skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Sept 15, 2017 16:01:46 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. Almost right Once a loan has been declared absolutely, totally, completely and utterly non recoverable it is highly likely that the provision fund may, or may not, subject to the discretion of AC, pay out to the descendants of the original investor up to 100% of all money loaned.
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 15, 2017 16:53:07 GMT
As just posted elsewhere on the forum and repeated here for completeness :
Hi everyone. We will be reverting on this PF point in more detail shortly.
In the meantime, it is important to understand that the PF is not an insurance policy, in the truest sense, as that would require a different set of permissions from the FCA. Payments from the PF are discretionary so as not to be implicitly an insurance policy. It is the intention to pay out on all losses, except where lenders have voted specifically to accept a loss – this is noted on the relevant web pages.
Each of Assetz Capital’s PF’s is intended to be funded to a level that should be more than sufficient to cover any actual capital losses on defaulted loans within the relevant account. The actual capital loss, once all avenues of recovery have been exhausted, should not be the full loan amount as it should be possible to recover some or all of our lenders’ capital through the security pledged in support of the loan.
Our PF’s are not designed to cover the whole loan capital on all defaulted loans as this would require considerable levels of capital in order to fulfil this. We estimate that roughly 6% of loans will default so for every £100m of lending we would need £6m of PF cash to be able to fulfil a requirement to purchase full loans immediately at the point of default. We do not – and could not – promise to do this. Instead, we know that not every default will result in a loss and we make considered calculations as to what the expected losses on defaulting loans will be and hold an acceptable level of cash to be able to cover expected losses at the end of the recovery process. Our PF web page says – and has always said – that the PF will cover “Any possible capital losses if a loan defaults and the security when sold does not cover the loan balance remaining” which defines both what the PF will cover and when it will cover it.
So to summarise, the PF would not be able to 'buy' whole loans from investors at the point of default but we do expect it to cover the final capital loss, if any, once it is known and the recovery process is finished. Our Defaults and Losses page shows the coverage ratio for each PF which is high for the industry but I accept that the page is due a refresh and this is underway.
It also shouldn't be forgotten that I understand that investors can submit losses in their tax return when they judge it is time to do so. It isn't purely down to our notification of final recovery. It can always be corrected afterwards. We are close to issuing our new tax statement which will help you make these decision.
I hope this assists.
In addition the algorithm is being improved substantially shortly so should also be faster.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Sept 15, 2017 21:01:50 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? You can have zero holdings in a loan if it was GBBA eligible but then it became ineligible and you sold out. I think that the zero holding stays until either the accrued interest is paid or the loan repays completely to the platform, but I have not worked out which. The only way to see if a loan is GBBA eligible is to ask, see if the GBBA is buying or if your holds some of that loan, check the GBBA isn't selling it! Personally, adding a little flag or windmill or whatever on the front page for each loan to show which accounts it was eligible for would seem sensible. It would reduce some of the q&a as well!
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Sept 15, 2017 21:47:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 16, 2017 1:01:23 GMT
It is very confusing. I went through the same process, looked at the "you can still opt out of individual loans" image, clicked on the FAQ link and found this screenshot... that's not real, I can't see anything like this in my loan book or when viewing individual loans. I'd like some clarification - is it a mistake in both, FAQ and the advert image? - is it something that is coming in near future, but presented as it is already there? - or is it something from the past that doesn't exist anymore?
|
|
tarq
Member of DD Central
Posts: 126
Likes: 28
|
Post by tarq on Sept 16, 2017 9:34:23 GMT
I also thought the GBBA/GEIA were supposed to diversify the holdings, so that no more than about 10% in any loan.
I looked at my GEIA the other day and 75% is in one loan!
There doesn't seem to be any way of changing this.
In my GBBA to largest holdings are in, you've guessed it, the suspended loans, making up over 80%.
|
|
|
Post by peerlessperil on Sept 16, 2017 10:49:37 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! It is not clear how any of the "discretionary" provision funds work at any of the p2p platforms. There are several good reasons for this: - The insurance point raised by registerme
- It is more of a marketing tool then anything else - they allow leeway for the platforms to massage the message on investor loss experience and gloss over the odd recovery shortfall so they can still say "no money lost" even after the odd default and recovery shortfall (I'm not claiming they massage the actual default stats, and this comment is not aimed at AC in particular)
- They are a complete nightmare from a "Treating Customers Fairly" perspective. Those experiencing the early defaults get the benefit of the PF, but once it is depleted you are out of luck - yet both early and later defaulting loans contributed to the PF. If the GBBA was a proper pooled vehicle where everyone is exposed to the same loans this could work, but it isn't and investors will benefit from the PF unequally. I suspect this may explain in part why the FCA isn't enthusiastic on PFs.
- To allocate the PF to a recovery shortfall "fairly" you have to take a view on future defaults and recovery rates so that you don't pay out the entire PF covering the first major loss - you need to keep some powder dry. This of course involves predicting the future, and crystal balls are in short supply (the actuaries smoothing the returns on with-profits policies bought them all up years ago). Whatever decision you make, it is going to end up being too aggressive or too conservative in hindsight (and probably too conservative)
- It is very helpful to be able to change the rules/presentation when you feel like it (the Ratesetter provision fund being a case in point)
- If it is discretionary you don't have to provide any transparency whatsoever - anyone got a clue what the PF is at Lendy?
The solution at present is to avoid the GBBA and construct a fully diversified portfolio of loans in the MLIA, then view the extra interest premium over the GBBA as your personal PF.
My MLIA portfolio contains 170 loans and yields 7.63%. I'd rather have the extra 0.63% than a discretionary PF covering a portfolio of only 5 loans (which technically speaking is what the GBBA is capable of generating).
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Sept 16, 2017 12:08:39 GMT
I also thought the GBBA/GEIA were supposed to diversify the holdings, so that no more than about 10% in any loan. I looked at my GEIA the other day and 75% is in one loan! There doesn't seem to be any way of changing this. In my GBBA to largest holdings are in, you've guessed it, the suspended loans, making up over 80%. I've managed to achieve a similar situation by reducing my stake in that fund dramatically. The result is I'm left with a duff loan which is now a larger proportion of my holdings than it used to be. Hopefully it will resolved successfully in the end.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 16, 2017 12:59:24 GMT
Balderdash, sir!
From the perspective of lender risk and user experience it is crystal clear at Ratesetter. You simply don't see any missed payments or defaults.
Very, very simple.
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Sept 16, 2017 14:46:55 GMT
It is very confusing. I went through the same process, looked at the "you can still opt out of individual loans" image, clicked on the FAQ link and found this screenshot... that's not real, I can't see anything like this in my loan book or when viewing individual loans. I'd like some clarification - is it a mistake in both, FAQ and the advert image? - is it something that is coming in near future, but presented as it is already there? - or is it something from the past that doesn't exist anymore? We have asked for an explanation from the marketing team as I can see your point.
|
|
|
Post by peerlessperil on Sept 16, 2017 22:28:47 GMT
Balderdash, sir! From the perspective of lender risk and user experience it is crystal clear at Ratesetter. You simply don't see any missed payments or defaults. Very, very simple. You may call me sir whenever you wish, but please send your balderdash to Ratesetter where it will be in good company - they can add it to Adpod. It is a matter of public record that Ratesetter changed their provision fund methodology last March: www.p2pfinancenews.co.uk/2017/02/02/ratesetter-updates-lender-terms-provision-fund/In effect, Ratesetter now has the ability to divert your interest into the provision fund, as and when they forecast that the PF is likely to become depleted. Crystal clear to those with the model and the data, clear as mud to everyone else. Apparently they'll stop plundering your interest once the coverage ratio recovers and is "sufficiently strong". Very, very simple - we just look up "sufficient" in the dictionary? Ratesetter also say they will "actively manage" the Provision Fund by increasing contributions if loan performance worsens. This sounds good at first, until it dawns on you that this means they intend to pay less interest to investors just as everyone can observe defaults picking up. What could go wrong? 37% of the provision fund (as defined for interest cover, its 60% for capital) consists of expected future inflows to the provision fund. Elsewhere this might known as picking yourself up by your shoelaces. Life would be much simpler if Ratesetter stopped pretending to be a p2p platform and admitted it was a pooled investment vehicle.
|
|
ashtondav
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,814
Likes: 1,092
|
Post by ashtondav on Sept 17, 2017 6:46:09 GMT
That to me is crystal clear. There is a difference between "not guaranteed" and discretionary" in how the two firms apply the terms to their PF.
RS sets out the rules that will be followed (PF paying out first then reductions/diversion in and of interest etc). Call them obtuse if you will (and I don't necessarily disagree.)
AC sets out no rules. It is simply (or not simply) discretionary. I have no problem with that, other than it makes it uninvestible as far as I'm concerned. Which is not to say there are many good things about AC such as secured lending, which I do agree reduces the need for both diversification and a PF of any sort.
As for the pooled investment fund malarkey, its the way forward for growth in p2p. The only reason so many avoid the AC "investment accounts" is because it is unable to offer any kind of reasonable diversification, or offer an understandable PF. Watch AC carefully on this point, as Zopa RS and FC have all called it a day on loan selection freedom - the only way p2p will attract a truly mass market is as a pooled investment. The "loan selectors" will be a niche market for the knowledgeable few.
I continue to use the "quick access" account which I consider to be very good compared to AC's competitors - in "normal" market conditions.
|
|