Post by Butch Cassidy on Jan 18, 2016 20:43:30 GMT
The main reason to suspending trading in loans should be to establish the facts of a credit event/change in circumstance or to allow the resolution of a lender vote or similar action. This can usually be achieved in a short time period (say 7-10 days) & suspension is the correct course of action - this also triggers the new trading procedure of disabling & removing any trading targets & requires investors to acknowledge the new situation before being allowed to reset these targets - thus protecting lenders from themselves & AC from any liability of trading impaired loans without investors consent. SO GIVEN INVESTORS KNOW & ACCEPT THIS - Why are some loans still left in suspended limbo?
I would argue that as long as all the facts are published on the loan & investors are aware of the relevant details they should be able to trade any viable loan (with the possible exception of firms that have ceased trading/administration/receivership etc). Those who DON'T wish to trade or decide a price can sit tight & watch but those who want to buy or sell have the discount option so any price/liquidity should be achievable. In fact I thought that was the whole point of developing the most complicated trading system known to the P2P world! If not why have AC bothered to develop it? However it now looks like #45 Leeds will be suspended for the foreseeable future, perhaps another year, #84 Kent will remain suspended even though full payment of capital + interest is due - I can't see a good reason not to trade either? IIRC AC got into this sort of mess c.12 months ago until andrewholgate did a review & returned a lot to being tradable.
Some investors will want/need to liquidate their funds from suspended loans, others will be willing to buy those loans (with a discount if required) so why should these investors be prevented from transacting a mutually beneficial deal?
