Immediate Access to your cash and the Hidden Features of QAA

Is there a mechanism in place to guard against reasonable diversification being adversely effected in 'exceptional circumstances' for this account? (eg 1%/5%/10% in each loan at all times?)
And is the account mandated to stay 50% in cash at all times?

If the answer to any of these questions are not clear, I would argue AC have synthesised a new asset class.

"There are 152 loans currently invested in by QAA with no loan accounting for more than 6% exposure. The top 10 exposures account for less than 20%. The account is well diversified.

We monitor the cash levels at all times. I see no reason why it has to be at 50% at all times, nor do I see a reason to state the current cash level except to say it is sufficient. It is a demand and supply question and it would be impossible to hold cash levels at 50% at all times as new loan inflows, cash inflow and outflows, plus loan repayments are happening constantly. Further in a less liquid market, 50% would be impossible as demand for cash out would exceed cash in."

You continue to doge the questions: how the account is invested at this moment and how well you are monitoring cash levels currently doesn't begin to explain what mandates or safeguards are in place (if any) to protect the investor should the company decide to change any of those parameters for whatever reason (those circumstances could for example be company-specific, not necessarily market-specific). You have shown with your (non)replies that you have little idea how this asset class might behave under strain yet you take investors' cash and the best explanation one can get is "trust us, we will use it responsibly because we have this amazing and expensive data that we also are not going to show you".

"May I say, you are making throw away comments that are potentially libellous (in this last post "synthesised a new asset class" and there are other examples elsewhere). I would ask you to think very carefully before you make further comments, throw away or not, that are without foundation and are based on supposition and not fact."

Are you seriously trying to threaten me?

You don't have to answer to me anymore.

[Mod hat on]

It's not really for the Mods to lock a thread unless forum rules have been breached. However it generally takes 2 to sustain a pointless argument, so if 1 chooses to stop taking the bait ...

Last comment

"You don't have to answer to me anymore."

I never did.

To everyone else - I think I have been fairly balanced is defending incorrect assumptions and comments about AC and the way the QAA operates.  If anyone has any concerns, please get in touch with me.

For those that are confused by this thread, I do apologise.  There has been a lot of misinformation spread about the QAA by one person and their subsequent misinformation about how AC calculates defaults etc.  I am sorry for engaging in a protracted discussion that reading back seems like tit for tat, however I do believe I have been consistent in what I said.

For clarity, I was twice threatened with being reported to the FCA by this user.  I have not threatened anyone but recommended that somethings being said could be libellous and for that user to exercise caution.  Those that know me on here will probably agree that when we are wrong on something, we take the pasting by the forum, we work on a solution and make things right.  Chris and I are two of the most approachable senior people in the industry and we aim to keep it this way.  Whilst I set up the forum, I, and AC, have no control over the running of it and I have never sought to suppress freedom of speech and AC has taken a fair amount of criticism on here.

What I will do is robustly defend what I see as fallacious comments being made as if they are fact.  This is a public forum and I have to correct statements that are being made by one party as if they know the exact workings of the QAA.


The facts are:

- QAA is diversified across a wide range of loans that are on the AC platform.  Currently this is 152 loans out of 200+ 
- QAA and AC do not guarantee there will no losses.  You are investing in an asset class with risk of loss and this is the same in the QAA.  There is a risk of loss.
- In order to mitigate that risk we manage the balance of loans and exposures in that account, and we provide a provision fund to cover losses should there be a loss.  However, that PF might on the rarest of occasions not be enough to cover the losses.
- It is labelled the Quick Access Account because it operates an active trading market internally in the account.  Because of this, you are not waiting for someone to buy your loan units which may take hours or days to sell, but at present it operates almost instantly.  That is why is it called Quick Access.
- There maybe occasions where new funds wanting to go into the QAA dry up and this could limit how quickly you get your funds out.  As yet this has not happened, nor do we see this happening in the short to medium term.
- Out of four founders, two are experienced bankers with getting on for 60 years of lending and credit management experience behind us.  Across the whole team there is several centuries of experience.
- We use the appropriate data relating to our market to model likely outcomes using industry recognised methods to try and predict how the loan book will perform under given sets of conditions.  
- Our models and systems have been vetted by several large financial institutions and found to be sound.  These systems have helped us to get institutional lines of £500m to lend.

As with any form of investment, if you still do not understand it then seek financial advice before investing.  We mention the risks in 3 separate places on the home page and it is also very prominent in the first section of the T&Cs that lenders sign up to.

I hope that makes sense, and I hope I can be forgiven for defending AC in the light of incorrect statements on how we operate being made.  I am not seeking to confuse the matter and I do think my message has been consistent throughout this thread.

For anyone still confused please either PM me or contact me on andrew@assetzcapital.co.uk

I'm also happy to field sensible and appropriate questions here.

"andrewholgate believes QAA should be more transparent and internal discussions are being had about showing all loans held. One day we may learn more."

And this realisation (together with internal discussions) would have taken place how exactly, had the 'troll' not addressed concerns and started the discussion in the first place?

For the record, the company can say whatever it wants now regarding apparent "FCA threats"; it is there black on white in what context exactly FCA was mentioned (as it requires a company to operate their products within certain parameters). It is in mine and everyone else's interest who invests with AC for them to obtain a full authorization (which they don't currently have, as far as I know) and if they are determined to turn any criticism on its head, turn it around and go into the offensive with 'libel' threats or what not, then good luck to everyone who has their money there.