetter was it meant I could stop reading that board!)
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 9, 2015 15:55:41 GMT
If my bank said 'xell, great news! We have a new queue system in place, first £1billion in gets 4% and then its one £ out one £ in based on the queue. And we are applying this to your current account which currently pays about 0 interest' I think I would be pleased whether or not I ever made the £1b. Can't see how QAA has made things worse for anyone? Maybe you posters of pages of comments can explain how things have got worse. The only excuse I can see if if you actively chose to put your cash in a 3.75% account. Didn't you get what you wanted? What a waste of everyones time this thread is. I need to stop clicking it. It’s not made things worse for me as I haven’t attempted to put any money in to it due to the lack of clarity on how to operate it, it’s OK some people saying that comments on this forum explain how it works, it should have been on the AC website from the outset, something which AC are belatedly looking to rectify. My comment about reaching page 50 was ironic, I agree, this thread is a waste of everyone’s time, I said as much at 2:22pm September 21 on page 39!
|
|
