kaya
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,150 
Likes: 718
|
Post by kaya on Aug 31, 2017 7:56:26 GMT
Excited to see at how much it will be sold, how it compares to the VR and how much of a sale proceeds will find the way to MT lenders (for each tranche) Probably the kind of excitement most lenders in this loan would rather not have!
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Aug 31, 2017 10:02:26 GMT
I'm still planning on coming back to this to distil it all etc, but I'm curious, would anybody like to play devil's advocate and present an argument as to why all is fine and dandy with property development lending? I promise I won't hold you to it  . I'm just interested in seeing the counter-argument..... |
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Aug 31, 2017 12:35:49 GMT
Good post by mrclondon above, and I agree with most of it. The only point I would query is the opinion that AC are the most transparent. They are unwilling (and I think are actually unable) to say which lenders in the QAA would take the hit in the event of a default which could not be covered by them. If a loan in the QAA remains tradable, i.e. new lenders are diversified into it, then the provision fund has taken its discretionary decision and set aside funds to cover any expected loss. If there is a loss to be passed on to lenders then holdings in that loan are frozen at that point, ie. lenders wouldn't be able to withdraw that portion of their QAA funds, and each lender in the loan will take their share of any shortfall. That,s all very well (as You have said before) but there is no correct 'point' at which holdings should be frozen. It would be an arbitrary moment in time during a prolonged period in which the loan went from initially being in distress through to final settlement. Until this arbitrary point many lenders would be in and out of the loan. Lenders would vary in their degree of knowledge of the loan in question. Nobody would have chosen to be in the loan and it will be a nasty shock to those caught..
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 31, 2017 12:42:51 GMT
If a loan in the QAA remains tradable, i.e. new lenders are diversified into it, then the provision fund has taken its discretionary decision and set aside funds to cover any expected loss. If there is a loss to be passed on to lenders then holdings in that loan are frozen at that point, ie. lenders wouldn't be able to withdraw that portion of their QAA funds, and each lender in the loan will take their share of any shortfall. That,s all very well (as You have said before) but there is no correct 'point' at which holdings should be frozen. It would be an arbitrary moment in time during a prolonged period in which the loan went from initially being in distress through to final settlement. Until this arbitrary point many lenders would be in and out of the loan. Lenders would vary in their degree of knowledge of the loan in question. Nobody would have chosen to be in the loan and it will be a nasty shock to those caught.. That isn't the charge you brought against AC when you first posted on this subject - you attacked our lack of transparency because we "couldn't" answer that question. I've answered the question and shown that we do know how the account operates and share it transparently with the lenders. You can see the loans you are invested in at any time and you can read all the details of those loans in the same level of detail as any of our other investors. If lenders want to pick and choose their loans so that they can manage that risk for themselves then we provide that option. We're the largest platform, in terms of current levels of origination, that still allows that manual control. However we also provide the option for lenders to defer that choice of which loans to lend in to the automated investment accounts where the system follows published mandates to choose how to invest on those lender's behalf. Improvements are coming to all the investment accounts to improve the toolsets given and the investment strategies used by the automated accounts, so we'll continually evolve our offering with a view to improving their performance, but you cannot say we are not transparent.
|
|
jlend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 1,465
|
Post by jlend on Aug 31, 2017 17:28:19 GMT
I'm still planning on coming back to this to distil it all etc, but I'm curious, would anybody like to play devil's advocate and present an argument as to why all is fine and dandy with property development lending? I promise I won't hold you to it . I'm just interested in seeing the counter-argument..... OK I'll have a stab at some comments to get it going... but agree with the ideas already posted. 1. Need to be careful not to generalise too much with the negative but contructive comments. There are some great borrowers and contrunction workers out there doing great things. If it all gets too complicated and potentially confrontatonal the good ones may just decide p2p is just not worth the bother and look else where for funding. 2. P2P platforms may decide the black box approach is the only way foward if it all gets too difficult and time consuming dealing with p2p investors and the manual selection of loans 3. Are our expectation's of the development borrowers attracted to p2p to high? If so are there things we as lenders can do to help attract higher quality borrowers? 4. Are we as lenders professional enough in our interactions with the p2p platforms? 5. The p2p platforms will make mistakes from time to time as they seek to grow quickly to critical mass. This is not unique to p2p. Lots of relatively new companies make mistakes and cut corners in the pursuit of growth. It is important they learn from their mistakes though and fix those things that they are aware are not great.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Aug 31, 2017 19:48:37 GMT
That,s all very well (as You have said before) but there is no correct 'point' at which holdings should be frozen. It would be an arbitrary moment in time during a prolonged period in which the loan went from initially being in distress through to final settlement. Until this arbitrary point many lenders would be in and out of the loan. Lenders would vary in their degree of knowledge of the loan in question. Nobody would have chosen to be in the loan and it will be a nasty shock to those caught.. That isn't the charge you brought against AC when you first posted on this subject - you attacked our lack of transparency because we "couldn't" answer that question. I've answered the question and shown that we do know how the account operates and share it transparently with the lenders. You can see the loans you are invested in at any time and you can read all the details of those loans in the same level of detail as any of our other investors. If lenders want to pick and choose their loans so that they can manage that risk for themselves then we provide that option. We're the largest platform, in terms of current levels of origination, that still allows that manual control. However we also provide the option for lenders to defer that choice of which loans to lend in to the automated investment accounts where the system follows published mandates to choose how to invest on those lender's behalf. Improvements are coming to all the investment accounts to improve the toolsets given and the investment strategies used by the automated accounts, so we'll continually evolve our offering with a view to improving their performance, but you cannot say we are not transparent. Really? I have had a lot of money in the QAA for some time and I did not realise that I had control over the loans I am invested in. On holiday at present but will investigate on my return. Has it always been like that? Anyway I have to eat humble pie and apologise for that error. However there is still the point that you will have a large degree of discretion in the timing of the decision to freeze a loan, and I cannot see how you could be transparent on that.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Aug 31, 2017 20:00:46 GMT
That isn't the charge you brought against AC when you first posted on this subject - you attacked our lack of transparency because we "couldn't" answer that question. I've answered the question and shown that we do know how the account operates and share it transparently with the lenders. You can see the loans you are invested in at any time and you can read all the details of those loans in the same level of detail as any of our other investors. If lenders want to pick and choose their loans so that they can manage that risk for themselves then we provide that option. We're the largest platform, in terms of current levels of origination, that still allows that manual control. However we also provide the option for lenders to defer that choice of which loans to lend in to the automated investment accounts where the system follows published mandates to choose how to invest on those lender's behalf. Improvements are coming to all the investment accounts to improve the toolsets given and the investment strategies used by the automated accounts, so we'll continually evolve our offering with a view to improving their performance, but you cannot say we are not transparent. Really? I have had a lot of money in the QAA for some time and I did not realise that I had control over the loans I am invested in. On holiday at present but will investigate on my return. Has it always been like that? Anyway I have to eat humble pie and apologise for that error. However there is still the point that you will have a large degree of discretion in the timing of the decision to freeze a loan, and I cannot see how you could be transparent on that. I think chris is referring to the MLIA there.
|
|
|
|
Post by df on Sept 1, 2017 20:33:36 GMT
If a loan in the QAA remains tradable, i.e. new lenders are diversified into it, then the provision fund has taken its discretionary decision and set aside funds to cover any expected loss. If there is a loss to be passed on to lenders then holdings in that loan are frozen at that point, ie. lenders wouldn't be able to withdraw that portion of their QAA funds, and each lender in the loan will take their share of any shortfall. That,s all very well (as You have said before) but there is no correct 'point' at which holdings should be frozen. It would be an arbitrary moment in time during a prolonged period in which the loan went from initially being in distress through to final settlement. Until this arbitrary point many lenders would be in and out of the loan. Lenders would vary in their degree of knowledge of the loan in question. Nobody would have chosen to be in the loan and it will be a nasty shock to those caught.. If you ivest in QAA you have already chosen not to be in control. It is an instant access hands-off account covered by PF, why would you want to be in control of each loan allocation @3.75%?
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Sept 2, 2017 8:01:57 GMT
Look, I am not knocking (and certainly not attacking) the QAA. I have a lot of money in it and see it as a hands off low risk but not zero risk product. Does anyone disagree with that? My only reservation regards the claimed transparency of the unlikely (but given enough time inevitable) event that a loan held by the QAA defaulted to a degree which AC could not cover. Some lenders would have to take the hit but AC cannot say who, except in terms which merely resurrect the problem. In fairness I don't think it would be feasible to define this as every loan default/recovery is different. Provided investors in the QAA understand this I don't see a problem but please don't describe it as transparent.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 4, 2017 12:29:50 GMT
After a few months concentrating on other things, I've spent the last few weeks on fairly intensive due diligence on loans on COL/FS/L/MT, and to be frank I'm pretty disillusioned with what I'm discovering (all of the above !!) . For lenders such as me to do adequate due diligence on loans on COL/FS/L/MT to come up with an independent risk assessment is tough, and sometimes can only be completed when the loan has drawn down due to the deliberate attempts by platforms to disguise the identity of both assets and borrowers. T...... I assume most people are aware that for secured loans to UK companies, a simple google search ..... {platform name - of the security trustee} charge {asset's town} site:companieshouse.gov.uk and it pretty much throws out the answer. Trivial......providing copies of the land registry documentation after the charge has been filed to save dozens of us each having to pay £3 (or £6 or £9 if multiple titles) to download them ...... Thanks for the search string I'd join a club which does this admin (OK this forum, I al ready belong to such a club, but I meant a paid for club, also which gets annual reports for businesses, also which establishes when and for how much the property last changed hands)
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Sept 4, 2017 12:49:58 GMT
That,s all very well (as You have said before) but there is no correct 'point' at which holdings should be frozen. It would be an arbitrary moment in time during a prolonged period in which the loan went from initially being in distress through to final settlement. Until this arbitrary point many lenders would be in and out of the loan. Lenders would vary in their degree of knowledge of the loan in question. Nobody would have chosen to be in the l oan and it will be a nasty shock to those caught.. .. You can see the loans you are invested in at any time and you can read all the details of those loans in the same level of detail as any of our other investors. ..... However we also provide the option for lenders to defer that choice of which loans to lend in to the automated investment accounts where the system follows published mandates to choose how to invest on those lender's behalf. Improvements are coming to all the investment accounts to improve the toolsets given and the investment strategies used by the automated accounts, so we'll continually evolve our offering with a view to improving their performance, but you cannot say we are not transparent. We can now see what our holdings are in the autolending accounts, for which thanks. Can you explain in general terms why I have some holdings in GEIA which are >£500 and others which are <£1. Given your fabulous ability to deal in femtopence couldn't you diversify better?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 4, 2017 13:18:05 GMT
.. You can see the loans you are invested in at any time and you can read all the details of those loans in the same level of detail as any of our other investors. ..... However we also provide the option for lenders to defer that choice of which loans to lend in to the automated investment accounts where the system follows published mandates to choose how to invest on those lender's behalf. Improvements are coming to all the investment accounts to improve the toolsets given and the investment strategies used by the automated accounts, so we'll continually evolve our offering with a view to improving their performance, but you cannot say we are not transparent. We can now see what our holdings are in the autolending accounts, for which thanks. Can you explain in general terms why I have some holdings in GEIA which are >£500 and others which are <£1. Given your fabulous ability to deal in femtopence couldn't you diversify better? Better diversification is a work in progress, scheduled for Q3 but that'll be tight. Definitely this year though. At the moment it's a factor of each lender's holdings in the GBBA etc. being totally stand alone and not co-operating with each other to help diversify. That'll be changing.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Oct 6, 2017 13:33:20 GMT
masquedefer, can you give us any idea of how much RICS valuations (desktop, local agent, national agent) cost?
|
|
bababill
Member of DD Central
Posts: 529
Likes: 245
|
Post by bababill on Oct 7, 2017 16:51:21 GMT
My old man just had a RICS valuation done.
He thinks maybe they have a cartel as they all asked the same price- £1200 plus VAT.
|
|
daveb4
Member of DD Central
Posts: 220
Likes: 116
|
Post by daveb4 on Oct 7, 2017 21:44:55 GMT
Wait till Christmas it will be £1500!
|
|
. I'm just interested in seeing the counter-argument.....
