pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Sept 17, 2015 7:37:07 GMT
From statements on the pink board I understand that AC attempted to suspend this loan prior to sending out the email, but it didn't take, and it was suspended on the second attempt later. Hah! "Didn't take" - that well known technical term... AC should certainly suck it up on this one and take any traded parts from the buyers. Reading between the lines of the statement in question, I'm not sure it was a software issue. It looks to me like human error by someone rushing to go home. Be that as it may, I'm sure that AC will make buyers whole if necessary. If the loan is eligible for the QAA/GBBA when it comes back from suspension they won't need to.
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Sept 17, 2015 7:46:51 GMT
Considering the reasons behind the cashflow problems, I actually voted A. I seem to be in a minority as I thought many would take that option too regardless whether they paid default interest or not!
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 17, 2015 9:02:27 GMT
Considering the reasons behind the cashflow problems, I actually voted A. I seem to be in a minority as I thought many would take that option too regardless whether they paid default interest or not! I dare say the majority will indeed vote A. My vote for B was to express my displeasure at being taken for granted ("I can't afford to pay you what I promised I'd pay, and I decided not to tell you until the day before it was due, but now I want you to let me off with no penalty whatsoever"
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Sept 17, 2015 9:04:21 GMT
As i have posted previously the program operating the geia and ggba does not manage the accounts in the manner stated in the proposal document in that no trading between members takes place to even the risk spread as evenly as possible across all the loans on the platforms.It in effect only operates a max 20% limit on any one loan.Program changes have been promised to resolve this issue but still have not been implimented or if they have believe me they do not work.I as a result have 80% ish of my loans in 4 wt one of which is 112
So now the 112 loan is untradeable and i need to sell about £1200 of my geia holdings over the next 2 weeks to fund investment in the new loans ,but i cant without 112 becoming a much higher portion than 20%, does this mean 112 has in effect frozen my entire holdings in the geia because ac has not got around to resolving the issue in the time scales announced by cris on this platform.
What is ac going to do to resolve my problem and i suspect many others who just have not seen this problem yet.
1 Allow the sell of loan parts but what will the program do when then trys to sell 112 to get down to 20% but can not because trading is shut in it
2 Allow trading in 112
3 Rush out the new program but difficult to impliment when a loan is suspended
We need the progam released at a time when liquidity is high just before the next wt to give a pot of units for the program to dip in and out of to rebalance the accounts, but with the new instant account having a high weighted advantage will units just go there when sold and leave previously fully invested accounts under invested. Interesting times ahead
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Sept 17, 2015 9:20:11 GMT
As i have posted previously the program operating the geia and ggba does not manage the accounts in the manner stated in the proposal document in that no trading between members takes place to even the risk spread as evenly as possible across all the loans on the platforms.It in effect only operates a max 20% limit on any one loan.Program changes have been promised to resolve this issue but still have not been implimented or if they have believe me they do not work.I as a result have 80% ish of my loans in 4 wt one of which is 112 So now the 112 loan is untradeable and i need to sell about £1200 of my geia holdings over the next 2 weeks to fund investment in the new loans ,but i cant without 112 becoming a much higher portion than 20%, does this mean 112 has in effect frozen my entire holdings in the geia because ac has not got around to resolving the issue in the time scales announced by cris on this platform. What is ac going to do to resolve my problem and i suspect many others who just have not seen this problem yet. 1 Allow the sell of loan parts but what will the program do when then trys to sell 112 to get down to 20% but can not because trading is shut in it 2 Allow trading in 112 3 Rush out the new program but difficult to impliment when a loan is suspended We need the progam released at a time when liquidity is high just before the next wt to give a pot of units for the program to dip in and out of to rebalance the accounts, but with the new instant account having a high weighted advantage will units just go there when sold and leave previously fully invested accounts under invested. Interesting times ahead An interesting point. I am earning 7% in GEIA instead of 9.75% through investing direct because of the provision fund. I appreciate that in this case any suspension is temporary, but I wonder what would happen if there was a lengthy suspension to investments in this or the GGBA, ie no loss of capital but possibly a wait of several months to have the funds returned.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 17, 2015 13:53:47 GMT
When selling the 20% diversification factor is ignore. Otherwise if you had precisely 20% invested in 5 loans you couldn't sell anything. The exchanging of loan units between accounts will be back in the next couple of weeks. I didn't want to launch it at the same time as everything else as we were already launching new investment algorithms for the GBBA / GEIA aimed at fixing churn. Then I went on holiday which isn't a good time to launch new functions.
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Sept 17, 2015 15:28:25 GMT
Am waiting for clarification of Option A in the Q&A section on the Assetz site before deciding how to vote:
Option A under the present vote states that the borrower will pay the "full capital and interest payment due on 17 October", and other dates. Does this mean that interest will be charged and paid on the full outstanding capital, bearing in mind that the full capital reduction originally due will not take place; or will the interest paid and charged be the reduced amount as if the full capital reduction had taken place?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2015 15:31:07 GMT
If the loan is eligible for the QAA/GBBA ... [/pedant on] Inasmuch as Loan #112 is secured on a wind turbine, I think it's eligible to be in GEIAs rather than GBBAs. [/pedant off]
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Sept 17, 2015 19:35:40 GMT
If the loan is eligible for the QAA/GBBA ... [/pedant on] Inasmuch as Loan #112 is secured on a wind turbine, I think it's eligible to be in GEIAs rather than GBBAs. [/pedant off] Correct. My GEIA account bought a little yesterday after the email came out. Not massively concerned by that amount, but am by the flaw in process it shows.
|
|
ianb
Posts: 161
Likes: 54
|
Post by ianb on Sept 18, 2015 5:51:49 GMT
Considering the reasons behind the cashflow problems, I actually voted A. I seem to be in a minority as I thought many would take that option too regardless whether they paid default interest or not! I'm in your minority as well
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Sept 18, 2015 9:12:02 GMT
Considering the reasons behind the cashflow problems, I actually voted A. I seem to be in a minority as I thought many would take that option too regardless whether they paid default interest or not! I'm in your minority as well I'm also voting Option A. Considering there is huge demand for new loans it seems a bit ironic that we want existing borrowers to pay down older loans. I think it's better to accept their circumstances and take the extra 3 months interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by jevans4949 on Sept 18, 2015 10:35:33 GMT
davidricketts1: Granted that you confessed to "finger trouble" on this one, can you clarify whether it's laid down in your internal procedures that trading should be suspended BEFORE any monitoring-event email is sent? Shouldn't the email-sender check that this has happened?
|
|
iren
Member of DD Central
Posts: 302
Likes: 300
|
Post by iren on Sept 18, 2015 13:40:00 GMT
AC have responded to my question in the Q&A, and amended the loan repayment schedule to show the higher interest payments due because of the lower than expected capital reduction. That satisfies me, and I'll be voting Option A.
This isn't a problem loan and I expect anyone who's bought in and doesn't like the news will be able to exit easily.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 21, 2015 15:11:42 GMT
I'm also voting Option A. Considering there is huge demand for new loans it seems a bit ironic that we want existing borrowers to pay down older loans. I think it's better to accept their circumstances and take the extra 3 months interest. I didn't vote for Option B because I want to see the loan 'accelerated' and paid off immediately. I wouldn't expect Option B to result in that. I voted for Option B because I think AC need to develop a bit of backbone and not just roll over and play dead, and say "your wish is our command" whenever a borrower comes to them with problems and asks for better terms. Borrowers should expect that there will be penalties when they fail to keep to their agreements. I worry that AC will gain a reputation -- if it hasn't already got one -- for being a pushover for relaxing loan terms whenever they're asked to do that. In this case, default interest should apply. (And why the default 'penalty' is not even as strong as a slap on the wrist, is a complete mystery to me.)
|
|
|
|
112 vote
Sept 21, 2015 18:28:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldnick on Sept 21, 2015 18:28:52 GMT
I'm also voting Option A. Considering there is huge demand for new loans it seems a bit ironic that we want existing borrowers to pay down older loans. I think it's better to accept their circumstances and take the extra 3 months interest. I didn't vote for Option B because I want to see the loan 'accelerated' and paid off immediately. I wouldn't expect Option B to result in that. I voted for Option B because I think AC need to develop a bit of backbone and not just roll over and play dead, and say "your wish is our command" whenever a borrower comes to them with problems and asks for better terms. Borrowers should expect that there will be penalties when they fail to keep to their agreements. I worry that AC will gain a reputation -- if it hasn't already got one -- for being a pushover for relaxing loan terms whenever they're asked to do that. In this case, default interest should apply. (And why the default 'penalty' is not even as strong as a slap on the wrist, is a complete mystery to me.) If only being seen as a pushover resulted in a queue of borrowers - sadly not.
|
|
