blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 8, 2016 9:45:24 GMT
Thanks for the total funds on the dashboard, and with an explanation if you hover on the little pound sign. I should be happy all day. That little calendar sign next to instalment date (I though it was a car battery but fortunately had not queried the relevance), well, all that means is that the entry is a date rather than an amount in pounds. Hovering to give an actual advent calendar with a month of repayment dates would be rather a big ask. I think there should, in due course, be a schedule of future repayments - but that should be a separate feature which drives the next instalment date (or whatever), rather than being driven by hovering over a box. The hover should be an explanation of the date given, or further info such as the loan number - not an expansion into the general world of repayments, imo. Nice to have a schedule, yes, but we must be careful not to distract Ablrate too much from the day job, the loans.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Dec 8, 2016 9:53:01 GMT
Ablrate, while you are looking at the reporting on the dashboard, you could consider changing next instalment date and amount to repayment (or payment for short which is used in the loan details). It seems confusing to use a new undefined word like instalment when payment is generally used for the same thing elsewhere. Of course there are other payments, like instant returns, but they are not scheduled. There may have been a reason why instalment was chosen, but I cannot see it. (This is a small point). Thanks blender, we are actually looking at this.. one of the bugs with this is that if you have two instalments on the same day, the system picks one and displays that... so that is on the list Regards Ablrate
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 8, 2016 10:33:35 GMT
0.1% resolution in setting a premium implies approx 0.1% difference in APR for a 12 month loan and less than that for anything longer. 0.1% APR equates to £1 of interest earned on £1000 over an entire year. Surely that is enough price discrimination to support an efficient market (0.001% resolution equates to 1 penny of interest on £1000 in a year, which is ludicrous)
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 8, 2016 10:52:35 GMT
0.1% resolution in setting a premium implies approx 0.1% difference in APR for a 12 month loan and less than that for anything longer. 0.1% APR equates to £1 of interest earned on £1000 over an entire year. Surely that is enough price discrimination to support an efficient market (0.001% resolution equates to 1 penny of interest on £1000 in a year, which is ludicrous) 0.1% of par doesn't imply 0.1% change in yield, it depends on the specifics of the loan term remaining and whether it's amortising or not. But no, I don't agree that a Pound a year is sufficiently small margin, that's quite significant particularly when compared to say bank interest rates. I was serious when I suggested that a penny of interest over the remaining loan term might be fine-grained enough. But even that would be unpleasant in the last few months of a loan when it's mostly capital being repaid and something smaller might be needed to give bidders a chance to compete within the small amount of remaining interest that is payable. Or put another way, if it produces a penny in interest difference over the whole remaining longish loan term that's the sort of granularity that I want to be available since it's not a vanishingly small difference. I do think that you might be missing some psychological factors in offering and buying, though, so a few observations: 1. I quite recently undercut an offer of £1000 that I think might have been yours with a £500 offer of mine. Because the offer was £1000. If it had been 500 or 250 i'd be less likely to bother. I sold my first 500 rapidly and replaced it with another 500 so someone not paying attention at the right time might have thought it was still the original 500. So you might consider staggered smaller amounts to decrease the psychological interest in under-bidding vs not bothering. Still depends on each seller's desire to sell so it's not perfect but you might find that your experience matches mine if you try it. 2. I dislike offering lumps of more than £500 though I will sometimes. And I also quite often favour numbers that are not a multiple of 100s because that can look as though some has already sold and encourage buyers. Instead of 1000 you might try 480, 220 and 300 and see what happens. 3. I grimace when I see a single offer in the tens of thousands of Pounds, anticipating virtual constipation as people are forced to under-bid or wait behind it and think it creates an impression in buyers that the loan isn't really desired. I'd much rather see a few 500s that get replaced when they are sold.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Dec 8, 2016 11:18:28 GMT
Ablrate, while you are looking at the reporting on the dashboard, you could consider changing next instalment date and amount to repayment (or payment for short which is used in the loan details). It seems confusing to use a new undefined word like instalment when payment is generally used for the same thing elsewhere. Of course there are other payments, like instant returns, but they are not scheduled. There may have been a reason why instalment was chosen, but I cannot see it. (This is a small point). Thanks blender, we are actually looking at this.. one of the bugs with this is that if you have two instalments on the same day, the system picks one and displays that... so that is on the list Regards Ablrate Of course this whole 'next instalment' facility is not essential and a schedule would be more useful, but in the short term a fix would be good. There is also the hangover which occurred with 532 not being paid. What is important with the 'next instalment' is that once it is displayed and expectations of payment are raised, it is important to actually make the payment on the due date. Otherwise you shoot yourself in the foot. (I'm still happy today but probably could not manage two days in a row).
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Dec 8, 2016 13:39:35 GMT
0.1% resolution in setting a premium implies approx 0.1% difference in APR for a 12 month loan and less than that for anything longer. 0.1% APR equates to £1 of interest earned on £1000 over an entire year. Surely that is enough price discrimination to support an efficient market (0.001% resolution equates to 1 penny of interest on £1000 in a year, which is ludicrous) 0.1% of par doesn't imply 0.1% change in yield, it depends on the specifics of the loan term remaining and whether it's amortising or not. But no, I don't agree that a Pound a year is sufficiently small margin, that's quite significant particularly when compared to say bank interest rates. I was serious when I suggested that a penny of interest over the remaining loan term might be fine-grained enough. But even that would be unpleasant in the last few months of a loan when it's mostly capital being repaid and something smaller might be needed to give bidders a chance to compete within the small amount of remaining interest that is payable. Or put another way, if it produces a penny in interest difference over the whole remaining longish loan term that's the sort of granularity that I want to be available since it's not a vanishingly small difference. <snip> I'd vote with SteveT on this one - if you are going to butt into a queue, whether it is bidding (per LC, ReBS, or how FC used to be) or the SM sales queue, I think you OUGHT to have to pay some reasonable price (0.1% or even 1%) for the privilege of doing so. Mucking about at 0.001% just amounts to 'he who shouts last is always in front, with no discernible penalty', and favours people (or bots) who can hover and adjust prices 24/7. Even the BOE doesn't mess about down at the 0.001% level.
|
|
|
Post by ablrate on Dec 8, 2016 13:49:59 GMT
0.1% of par doesn't imply 0.1% change in yield, it depends on the specifics of the loan term remaining and whether it's amortising or not. But no, I don't agree that a Pound a year is sufficiently small margin, that's quite significant particularly when compared to say bank interest rates. I was serious when I suggested that a penny of interest over the remaining loan term might be fine-grained enough. But even that would be unpleasant in the last few months of a loan when it's mostly capital being repaid and something smaller might be needed to give bidders a chance to compete within the small amount of remaining interest that is payable. Or put another way, if it produces a penny in interest difference over the whole remaining longish loan term that's the sort of granularity that I want to be available since it's not a vanishingly small difference. <snip> I'd vote with SteveT on this one - if you are going to butt into a queue, whether it is bidding (per LC, ReBS, or how FC used to be) or the SM sales queue, I think you OUGHT to have to pay some reasonable price (0.1% or even 1%) for the privilege of doing so. Mucking about at 0.001% just amounts to 'he who shouts last is always in front, with no discernible penalty', and favours people (or bots) who can hover and adjust prices 24/7. Even the BOE doesn't mess about down at the 0.001% level. OK - we will look at changing this. It does make sense. Regards Ablrate
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 8, 2016 21:44:10 GMT
Because there is relatively little actual buying going on. Now I've had a bit more time: Ablrate: that £4,255,671.74 of secondary market deals on £15,146,115.84 of completed loans. 27.9% of loan value. MoneyThing: £7,774,295 of secondary market deals as of November 7 on £28 million of completed loans as of September 2016. 27.8% of loan value Interesting that the value of secondary market trades vs loan volume is almost the same on two platforms with a very different approach to the secondary market, with some people disliking or liking each approach quite strongly. It's actually a bit more interesting because much of MoneyThing's volume is loan renewals so Ablrate might have originated more new loan volume than MoneyThing at the moment.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 8, 2016 21:47:57 GMT
It doesn't make sense if the change produces more than the minimum reportable difference in yield or interest because the problems described aren't actually happening to any great degree - most tiny differences at present are created in response to this discussion to get data for it - but given that you plan to do it anyway: 1. When a person is editing an offer or bid each day or so to keep it at the target yield, will they be forced to use this granularity each day to under-bid themselves while trying to keep the yield the same? Or will they perhaps have to use new offers or bids each day to do it? Though being able to set at a target yield and have that updated each day would be a convenient helper for this, particularly if it didn't change rank at each tracking update. 2. What intervals on capital or yield or interest nominal amount and over what time period are you planning to have us use? If it's set at something like a penny of interest on the outstanding loan balance or perhaps £10k worth over it's remaining term it would make some sense since that's the minimum visible level of change and I'd actually somewhat like to see the minimum difference be the minimum visible difference. 3. What will you do when the difference you plan results in a change greater than the total remaining amount of interest left on the loan? Or 10% of that remaining interest? Or 50%? It's actually impossible to do a sensible bid at times at say Bondora because the minimum bid margin is so large that you can't create a bid that doesn't result in a loss for the buyer or seller because the margin exceeds the remaining interest that is payable. Which is very frustrating since there's no need for that margin to be just one decimal place on the capital value. 4. Will you do anything to prevent offers from being edited to add money or change rate while keeping their position? The current setup makes this pointless because you can just underbid by a little. The planned change rewards it and creates an advantage for those with more money that the current system doesn't have because it's easier to keep offers continually funded if you have more money in them. While writing about things that people don't think about that cause trouble, think also of the bright sparks who asked for a markup cap based on capital value at Bondora, got it and then left sellers forced to offer yields of 90%+ to buyers because of accrued penalties and higher interest rates.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 9, 2016 7:58:46 GMT
I'm afraid comparing the Ablrate and Moneything secondary markets is like comparing apples and orangutans.
Moneything remains a supply-constrained "buy and hold" platform, with demand from buyers far outstripping willing sellers; that's why there's rarely anything available on the MT SM and anything that is offered disappears in seconds. New MT loans tend to fill within 24 hours (occasionally 24 hours + 1 minute), even with very tight bid limits. I'd hazard a guess the Moneything SM could easily triple or quadruple its turnover if lenders were willing to sell their holdings.
Ablrate, on the other hand, seems a fair way back on the lender demand curve, unfairly in my opinion because many of the loans are good ones and origination of new loans is much improved. New Ablrate loans can still take weeks to fill and sometimes close well below their target, whilst the SM is demand-constrained and comparatively illiquid (unless perhaps you log in every few hours to tweak your offers by another 0.001% !!)
As many other P2P platforms have demonstrated (SS, FC, MT, AC, etc.), SM liquidity is the key to accelerating growth. When lenders are confident there will be buyers for their holdings, they're prepared to take on much bigger stakes in new loans and act as proxy underwriters. That was briefly the case on Ablrate in H2 2015, when supply of new loans was so limited that buyers outstripped sellers and SM loans were selling at yields down to 8%. It certainly isn't the case now.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 9, 2016 8:48:55 GMT
Moneything remains a supply-constrained "buy and hold" platform, with demand from buyers far outstripping willing sellers; that's why there's rarely anything available on the MT SM and anything that is offered disappears in seconds. New MT loans tend to fill within 24 hours (occasionally 24 hours + 1 minute), even with very tight bid limits. I'd hazard a guess the Moneything SM could easily triple or quadruple its turnover if lenders were willing to sell their holdings. Yes, I agree that there's a good deal of demand for loans unmet at MoneyThing at the moment. Ablrate, on the other hand, seems a fair way back on the lender demand curve, unfairly in my opinion because many of the loans are good ones and origination of new loans is much improved. New Ablrate loans can still take weeks to fill and sometimes close well below their target, whilst the SM is demand-constrained and comparatively illiquid Agree mostly about it being demand-constrained and not really fair that the lenders aren't yet using Ablrate as its capacity would allow. Even with the differences, though, it is quite interesting that the secondary market turnover is quite comparable between the two places. What's interesting is that Ablrate might actually have more new loans originated now than MoneyThing has, if you discount the regular six month renewals at MoneyThing. And one corollary of that is that Ablrate is getting regular monthly payments from those loans. Haven't looked to compare the size of the currently live and paying loan books at each though. It does seem that if we're happy with the finances of MoneyThing we've reason to think the same about Ablrate. (unless perhaps you log in every few hours to tweak your offers by another 0.001% !!) Not normally, though to get data for the discussion I did change four offers to that increment to see what the difference was. Those had previously been using two decimal places. Another couple were using all three. As many other P2P platforms have demonstrated (SS, FC, MT, AC, etc.), SM liquidity is the key to accelerating growth. When lenders are confident there will be buyers for their holdings, they're prepared to take on much bigger stakes in new loans and act as proxy underwriters. That was briefly the case on Ablrate in H2 2015, when supply of new loans was so limited that buyers outstripped sellers and SM loans were selling at yields down to 8%. It certainly isn't the case now. Not sure just how critical vs important it is but I would definitely like to see faster sales and it does matter to me that there's fairly rapid liquidity. At the moment the supply of new loans seems to have got a bit ahead of the secondary market. Since new loans attract lenders that'll probably self-correct in a little while. Still there is that comparable deal volume to consider - it's not as if Ablrate doesn't have liquidity, it's just at times not as fast as the pretty consistent at the moment very rapid MoneyThing one. Though that said, there have been £9796 of sales since I took the total volume number earlier in our discussion 23 hours ago so it's not as if it's not moving. I expect we've both seen the balance between primary and secondary market shifting back and forth as the supply of new loans vs secondary market changes back and forth over time at a few platforms. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the traditionally slow part of the year for various things - an opportunity for Ablrate to pick up some demand from lenders not being met elsewhere.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 9, 2016 9:15:23 GMT
"Even with the differences, though, it is quite interesting that the secondary market turnover is quite comparable between the two places."
Interesting maybe but really only a coincidence, a little like comparing a Mondeo to a Maserati because they happen to be alongside on the road.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Dec 9, 2016 9:56:18 GMT
" Even with the differences, though, it is quite interesting that the secondary market turnover is quite comparable between the two places." Interesting maybe but really only a coincidence, a little like comparing a Mondeo to a Maserati because they happen to be alongside on the road. I don't agree that they are that different. Both are platforms where investors want secondary markets and it appears that despite the talk of complexity at Ablrate discouraging people, it doesn't seem to actually be doing much of that based on the deal volume. Perhaps because it's trivial to just sell at par at Ablrate if someone wants to and the yield disclosure for buyers is quite clear, while it actually isn't at MoneyThing (you're told the non-compounded yield, not the real one). I've no data to prove it but I suspect that the similarity results from the desires of investors to change investments being similar across many platforms, though I do think that there is a liquidity provision situation at Ablrate that is not currently present at MoneyThing.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Dec 9, 2016 10:20:11 GMT
I'm sure the sm is lovely if you've read the guide and got your head around it and want to play with increments up and down and decipher what's available or not.
or you could just click on something very easily at another site with no discount or premium and it's all very straightforward.
imho a simple fixed price sm would have the same liquidity as the other simple sm offerings each to their own though
|
|
|
Post by webbski9 on Dec 27, 2016 19:27:00 GMT
Ablrate,on / under Your Investment tag and in the SM page, could you please show the next interest payment date for each loan ? Many Thanks
|
|