|
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 11:06:39 GMT
Post by valueinvestor123 on Nov 11, 2016 11:06:39 GMT
As a MLIA investor only, I am interested in this poll, after the following comment by AC:
"I've also already highlighted to you that the QAA has priority on the markets when it wants it so it can take 100% of sales of a given loan when it needs to generate liquidity, another significant mitigant."
bearing in mind that this activity may or may not be influenced by 'sensitive information' about a particular loan (a term also used by AC but in the context of 'competition') which may or may not be available to the MLIA investor at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 11, 2016 11:21:07 GMT
As a MLIA investor only, I am interested in this poll, after the following comment by AC: "I've also already highlighted to you that the QAA has priority on the markets when it wants it so it can take 100% of sales of a given loan when it needs to generate liquidity, another significant mitigant."bearing in mind that this activity may or may not be influenced by 'sensitive information' about a particular loan (a term also used by AC but in the context of 'competition') which may or may not be available to the MLIA investor at the time. What is it with your personal campaign? No that activity may not be influenced by sensitive information about a particular loan because that would be absolutely against the FCA's regulations and likely illegal. Care is taken to separate the functions of the business so that this simply does not happen. There has even been a thread within this forum where this was discussed at length and it was shown that in a specific instance where one lender suspected we may have been able to sneakily sell out of a loan with the QAA that in fact this had demonstrably not happened. Please start with researching a topic prior to making polls and threads about stuff with a pretext / assumption of wrong doing. Edit: It also shouldn't be a secret to anyone who has read this forum that the QAA has a measure of priority that it can use, not that it always does, as I've spelt out the mechanisms in detail in the past. GBBA / GEIA / Underwriters / MLIA all have varying levels of priority on the markets to try and keep things as fair and balanced as possible whilst ensuring smooth operation of those accounts. I hope you'll be similarly investigating allocation algorithms for platforms such as Zopa and RS where they have not provided the same transparency on how the internals work.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875 
Likes: 7,924
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 11:29:49 GMT
Post by SteveT on Nov 11, 2016 11:29:49 GMT
AFAIK, AC have made it clear on numerous occasions that their "managed accounts" (QAA, GBBA, GEIA) are regularly given purchasing and/or selling priority over the MLIA. One of the trade-offs for our receiving interest in full (at 10%/11%/12%...) is that we won't always be allocated as much as we'd like and there are occasions when we'll be behind the managed accounts to sell. [crossed with chris] |
|
|
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 11:29:56 GMT
Post by valueinvestor123 on Nov 11, 2016 11:29:56 GMT
"There has even been a thread within this forum where this was discussed at length..."
Could you or someone possibly point me to this thread? I cannot possibly have read all the threads on this board and on the basis of your comment that I included, it is easy to come to this conclusion.
So what exactly is meant by 'having priority on the markets?' And what care is taken to separate these functions? For an outsider, these things are impossible to understand. AC is acting as a supplier/broker of loans, it is acting as market maker it is also acting as a trader on behalf of investors in the QAA and the other accounts, it is acting as (or on behalf of) a debt recovery agency...there are possibly many more functions. I have serious difficulty in understanding how it is possible to separate all these various functions (especially the trading part).
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Nov 11, 2016 11:38:17 GMT
"There has even been a thread within this forum where this was discussed at length..." Could you or someone possibly point me to this thread? I cannot possibly have read all the threads on this board and on the basis of your comment that I included, it is easy to come to this conclusion. So what exactly is meant by 'having priority on the markets?' And what care is taken to separate these functions? For an outsider, these things are impossible to understand. AC is acting as a supplier/broker of loans, it is acting as market maker it is also acting as a trader on behalf of investors in the QAA and the other accounts, it is acting as (or on behalf of) a debt recovery agency...there are possibly many more functions. I have serious difficulty in understanding how it is possible to separate all these various functions (especially the trading part). Errr it's the thread you started in which you throw around "facts" like confetti. Short memory. A message to everyone - If you don't like what we offer, then thanks for your time but you do not have to use us. I do believe that AC is more transparent and more detailed than any other platform on the market. There is nowhere what you can get in terms of the level of detail we supply on each and every loan. That we pride ourselves on. Just because one person has taken a personal objection to one product we offer, but is still invested in other parts of the platform (which seems strange in itself), doesn't mean that she is right. Do you own homework and you decide. The ironic thing is, since she started this campaign, investment in QAA has risen 5%. Maybe we should pay commission for the publicity.
|
|
|
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 11:46:13 GMT
Post by valueinvestor123 on Nov 11, 2016 11:46:13 GMT
"Errr it's the thread you started in which you throw around "facts" like confetti. Short memory."
Which part exactly explains it?
"I do believe that AC is more transparent and more detailed than any other platform on the market. There is nowhere what you can get in terms of the level of detail we supply on each and every loan. That we pride ourselves on."
I have NEVER had any objections about the transparency on loan information.
"The ironic thing is, since she started this campaign, investment in QAA has risen 5%. Maybe we should pay commission for the publicity."
I hope you do understand why this might be the case. The incomprehensible priority/trading abilities of the QAA have just made the MLIA account significantly more risky and unattractive!
No disrespect, but I personally find Chris' responses significantly clearer that yours and without unnecessary 'aplomb' and to avoid further personality collisions, I would prefer if he could address them instead.
|
|
|
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 11:53:05 GMT
Post by valueinvestor123 on Nov 11, 2016 11:53:05 GMT
Also: why do you keep calling me a 'she'??  |
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Nov 11, 2016 12:19:47 GMT
I've PM'd you with why.
Enough arguing on here, we will take it out of the public domain.
|
|
|
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 12:47:05 GMT
Post by valueinvestor123 on Nov 11, 2016 12:47:05 GMT
PMed back.
I am not trying to argue.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Nov 11, 2016 13:30:25 GMT
I for one am taking serious exception to the way you are using this public forum to conduct your 'research' into a product you quite obviously do not like and seem determined to show is flawed and should not be invested in. I will be blocking all posts from you from now on and I suggest that anyone else on this forum that feels similar does the same.
Please will you conduct this activity in a private manner perhaps via a dialogue directly with AC via PM or their customer services facility.
|
|
|
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 13:56:42 GMT
Post by valueinvestor123 on Nov 11, 2016 13:56:42 GMT
Yes, this was perhaps a mistake on my part (using this forum to conduct research).
In the past, whenever I posted questions and if my follow-up thoughts were in any way misguided or misplaced or plainly wrong, there would usually be feedback from community to put me straight with either specific answers or more information. This, for me, was the whole point of posting on a public forum (I have been using forums on the fool.co.uk for over 10 years).
For whatever reason, this has not happened this time.
Of course, feel free to block me.
|
|
jo
Member of DD Central
dead
Posts: 741
Likes: 498
|
Poll
Nov 11, 2016 14:00:40 GMT
Post by jo on Nov 11, 2016 14:00:40 GMT
The ironic thing is, since she started this campaign, investment in QAA has risen 5%. Maybe we should pay commission for the publicity. Best check what the FT's policy on gifts is first. 
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Nov 11, 2016 14:05:43 GMT
For whatever reason, this has not happened this time. It did. Initially. Then you started to move away from sensible "doing research" questions into what started to look like a one-man witch-hunt against the QAA, twisting responses you were given, re-raising the same subject over and over in multiple threads, even different forums. You said - A WEEK AGO - that you'd drop it. Yet here we still are... OK. Lets all stop. valueinvestor123 and I are discussing things off the forum. Let's have no more responses, digs and jibes as the normally fruitful discussions are descending into acrimony (and yes I am guilty of that). valueinvestor123 and I will continue discussions and chris is involved. I am asking we all drop this and move on. Thank you.
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Nov 11, 2016 14:10:34 GMT
Personally I very much doubt you are just doing 'research' hence my use of quotation mark that you seemed to have missed the subtlety of.
Far too much innuendo and insinuation of dubious practice on the part of the platform for me to see your contributions here in a good light unfortunately, constructive and informative debate it is certainly not!
Never seen anything like it here or any other forum to be honest and I hope I never do again......
EDIT: post crossed with Andrew Holgate. I hear you, I was done anyway. Many Thanks AC.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 11, 2016 16:23:40 GMT
Yes, this was perhaps a mistake on my part (using this forum to conduct research). In the past, whenever I posted questions and if my follow-up thoughts were in any way misguided or misplaced or plainly wrong, there would usually be feedback from community to put me straight with either specific answers or more information. This, for me, was the whole point of posting on a public forum (I have been using forums on the fool.co.uk for over 10 years). For whatever reason, this has not happened this time. If you're genuinely interested to understand why members here didn't engage with you as you'd hoped, my suggestion is that starting off a discussion with (in effect) "I can't be bothered to read what's already here. Can someone please spend time summarising it for me" isn't likely to win you many fans...
|
|
