QAA Interest rate change

Or is neutral.  If the PF stays within normal bounds then it's neutral.  If the PF needs recapitalisation and AC choose to do so then it costs money.  If the PF exceeds the target then we may choose to make a bit of money.  Those are all relative to what we make on the MLIA.

Perhaps we need you to teach us how.  To date the QAA has not had surplus funds in the PF so we have not been able to draw additional income from them.  Account growth is likely to keep things that way for the foreseeable future even if things run perfectly and there are no losses for the PF to cover.

Up the minimum discount to 10% ? 20% ? 50%? Maybe QAA can sell it at 1% discount? If you control the market you do what you want

chris, I, for one, am very pleased to hear that you're going to dial back the QAA selling priority. Please can you tell us when it is done and what has changed? Ideally I'd like to see the QAA have no selling priority in a loan beyond a clearly defined point (eg. X weeks from loan launch, or after Y% is sold), perhaps retaining the right to reimpose the priority in a liquidity "emergency".

Mod hat off
As a lender in all AC's accounts, and as a future shareholder, I am actually very grateful for the input from AC on this forum. I've 'crossed swords' with chris and andrewholgate in the past about the behaviour of one or other of the accounts, so I don't think I am particularly biassed in favour of everything AC does. Although chris is prolofic in his responses, that is surely a good thing? Everybody can make their comments and it hardly seems to be 'drowning out' those comments if chris responds? We're all capable of making our own judgments about what is written here, and I would rather AC responded as they do than feel that they have been silenced because they defended their corner.

As I see it the QAA was always going to be a problem/opportunity for the conspiracy theorists but I feel we need to look at the bigger picture here:

* We always knew QAA had sell priority over the rest of the market as (I think) we all understood liquidity was key to this account , nothing being hidden by AC here in my opinion.

* QAA sell priority is only an issue due to the large number of loan units available, in a more (normal)  balanced scenario we would not be having this discussion. IMO once IFISAs are launched there is every likelyhood we will be looking at an almost empty marketplace again!

* If AC agreed to stop QAA ever having priority then the same people complaining now would likely be screaming at chris when QAA liquidity dried up and their swept MLIA funds can't be sold out to go buy units in new loans, so AC always needs flexibility to change priorities (IMHO a throttling mechanism would allow more suble effects to be achived and keep most people happy most of the time)

* I think that we have to accept that all platforms have to manage their markets to a greater or lesser extent depending on the prevailing conditions. This is in their interests but also in ours as platforms that do not offer a degree of market stability loose borrower and investor confidence and quickly fail and that is the worst outcome for all of us, bar none! What AC are doing here is no different to RS always finding borrowers just below the current market rate or reserving the right to lock-in the monthly market in a liquidity crisis and it is certainly behaving better than FC with thier manipulation of autobodge and depriving the SM of autobodge money when they are trying to fill new loans (which they won't even officially acknowledge that they do).

*AC is creating an inovative platform that offers a range of investment options that are simply not available on a single platform elsewhere but it is evolving and it is very much work in progress. As such there will be times where market dynamics cause behaviours that was not predicted or planned for, When these things happen and affect us we need to be part of the solution with constructive dialogue not distructive ranting about how the evil platform owners are trying to screw us all again.

* QAA,, GBBA, GEIA, IFISA, yet to be announced XXXX accounts. These accounts are not being created to keep the institutional investors happy, they are being created to encorage a strong and diverse population of retail investors with differing levels of sophistication and risk appetite who can all co-exist alongside the institutions. Unlike some other platforms AC obviously understands diverity of funds is vital to it's long-term survival.

Bottom line for me is: I have leant so much from this forum over the last 12 months and it has been invaluable to my understanding of P2P so I thank all the active contributors but I find it increasingly difficult to keep tuning out the emotion that is so evident on many posts recently. It is hard for the likes of Chris to not be defensive of what they do within their organisations when they are so regularly being accused of doing things to deliberately game the system to the platforms advantage and our disadvantage. AC staff are not sitting on their yachts spending the profits they make from our money, they, and many like them, are working extremely hard trying to build viable and profitable P2P businesses which is what we all want them to achive, isn't it?

We are part of the solution through constructive dialogue but we will get nothing here if we drive valuable platform representation off this forum. Enough said I think.