littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 22, 2016 7:54:41 GMT
I have been lending money in the 30 Day, Instant and GGBA accounts, Does this mean I have an increased risk? I could potentially lend unknowingly to the same business in all 3 accounts meaning that if trading gets suspended my money would be locked into the same loan on 3 accounts, Can and does this happen? The more I think about the QAA the more complicated it gets. AC must have put in a lot of development work into it. It may also be very profitable. For both these reasons AC are reluctant to divulge much about how it works. But for what it's worth AIUI you could be in the same loan in two of your 3 accounts, but possibly not in both the QAA and the 30 day - although I can't be sure. However the liquidity of the money in the QAA and 30 day accounts would not be suspended simply because the loan was suspended in the GBBA, it would only depend on the overall liquidity of the QAA. This is AIUI the position at present. If you are referring to my suggestion about suspension in the QAA then if it was implemented you would be right.
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Nov 22, 2016 10:32:09 GMT
I have been lending money in the 30 Day, Instant and GGBA accounts, Does this mean I have an increased risk? I could potentially lend unknowingly to the same buisness in all 3 accounts meaning that if trading gets suspended my money would be locked into the same loan on 3 accounts, Can and does this happen? I'd have thought it's almost certain that you'd have money leant to the same business in all three accounts, but I don't think your money would be locked into the 30DAA or the QAA, your money can get stuck in there AIUI if there was no liquidity left in them, AFAI'm aware that hasn't happened yet in the year or so that they've been operating. Though, and I'm guessing now, I suppose the more loans that are on the AM just sitting there, the more the drag on liquidity there might be. This kinda says AC needs more (new?) Lenders to buy the loans.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Nov 22, 2016 11:28:23 GMT
I have been lending money in the 30 Day, Instant and GGBA accounts, Does this mean I have an increased risk? I could potentially lend unknowingly to the same business in all 3 accounts meaning that if trading gets suspended my money would be locked into the same loan on 3 accounts, Can and does this happen? The more I think about the QAA the more complicated it gets. AC must have put in a lot of development work into it. It may also be very profitable. For both these reasons AC are reluctant to divulge much about how it works. But for what it's worth AIUI you could be in the same loan in two of your 3 accounts, but possibly not in both the QAA and the 30 day - although I can't be sure. However the liquidity of the money in the QAA and 30 day accounts would not be suspended simply because the loan was suspended in the GBBA, it would only depend on the overall liquidity of the QAA. This is AIUI the position at present. If you are referring to my suggestion about suspension in the QAA then if it was implemented you would be right. I started replying to khampson yesterday, then deleted the reply as I realised that I did not in fact know the answer. However, regarding the QAA and 30DAA, I believe that these are in fact the same pot of money with just the interest rate paid and notice period for access differentiating them for the investors. Any money you put into these is just added to the pot. The effect is that you do not own individual loans, just a piece of the pot, or at least that seems to be the effect. You can withdraw provided there is sufficient cash in the pot, or it can sell loans to release enough cash.
|
|
DeafEater
Member of DD Central
Extremely Moderate
Posts: 228
Likes: 304
|
Post by DeafEater on Nov 22, 2016 13:03:07 GMT
I started replying to khampson yesterday, then deleted the reply as I realised that I did not in fact know the answer. However, regarding the QAA and 30DAA, I believe that these are in fact the same pot of money with just the interest rate paid and notice period for access differentiating them for the investors. Any money you put into these is just added to the pot. The effect is that you do not own individual loans, just a piece of the pot, or at least that seems to be the effect. You can withdraw provided there is sufficient cash in the pot, or it can sell loans to release enough cash. That's exactly the same conclusion I came to about the QAA and 30DAA but I have no evidence for it so was reticent about claiming it as a fact on this forum. Since we're having a punt on theories, my further guess is that the target proportion of the cash buffer for this total fund varies according to the distribution of lender deposits between QAA and 30DAA (because with 30DAA deposits they have more time to plan and rebalance).
I suspect we may never be able to work it out for sure unless the wheels drop off and people suffer real losses at which point, people with money in both QAA and 30DAA should/might see exactly the same percentage loss in their investments.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Nov 22, 2016 13:42:26 GMT
That's exactly the same conclusion I came to about the QAA and 30DAA but I have no evidence for it so was reticent about claiming it as a fact on this forum. Since we're having a punt on theories, my further guess is that the target proportion of the cash buffer for this total fund varies according to the distribution of lender deposits between QAA and 30DAA (because with 30DAA deposits they have more time to plan and rebalance). I suspect that you are correct. The higher proportion of invested funds vs cash buffer that would be allowed for by money being invested via 30DAA rather than QAA, would allow the higher rate of interest paid to investors. It still smarts a bit that new investors via the Money Supermarket (IIRC) get a higher rate here, but that is a different question.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 22, 2016 15:22:48 GMT
I disagree with the above two posters, but unless AC reveal more nobody can be sure. I think that legally investors in the QAA must own loan parts however indirectly simply because AIUI AC's FCA approval does not cover that type of deposit taking (which would be covered by the FSCS if they could)
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 24, 2016 3:31:00 GMT
Though, and I'm guessing now, I suppose the more loans that are on the AM just sitting there, the more the drag on liquidity there might be. This kinda says AC needs more (new?) Lenders to buy the loans. There's no question that more investors buying up more of the loan parts sitting on the SM would help liquidity overall, but it might not make any difference to the QAA/30DAA. That's because, AIUI, those accounts have priority when it comes to SM sales. (IIRC, Chris has told us that.) The priority might not be absolute -- as in if those accounts are trying to sell then 100% of buying requests would be assigned to those accounts -- but any priority would help QAA/30DAA liquidity. (If there's £100k of a loan for sale, and £1k of that is yours and none is from the QAA/30DAA, then AIUI, you'd expect that 1% of any purchases would come from your parts. If there were £1k of parts being sold by the QAA/30DAA then it might be the case that, say, 30% -- I've pulled a number out of the air as an example -- of the purchases would come from those accounts' parts and the other 70% would come from accounts like yours.) If a loan sits with £100k of parts for sale for a long time, we have no way to know whether the parts just aren't being bought, or whether there are plenty of parts being bought but an equal number of parts being added to those offered for sale. For loans where there's a reasonable amount of purchasing/selling activity, it might not take much of a priority boost to allow the QAA/30DAA to sell whatever parts they want to dispose of reasonably quickly.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Nov 24, 2016 8:43:40 GMT
The QAA selling loans to maintain liquidity is one thing. Selling them because they are showing early signs of trouble is another.
|
|
|
Post by valueinvestor123 on Dec 4, 2016 14:16:43 GMT
Is a licence not required in order to trade individual loans on behalf of lenders or do exemptions apply to peer2peer platforms?
I know that only hedge funds registered in exotic places enjoy the freedom of limited disclosure but even their managers need some sort of licences to operate and be able to actually trade investments.
|
|
|
Post by valueinvestor123 on Jan 16, 2017 12:28:15 GMT
Well that was quick: www.altfi.com/article/2531_octopus_fully_authorised_as_peer_to_peer_lenderI suggested that OC can be viewed in direct comparison with the QAA, except it's transparent (and it offers a higher rate). It would be good to know if there are any updates on making QAA more transparent or when the FCA authorisation might be granted. It's quite clear that FCA would like to see transparency with all peer2peer platforms which I welcome.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 16, 2017 12:50:18 GMT
I suggested that OC can be viewed in direct comparison with the QAA, except it's transparent (and it offers a higher rate). If only they could get funds invested quicker. nearly a month with no interest reduces the headline rate considerably, particularly when a loan repays early.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jan 16, 2017 12:56:33 GMT
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 16, 2017 13:00:08 GMT
There is a recent post on the Octopus forum which said that when someone requested a withdrawal, OC sold some loan holdings off rather than send existing uninvested cash. Bizarre behaviour! Maybe there was an early repayment of a loan?
|
|
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 Jan 16, 2017 13:01:02 GMT
Well that was quick: www.altfi.com/article/2531_octopus_fully_authorised_as_peer_to_peer_lenderI suggested that OC can be viewed in direct comparison with the QAA, except it's transparent (and it offers a higher rate). It would be good to know if there are any updates on making QAA more transparent or when the FCA authorisation might be granted. It's quite clear that FCA would like to see transparency with all peer2peer platforms which I welcome. And currently takes nearly a month to get cash invested as opposed to the QAA which is currently instant. Its transparency is currently only skin deep, I know the rate of each loan and its location, nothing more than that.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Jan 16, 2017 13:13:34 GMT
Well that was quick: www.altfi.com/article/2531_octopus_fully_authorised_as_peer_to_peer_lenderI suggested that OC can be viewed in direct comparison with the QAA, except it's transparent (and it offers a higher rate). It would be good to know if there are any updates on making QAA more transparent or when the FCA authorisation might be granted. It's quite clear that FCA would like to see transparency with all peer2peer platforms which I welcome. And currently takes nearly a month to get cash invested as opposed to the QAA which is currently instant. Its transparency is currently only skin deep, I know the rate of each loan and its location, nothing more than that. Perhaps translucent is the correct word to describe Octopus Choice then Translucent: adjective (of a substance) allowing light, but not detailed shapes, to pass through; semi-transparent.
|
|