webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Nov 21, 2015 12:09:36 GMT
Difficult balancing act for MT. Do they reward the pioneers who helped get the platform established or do they adopt the strategy currently fashionable in financial services of going all out for new customers and not rewarding loyalty?
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Nov 21, 2015 12:49:47 GMT
MT is not unique in having roll-overs, and it's not as if there are no other opportunities to invest, on MT and elsewhere.
It is sometimes recognised in other fields that for instance it is better to retain staff than replace them, and cheaper to retain existing customers than gain new ones. Perhaps that applies to p2p investors as well?
The word "unfair" seems to crop up on the P2P forums regularly, presumably from people who feel disadvantaged. Roll-overs are unfair. Auction start times are unfair. Faster finger first is unfair. How about minimum bid sizes, are they unfair? Perhaps it is unfair that only those with money to invest are allowed to invest? The solutions to all this unfairness usually seem to disadvantage someone else.
From my perspective, I don't regard things as fair or unfair. I take them as they are and either operate within the framework or move elsewhere.
I don't understand "MT need to be mindful." Mindful of what?
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,426
Likes: 1,211
|
Post by sqh on Nov 21, 2015 13:39:07 GMT
I don't think it applies with MT, but on most sites new loans don't pay interest until drawdown, whereas rollovers pay interest immediately. Therefore, I think it's important that existing lenders should get priority to compensate for the loss of interest prior to drawdown.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 21, 2015 13:40:49 GMT
Agree with all of the above. Also bear in mind that the Managed Portfolios were always intended to be rolling 6 month loans that lenders could opt to stay invested in longer term. The only reasonable regret for new MT lenders should be that new Managed Portfolio loans aren't currently appearing. However I dare say Ed & Co are working on this as they know how popular they've been One thing I firmly hope is that Moneything's SM is launched with a very clear "No Bots" policy, backed by a commitment to take action when an account looks to be a Bot-powered hoover. There will be heaps of interest in any parts of Managed Portfolio and other smaller MT loans that get placed on the SM and everyone should have a fair chance of picking them up. [One weapon might be a selective capability to add a "captcha" manual bid confirmation to any account that, after fair warning, still looks to be Bot-driven]
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 13:53:03 GMT
amen to no-bots.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 21, 2015 14:09:34 GMT
Are bionic parts allowed?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 21, 2015 14:32:40 GMT
I have the greatest respect for The Shuang, and trust he is a fully qualified in the art of nobotomy, so tell us please, is he a certified nobotomist?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Nov 21, 2015 14:51:15 GMT
I wonder if Kim Kardashian needs the attentions of a nobotomist. (Behave, Grumples!!)Attachments:
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 21, 2015 15:59:26 GMT
Is that real or a bot?
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Nov 21, 2015 18:11:05 GMT
I can understand the frustration, until recently its not been easy to get money into the platform, even now it's only loans in small number and limited diversification
It would be nice if there were a mix of renewals and new versions of these loans or in general more new loans big and small
Level of 'new' loans has been low compared to say their closest competitor FS or even SS if looking at just popular platforms
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Nov 21, 2015 18:37:47 GMT
I can understand the frustration, until recently its not been easy to get money into the platform, even now it's only loans in small number and limited diversification It would be nice if there were a mix of renewals and new versions of these loans or in general more new loans big and small Level of 'new' loans has been low compared to say their closest competitor FS or even SS if looking at just popular platforms Give it a chance! MT has been going less time than FS or SS. The early loans were small pawn loans of £1k or £2k. Look how it has developed in that time, supported by the early adopters. It's building, finding its feet, finding out what works and what doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by reeknralf on Nov 22, 2015 10:59:12 GMT
So,
Fair and unfair don't exist. People claiming otherwise are self-interested, pushing to gain advantage over other investors.
Bots are the spawn of the devil, giving (other, more technically literate) people an unfair advantage and should be banned.
disclaimer: I have never used bots.
It's a total mystery to me why platforms persist with first come first served, when it is so simple to use targets/prefunding to allocate loan parts. I assume they wish to develop allure through scarcity. I don't like platforms which promote lemming mentality.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Nov 22, 2015 11:04:56 GMT
So, Fair and unfair don't exist. People claiming otherwise are self-interested, pushing to gain advantage over other investors. Bots are the spawn of the devil, giving (other, more technically literate) people an unfair advantage and should be banned. disclaimer: I have never used bots. It's a total mystery to me why platforms persist with first come first served, when it is so simple to use targets/prefunding to allocate loan parts. I assume they wish to develop allure through scarcity. I don't like platforms which promote lemming mentality. I generally agree with you but there is some inconsistency between your first and second sentences.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Nov 22, 2015 12:02:00 GMT
I have to ask is it fair that existing investors in a loan should get the option to re-invest automatically? Further, is it fair that they can invest in the loan at levels exceeding the size available to new investors should they have invested more originally? It looks like the set of 10k loans coming up on 26th+ had a limit of £150 last time and this time I'll be £100. There's always a balance in this sort of thing between those who have already invested and who want to keep their money invested and those who don't yet have as much money invested as they would like. Making a lot of extra work for those who have already invested tends to be very unpopular because people strongly favour not having to continually do work to keep their money invested once it's done. At present the only way to exit from a managed portfolio loan is to wait for a rollover and choose not to roll it over, with no partial rollover option either. A secondary market will presumably spread out the buying opportunities, since those who wish to exit would be able to do so at arbitrary times. Maybe even for less than the full amount. People do tend to have a limit on how much they can invest so if a secondary market allows partial sales what we should see is some people choosing to sell parts of their holdings to diversify into new offers. If partial sales aren't allowed we may stil see some of that because all of the pawn loans are with one pawn shop chain and there would be some desire to diversify to different borrowers. If further action is needed, the limit thought would be an interesting way of going about it, capping the resubscription to the current limit. A fair number of loans didn't fill within the first 24 hours for which a limit wa in place and then had bigger buyers taking them. the negative aspect of this is besides the keep money invested argument, that these people presumably have larger total amounts to lend. The fixed numeric caps tend to harm them by making it much slower for them to get their money invested and the after 24 hours period without cap is the way they can get more speed, at the cost of less diversification. In an ideal world I'd perhaps try to optimise things so that all players would take the same time to get their target amount lent, knowing that's actually impossible because the platform doesn't have the loan volume to meet demand, so all would end up with money uninvested. The current mix lets the smaller players get fully invested relatively quickly and then uses the bigger ones to fill the harder to fill loans, even so forcing them to take longer to get their money invested overall. I'm not sure it's actually unfair to the smaller players to let the bigger ones keep that money invested once it's done. They are already being limited quite severely in the speed at which they can get their money invested, while the smaller players can get a proportionately large amount invested relatively quickly. Overall I think the balance is reasonably good and definitely strongly favouring the smaller investors over the larger ones very strongly. If you don't see just how favoured smaller investors are, just consider how many loans it would take to invest at cap level when the amount to invest is £100, £1,000, £10,000, £100,000 and £1,000,000. That 100k to invest person is going to be waiting for a thousand loans if they don't fill some that go beyond 24 hours, while the person trying to get £10,000 invested can do it in 100 loans and the one with a thousand can do it in ten. You're going to be waiting quite a while to get 1,000 loans to get the 100k invested at £100 a time!
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Nov 22, 2015 12:07:21 GMT
It's a total mystery to me why platforms persist with first come first served, when it is so simple to use targets/prefunding to allocate loan parts. I assume they wish to develop allure through scarcity. I don't like platforms which promote lemming mentality. Both ways have scarcity. One has a specific time to invest as a constraint, the other presumably has an allocation policy to divide up the available amount between the desired amounts.Pre-allocation tends to lead to limited or no review time before investing. Moneything is using a sort of half-way house, a cap that gives people time to review before deciding while also allowing the potential for a reasonable time to take a look before committing. It's arguable that a cap that guarantees time to review is a better solution than pre-allocation approaches. A disadvantage of the cap i that the platform has to individually decide on the cap level, while an allocation approach with pre-allocation can automate it.
|
|