madpierre
Member of DD Central
Posts: 303 
Likes: 374
|
Post by madpierre on Sept 9, 2015 10:27:21 GMT
Please forgive me if I have missed the answer to this question somewhere, but I am interested in this account as I have considerable 'rainy day' sums just sat in a bank account earning nothing. Instant access is thus very desirable but as the funds would still be loaned out is there not a risk of not all monies being immediately available in the event of some loans going into default? Yes there is a risk. Some of the funds are lent, a considerable percentage is held in cash to cover withdrawals, plus as the account fills there should be a weight of funds queued waiting for deployment into the account. Some funds could be tied up in a defaulted loan however we believe that there is a relatively low chance of that happening and there is a provision fund in place to cover that eventuality should it occur. Thank you Chris. I think I can live with getting 'most' of it back instantly so I'll give it a go 
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 9, 2015 10:48:20 GMT
Is the following interpretation of that statement correct? £1m globally, £25k per lender therefore the QAA could be filled by 40 “big hitters” who consider £25k small change.   Yes it's possible. But if that happens quickly then we'll just up the global cap. The global cap is there to make sure there's a weight of funds waiting to get into the account to provide liquidity to those wanting to leave on top the cash balance we'll maintain, and to make sure the account balances so that we can maintain the right level of cash vs the amount deployed and earning interest. I’m not a gambling man Chris but in this case I would bet on it being filled quickly by those with £25k or more lump sums looking to park their money short term at better rates than Ratesetter or Wellesley.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Sept 9, 2015 11:02:30 GMT
An alternative capping rule would be 10% of your holdings in the linked accounts, subject to a minimum (to cater for new investors who haven't yet built up a portfolio) and a maximum (to stop a big hitter soaking up the whole of the capacity). This would restrict the use of the account as an instant access account rather than as an adjunct providing liquidity to the other accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 9, 2015 11:22:14 GMT
An alternative capping rule would be 10% of your holdings in the linked accounts, subject to a minimum (to cater for new investors who haven't yet built up a portfolio) and a maximum (to stop a big hitter soaking up the whole of the capacity). This would restrict the use of the account as an instant access account rather than as an adjunct providing liquidity to the other accounts. The absolute cap is to prevent any individual swamping the cash reserves, something a relative cap wouldn't do. It just affects those in the middle as far as I can tell. Don't forget you can still invest directly into the QAA it doesn't have to be idle funds.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 9, 2015 12:20:19 GMT
chris - do you have any further news on when this account will actually be available? See this thread. There's also one unresolved 11th hour issue with compliance that we're working through. When will complaince (sorry compliance, but what a happy typo) comply with the reasonable expectations that they will do their job in time. I am now being treated unfairlly by AC (words intended to put the willies up them) because I moved some money in which is just sitting there not earning anything, where if they had been on time - or if they hadn't delayed things late, I would have been earning interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 9, 2015 12:25:58 GMT
See this thread. There's also one unresolved 11th hour issue with compliance that we're working through. When will complaince (sorry compliance, but what a happy typo) comply with the reasonable expectations that they will do their job in time. I am now being treated unfairlly by AC (words intended to put the willies up them) because I moved some money in which is just sitting there not earning anything, where if they had been on time - or if they hadn't delayed things late, I would have been earning interest. If I pass on that sentiment I suspect I'll be slapped!
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 9, 2015 12:28:14 GMT
When will complaince (sorry compliance, but what a happy typo) comply with the reasonable expectations that they will do their job in time. I am now being treated unfairlly by AC (words intended to put the willies up them) because I moved some money in which is just sitting there not earning anything, where if they had been on time - or if they hadn't delayed things late, I would have been earning interest. If I pass on that sentiment I suspect I'll be slapped! No no it's genuine. We put money in in good faith, moving it out of other savings accounts, and then one member of the team has disadvantaged us. aka treated customers unfairly
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 9, 2015 12:29:00 GMT
If I pass on that sentiment I suspect I'll be slapped! No no it's genuine. We put money in in good faith, moving it out of other savings accounts, and then one member of the team has disadvantaged us. aka treated customers unfairly To be fair there's the technical block of the rounding (as per that other thread) that we're now working through.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 9, 2015 12:36:42 GMT
No no it's genuine. We put money in in good faith, moving it out of other savings accounts, and then one member of the team has disadvantaged us. aka treated customers unfairly To be fair there's the technical block of the rounding (as per that other thread) that we're now working through. Yes, Ablrate came across the same thing. In their case the solution was to display rounded down to the nearest penny so the lender never saw a "not enough money" message. But in the meanwhile they carried on, as could you. OK so it's several departments, it's still AC treating customers unfairly. This week?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 9, 2015 12:38:34 GMT
To be fair there's the technical block of the rounding (as per that other thread) that we're now working through. Yes, Ablrate came across the same thing. In their case the solution was to display rounded down to the nearest penny so the lender never saw a "not enough money" message. But in the meanwhile they carried on, as could you. OK so it's several departments, it's still AC treating customers unfairly. This week? Still aiming for this afternoon. I'm going to be in trouble if we miss that.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Sept 9, 2015 12:45:36 GMT
To be fair there's the technical block of the rounding (as per that other thread) that we're now working through. Yes, Ablrate came across the same thing. In their case the solution was to display rounded down to the nearest penny so the lender never saw a "not enough money" message. But in the meanwhile they carried on, as could you. OK so it's several departments, it's still AC treating customers unfairly. This week? Is someone having a bad day?  I can live with a day or two's lost interest in P2P land, it's quite often par for the course. I'd be a bit sour though if a loan went mammaries skyward while the site is effectively in lock down pending the change with no chance of a reduced target being sold. But I'm not in that situation currently.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 9, 2015 12:46:15 GMT
Yes, Ablrate came across the same thing. In their case the solution was to display rounded down to the nearest penny so the lender never saw a "not enough money" message. But in the meanwhile they carried on, as could you. The problem with rounding down is that computers aren't very good with fractions. All our loan units are held as a fraction of the loan, which simplifies dynamically calculating repayments, but doesn't play so nicely with financial value. So a loan part bought for £33 may actually be £32.99999.... Rounding down would display £32.99 not £33. Think we'll need to round to weighted nearest, for example floor(amount + 0.0000001) or something along those lines so it'll round up if it's REALLY close but round down otherwise. We're working through all the places this needs to be updated now and testing to see how different schemes affect things to try and find the one that minimises lender confusion.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 9, 2015 12:57:25 GMT
Yes, Ablrate came across the same thing. In their case the solution was to display rounded down to the nearest penny so the lender never saw a "not enough money" message. But in the meanwhile they carried on, as could you. The problem with rounding down is that computers aren't very good with fractions. All our loan units are held as a fraction of the loan, which simplifies dynamically calculating repayments, but doesn't play so nicely with financial value. So a loan part bought for £33 may actually be £32.99999.... Rounding down would display £32.99 not £33. Think we'll need to round to weighted nearest, for example floor(amount + 0.0000001) or something along those lines so it'll round up if it's REALLY close but round down otherwise. We're working through all the places this needs to be updated now and testing to see how different schemes affect things to try and find the one that minimises lender confusion. Blimey the amount of pennies flooding through the GBBA and Green would make only the most obsessive person moan, and even then a complaint could be dismissed on the grounds of materiality. I suggest if the site says I have £1234.56 then I expect to be able to use that amount, to invest or withdraw. If the site says, ah well sorry you don't have enough (because the true figure is 1234.5999) then that's a problem. Actually maybe you could simply sweep up all fractions of a penny whenever they appear in the account and give it to charity (yes I know the complainants department, but still) Yes there will be other complexities; do you really have to fix this today?.
|
|
|
|
Post by marek63 on Sept 9, 2015 13:44:20 GMT
You could just round down and keep the fractional pennies such as they are. If this is stated in your T&C can't see how it is unfair. Long term leaving everything floating (pun..) around without a proper rounding policy is not going to help anyone and will just cause confusion. You can't transfer less than 0.01 to or from the real world in any case. Banks and gilt funds and high yield trustees have been doing this for years; it is not a regulatory problem. I'd rather the site started working again sooner rather than later as I would like to do some portfolio shuffling.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on Sept 9, 2015 17:06:30 GMT
I just received email "The Assetz Capital 'Quick Access Account' is Now Live!"
Thunderbird exclaims: "This message may be a scam!"
I think I'll give it a go anyway...
|
|
