IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 9, 2018 12:45:51 GMT
How dare you. The people have spoken and must never be asked again no matter how it turns out in practice. You're on form today, IFISAcava Sorry, I'll stop. Just a bit of ironic fun rather than trying to open up anything serious!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 9, 2018 12:50:32 GMT
but adding only discounts is an even larger minority position - 75% against No, because people who voted for both are in favour of discounts not against they just want premiums as well, whereas those who voted in favour of no change or discounts only are not in favour of premiums. You would have needed a just premium option to have counbted those votes as being anti discount.
Anyway, a phased introduction is a sensible way to proceed.
I don't think you can assume people who voted for both would prefer discounts only to no change. But anyway it would need an Alternative Vote preference system to be sure of what the majority want. As it is 40% get their way (as seems usual in the UK)
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 9, 2018 12:55:09 GMT
Happy with the vote outcome
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 9, 2018 12:58:40 GMT
There is no such thing as 'discounts only', unless you stop me buying at 95% and reselling the next day at 98% .. that's a premium (to what I paid), but a discount to par, and I suspect will be possible from the get-go, unless the Shuang plans to attach a 'low water mark price' to every loan part.
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 367
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Nov 9, 2018 13:00:15 GMT
Who should get the benefit of good-value loans? The pool of lender who are taking on the risk, or the person who happens to have built a better flipperbot? In which case you appear to be making a different point, which is that you don't want the SM to be overrun by bots. I haven't heard anything to suggest MT are changing their policy on this. Why should sellers be forced to sell at a price completely disconnected from true value? (my bold)I'm not sure how sellers would be 'forced' to sell. If I believe a loan I want to sell is worth more than par, I offer it at a premium. If nobody wants it at that price I can drop the premium, just sit tight, or remove it from sale. If I believe a loan is worth less than par, or I want funds in a hurry, I offer at a discount - anyone can then make their own judgment about the loan's value and get themselves what they see as a bargain. As for 'true value': how should this be determined? Surely it's up to each lender to decide for themselves?
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Nov 9, 2018 13:06:19 GMT
There is no such thing as 'discounts only', unless you stop me buying at 95% and reselling the next day at 98% .. that's a premium (to what I paid), but a discount to par, and I suspect will be possible from the get-go, unless the Shuang plans to attach a 'low water mark price' to every loan part. 'low water mark price' would be the correct way to approach discounts only (and with the added bonus of saving us from the tedious boasts from scalpers) (and build in auto discount for those that have picked up cashback or other inducements) can't wait to see all these loans that will now fly off the shelves Zzzzzzzz
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Nov 9, 2018 13:20:42 GMT
In which case you appear to be making a different point, which is that you don't want the SM to be overrun by bots. I haven't heard anything to suggest MT are changing their policy on this. Why should sellers be forced to sell at a price completely disconnected from true value? (my bold)I'm not sure how sellers would be 'forced' to sell. If I believe a loan I want to sell is worth more than par, I offer it at a premium. If nobody wants it at that price I can drop the premium, just sit tight, or remove it from sale. If I believe a loan is worth less than par, or I want funds in a hurry, I offer at a discount - anyone can then make their own judgment about the loan's value and get themselves what they see as a bargain. As for 'true value': how should this be determined? Surely it's up to each lender to decide for themselves? I think you've misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the current setup: if I want to sell, I am currently forced to sell at par, regardless of my belief in the fair price. I'm all in favour of allowing discounts and premia.
|
|
boundah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 367
Likes: 430
|
Post by boundah on Nov 9, 2018 14:14:30 GMT
I'm not sure how sellers would be 'forced' to sell. If I believe a loan I want to sell is worth more than par, I offer it at a premium. If nobody wants it at that price I can drop the premium, just sit tight, or remove it from sale. If I believe a loan is worth less than par, or I want funds in a hurry, I offer at a discount - anyone can then make their own judgment about the loan's value and get themselves what they see as a bargain. As for 'true value': how should this be determined? Surely it's up to each lender to decide for themselves? I think you've misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to the current setup: if I want to sell, I am currently forced to sell at par, regardless of my belief in the fair price. I'm all in favour of allowing discounts and premia. Sorry, I must try to follow things a bit more closely. I agree.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 747
Likes: 738
|
Post by eeyore on Nov 9, 2018 14:29:33 GMT
65% in favour of discounts so that's clear. 54% against premiums, so adding them actually a minority position. Well, quite! In their email, MT said "... we plan to add both premiums and discounts as this option received the most votes." If this is an accurate indication of the standard of their statistical analyses, then my inclination to place future P2P investments elsewhere has just been reinforced. As we all know, when Management want to introduce a potentially unpopular development, just run a survey using whatever loaded question will give the "right" answer and then claim it's what the majority want. With so many speculative valuations out there, my investments will be highly selective and aimed at loans I intend to hold to redemption.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 9, 2018 15:46:11 GMT
Nobody is forcing anybody to buy at a premium. The negativity about premiums is ridiculousl. One poster even called them unethical lol
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 9, 2018 16:10:00 GMT
Nobody is forcing anybody to buy at a premium. The negativity about premiums is ridiculousl. One poster even called them unethical lol And I agreed with them.
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. It captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Gordon Gekko. 1987. (Fictional)
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 9, 2018 16:12:23 GMT
Nobody is forcing anybody to buy at a premium. The negativity about premiums is ridiculousl. One poster even called them unethical lol And I agreed with them.
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. It captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind."
Gordon Gekko. 1987. (Fictional)
How is it greedy though?
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Nov 9, 2018 16:19:48 GMT
hazellend I come back to the two examples I have given (MTAC and AE) when I could have sold at a premium before posting news with negative price implications on here. That would have simply been taking advantage of people, i.e. pure greed. (I know the same could be said for selling at par vs fair value being a discount, but hopefully purchases at par will be redeemed at par in due course).
But don't get me wrong, I'm entirely happy that premiums will be introduced despite my vote against.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 9, 2018 16:34:25 GMT
hazellend I come back to the two examples I have given (MTAC and AE) when I could have sold at a premium before posting news with negative price implications on here. That would have simply been taking advantage of people, i.e. pure greed. (I know the same could be said for selling at par vs fair value being a discount, but hopefully purchases at par will be redeemed at par in due course).
But don't get me wrong, I'm entirely happy that premiums will be introduced despite my vote against.
In the stock market they would say you have an “edge”
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Nov 9, 2018 19:14:34 GMT
Sorry, I'll stop. Just a bit of ironic fun rather than trying to open up anything serious! No need to apologise, I quite enjoyed the exchanges this morning hence the Sorry if I stopped you from posting further quips!
|
|