cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 13, 2018 17:38:16 GMT
I voted for the long term too. Having an ISA with MT, capital gain or loss is not an issue, taxwise, and jumping ship is altogether more hassle than I am ready for at the moment. Hopefully the changes will make the platform even more attractive .. if not, they will not be irreversible. Pretty easy to restrict, or withdraw, the facilities. Are you sure about that? I contend it would be almost impossible to reverse the changes given the vocal support of their introduction - the 'traders' have too much to lose. I am sure what Moneything is now, and will become, is not the Moneything that started. Of course this could be because of growth/expansion and bigger loans, and that was I assume always Moneything's aim. However this also brought a change in lenders. As Moneything caught the attention of the 'professional' retail P2P lenders, with time and expertise to leverage these skills at the expense of others to increase their profit, they needed Moneything to change and have engineered this. Moneything are well within their rights to take their platform in whatever direction they decide, and I am sure of the likely change of demographic secondary market trading will take them. I just think it is folly to suggest it can be reversed.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 13, 2018 18:53:32 GMT
I am sure what Moneything is now, and will become, is not the Moneything that started. Of course this could be because of growth/expansion and bigger loans, and that was I assume always Moneything's aim. However this also brought a change in lenders. As Moneything caught the attention of the 'professional' retail P2P lenders, with time and expertise to leverage these skills at the expense of others to increase their profit, they needed Moneything to change and have engineered this. cedarcourtcapital , I have to chuckle at the way you've started presenting yourself as the voice of the long-serving MT lender. I've been one of the strongest voices calling for MT to permit discounting of loans to boost SM liquidity, yet I was one of the very first 50 lenders to sign up when MT launched. My motivation is to unblock the SM log-jam we've seen for many months and permit those clamouring to exit their loans to do so, whilst giving confidence to those investing in new MT loans that they won't immediately find themselves locked in to term behind a huge queue at Par. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if I was personally barred from trading on the new variable price SM; I make my loan decisions based on the sums I'm happy to hold to term
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 13, 2018 19:51:25 GMT
I voted for the long term too. Having an ISA with MT, capital gain or loss is not an issue, taxwise, and jumping ship is altogether more hassle than I am ready for at the moment. Hopefully the changes will make the platform even more attractive .. if not, they will not be irreversible. Pretty easy to restrict, or withdraw, the facilities. Are you sure about that? I contend it would be almost impossible to reverse the changes given the vocal support of their introduction - the 'traders' have too much to lose. FS seem to have managed to restrict premiums or discounts, i believe, but i was really talking about the technical possibility .. politically it would, indeed, require a majority to want it put back to how it was. If folks want out, there are quite a few who would be willing to assist them .. just not at par (on the current logjam loans). Heck, i'd even buy some more of the currently stalled new loan offering, if the price was (quite a bit) lower.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 13, 2018 22:57:10 GMT
I am sure what Moneything is now, and will become, is not the Moneything that started. Of course this could be because of growth/expansion and bigger loans, and that was I assume always Moneything's aim. However this also brought a change in lenders. As Moneything caught the attention of the 'professional' retail P2P lenders, with time and expertise to leverage these skills at the expense of others to increase their profit, they needed Moneything to change and have engineered this. cedarcourtcapital , I have to chuckle at the way you've started presenting yourself as the voice of the long-serving MT lender. I've been one of the strongest voices calling for MT to permit discounting of loans to boost SM liquidity, yet I was one of the very first 50 lenders to sign up when MT launched. My motivation is to unblock the SM log-jam we've seen for many months and permit those clamouring to exit their loans to do so, whilst giving confidence to those investing in new MT loans that they won't immediately find themselves locked in to term behind a huge queue at Par. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if I was personally barred from trading on the new variable price SM; I make my loan decisions based on the sums I'm happy to hold to term Chuckle away - thanks for explaining your motivations, although I suspect you will take advantage of variable pricing when it is available if it suits. I would prefer the option was not be available, I am not setting myself up as anyone's voice, I think less of you for making this appear personal. I acknowledge the fact that you are happy not to use variable pricing confirms that you joined a different Moneything to the one we are in now. I acknowledged Moneything have every right to take their platform anywhere, to try to appeal to those with deeper pockets. Variable pricing will not be the panacea to cure the constipated secondary market. The issue is lack of faith in P2P/Moneything because of recent defaults and some woefully inaccurate and costly valuations. The issue is lack of new money because of lack of faith. I await with interest seeing all the discounted loans appear. However these will only reduce the queues if buyers are found. Now I have read a lot of 'traders' suggesting they will take on unappreciated loans at the right price, but I bet that is not 5-10% discount, I bet it will be more. Even then the only loans which will be sold will be either good loans which will eventually repay, or loans that can be off loaded to the unwary. So to sum up I do not want variable pricing (shock admission😁) and I also do not think it will work. The traders, do not really care whether it works or not, they know they might profit or be no worse off.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 746
Likes: 737
|
Post by eeyore on Nov 14, 2018 10:19:35 GMT
Moneything are well within their rights to take their platform in whatever direction they decide, and I am sure of the likely change of demographic secondary market trading will take them. I just think it is folly to suggest it can be reversed.If we start with the objective of "clearing the log-jam" of loans offered for sale on the secondary market, would it make sense for MT to take small and easily-reversible steps on the way to full-scale "trader-friendly" discounts and premiums? If much of what's in the sale queue is simply folks reserving a place in the queue, would measures such as stopping interest payments for loan parts held in the queue or imposing a sale fee be effective? I suggest that such measures, if successful, could be reversed (and re-introduced if queues became a problem again).
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 14, 2018 10:35:33 GMT
Moneything are well within their rights to take their platform in whatever direction they decide, and I am sure of the likely change of demographic secondary market trading will take them. I just think it is folly to suggest it can be reversed.If we start with the objective of "clearing the log-jam" of loans offered for sale on the secondary market, would it make sense for MT to take small and easily-reversible steps on the way to full-scale "trader-friendly" discounts and premiums? If much of what's in the sale queue is simply folks reserving a place in the queue, would measures such as stopping interest payments for loan parts held in the queue or imposing a sale fee be effective? I suggest that such measures, if successful, could be reversed (and re-introduced if queues became a problem again). If we take the objective that you state - Yes and yes. However, despite what 'traders' say, their calls for variable pricing started before the secondary market issues, agreed have amplified since, but they were there before. So despite what you think I maintain motivation is not to assist the secondary market. As I have written personally I do not see secondary market problems being solved until Moneything loans start repaying on schedule, restoring confidence in their loans. When they were there were no issues most lenders held to term, and on loans that rolled over anyone who wanted out were easily replaced. Confidence in P2P/Moneything is the real issue, allowing variable pricing will not restore this, it just gives those with the time and expertise to exploit others.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 14, 2018 11:23:17 GMT
If we start with the objective of "clearing the log-jam" of loans offered for sale on the secondary market, would it make sense for MT to take small and easily-reversible steps on the way to full-scale "trader-friendly" discounts and premiums? If much of what's in the sale queue is simply folks reserving a place in the queue, would measures such as stopping interest payments for loan parts held in the queue or imposing a sale fee be effective? If we take the objective that you state - Yes and yes.How on earth would either suggestion help to boost SM liquidity and/or lenders' enthusiasm to invest their money through MT? A shorter queue that moves even more slowly doesn't clear any log-jam! Happily, MT have a good handle on the situation and are working well on a number of fronts IMO (defaulted loan recoveries, monitoring of live loans, new loan origination, SM liquidity, etc).
|
|
dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Nov 14, 2018 12:33:25 GMT
Moneything are well within their rights to take their platform in whatever direction they decide, and I am sure of the likely change of demographic secondary market trading will take them. I just think it is folly to suggest it can be reversed.If we start with the objective of "clearing the log-jam" of loans offered for sale on the secondary market, would it make sense for MT to take small and easily-reversible steps on the way to full-scale "trader-friendly" discounts and premiums? If much of what's in the sale queue is simply folks reserving a place in the queue, would measures such as stopping interest payments for loan parts held in the queue or imposing a sale fee be effective? I suggest that such measures, if successful, could be reversed (and re-introduced if queues became a problem again). I believe Moneything have stated in the past they do not agree with suspending interest payments for loans waiting to be sold. If I am taking the risk on my loan part then I should continue to be paid the interest. If Moneything did decide to do this I would immediately start withdrawing my funds. I know Lendy (and Collateral) do that but that is why I was running them down (until I became stuck like others). I don't like the idea of a fee either but that at least makes more sense.
|
|
cedarcourtcapital
Member of DD Central
Listening is not the same as understanding
Posts: 190
Likes: 316
|
Post by cedarcourtcapital on Nov 14, 2018 14:48:53 GMT
Let me start by stating I was commenting on the validity of the suggested alternative methods of 'solving' the secondary market issue being reversible. That was the question. I am not commenting on whether they would be valid. On the matter of Moneything stating something in the past and that meaning they would not change their mind..... Variable secondary market pricing. It was debated a while ago, and it was decided it was not right for Moneything.... To be introduced in the new year. I am just illustrating that things change.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 14, 2018 16:16:09 GMT
There is some faint merit in 'a fee for selling' (although it will for sure depress SM listing of 'optional' things for sale). There is no merit (IMO) of 'lose interest while on the SM' .. that is a (variable) fee for NOT selling.
Hopefully though we won't get either .. I am sure the platform is not in need of 0.x% of SM sales to stay afloat, but they would like a SM which goes somewhere when a lender requires it.
|
|
dawn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 308
Likes: 275
|
Post by dawn on Nov 14, 2018 17:12:11 GMT
Let me start by stating I was commenting on the validity of the suggested alternative methods of 'solving' the secondary market issue being reversible. That was the question. I am not commenting on whether they would be valid. On the matter of Moneything stating something in the past and that meaning they would not change their mind..... Variable secondary market pricing. It was debated a while ago, and it was decided it was not right for Moneything.... To be introduced in the new year. I am just illustrating that things change. And let me add that I was replying to eeyore's suggestions - not to your original comments.
|
|
eeyore
Member of DD Central
Posts: 746
Likes: 737
|
Post by eeyore on Nov 14, 2018 17:59:42 GMT
Let me start by stating I was commenting on the validity of the suggested alternative methods of 'solving' the secondary market issue being reversible. That was the question. I am not commenting on whether they would be valid. On the matter of Moneything stating something in the past and that meaning they would not change their mind..... Variable secondary market pricing. It was debated a while ago, and it was decided it was not right for Moneything.... To be introduced in the new year. I am just illustrating that things change. And let me add that I was replying to eeyore's suggestions - not to your original comments. Can I just add that I was floating potential ideas to alleviate the perceived log-jam symptom, as examples of actions which could, in my opinion, be reversible. From my personal perspective, I don't like either of the ideas!
|
|