|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 22, 2016 12:29:41 GMT
At the moment getting money into SS (i.e. invested, not just sat in your account doing nothing) is approximately zero.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Jan 22, 2016 12:53:53 GMT
Do you realise that the AC QAA fund carries, in principle, the same risks of loan defaults as SS? AC don't publish any details of the loans supporting the QAA but I have no reason to believe that they are any more safe than SS. Nonsense. That's like saying crossing a quiet country lane involves the same risk of being knocked down as crossing the M25 (ie. both may see you run over). Risk is relative, not absolute. Quite. But as AC refuse to publish any details about the loans supporting QAA how do you know which is the M25? I think that people fall into the trap of thinking that as 3.75% is a low rate it must be safe, but actually the loaned element (about 30%) of their funds must be lent at similar rates to SS in order to return 3.75% on the total. BTW many more pedestrians are run over on country lanes that on the M25 
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875 
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 22, 2016 13:22:40 GMT
Nonsense. That's like saying crossing a quiet country lane involves the same risk of being knocked down as crossing the M25 (ie. both may see you run over). Risk is relative, not absolute. Quite. But as AC refuse to publish any details about the loans supporting QAA how do you know which is the M25? I think that people fall into the trap of thinking that as 3.75% is a low rate it must be safe, but actually the loaned element (about 30%) of their funds must be lent at similar rates to SS in order to return 3.75% on the total. BTW many more pedestrians are run over on country lanes that on the M25 I appreciate you're exaggerating to make a point, but the only scenario under which the underlying loan holdings are relevant to a QAA investor is if there were a total "run" on withdrawals that the substantial cash portion of the account (plus the liquid loans that the account focuses on holding, such as new releases) cannot cope with. Anyone who worries about that shouldn't be investing in P2P at all, anywhere!
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 22, 2016 13:26:05 GMT
I think that the time required to get money into SS is less than instant since any investor can start earning interest before even instructing the bank for the transfer.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 22, 2016 13:26:56 GMT
Only if there is something you can invest in. Right now there isn't. Try it and see for yourself!
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 22, 2016 13:48:03 GMT
Yes and No. You do not need to transfer any money, so as I see it the point of transferring money and not finding where to put it is not valid. This is like going to park your car and first you see if there is an empty slot before you pay for the parking.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 22, 2016 14:17:27 GMT
Yes and No. You do not need to transfer any money, so as I see it the point of transferring money and not finding where to put it is not valid. This is like going to park your car and first you see if there is an empty slot before you pay for the parking. At the moment, trying to lend on SS is like driving round and round a multi-storey car park that has no spaces left at all!
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 22, 2016 14:28:54 GMT
So at this point, is the responsibility up to the car park's owner to provide more spaces, or is it for the drivers to wait?
Apart from this, I still do not think that it justifies the argument that it is difficult to get money in. I am seeing this from the mechanical / technical / banking / etc . . .point of view.
|
|
nush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 396
Likes: 113
|
Post by nush on Jan 22, 2016 15:18:16 GMT
AC is good for fast investment and easy access but at only 3.75%, ive started putting some of my uninvested funds in to it. its fast to withdraw and move into other accounts when needed, it also offers a couple of managed funds at 7% as well as other loans that are similar to SS. i started with SS them added MF and then AC, ive checked some others out but not tried them as yet, soon maybe if things keep going as well as they have been. Do you realise that the AC QAA fund carries, in principle, the same risks of loan defaults as SS? AC don't publish any details of the loans supporting the QAA but I have no reason to believe that they are any more safe than SS. Both have a PF. You are paying a high price - 8.25% - for the advantage of having liquidity on about 30% of your loan (this is the proportion which is lent out, the rest you could have kept in cash yourself.). The other problem with the QAA is that it is capped and often full so your funds are earning nothing whilst they are waiting. Having said that, I do use the QAA myself, for funds waiting for the next SS or MT loan, simply because 3.75% is the highest rate I can get. Whether it is worth the extra risk versus a FSCS protected account paying say 2% is doubtful. maybe you should re read my post. especially this bit " ive started putting some of my uninvested funds in to it. its fast to withdraw and move into other accounts when needed". i could move it to SS and earn nothing at all but i prefer 3.75% to 0%. as for risk, if you cant cope with risk use a bank and watch them enjoy the fruits of your labour.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 22, 2016 17:09:01 GMT
So at this point, is the responsibility up to the car park's owner to provide more spaces, or is it for the drivers to wait? Apart from this, I still do not think that it justifies the argument that it is difficult to get money in. I am seeing this from the mechanical / technical / banking / etc . . .point of view. You can get it IN (to your SS account) but you can't get it INVESTED in anything (and thus earning interest) so you might just as well leave it under your mattress, or in your non-interest-paying bank a/c. Yes, the mechanics of moving money to your SS account is really smooth .. the mechanics of investing in a loan is currently rather broken .. car park is full, there is a large queue, and it's even money whether there will be more spaces provided before some of the current (full) crop are withdrawn from service, resulting in more homeless cars (significant number of SS loans should have repaid, according to the original (and currently displayed) terms).
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Jan 22, 2016 17:31:46 GMT
Quite. But as AC refuse to publish any details about the loans supporting QAA how do you know which is the M25? I think that people fall into the trap of thinking that as 3.75% is a low rate it must be safe, but actually the loaned element (about 30%) of their funds must be lent at similar rates to SS in order to return 3.75% on the total. BTW many more pedestrians are run over on country lanes that on the M25 I appreciate you're exaggerating to make a point, but the only scenario under which the underlying loan holdings are relevant to a QAA investor is if there were a total "run" on withdrawals that the substantial cash portion of the account (plus the liquid loans that the account focuses on holding, such as new releases) cannot cope with. Anyone who worries about that shouldn't be investing in P2P at all, anywhere! What about the scenario where a loan defaults?
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 22, 2016 17:44:04 GMT
I appreciate you're exaggerating to make a point, but the only scenario under which the underlying loan holdings are relevant to a QAA investor is if there were a total "run" on withdrawals that the substantial cash portion of the account (plus the liquid loans that the account focuses on holding, such as new releases) cannot cope with. Anyone who worries about that shouldn't be investing in P2P at all, anywhere! What about the scenario where a loan defaults? It makes no difference to a QAA lender wishing to withdraw funds in all normal circumstances. Chris has explained in the past that, in theory, any loans held by the QAA that default would remain in the QAA until the last lender(s) attempted to withdraw funds from it. In practice this would require a pretty exceptional set of circumstances.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Jan 22, 2016 18:16:48 GMT
What about the scenario where a loan defaults? It makes no difference to a QAA lender wishing to withdraw funds in all normal circumstances. Chris has explained in the past that, in theory, any loans held by the QAA that default would remain in the QAA until the last lender(s) attempted to withdraw funds from it. In practice this would require a pretty exceptional set of circumstances. If a loan defaults, at the end of the day somebody has to take the loss. no amount of smoke and mirrors can change that. If, heaven forbid, we have a major recession or a property slump it will be a problem for all platforms but the QAA will be a legal nightmare to unravel. The idea that the QAA can continue merrily on whilst the underpinning loans are defaulting is scary IMHO. But I do have money in it myself, waiting for SS or MT loans that I can get. I would not advise it to anyone who has not already maxed out their Santander 123 allowance or any other FSCS account paying 2% or more. And I would not like to think that there is anyone with money in it who does not understand that it is at risk of loans defaulting.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jan 22, 2016 18:23:26 GMT
It makes no difference to a QAA lender wishing to withdraw funds in all normal circumstances. Chris has explained in the past that, in theory, any loans held by the QAA that default would remain in the QAA until the last lender(s) attempted to withdraw funds from it. In practice this would require a pretty exceptional set of circumstances. If a loan defaults, at the end of the day somebody has to take the loss. no amount of smoke and mirrors can change that. If, heaven forbid, we have a major recession or a property slump it will be a problem for all platforms but the QAA will be a legal nightmare to unravel. The idea that the QAA can continue merrily on whilst the underpinning loans are defaulting is scary IMHO. But I do have money in it myself, waiting for SS or MT loans that I can get. I would not advise it to anyone who has not already maxed out their Santander 123 allowance or any other FSCS account paying 2% or more. And I would not like to think that there is anyone with money in it who does not understand that it is at risk of loans defaulting. There is of course the provision fund to help with any short falls once the assets have been realised.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 22, 2016 20:11:28 GMT
If a loan defaults, at the end of the day somebody has to take the loss. no amount of smoke and mirrors can change that. If, heaven forbid, we have a major recession or a property slump it will be a problem for all platforms but the QAA will be a legal nightmare to unravel. The idea that the QAA can continue merrily on whilst the underpinning loans are defaulting is scary IMHO. But I do have money in it myself, waiting for SS or MT loans that I can get. I would not advise it to anyone who has not already maxed out their Santander 123 allowance or any other FSCS account paying 2% or more. And I would not like to think that there is anyone with money in it who does not understand that it is at risk of loans defaulting. There is of course the provision fund to help with any short falls once the assets have been realised. Just tagging onto this line of conversation; back last year, before I had invested a penny on P2P I was researching several sources to try and find suitable places to put my money. I seem to remember when reading about SS that there had been one default. For us newcomers, how was this resolved and how was this handled by SS; Did anybody loose out? Did the defaulted loan still provide interest?
|
|
