|
Post by gusgorilla on Jan 3, 2016 15:58:41 GMT
Many potential lenders go out to work or are often busy, so prefunding of upcoming loans is almost an essential for them.
However, it may be that loan volumes are going to be so low that MT does not need any more lenders. In that case it might be better not to have prefunding, because it could annoy those loyal existing lenders who are happy to suffer minor inconvenience in exchange for larger slices of the pies. Of course a lower number of lenders ultimately means that MT would not be able to handle/attract larger loans or volumes, which might also annoy existing lenders.
A difficult call for the MT people this.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Jan 3, 2016 16:25:30 GMT
You are never going to please everyone, for the site to grow I do think a prefunding option is needed. However to make it more sensible then SS prefunding you should have the funds available when you place your bid. Rather then being able to bid an amount you never have the intention of paying for. With how fast MT usually approve money transfers this should not be an issue for people.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 3, 2016 16:38:06 GMT
You are never going to please everyone, for the site to grow I do think a prefunding option is needed. However to make it more sensible then SS prefunding you should have the funds available when you place your bid. Rather then being able to bid an amount you never have the intention of paying for. With how fast MT usually approve money transfers this should not be an issue for people. Yes and once having made a pre-fund bid the funds disappear and are held in a new location as pledged funds.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 3, 2016 16:48:25 GMT
The sensible bid limits that Ed has always applied are a much simpler and equally effective approach. The only question, now that lenders numbers have continued to grow, is whether 1% is still the right level for smaller, more popular loans (eg. managed portfolios)
|
|
|
Post by gusgorilla on Jan 3, 2016 17:22:37 GMT
What ben and littleoldlady have said seems very sensible to me. Waiting until the exact time the loan appears, sitting hitting the refresh button, desperately trying to type numbers into a box, then still failing to lend has put me right off. It was annoying the first time, infuriating the second...
I have now transferred out most of the money I was going to lend from MT into SS, which has got prefunding and is easy to use. I didn't really want to invest in property or invest in such big chunks, but I haven't the time or energy to spend wrestling the current MT system. It's a shame because otherwise I think MT is a really good site that would have suited my needs perfectly.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 3, 2016 18:00:57 GMT
The sensible bid limits that Ed has always applied are a much simpler and equally effective approach. The only question, now that lenders numbers have continued to grow, is whether 1% is still the right level for smaller, more popular loans (eg. managed portfolios) I agree with you that a limit is simple and effective, but you know how much controversy has been raised on the SS part of the forum because they are trying to impose limits on the smaller loans. I totally support such philosophy as I believe that it gives everyone a chance to invest. My opinion is that lenders are equally valuable as each human being has equal rights and this contrasts sharply with the notion that some people advocate that large-pocket-lenders should have a preference. Please do not misunderstand me. I do appreciate the value and importance of the large bidders but this does not justify any preference towards them that marginalises small bidders. At least this is how I see it.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 3, 2016 18:25:51 GMT
What ben and littleoldlady have said seems very sensible to me. Waiting until the exact time the loan appears, sitting hitting the refresh button, desperately trying to type numbers into a box, then still failing to lend has put me right off. It was annoying the first time, infuriating the second... I have now transferred out most of the money I was going to lend from MT into SS, which has got prefunding and is easy to use. I didn't really want to invest in property or invest in such big chunks, but I haven't the time or energy to spend wrestling the current MT system. It's a shame because otherwise I think MT is a really good site that would have suited my needs perfectly. I assume you must have been trying to invest in a couple of renewal loans (which have very small availability as most lenders roll over their stakes) rather than new loans?
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,894
Likes: 11,115
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 3, 2016 18:39:15 GMT
The sensible bid limits that Ed has always applied are a much simpler and equally effective approach. The only question, now that lenders numbers have continued to grow, is whether 1% is still the right level for smaller, more popular loans (eg. managed portfolios) I agree with you that a limit is simple and effective, but you know how much controversy has been raised on the SS part of the forum because they are trying to impose limits on the smaller loans. I totally support such philosophy as I believe that it gives everyone a chance to invest. My opinion is that lenders are equally valuable as each human being has equal rights and this contrasts sharply with the notion that some people advocate that large-pocket-lenders should have a preference. Please do not misunderstand me. I do appreciate the value and importance of the large bidders but this does not justify any preference towards them that marginalises small bidders. At least this is how I see it. And if you look back over the SS forum for the last 18 months you will see how many calls there were for MT style limits. It is a question of striking a balance which I think in most cases the various platforms do quite well. Offering a range of investment sizes is the only way that everyone is likely to be even vaguely statisfied. (Look at the AC boards for complaints about a move towards small loans at lower rates) SS do, MT are trying to, FS do.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,894
Likes: 11,115
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 3, 2016 19:26:29 GMT
Interestingly, & based on no scientific method whatsoever, you could have invested £17.5k in MT during December spread across 8 (non renewal) loans if youd taken a full 1% allocation, from 5 different sources. (only one was fast finger AFAIR) In SS, you could have lent the same amount across 6 loans from 4 different sources by prefunding £5.8k on each
Edit As I said on the first page of this thread I dont think prefunding will actually solve the problem that people are trying to fix.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 3, 2016 19:42:24 GMT
Many potential lenders go out to work or are often busy, so prefunding of upcoming loans is almost an essential for them. However, it may be that loan volumes are going to be so low that MT does not need any more lenders. In that case it might be better not to have prefunding, because it could annoy those loyal existing lenders who are happy to suffer minor inconvenience in exchange for larger slices of the pies. Of course a lower number of lenders ultimately means that MT would not be able to handle/attract larger loans or volumes, which might also annoy existing lenders. A difficult call for the MT people this. Don't get this at all. The way things work at the moment with the setting of a max bid in first 24 hours seems to cover pretty much all the bases. With the exception of the smallest of loans plus renewals - which because of option to rollover for existing investors amounts to the same thing - most loans sit around with availability for that first 24 hour period. Of course one can argue whether the right 'period' is 24 or 48 hours - from the perspective of lenders not the platform who's primary interest is to fill it as soon as - but the principle is sound, simple and doesn't produced the gaming mess that kicked off at SS (allegedly - I'm not on the platform). So in general the fastest finger first scrum is only kicking in after 24 hrs and for those who want more than the initial max amount. I may miss some I want because the limit is "only" there for 24 hours, but that is a reasonable window. Of course the max %age may need adjusting as lender base grows, and hopefully if small size loans come into plan (relative to size of lender base) we won't have the nonsense of £25 limits as sometimes seems to happen on FS. But then MT has already experienced and outgrown that (e.g. move to CS portfolio loans). Pre-funding is not an essential for those that work/go-out. A sufficient window of opportunity to put your chips down is - and that can be achieved by pre-funding or by tuning max bid limits for a set period. MT does the latter, and it works well. At the moment. And the last thing we should want is for all platforms to end up converging on the same 'model'. Diversity is good.
|
|
|
Post by reeknralf on Jan 3, 2016 19:44:58 GMT
The sensible bid limits that Ed has always applied are a much simpler and equally effective approach. Only if you've got nothing better to do with your time. I'm a fan of using IT to avoid mundane and pointless tasks.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Jan 3, 2016 20:04:26 GMT
At the moment it works fine, as with others I do not yet have the maximum in I want yet I expect this to take another month of two due to loan speed which I am happy with. When the site gets a bit bigger then it could be an issue but at moment the only full loans that have gone to fastest fingers first are the cash shop portfolios. In a fair few of them I have had a second helping.
The renewal are different as they never know until the day how much is going to be left.
|
|
|
Post by gusgorilla on Jan 3, 2016 20:48:19 GMT
What ben and littleoldlady have said seems very sensible to me. Waiting until the exact time the loan appears, sitting hitting the refresh button, desperately trying to type numbers into a box, then still failing to lend has put me right off. It was annoying the first time, infuriating the second... I have now transferred out most of the money I was going to lend from MT into SS, which has got prefunding and is easy to use. I didn't really want to invest in property or invest in such big chunks, but I haven't the time or energy to spend wrestling the current MT system. It's a shame because otherwise I think MT is a really good site that would have suited my needs perfectly. I assume you must have been trying to invest in a couple of renewal loans (which have very small availability as most lenders roll over their stakes) rather than new loans? That might have been the problem. Could have been a newbie misunderstanding. I will keep trying. I'm hoping to get in on some managed portfolios. Do you think a slow finger guy would have any chance?
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Jan 3, 2016 20:54:36 GMT
there is two more coming up in next week or so , will depend what happens with them and how many want to stay in
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
Post by j on Jan 3, 2016 21:00:22 GMT
Quite happy with MT as a very newcomer to the site. I only invest in the property or car-backed loans (just my preference) & whilst I missed out on a couple due to work commitments, I understand where MT are at in terms of their size & piepeline. SS went through the same a while ago & if MT manage to grow as SS have, pre-funding, etc will be the option to have then
|
|