|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 21, 2016 20:15:02 GMT
chris : FYI I have received email reference loan 205. Only problem is, I'm not actually in it. I would assume I am not the only one. ahhhhhhhhh, or have I got it by virtue of the GBBA ? Umm. But then I don't know what my exposure is to it. edit: thread title changed as penny potentially drops.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 21, 2016 20:17:20 GMT
One for the credit team I presume (I've not seen the email)? davidricketts1 |
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Mar 21, 2016 20:38:03 GMT
I'm not in this in mlia but got the email. I do have a small chunk in my GBBA though.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Mar 21, 2016 20:43:46 GMT
chris : FYI I have received email reference loan 205. Only problem is, I'm not actually in it. I would assume I am not the only one. ahhhhhhhhh, or have I got it by virtue of the GBBA ? Umm. But then I don't know what my exposure is to it. edit: thread title changed as penny potentially drops. Because of "the system", my remaining £0.00458407994472075473 part entitles me to vote here so I received the email too. 
|
|
nush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 396
Likes: 113
|
Post by nush on Mar 21, 2016 22:32:17 GMT
ive got the email too, no idea if i have some in the GBBA as it would take a couple of days to work that account out
|
|
|
|
Post by davidricketts1 on Mar 22, 2016 8:29:02 GMT
All
If you have the email you have a holding in the loan. It may be a holding through the GBBA though (as my system doesn't differentiate).
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 22, 2016 10:16:40 GMT
All
If you have the email you have a holding in the loan. It may be a holding through the GBBA though (as my system doesn't differentiate). Not true. My own account has a zero holding in this loan with zero accrued interest. I also have a zero balance in the GBBA, so cannot hold any that way. I voted anyway, as I'd not checked that before clicking on the link to the vote page.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidricketts1 on Mar 22, 2016 10:26:01 GMT
All
If you have the email you have a holding in the loan. It may be a holding through the GBBA though (as my system doesn't differentiate). Not true. My own account has a zero holding in this loan with zero accrued interest. I also have a zero balance in the GBBA, so cannot hold any that way. I voted anyway, as I'd not checked that before clicking on the link to the vote page. It may be that your holding is 0.000000000 etc. 1 (or your accrued interest is similar) sl75.
However, looking at my download of loan units there do appear to be a few 0 holdings on there (these lenders all held balances previously though). Perhaps one for chris to provide some clarity on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Mar 22, 2016 10:43:09 GMT
Not true. My own account has a zero holding in this loan with zero accrued interest. I also have a zero balance in the GBBA, so cannot hold any that way. I voted anyway, as I'd not checked that before clicking on the link to the vote page. It may be that your holding is 0.000000000 etc. 1 (or your accrued interest is similar) sl75 .
However, looking at my download of loan units there do appear to be a few 0 holdings on there (these lenders all held balances previously though). Perhaps one for chris to provide some clarity on.
I don't hold 205 (& never had any) however the Ghost holdings do exist i.e. no capital or interest even to 20 d.p.! I had holdings in 84, 115, 152 & 208 all reduced to 0/0 but only 84 & 152 disappeared 115 & 208 still haunt my MLIA 
I did query it with CS but didn't get a response just another minor irritation that needs to be endured, similar to buying £1000 only to be shown £999.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Mar 22, 2016 11:04:49 GMT
It may be that your holding is 0.000000000 etc. 1 (or your accrued interest is similar) sl75 .
However, looking at my download of loan units there do appear to be a few 0 holdings on there (these lenders all held balances previously though). Perhaps one for chris to provide some clarity on.
The holding is precisely zero (to the full 20 decimal places to which transactions are reported). The transactions that occurred within the space of a few days last October (and without any intervening capital repayment) were for the following amounts ("manually" extracted as text, because excel can't cope with this level of unnecessary precision): -68.22571278037309305000 -2.73730575289896541680 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846153 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846153 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846154 1.53846153846153846153 1.53846153846153846153 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 0.50567680194529620420 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 0.29690454088704612617 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 0.16043719043971613643 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 1.00000000000000000000 Adding up the final digits of these transactions does indeed result in a precisely zero holding. Subsequent to the series of transactions that left me with precisely zero holding in the loan, I've then had a number of interest payments, most of which are for precisely zero: 0.05770701512705817734 0.00000000000000000000 0.00000000000000000000 0.00000000000000000000 0.00000000000000000000 I suspect the basic problem is AC's ridiculous design decision to have the size of 1 share in the loan smaller than the smallest currency unit - each loan being divided into something like 10 40 shares as I recall, so that even the minimum representable currency unit represents a large number of shares. It needs to be the other way round - ideally having the minimum representable holding within a couple of orders of magnitude to a penny (and I'm not specifying which direction!). I think I suggested this before, but perhaps AC should avoid further similar annoyances by dividing each loan into no more than 10 18 shares, so that every payment of a penny by the borrower results in £10 -20 (the smallest representable currency unit on the platform) being received by each lender for each share of the loan. A "reverse split" procedure would then be necessary for existing loans.
|
|
dermot
Member of DD Central
Posts: 863
Likes: 517
|
Post by dermot on Mar 22, 2016 11:57:25 GMT
chris : FYI I have received email reference loan 205. Only problem is, I'm not actually in it. I would assume I am not the only one. ahhhhhhhhh, or have I got it by virtue of the GBBA ? Umm. But then I don't know what my exposure is to it. edit: thread title changed as penny potentially drops. Because of "the system", my remaining £0.00458407994472075473 part entitles me to vote here so I received the email too. How democratic, that one with a tiny holding such as yours gets an equal vote with someone who might have many thousands (though I'm in much the same position as you). Or are votes 'weighted' according to fraction of the total? 
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 22, 2016 12:05:06 GMT
They are weighted by holding of the loan. Pointless sending emails to those with attopenny holdings.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 22, 2016 12:05:36 GMT
Because of "the system", my remaining £0.00458407994472075473 part entitles me to vote here so I received the email too. How democratic, that one with a tiny holding such as yours gets an equal vote with someone who might have many thousands (though I'm in much the same position as you). Or are votes 'weighted' according to fraction of the total? Yes, votes weighted by holding
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Mar 22, 2016 12:22:54 GMT
It may be that your holding is 0.000000000 etc. 1 (or your accrued interest is similar) sl75 .
However, looking at my download of loan units there do appear to be a few 0 holdings on there (these lenders all held balances previously though). Perhaps one for chris to provide some clarity on.
The holding is precisely zero (to the full 20 decimal places to which transactions are reported). The transactions that occurred within the space of a few days last October (and without any intervening capital repayment) were for the following amounts ("manually" extracted as text, because excel can't cope with this level of unnecessary precision): <snip> Adding up the final digits of these transactions does indeed result in a precisely zero holding. Subsequent to the series of transactions that left me with precisely zero holding in the loan, I've then had a number of interest payments, most of which are for precisely zero: <snip> I suspect the basic problem is AC's ridiculous design decision to have the size of 1 share in the loan smaller than the smallest currency unit - each loan being divided into something like 10 40 shares as I recall, so that even the minimum representable currency unit represents a large number of shares. It needs to be the other way round - ideally having the minimum representable holding within a couple of orders of magnitude to a penny (and I'm not specifying which direction!). I think I suggested this before, but perhaps AC should avoid further similar annoyances by dividing each loan into no more than 10 18 shares, so that every payment of a penny by the borrower results in £10 -20 (the smallest representable currency unit on the platform) being received by each lender for each share of the loan. A "reverse split" procedure would then be necessary for existing loans. Yes, the problem is a display showing 20dp and a database calculating 40dp. You can see zero holding but still hold a microfraction of the loan, the solution chris favoured when I brought this up in Jan was the final transaction would gift the last little bit to the buyer. If anything over the 20dp display was gifted away a) your display would always be accurate b) it won't cost you very much! ...Unless there is a sale of 13,000 entries of <0.01p transactions which I've had on occasion. In which case it might cost you anything up to a penny.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 22, 2016 13:11:21 GMT
sl75 - there are very good reasons for that design, it wasn't just invented to annoy. The most important reason is that you do not hold £x in a given loan you hold y% of it. That y% has to be tracked to a huge precision as decimal fractions cannot accurately account for every possible £x value. For example holding £117.53 in a £239,000 loan gives a decimal holding of 0.0004917573 rounded to 10 decimal places. Multiplying that back out would give you a holding of £117.5299947. You're introducing inaccuracy that we combat by choosing 40 decimal places of representation. Even then someone recently didn't get a round £1,000 invested in a loan because 40 decimal places wasn't accurate enough for that set of figures. The reason we don't hold an absolute investment value in the loan is because of the flexibility required for repayments. Our admin team sometimes have need to restructure future repayments, apply retrospective interest, apply capital reductions, etc. which all require a point in time calculation of the total invested capital each lender has in that loan at that time. On top of that loan units are bought and sold, split and merged back together - something that has brought large benefits to the aftermarket with our buy and sell order system. By storing lender holdings as a fraction of the loan as a whole that reduces the complexity on one half of those calculations, we only need to scan back through purchases, sales, splits and merges of loan units to work out a lender's holdings in a loan at any point in time in the past as a fraction of the total, and we only need to scan back through the total payments made against the loan to work out the outstanding capital at any given point in the past. Combine the two and you know the lender's holdings between any arbitrary points in time. That methodology is used for every interest repayment and to calculate the accrued interest each day even when the interest profile of the loan is changed. It also enables us to pay the full amount due to each lender rather than trying to track fractions of pennies accumulated everywhere but not displayed, in say the way Funding Circle handles loan repayments. In such a system you end up with those fractions of a penny accumulating and being released, but as they are per loan unit the repayment oscillations can total several pence even pounds with very large holdings and small loan units (like the £100 maximum we used to default to). The cost / downside is the exposed complexity to lenders where they see these long numbers. We've tried to simplify this in the past through consistent rounding across everything but received a large volume of complaints saying that people had lost pennies from their accounts. They hadn't at all but the change wasn't well received. We'll try again at some point this year with a consistent 2dp displayed everywhere, always rounded to nearest penny, with the full figure available if you roll over. But that isn't a priority right now.
|
|
