|
AE497
Jul 29, 2016 16:01:28 GMT
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 29, 2016 16:01:28 GMT
Hmm, what a hornet's nest unleashed. 8>.
My thoughts on 'pre-funding' were pretty simple, and amount to having MT just place bids on behalf of people who want some, when the loan goes live. Basically the same as 'please roll over my £x into the new loan', but available for people who are not IN the old loan. Same bid limits as at present, by all means, but you can sign up in advance (and supply the cleared funds, no INPL), or even set up a standing order (like SS) where you ask for £x on all new loans (or all 12% loans, or whatever), whence you can leave the country with a clear conscience.
Whether to apply similar to the '24-25 hour bidfest', I don't know, I'm open to offers. Personally I'm rarely back for a larger bite, and if I am I am usually too slow.
No, I'm not suggesting £1.0003435 allocations (per AC). If there are 200 bidders asking for the £50 max allocation on any loan then I guess we need 'first to ask' or 'lottery' or something to decide (slicing it down to £25 each is another option, but that can lead to the £1.00003435 answer, if it goes too far). 'Scaling down' requests was not part of the package .. that's what leads to overbidding and game playing on SS (although if you have to deposit the funds first, that is less likely to happen).
Consider it to be 'autobid' if you hate the sound of 'prefunding'. Yes, I suppose one really ought be around to bid sometime during a 24 hour period, if one lives and breather P2P investing .. some of us just prefer a working 'fire and forget' system which can handle investment, and re-investment, with less hassle (e.g. I can tick the box to 'roll over' my £x in a particular loan, but there is nothing to tick/do which can 'roll over or re-invest' the income from same. Why not?)
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
AE497
Jul 29, 2016 20:07:54 GMT
Post by james on Jul 29, 2016 20:07:54 GMT
I'm not invested in platforms with pre-funding so cannot speak from experience but anything that could be used to game the system should be discouraged. If it ain't broke ( and it isn't ) .. Totally agree. I'd rather take my chances at 4pm, and possibly get nothing, than end up with 1 or 2 pound loan parts. Pre-funding would be a disaster on the small loans and unnecessary on the larger loans. Those of us who are normally asleep or at work and unable to participate at 4PM much of the time without difficulties might not agree that it's not broken at the moment. Writing about 4PM not being broken is roughly equivalent to me writing that 4AM is a nice convenient time to do things... which it is, for me. The bid limits are definitely useful and do work quite well most of the time even for those of us who aren't able to usually be around then but it's still not quite as nice as having more timing flexibility without needing to worry if the loan will be filled at the bid limit level before you wake up/get home or whatever else. The biggest impact would presumably be the level of participation in the final process after the bid limit expires.
|
|
jfm
Member of DD Central
Posts: 135
Likes: 67
|
Post by jfm on Jul 29, 2016 20:13:57 GMT
The SS analogy is surely wrong as INPL completely changes it. A thought for the Shuang to create a better system than others: Allow a minimum and maximum bid to be set. Could be a fun bit of coding.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 1,842
|
AE497
Jul 30, 2016 4:54:52 GMT
Post by archie on Jul 30, 2016 4:54:52 GMT
Totally agree. I'd rather take my chances at 4pm, and possibly get nothing, than end up with 1 or 2 pound loan parts. Pre-funding would be a disaster on the small loans and unnecessary on the larger loans. Those of us who are normally asleep or at work and unable to participate at 4PM much of the time without difficulties might not agree that it's not broken at the moment. Writing about 4PM not being broken is roughly equivalent to me writing that 4AM is a nice convenient time to do things... which it is, for me. The bid limits are definitely useful and do work quite well most of the time even for those of us who aren't able to usually be around then but it's still not quite as nice as having more timing flexibility without needing to worry if the loan will be filled at the bid limit level before you wake up/get home or whatever else. The biggest impact would presumably be the level of participation in the final process after the bid limit expires. I have no objection to auto-bids up to the maximum bid restriction but only after manual bids (e.g. allow at least 1 hour for manual bids then place the auto-bids on a first set, first filled basis). That covers those that cannot participate. I don't want loans trimmed down to cover everyone who bids as the resultant parts will often be too small. You could even have a second bid that applies after the 24 hours expires so that whatever is left is shared between these bidders.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 30, 2016 13:49:40 GMT
Not sure why manual bidders should get to go ahead of automated ones (given that everyone is welcome to insert an automated bid .. as well as coming along later manually if they so choose). However that's not a deal breaker.
I'd also point out that assuming an automated bid can be requested after the loan shows in the pipeline, and that is at least 24 hours before it goes live, then I don't see the continued need for a 24 hour 'limited bids only' period (all the limited bids can be pre-placed while the loan is on the pipeline). It can go live and (whatever is left) straight into FFF (unless the automated bids also cover that period, which is not really a necessity).
As I already said, most of the issues at AC and SS are due to a) INPL (bidding with money you may not have) and b) 'fractional allocation' where you may get a scaled back number. I'd prefer a bottom up or random system where there are only two outcomes .. you either get what you wanted ('asked for', or if it's less 'what you have the funds for'), or (if there is too much demand and you are not one of the lucky few) you get zero.
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 1,842
|
Post by archie on Jul 30, 2016 14:28:02 GMT
Not sure why manual bidders should get to go ahead of automated ones (given that everyone is welcome to insert an automated bid .. as well as coming along later manually if they so choose). However that's not a deal breaker. Only because a lot of the loans are too small to split. I want to maintain the current bid amounts so we don't end up with shrapnel. If everyone auto-bids it's quite possible there will be more bids than the loan amount. In that instance you'd either have to go with the order in which the bids are placed, random allocation or reducing the allocated amount. I don't like any of those options. For me the current MT method is perfect. I realise it doesn't suit everyone but platform differences are a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by wildlife2 on Jul 30, 2016 15:37:46 GMT
I'm sure most serious platforms would prefer serious P2P lenders who don't keep pestering them to make changes, but to let them get on with their work, and to do what they think is best.
|
|
|
AE497
Jul 30, 2016 15:44:04 GMT
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 30, 2016 15:44:04 GMT
Actually I'm equally sure that most of them are open to suggestions and inputs from customers, which they are then free to consider and implement, or ignore, as they see fit. If they considered themselves 'pestered' I'm sure they'll step up and say so.
I suppose there are a few arrogant platforms who believe they have already thought of everything, on day one, and thus don't requires any customer feedback at all, but those I tend to avoid (and they equally tend to avoid me).
|
|
|
AE497
Jul 30, 2016 15:55:36 GMT
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 30, 2016 15:55:36 GMT
Not sure why manual bidders should get to go ahead of automated ones (given that everyone is welcome to insert an automated bid .. as well as coming along later manually if they so choose). However that's not a deal breaker. Only because a lot of the loans are too small to split. I want to maintain the current bid amounts so we don't end up with shrapnel. If everyone auto-bids it's quite possible there will be more bids than the loan amount. In that instance you'd either have to go with the order in which the bids are placed, random allocation or reducing the allocated amount. I don't like any of those options. For me the current MT method is perfect. I realise it doesn't suit everyone but platform differences are a good thing. I don't like reduction either (because of shrapnel, and even worse if you 'pro rata' and thus reward gaming) .. 'order the bids are placed' is basically what we have now (but it currently starts at 4pm, rather than 'when the loan hits the pipeline'), but 'random' would be OK too. It's really impossible to do much about the oversubscribed loans anyway, I was more interested in fixing it for people who could get their <1% of the loan, but maybe don't want to / can't show up during the 24 hours (which is a fairly arbitrary number .. with 'telephone bids' previously entered it could be reduced (even to 0), or (to accommodate the 'gone on holiday' brigade), increased to a week, or whatever. I guess I just don't believe in the concept of 'perfect' .. 'not worth the effort to improve' I could buy, but not 'perfect'. 8>. Yep, I often have the newsagent "hold me a paper" too, rather than showing up between 6AM and whenever they all sell out or get sent back as unsold.
|
|
n
Member of DD Central
Yet another Nick
Posts: 879
Likes: 461
|
AE497
Jul 30, 2016 17:45:55 GMT
Post by n on Jul 30, 2016 17:45:55 GMT
Speaking as one of the silent majority I am very happy with the way things are now, but if pressed for an alternative, I also like the SS bottom up method, and would be content without INPL. I frequently get allocated less than I asked for, but there are usually people who obviously couldn't be bothered with the amount they get who put it on the SM straight away, so with a little FFF at launch time I can usually make mine up to the amount I wanted. An advantage for MT is that they will have a more accurate idea of the uptake before the balloon goes up (if that information is useful to them).
|
|
rogerbu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 398
Likes: 213
|
Post by rogerbu on Jul 30, 2016 18:29:10 GMT
Please don't change the current simple system. It works for the majority. Having to pre bid and pre-fund, then not get what you pre-funded up to, then having to withdraw the surplus is much more work for everyone with no gain.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 30, 2016 20:07:32 GMT
rogerbu .. But you have to pre-fund now, don't you? What's the difference between sticking £100 in your account and placing a pre-bid for £100 of the newest loan, and sticking £100 in your account and showing up at 4pm to try to invest the £100 in the same loan? I'm not being difficult, I really can't see it. Either way you have to pre-fund, and either way you probably get £100, but maybe get £0. However in the former case you don't have to be anywhere specific at 4pm (or indeed before 4pm the next day), as long as you've said in advance what you want (if available). 8>.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
AE497
Jul 30, 2016 20:19:46 GMT
Post by james on Jul 30, 2016 20:19:46 GMT
Please don't change the current simple system. It works for the majority. Having to pre bid and pre-fund, then not get what you pre-funded up to, then having to withdraw the surplus is much more work for everyone with no gain. Lets make a deal, for the next ten loans you can be restricted to bidding at a time convenient for me, 4AM, instead of when I'm usually asleep, at 4PM. The gain is improved access for those who do not find 4PM to be a desirable or sometimes possible time to be bidding. That's not no gain. The shrapnel issue does exist. One possible approach is to offer individuals a minimum bid level and to have a broader minimum bid level that applies to all. If a loan has more demand than supply then a lottery approach might be used to allocate the overall minimum if that isn't lower than an individual's minimum. That way those who can't sensibly be around at 4PM for the race to get say five pieces of £10 pr £25 or £50 or whatever minimum is used would have a chance instead of no chance. An added advantage would be the lack of a race which means no incentive to develop automated bidding tools to try to win the race.
|
|