littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 10, 2016 18:21:22 GMT
TThe QAA's main selling point is liquidity becasue it is backed by cash as well as loans. As for SS, I ask myself if 12% with a provision fund is credible and sustainable and my answer is no. I think it is too good to be true and expect SS to fall over when the tide turns against property which it inevitably will at some point. But each to his own. Why should AC loans be any more immune to a downturn than SS or any other property? As for liquidity at present anything put on the SS SM is sold immediately (possibly to a bot.) True this could change in a property crash but the QAA would be in the same soup.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 10, 2016 19:19:00 GMT
TThe QAA's main selling point is liquidity becasue it is backed by cash as well as loans. As for SS, I ask myself if 12% with a provision fund is credible and sustainable and my answer is no. I think it is too good to be true and expect SS to fall over when the tide turns against property which it inevitably will at some point. But each to his own. Why should AC loans be any more immune to a downturn than SS or any other property? As for liquidity at present anything put on the SS SM is sold immediately (possibly to a bot.) True this could change in a property crash but the QAA would be in the same soup. Except the QAA is holding a lot of cash which can be used to satisfy withdrawals without having to sell any loan parts.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 10, 2016 19:42:58 GMT
Why should AC loans be any more immune to a downturn than SS or any other property? As for liquidity at present anything put on the SS SM is sold immediately (possibly to a bot.) True this could change in a property crash but the QAA would be in the same soup. Except the QAA is holding a lot of cash which can be used to satisfy withdrawals without having to sell any loan parts. And in a significant default sitution the cash holding would give AC time to recover the security without potentially impacting significantly on liquidity and still pay interest due to potential diversification levels. (up to 200 loans v 75) On SS liquidity would disappear overnight in a default situation and interest payments would stop and be uncertain even with recovery.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 10, 2016 23:23:55 GMT
Except the QAA is holding a lot of cash which can be used to satisfy withdrawals without having to sell any loan parts. And in a significant default sitution the cash holding would give AC time to recover the security without potentially impacting significantly on liquidity and still pay interest due to potential diversification levels. (up to 200 loans v 75) On SS liquidity would disappear overnight in a default situation and interest payments would stop and be uncertain even with recovery. Do you think that a single default on SS would effect the liquidity of the whole SM?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 10, 2016 23:36:17 GMT
And in a significant default sitution the cash holding would give AC time to recover the security without potentially impacting significantly on liquidity and still pay interest due to potential diversification levels. (up to 200 loans v 75) On SS liquidity would disappear overnight in a default situation and interest payments would stop and be uncertain even with recovery. Do you think that a single default on SS would effect the liquidity of the whole SM? I actually meant in the case of a specific loan which would likely become illiquid but it would certainly affect short term or overdue loans where the risk would become more apparent. Probably make anything outside this more liquid (if thats possible) as there would be fewer desirable loans to chase. Hopefully wont have to find out though there are plenty warning the property bubble is due to burst due to lack of buyers at top and B2L changes. Eg DT article today.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 11, 2016 8:07:16 GMT
TThe QAA's main selling point is liquidity becasue it is backed by cash as well as loans. As for SS, I ask myself if 12% with a provision fund is credible and sustainable and my answer is no. I think it is too good to be true and expect SS to fall over when the tide turns against property which it inevitably will at some point. But each to his own. Why should AC loans be any more immune to a downturn than SS or any other property? As for liquidity at present anything put on the SS SM is sold immediately (possibly to a bot.) True this could change in a property crash but the QAA would be in the same soup. Not all property backed loans are the same. SS have found their niche and it's working very nicely for them at the moment, whereas AC are not as focussed on one type of lending. We have a lower cost of funds which enables us to offer loans to less risky propositions, and whilst most of our loans are property backed bridging / development is only one type of lending we do. Borrowers are going to be happy paying SS 18+% (it was up to 60% pa on their old Lendy loans if memory serves) for a reason, as there are cheaper options out there if you can qualify. We also lend to SMEs with various loan types, all of which will perform differently as economic conditions change. I don't know about SS but we also spend a lot of time, money and effort on making sure our contracts and security are properly handled from a legal point of view - for example you hear of other platforms placing charges on properties after loans have drawn down, or using their lawyers to advise the client instead of ensuring they have independent legal advice. We've been operating long enough to have several recoveries under out belts which show the general performance of our loan book and how successful or not we are in general on recoveries. We're working on publishing some more information on this subject in the next couple of months that will give a lot more detail to lenders who are interested.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 12, 2016 15:09:04 GMT
Having just made my first direct investment into the QAA, it has now occurred to me to ask why have I done that?
Can anyone tell me what the benefits are of directly investing in the QAA rather than just leave the money in the cash account where it would still accumulate 3.75% interest as its swept into the QAA as idle funds, be instantly accessible should I wish to withdraw it or invest in any other accounts on AC. Plus possible FSCS cover.
What are the disadvantages of this approach?, no provision fund?
Im sure there's a flaw in my logic and Im missing something. The spiel doesnt actually make much reference to the sweep attribute.
Note. This isnt money I want to deploy in other AC accounts currently, its just parked pending opportunities wherever
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 12, 2016 15:17:58 GMT
Having just made my first direct investment into the QAA, it has now occurred to me to ask why have I done that? Can anyone tell me what the benefits are of directly investing in the QAA rather than just leave the money in the cash account where it would still accumulate 3.75% interest as its swept into the QAA as idle funds, be instantly accessible should I wish to withdraw it or invest in any other accounts on AC. Plus possible FSCS cover. What are the disadvantages of this approach?, no provision fund? Im sure there's a flaw in my logic and Im missing something. The spiel doesnt actually make much reference to the sweep attribute. Note. This isnt money I want to deploy in other AC accounts currently, its just parked pending opportunities wherever Direct investments have priority when there is a queue both in and out of the account, although circumstances where there's a withdrawal queue should be edge case scenarios. They also can't be moved accidentally as you transfer funds in and out of your cash account, if that's something you think you may do. Finally the cap for direct investment (£50k) is separate to that for swept funds (£25k) so if you have any worries about hitting that cap then that is another reason. Otherwise there's no material difference as far as I'm aware.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 12, 2016 16:13:31 GMT
Cap seems to have gone up to £6million now
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 12, 2016 16:27:28 GMT
Cap seems to have gone up to £6million now Yup, sorry was distracted by another request so didn't post. Was raised at lunch time.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jan 12, 2016 16:37:58 GMT
Having just made my first direct investment into the QAA, it has now occurred to me to ask why have I done that? Can anyone tell me what the benefits are of directly investing in the QAA rather than just leave the money in the cash account where it would still accumulate 3.75% interest as its swept into the QAA as idle funds, be instantly accessible should I wish to withdraw it or invest in any other accounts on AC. Plus possible FSCS cover. What are the disadvantages of this approach?, no provision fund? Im sure there's a flaw in my logic and Im missing something. The spiel doesnt actually make much reference to the sweep attribute. Note. This isnt money I want to deploy in other AC accounts currently, its just parked pending opportunities wherever One thing I wish I'd thought to do before it was too late was to set the QAA to withdraw interest - this way the balance will always be a whole number of pence. If you don't you've be left with some fraction of a penny that is impossible to return to your cash account (and combine with any other fractions to maybe make an extra usable penny) until or unless AC finally fix that part of the UI ... i.e. allow you to request to invest or withdraw "all available funds" even if that's not a round number of pence. For me, right now, it's going to take at least 2 months to get the approx 0.9p balance of the account back to my cash account - one month to see how much interest I got for January, and another to engineer an additional interest amount for February (to be credited in March) to bring it as close as possible to the next whole penny. Of course, if AC actually fix the deficient UI to make that unnecessary in the meantime, all the better...! [edit: but sod's law says I'll have just successfully got the balance below 0.0001p a few moments before they fix it!]
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 12, 2016 17:10:43 GMT
Having just made my first direct investment into the QAA, it has now occurred to me to ask why have I done that? Can anyone tell me what the benefits are of directly investing in the QAA rather than just leave the money in the cash account where it would still accumulate 3.75% interest as its swept into the QAA as idle funds, be instantly accessible should I wish to withdraw it or invest in any other accounts on AC. Plus possible FSCS cover. What are the disadvantages of this approach?, no provision fund? Im sure there's a flaw in my logic and Im missing something. The spiel doesnt actually make much reference to the sweep attribute. Note. This isnt money I want to deploy in other AC accounts currently, its just parked pending opportunities wherever One thing I wish I'd thought to do before it was too late was to set the QAA to withdraw interest - this way the balance will always be a whole number of pence. If you don't you've be left with some fraction of a penny that is impossible to return to your cash account (and combine with any other fractions to maybe make an extra usable penny) until or unless AC finally fix that part of the UI ... i.e. allow you to request to invest or withdraw "all available funds" even if that's not a round number of pence. For me, right now, it's going to take at least 2 months to get the approx 0.9p balance of the account back to my cash account - one month to see how much interest I got for January, and another to engineer an additional interest amount for February (to be credited in March) to bring it as close as possible to the next whole penny. Of course, if AC actually fix the deficient UI to make that unnecessary in the meantime, all the better...! [edit: but sod's law says I'll have just successfully got the balance below 0.0001p a few moments before they fix it!] Good point, still got unextractable shrapnel in GBBA for that reason. Another advantage of leaving it swept in the cash account rather than direct investing.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 12, 2016 17:15:43 GMT
Cap seems to have gone up to £6million now Yup, sorry was distracted by another request so didn't post. Was raised at lunch time. Might need to poke Marketing, dont seem to have had the email trumpetting a cap raising 
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 12, 2016 17:47:13 GMT
For me, right now, it's going to take at least 2 months to get the approx 0.9p balance of the account back to my cash account - one month to see how much interest I got for January, and another to engineer an additional interest amount for February (to be credited in March) to bring it as close as possible to the next whole penny. Of course, if AC actually fix the deficient UI to make that unnecessary in the meantime, all the better...! [edit: but sod's law says I'll have just successfully got the balance below 0.0001p a few moments before they fix it!] Good point, still got unextractable shrapnel in GBBA for that reason. Another advantage of leaving it swept in the cash account rather than direct investing. Unfortunately you are both lost without cause (as will I be at some point). Without trying to understand it myself it has, apparently, been proven by a chap called Cantor that the infinite set of real numbers between 0 and 1 (ie decimals) is larger than the infinite set of whole integers. Your shrapnel is destined to get ever more shrapnelated. I was reading a book on maths last night(Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension by Matt Parker) and my head still  .......... Note, this is not an entirely serious post  .
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Jan 13, 2016 8:23:33 GMT
Unfortunately you are both lost without cause (as will I be at some point). Without trying to understand it myself it has, apparently, been proven by a chap called Cantor that the infinite set of real numbers between 0 and 1 (ie decimals) is larger than the infinite set of whole integers. Your shrapnel is destined to get ever more shrapnelated. I was reading a book on maths last night(Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension by Matt Parker) and my head still .......... Note, this is not an entirely serious post . Thankfully, AC only use a finite decimal string rather than an infinite one - so with very careful timing (controlling the exact balance on which interest is accruing, and the exact time it accrues to the second), it should be possible in principle to get the total back to PRECISELY zero... Without an awful lot of luck, it would require precisely replicating AC's interest calculation methods, and planning at least 2 months ahead - in month 1 you'd carefully control the interest to be added to the account in month 2 (controlling to about 11 decimals, but calculating to 20), so that the interest on that interest provides the control over the 12th to 20th decimals of the amount added in month 3. If you overshoot or undershoot (perhaps having got AC's rounding methods wrong), you'd need to start again, but if you get lucky and hit zero, you'd then need to make sure that, after withdrawing the final penny, you remember to set the account to withdraw interest, so that the nanopence of interest that accrue before you can withdraw the final penny don't knock the account out of balance making you start all over again... (I'm still pondering whether I can be bothered to attempt this right now.... which will also involve correctly predicting what AC will do for the transition into British Summer Time - or merely settle for any balance below about a millionth of a penny, which should be achievable within 1 month)
|
|
..........
.