dandy
Posts: 427 
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Sept 8, 2017 13:43:19 GMT
according to AC website the PF for the combined qaa/30daa is about £1m - but a lot of this is already ringfenced for known losses. So 3.75% is basically pricing to liquidity not risk (and as for liquidity even that has now been heavily restricted) source? I see where this is from. Not sure how you know whether the stress test figures do or do not include ringfenced sums? Liquidity for me is not restricted in any way on the instant account, what makes you say that?£1M might sound low but a significant amount of the QAA/30DA is not in loans, just sitting as cash. I mean loans in default will now be frozen (unless PF has enough cash to ring fence entire possible loss)
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 8, 2017 14:07:54 GMT
Which it does. It covers expected losses three or four times over!
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Sept 8, 2017 14:29:53 GMT
Which it does. It covers expected losses three or four times over! it did (apparently) in June 2016. today, who knows.
|
|
Mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 651
Likes: 446
|
Post by Mike on Sept 8, 2017 15:01:38 GMT
Which it does. It covers expected losses three or four times over! it did (apparently) in June 2016. today, who knows. > a lot of this is already ringfenced for known losses > as for liquidity even that has now been heavily restricted > loans in default will now be frozen Either you know, or you don't. Some of these are plainly mistaken ('known' losses? I'd love to borrow your crystal ball!) I suspect the latter (if not please do post a source) - although regardless it is a fair point regards PF transparency which has come up before.
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Sept 10, 2017 8:55:57 GMT
it did (apparently) in June 2016. today, who knows. > a lot of this is already ringfenced for known losses > as for liquidity even that has now been heavily restricted > loans in default will now be frozen Either you know, or you don't. Some of these are plainly mistaken ('known' losses? I'd love to borrow your crystal ball!) I suspect the latter (if not please do post a source) - although regardless it is a fair point regards PF transparency which has come up before. all this has been confirmed by chris in recent posts
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 11, 2017 15:51:37 GMT
Hi everyone. The main reason that the GBBA isn't investing quickly is that the mandate to purchase loans means that many of the currently originated loans do not pass the interest rate hurdle and therefore the GBBA cannot invest in them. We have two choices. 1. close the account and leave the PSIA open. 2. commence a new Series 2 of GBBA at a new lower rate of probably 6% or perhaps 6.5% for now. 3. open a new version of GBBA that has no provision fund and auto invests into many more loans as a result as the margin that funds the provision fund would not be required and therefore more loans would fit the new mandate. We would be interested in votes and we could run a voting system on this to get input into our decision ? We do apologise for the delay in investing in this account, and indeed the GEIA right now. This slow investment speed is not acceptable to us as well as yourselves. The GEIA will be fixed with greater origination that we are expecting as a result of new work we have done. The GBBA by way of a decision on the choices above. Running a voting system on this subject would be great!
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 11, 2017 19:34:35 GMT
What about a vote on how the PF works. Everyone clear about how your competitors' work, everyone clear that you think you're different but when do lenders get paid. Very simple, when do you discretionary boys decide to damn well pay some money to your long suffering punters.
BTW, saying your legal beagles say you're completeltely different from RS or Zopa SG is unacceptable. Tell us the rules. Tell us how much we have to lose before PF kicks in. Give some damn information!
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Sept 11, 2017 22:29:25 GMT
1. I have no equity in AC.
2. I hold no AC convertibles.
3. I have a four figure sum in GBBA.
ashtondav you've made your point, repeatedly, and you've had answers from AC staff, even if you don't think they're sufficient. There are aspects of the GBBA that I think could be improved eg the.... less than obvious verbiage hidden in the Ts&Cs (I actually think I am better off simply not voting on any GBBA holding that requires a vote, and that's... wrong) but that's by the by.
As for the provision fund... well, they cannot legally guarantee anything, were they to it would be considered "insurance", and attract a different capital charge. One that would render the PF approach uneconomic. You're right to be alert to this risk, and there's nothing wrong with you making sure that others understand the risk, but you knew there was liquidity risk (or, ostensibly, capital at risk) when you bought in to the product, no?
One thing I completely agree with, the sooner GBBA et al use a better diversification algorithm the better.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 12, 2017 8:29:33 GMT
What about a vote on how the PF works. Everyone clear about how your competitors' work, everyone clear that you think you're different but when do lenders get paid. Very simple, when do you discretionary boys decide to damn well pay some money to your long suffering punters. BTW, saying your legal beagles say you're completeltely different from RS or Zopa SG is unacceptable. Tell us the rules. Tell us how much we have to lose before PF kicks in. Give some damn information! 
|
|
happy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 497
|
Post by happy on Sept 13, 2017 6:39:41 GMT
Hi everyone. The main reason that the GBBA isn't investing quickly is that the mandate to purchase loans means that many of the currently originated loans do not pass the interest rate hurdle and therefore the GBBA cannot invest in them. We have two choices. 1. close the account and leave the PSIA open. 2. commence a new Series 2 of GBBA at a new lower rate of probably 6% or perhaps 6.5% for now. 3. open a new version of GBBA that has no provision fund and auto invests into many more loans as a result as the margin that funds the provision fund would not be required and therefore more loans would fit the new mandate. We would be interested in votes and we could run a voting system on this to get input into our decision ? We do apologise for the delay in investing in this account, and indeed the GEIA right now. This slow investment speed is not acceptable to us as well as yourselves. The GEIA will be fixed with greater origination that we are expecting as a result of new work we have done. The GBBA by way of a decision on the choices above. Option 2 is my choice as without investment choice the PF goes some way to at least aggregating individual loan risk. Actually been expecting this for some time TBH. But please stuartassetzcapital get Chris to implement proper diversification like he promised told us was happening probably over a year or so ago, just needed testing apparently. 20% is simply too crude and GBBA 2.0 or any other of your PF accounts will get no more of my money until this is fixed.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 13, 2017 8:59:24 GMT
Yes option two. You either need good diversification (min 100 loans) or a functioning well understood PF (obviously not guaranteed, but rules based). Or both!
based on returns I am getting at RS, Zopa and FC, good diversification with a functioning PF providing 6% to 6.5% would be very competitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Sept 13, 2017 9:51:36 GMT
Re provision fund rules.
There is only one rule.
Once a loan has been declared absolutely, totally, completely and utterly non recoverable it is highly likely that the provision fund will pay out to the descendants of the original investor.
|
|
rick24
Member of DD Central
Posts: 244
Likes: 138
|
Post by rick24 on Sept 13, 2017 10:00:01 GMT
I would tend to go for option 2 as long as there was greater diversification, i.e. much less than 20% of funds per loan. This would save me the DD I do on the MLIA (although that can be interesting). On the other hand, I find the MLIA is fun and it allows me to avoid the loans I would not wish to invest in for reasons either financial or otherwise.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 13, 2017 15:53:35 GMT
Re provision fund rules. There is only one rule. Once a loan has been declared absolutely, totally, completely and utterly non recoverable it is highly likely that the provision fund will pay out to the descendants of the original investor.  
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Sept 15, 2017 15:07:52 GMT
Loan #413 was temporarily suspended on 1st Sept. while a 'capital' reduction' was applied to lender's accounts (a particularly irritating'system featue'). Following this, my complete GBBA holding in this loan was sold.
The loan is no longer suspended, there is in excess of £1m available and the loan appears to GBBA eligible (it appears under Your Loan Holdings), yet despite funds being available, the GBBA stubornly refuses to purchase anything!
Am I missing something?
|
|
