mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 187 
Likes: 121
|
Post by mike on May 4, 2016 8:50:22 GMT
I've been scouring the AC site to try to find out what the current level of the provision fund(s) is/are. Is this information published?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on May 4, 2016 9:09:06 GMT
I've been scouring the AC site to try to find out what the current level of the provision fund(s) is/are. Is this information published? Click here www.assetzcapital.co.uk/click on the a/c's with PF's that you're interested in Now DO NOT click on "Provision Fund" link near the top of the page but go about two thirds down and click on "Provision Fund" link there instead. Chris has previously said he's hoping to make it more obvious
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on May 4, 2016 11:18:30 GMT
I've been scouring the AC site to try to find out what the current level of the provision fund(s) is/are. Is this information published? Click here www.assetzcapital.co.uk/click on the a/c's with PF's that you're interested in Now DO NOT click on "Provision Fund" link near the top of the page but go about two thirds down and click on "Provision Fund" link there instead. Chris has previously said he's hoping to make it more obvious Since the refresh of the website at the end of last week (?) all the provision fund links seem to point to the same place ... which doesn't contain the actual data 
|
|
mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 187
Likes: 121
|
Post by mike on May 4, 2016 12:52:24 GMT
Thanks Ton and mrclondon. chris I would have thought displaying this data is slightly important! |
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on May 4, 2016 15:53:27 GMT
I'm on a lap top following my own directions above I can see;
GBBA is actually @ 0.9% coverage
30daa is actually @ 1.7% coverage
QAA is actually @ 1.7% coverage
GEIA is actually @ 2.6% coverage
Perhaps some devices can see it tho'
|
|
trouble
Member of DD Central
Posts: 127
Likes: 97
|
Post by trouble on May 4, 2016 16:05:29 GMT
I'm on a lap top following my own directions above I can see; GBBA is actually @ 0.9% coverage 30daa is actually @ 1.7% coverage QAA is actually @ 1.7% coverage GEIA is actually @ 2.6% coverage Perhaps some devices can see it tho' I concur
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 4, 2016 20:13:08 GMT
I'm on a lap top following my own directions above I can see; GBBA is actually @ 0.9% coverage 30daa is actually @ 1.7% coverage QAA is actually @ 1.7% coverage GEIA is actually @ 2.6% coverage Perhaps some devices can see it tho' If anyone is looking for the number of £££ in the various PFs, AFAIK AC never have published that info. We could work out the amounts for the QAA and 30DAA because AC do publish the size of those two accounts. Do we have any idea how much is invested in the GBBA and/or GEIA?
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on May 4, 2016 20:26:00 GMT
I'm on a lap top following my own directions above I can see; GBBA is actually @ 0.9% coverage 30daa is actually @ 1.7% coverage QAA is actually @ 1.7% coverage GEIA is actually @ 2.6% coverage Perhaps some devices can see it tho' If anyone is looking for the number of £££ in the various PFs, AFAIK AC never have published that info. We could work out the amounts for the QAA and 30DAA because AC do publish the size of those two accounts. Do we have any idea how much is invested in the GBBA and/or GEIA? You can't do it for QAA or 30d as the PF only covers the loans, not the cash component, so it isn't possible to work out the numbers.
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 529
Likes: 245
|
Post by bababill on May 7, 2016 2:28:20 GMT
This seems way too low? Or is it acceptable because the majority of the loans are backed up by some sort of asset?
From Assetz own website "our expected future default rate is 2.5%"
To make a meaningful comparison I looked at Ratesetters info.
Ratesetter has coverage for 3.2% default rate. (I think I understood the website correctly/please double check).
Ratesetters actual default rate in January 2016 was 1.18%.
Also "In addition to contributing to the Provision Fund, we require some borrowers (such as property developers and corporate borrowers) to provide security against their loan."
|
|
|
|
Post by westonkevRS on May 7, 2016 9:53:12 GMT
This seems way too low? Or is it acceptable because the majority of the loans are backed up by some sort of asset? From Assetz own website "our expected future default rate is 2.5%" To make a meaningful comparison I looked at Ratesetters info. Ratesetter has coverage for 3.2% default rate. (I think I understood the website correctly/please double check). Ratesetters actual default rate in January 2016 was 1.18%. Also "In addition to contributing to the Provision Fund, we require some borrowers (such as property developers and corporate borrowers) to provide security against their loan." I wouldn't use RS as a comparison. Although the %s are correct there is an unreported percentage of outstanding debt that is owned or secured/backed by instutions and hence doesn't get protection or access to the Provision Fund. So we report a prudent position, when in reality the position is safer. Kevin.
|
|
trouble
Member of DD Central
Posts: 127
Likes: 97
|
Post by trouble on May 7, 2016 10:23:44 GMT
This seems way too low? Or is it acceptable because the majority of the loans are backed up by some sort of asset? From Assetz own website "our expected future default rate is 2.5%" To make a meaningful comparison I looked at Ratesetters info. Ratesetter has coverage for 3.2% default rate. (I think I understood the website correctly/please double check). Ratesetters actual default rate in January 2016 was 1.18%. Also "In addition to contributing to the Provision Fund, we require some borrowers (such as property developers and corporate borrowers) to provide security against their loan." Thousands of us are lending on the same loans via the MLIA which has no provision fund (take comfort in that). A provision fund will also take time to build up to it's target figure if the target is 5% PF.
|
|
