star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Mar 16, 2016 9:09:46 GMT
The only benefit of the proposal as far as popular loans go would be that the 'subscribe' button could presumably be programmed to go live at any time and especially at 'out of uk office' hours. Whenever it goes live however you will end up with FFF bidding. The only solution I see to their popularity is more of them or smaller proportions of them. I wouldn't have a problem if this proposal were introduced, I just don't think it's the best use of MTs resources.
|
|
Investboy
Member of DD Central
Trying to recover from P2P revolution
Posts: 564
Likes: 201
|
Post by Investboy on Mar 16, 2016 13:18:00 GMT
What I'd like to see as a lazy investor is ability to set prefunding for all loans, for example I want to be diversified in all of them and put 100.00. So I don't have to monitor the activity.
Further the emails that will notify me about: my investment, remaining capital left
Going further the improved 'Autobid' system that would allow me to set a number of amounts depending on parameters, for example: if category = 'property' and ltv <= 50% -> invest 300 if category = 'property' and ltv <= 70% -> invest 200 if category = 'cars' -> invest 100 if category == 'cars' and borrower == 'AE' -> invest 0 ect...
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 16, 2016 13:26:29 GMT
Anything that encourages "blind" P2P lending, without reading and understanding the specifics of each loan and requiring a positive decision to invest, is asking for future trouble IMHO.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Mar 16, 2016 19:59:50 GMT
Anything that encourages "blind" P2P lending, without reading and understanding the specifics of each loan and requiring a positive decision to invest, is asking for future trouble IMHO. Surely that is the complete RS model though? I agree to a point though. Auto investing into unprotected loans does pose a raft of possible issues. A version of GBBA or similar with appropriate protection is a different matter. Less micro fractions though.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 17, 2016 14:11:55 GMT
Anything that encourages "blind" P2P lending, without reading and understanding the specifics of each loan and requiring a positive decision to invest, is asking for future trouble IMHO. I agree, but how does MT's suggestion do that? The only difference is that the "informed positive decision" can be taken at one's convenience when one is not delivering a baby or doing some other work which precludes going on line.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 17, 2016 14:15:01 GMT
Anything that encourages "blind" P2P lending, without reading and understanding the specifics of each loan and requiring a positive decision to invest, is asking for future trouble IMHO. I agree, but how does MT's suggestion do that? The only difference is that the "informed positive decision" can be taken at one's convenience when one is not delivering a baby or doing some other work which precludes going on line. It doesn't. I was responding to Investboy 's request.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Mar 18, 2016 8:24:52 GMT
I've dabbled in MT, but find SS much more convenient because of their PF system. I would love to invest money in MT, as the platform looks sound, but the fact I have to be at a PC when a loan goes live is incompatible with my life (working mum!). Also, the fact SS has INPL is the biggest draw for me. I can concentrate on investments first, then sort out the book later. Convenience that I need! Pre-funding and INPL are both useful features individually but they do not work well in tandem as lenders can easily prefund far more than they really want. Of the two Pre-funding is far more useful to working mums, brain surgeons, train drivers etc
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 18, 2016 8:54:05 GMT
I've dabbled in MT, but find SS much more convenient because of their PF system. I would love to invest money in MT, as the platform looks sound, but the fact I have to be at a PC when a loan goes live is incompatible with my life (working mum!). Also, the fact SS has INPL is the biggest draw for me. I can concentrate on investments first, then sort out the book later. Convenience that I need! Pre-funding and INPL are both useful features individually but they do not work well in tandem as lenders can easily prefund far more than they really want. Of the two Pre-funding is far more useful to working mums, brain surgeons, train drivers etc Not sure I agree with you there. Pre-funding & INPL work well on SS largely because they work in tandem. The issues they have with people gaming the system and requesting larger allocations than they want to keep are really symptoms of the need for tighter credit limits and/or restrictions on immediate sale. If lenders were limited to 10% of their portfolio for INPL and/or had to hold new purchases for 7 days before selling then the problems would largely disappear. However the "big hitters" probably would grumble! What other platforms have pre-funding / pre-pledging without INPL and work well? The only one I know of is AC and that's down to chris 's highly sophisticated "shrapnelator" system for dividing any availability on the SM across all those that have Buy targets set, plus the sweeping of idle cash into the QAA these days. If/when targets on a new AC loan launch cannot be met in full, there's little need for AC lenders to pull out their remaining uninvested cash because a) the system will progressively invest it automatically as parts become available on the SM, and b) it's at least earning 3.75% in the meantime. Conversely, Ablrate have tried to use pre-funding / pledging on a couple of small loans, requiring cash to be available when pledges close. The loans were greatly oversubscribed and then Ablrate were faced with hundreds of withdrawal requests as lenders pulled out their remaining idle funds. If MoneyThing decides to introduce a hybrid pre-funding approach, my suggestion would be to include a 24 hour window between pledges closing and the loan launching, so that lenders know in advance what they have been allocated and have 24 hours to fund their accounts accordingly. Any remaining availability (including any pledges made that have not been funded by time of launch) would go on "general sale" as now.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 18, 2016 8:59:15 GMT
I've dabbled in MT, but find SS much more convenient because of their PF system. I would love to invest money in MT, as the platform looks sound, but the fact I have to be at a PC when a loan goes live is incompatible with my life (working mum!).Also, the fact SS has INPL is the biggest draw for me. I can concentrate on investments first, then sort out the book later. Convenience that I need! You really DON'T need to be at your PC when an MT loan goes live. Since bid limits on smaller loans were trimmed to 0.5%, all new loans have remained available for the first 24 hours. The only times FFF comes into play is on renewals, where availability is usually very low as most people roll over their holdings, and when a smaller new loan reaches the 24 hour mark and the bid limit is removed.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Mar 18, 2016 9:01:45 GMT
If MoneyThing decides to introduce a hybrid pre-funding approach, my suggestion would be to include a 24 hour window between pledges closing and the loan launching, so that lenders know in advance what they have been allocated and have 24 hours to fund their accounts accordingly. Any remaining availability (including any pledges made that have not been funded by time of launch) would go on "general sale" as now. That sounds like a very fair way of doing things. There would have to be a decision regarding if there would be a minimum part size to allocate. The AC shrapnel works well, but it would not necessarily be suitable for all platforms. The issue then comes if so many investors want a piece of the action, it is not possible to allocate a part over the minimum size to everybody who wants some. Finding a way to do this in a way that everyone thinks is fair could be the biggest challenge.
|
|
investibod
Member of DD Central
Posts: 288
Likes: 152
|
Post by investibod on Mar 18, 2016 9:04:47 GMT
I've dabbled in MT, but find SS much more convenient because of their PF system. I would love to invest money in MT, as the platform looks sound, but the fact I have to be at a PC when a loan goes live is incompatible with my life (working mum!).Also, the fact SS has INPL is the biggest draw for me. I can concentrate on investments first, then sort out the book later. Convenience that I need! You really DON'T need to be at your PC when an MT loan goes live. Since bid limits on smaller loans were trimmed to 0.5%, all new loans have remained available for the first 24 hours. The only times FFF comes into play is on renewals, where availability is usually very low as most people roll over their holdings, and when a smaller new loan reaches the 24 hour mark and the bid limit is removed. One of the recent renewals went in 3 seconds. There was only around £200 that was not rolled over, so there would not have been much to share out. However, these are definitely cases of FFF.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Mar 18, 2016 9:06:25 GMT
If MoneyThing decides to introduce a hybrid pre-funding approach, my suggestion would be to include a 24 hour window between pledges closing and the loan launching, so that lenders know in advance what they have been allocated and have 24 hours to fund their accounts accordingly. Any remaining availability (including any pledges made that have not been funded by time of launch) would go on "general sale" as now. That sounds like a very fair way of doing things. There would have to be a decision regarding if there would be a minimum part size to allocate. The AC shrapnel works well, but it would not necessarily be suitable for all platforms. The issue then comes if so many investors want a piece of the action, it is not possible to allocate a part over the minimum size to everybody who wants some. Finding a way to do this in a way that everyone thinks is fair could be the biggest challenge. I was assuming that an MT hybrid pre-funding model would still involve sensible bid limits (as per Ed's OP), so that any scaling back of pledges would be modest and only happen on the most highly subscribed loans. [And that it wouldn't be applied to renewals]
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Mar 18, 2016 9:08:07 GMT
Regardless of the nuances of INPL and prefunding, I see SS as the gold standard in this area and think other platforms would do well to copy them. I want MT (and on another note, FS) to succeed as more competition is better for everyone. I think MT needs to attract big hitters and scale up a bit. I would invest much more if I was in the company of BHs and the SM was much more fluid.
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Mar 18, 2016 9:36:50 GMT
Regardless of the nuances of INPL and prefunding, I see SS as the gold standard in this area and think other platforms would do well to copy them. I want MT (and on another note, FS) to succeed as more competition is better for everyone. I think MT needs to attract big hitters and scale up a bit. I would invest much more if I was in the company of BHs and the SM was much more fluid. Not sure why you would think there are not BHs on MT. Even us early adopters have probably only built a loan book up to around c35k using reasonable diversification rules (MT have significant 'identical borrower' loans). If your logic is that there are no BHs around because 750k + 250k same borrower loans are not filling as quickly, then maybe consider that MT are at about 10m and SS at 90m + 35m pipeline so a 7.5k chunk of Bolton for a BH probably equates to about a 75k chunk of PBLxxx to maintain a reasonable diverse portfolio. I think MT have probably charted a better course than SS, it's simply that they started the race 24 months later. MoneyThing are likely to follow a similar path to SS at a rate that meets their business growth, no doubt as per SS there may be some CBs along the way to help deal flow, and very likely they will have followed SS growth and be able to use that experience (both good and bad) to help influence decisions regarding their own growth. Worse case they can always ask some of the 'old hands' on here for advice!
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Mar 18, 2016 9:45:34 GMT
Regardless of the nuances of INPL and prefunding, I see SS as the gold standard in this area and think other platforms would do well to copy them. I want MT (and on another note, FS) to succeed as more competition is better for everyone. I think MT needs to attract big hitters and scale up a bit. I would invest much more if I was in the company of BHs and the SM was much more fluid. Not sure why you would think there are not BHs on MT. Even us early adopters have probably only built a loan book up to around c35k using reasonable diversification rules (MT have significant 'identical borrower' loans). If your logic is that there are no BHs around because 750k + 250k same borrower loans are not filling as quickly, then maybe consider that MT are at about 10m and SS at 90m + 35m pipeline so a 7.5k chunk of Bolton for a BH probably equates to about a 75k chunk of PBLxxx to maintain a reasonable diverse portfolio. I think MT have probably charted a better course than SS, it's simply that they started the race 24 months later. MoneyThing are likely to follow a similar path to SS at a rate that meets their business growth, no doubt as per SS there may be some CBs along the way to help deal flow, and very likely they will have followed SS growth and be able to use that experience (both good and bad) to help influence decisions regarding their own growth. Worse case they can always ask some of the 'old hands' on here for advice! I accept your point about MT's point on the growth curve but I maintain that BH's are defined in absolute value rather than relative value. £7.5k is not a BH by my definition.
|
|