bugs4me
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,841
Likes: 1,466
|
Post by bugs4me on Feb 19, 2018 18:53:29 GMT
<snip> The current difficulty in funding the Scot.Park Devt demonstrates that confidence is at a low ebb. I'm not sure that a cashback offer would be enough to coax investors. <snip> Exactly my point - when is the end date - is it what is stated on the platform loan page or when MT decide? Why should anyone commit funds to a loan term that will end <insert date here> All a bit farcical.
|
|
|
Post by bobthebuilder on Feb 24, 2018 14:15:51 GMT
I'm slightly mystified by this change as the renew tick boxes remain on the website. Does this mean that there is a difference between a "rollover extension" and a "renewal" ? LW That is a nice easy question, I like those. A renewal is any loan that will almost certainly be popular and fill quickly should any be available. A rollover extension is a loan nobody wants anymore. Sadly a renewal doesn't mean what it used to either. I was hoping to pick up some of the RCC loan that renewed today from the handful of lenders who decided they didn't want to keep it, but all that happened was that the end date changed. The chance of being online when parts of this loan are on sale on the SM is slim, so I'd much rather take my chances in the FFF at 12.00 p.m. MoneyThing, can this policy change be applied only to property loans? To apply it to loans that you can confidently predict will fill on renewal does seem like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
|
|
toast
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 90
|
Post by toast on Feb 24, 2018 19:33:06 GMT
Sadly a renewal doesn't mean what it used to either. I was hoping to pick up some of the RCC loan that renewed today from the handful of lenders who decided they didn't want to keep it, but all that happened was that the end date changed. The chance of being online when parts of this loan are on sale on the SM is slim, so I'd much rather take my chances in the FFF at 12.00 p.m. Back in ye olden days when there was virtually nothing available on the SM and it was hard to get any money invested, I wondered if it would make sense to have a buyer queue in a similar vein to the current seller queue. The concern then was about bots and such, but it strikes me that this mechanism would help in the above case too. I imagined it working something like this: you'd commit funds to purchase a loan for which there was none available on the secondary market and you join the buyer queue. This reduces your account balance and you earn no interest on these funds whilst they're in the queue. When you get to the front of the queue, your allocated funds are used to buy the next part put up for sale. Maybe variable pricing is a better solution? I can't decide... But either way, I'd still prefer developer resources to focus on IFISA
|
|
r00lish67
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,691
Likes: 4,048
|
Post by r00lish67 on Feb 24, 2018 19:38:51 GMT
B I imagined it working something like this: you'd commit funds to purchase a loan for which there was none available on the secondary market and you join the buyer queue. This reduces your account balance and you earn no interest on these funds whilst they're in the queue. When you get to the front of the queue, your allocated funds are used to buy the next part put up for sale. Maybe variable pricing is a better solution? I can't decide... But either way, I'd still prefer developer resources to focus on IFISA Well done, you've just re-invented Ablrate's (very good) secondary market place ..except that incorporates variable pricing too, as people can bid to purchase a loan at a premium/discount to the original price as well as offer a variable price.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 19:43:08 GMT
Back in ye olden days when there was virtually nothing available on the SM and it was hard to get any money invested, I wondered if it would make sense to have a buyer queue in a similar vein to the current seller queue. The concern then was about bots and such, but it strikes me that this mechanism would help in the above case too. Haha, those were the days... when the SM was bare and the merest hint of a bot caused hysteria. I bet MoneyThing and all those stuck in 6-figure SM selling queues would *love* to have some overly enthusiastic bots hoovering up all the loans now
|
|
toast
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 90
|
Post by toast on Feb 24, 2018 19:53:41 GMT
B I imagined it working something like this: you'd commit funds to purchase a loan for which there was none available on the secondary market and you join the buyer queue. This reduces your account balance and you earn no interest on these funds whilst they're in the queue. When you get to the front of the queue, your allocated funds are used to buy the next part put up for sale. Maybe variable pricing is a better solution? I can't decide... But either way, I'd still prefer developer resources to focus on IFISA Well done, you've just re-invented Ablrate's (very good) secondary market place ..except that incorporates variable pricing too, as people can bid to purchase a loan at a premium/discount to the original price as well as offer a variable price. Heh, kinda yeah, but the queues would work without variable pricing (not sure if that's a plus point or not). And because the seller's loan-part would automatically be purchased by the buyer queue you'd avoid the silly crossed markets sometimes seen on Abl.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 1,842
|
Post by archie on Feb 25, 2018 7:44:24 GMT
I often buy sm parts here but not on ABL (or other variable pricing sm platforms ). It's not obvious on the main ABL sm screen how much is on sale (unless you view each individual loan). That may be deterring the sheep effect. One possible way to improve things would be to pool the amounts on sale so buyers are allocated parts from each seller. Combined with removing the visibility of the total on sale should prevent the need to join the queue. Small purchases (say up to £20) could be targeted at those sellers with only low amounts left to sell. Hopefully that would prevent being stuck with 1 or 2 pounds left to sell. Larger purchases would be allocated from the whole sale pool. Just an idea.
|
|
toast
Member of DD Central
Posts: 158
Likes: 90
|
Post by toast on Feb 25, 2018 12:47:46 GMT
One possible way to improve things would be to pool the amounts on sale so buyers are allocated parts from each seller. Shrapnel for all! How would you allocate buyer's funds to sellers? e.g. If someone bought £66 and there were 33 different sellers, would they get £2 each or would someone wanting to sell £1000 get 10x the allocation of someone selling £100?That could help, but seems trickier to implement in a fair way. If all of a buyer's money goes to satisfying a subset of these tiny amounts for sale, then you'd probably want next buyer to pick up bits belonging to other sellers of tiny amounts. Maybe we could think of it as a queue system for seller's tiny amounts and a pool for bigger pieces? I pondered if it would be worth trying to "game the system" by selling in bits of £1/£2 a time, but concluded that would just be too much hassle.I strongly support proposal of ideas - good food for thought
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 1,842
|
Post by archie on Feb 25, 2018 13:22:26 GMT
One possible way to improve things would be to pool the amounts on sale so buyers are allocated parts from each seller. Shrapnel for all! How would you allocate buyer's funds to sellers? e.g. If someone bought £66 and there were 33 different sellers, would they get £2 each or would someone wanting to sell £1000 get 10x the allocation of someone selling £100?That could help, but seems trickier to implement in a fair way. If all of a buyer's money goes to satisfying a subset of these tiny amounts for sale, then you'd probably want next buyer to pick up bits belonging to other sellers of tiny amounts. Maybe we could think of it as a queue system for seller's tiny amounts and a pool for bigger pieces? I pondered if it would be worth trying to "game the system" by selling in bits of £1/£2 a time, but concluded that would just be too much hassle.I strongly support proposal of ideas - good food for thought Although it would provide shrapnel for all, there wouldn't be any need to join the sales queue unless you really wanted to sell. At the moment a lot of lenders just try to secure a place in the queue. As for which way to split the allocation I guess a forum poll could decide which is fairer. You could try and game the system, by selling a larger amount than you need to, if your sales allocation is proportionate to how much you're selling. With the smaller queue it should compensate for the shrapnel to some degree. Unbolted use random lender selection for distributing small loans. That's another possibility for small buying amounts. I'm happy with the current system but just thought I throw this suggestion into the pot.
|
|