fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 1, 2017 20:55:09 GMT
You seem to be quite critical about some of the suggestions, for whatever reason... But looking through the topic, I cannot seem to see one from you, how would you do this, with least strain on the system and without creating excessive work for "the things"? Please see the fifth post on this topic on the first page and the discussion continuing from there to the start of page two. In the recent questions I've been asking why people are suggesting things that would seem to do less well than approaches already suggested. Maybe it's just that they didn't read the earlier suggestions or maybe they are after some different effect that they didn't mention. So I asked to try to find out. So effectively a bottom funding model, only this time we deposit cash beforehand hoping to get a set amount, in many cases possibly more than the allocation will be, and then afterwards make a withdrawal of any cash which isn't allocated? Wouldn't it make sense to define the allocation first based on what people request and then only have to transfer in the cash required, saving lots of transaction processing for the things and the investors when there is unspent money?
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 1, 2017 21:05:20 GMT
But I don't see how 'prefunding gaming' by asking for, say £200k, and then not funding it so it goes to a FFF scrum can offer anyone any 'advantage' over just FUNDING the damn £200k, so they actually get it (assuming it would be available). A household with many accounts but only one person with money to invest. I expect those who've been more involved than I have with bid then fund sites could say more about the things that they have seen. The household could try swapping holdings via the secondary market if they weren't beaten by fast fingers and automation get more that way. Would get more I'd successful that way. Just move the funds to the appropriate person? The only site I've seen with 'bid then pay' which had problems (SS) was because it was possible to get, and earn interest on, parts you never paid for. On MT if you didn't pay you wouldn't get. I still see no advantage is putting in a bid for something and then deliberately not funding the purchase, but then maybe I'm just not devious enough.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 21:05:24 GMT
So effectively a bottom funding model, only this Wouldn't it make sense to define the allocation first based on what people request and then only have to transfer in the cash required, saving lots of transaction processing for the things and the investors when there is unspent money? That's where regularly telling people their current projected allocation (the first post on page two) or where the alternative of having a time to fund after initial allocation come in. The key differences between those two are time and precision: the method I described ties up MoneyThing's money for less time but means some over-funding will happen. The allocate then fund (and final allocation after that variant) means less excess money but slower recycling of MoneyThing's money. Either of those should do a good job of delivering even allocations. Of course that's assuming that MoneyThing's definition of fair includes even allocation. There are many competing and equally valid possible views about what fair could mean and those don't all include even allocation.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 21:09:31 GMT
A household with many accounts but only one person with money to invest. I expect those who've been more involved than I have with bid then fund sites could say more about the things that they have seen. The household could try swapping holdings via the secondary market if they weren't beaten by fast fingers and automation get more that way. Would get more I'd successful that way. Just move the funds to the appropriate person? The only site I've seen with 'bid then pay' which had problems (SS) was because it was possible to get, and earn interest on, parts you never paid for. On MT if you didn't pay you wouldn't get. I still see no advantage is putting in a bid for something and then deliberately not funding the purchase, but then maybe I'm just not devious enough. If the money is available, getting all of the allocations then moving via the current secondary market setup is likely to get most and none of the suggestions prevents that except the one I made about the secondary market. If the money isn't available then bid and not fund then fast fingers or automation would be the way to game it. Since it seems easy to deal with - it's just a beneficial side effect of dealing with unfunded bids via even allocation rather than FFF - I don't see a reason not to block the possibility.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 1, 2017 21:24:30 GMT
So effectively a bottom funding model, only this Wouldn't it make sense to define the allocation first based on what people request and then only have to transfer in the cash required, saving lots of transaction processing for the things and the investors when there is unspent money? That's where regularly telling people their current projected allocation (the first post on page two) or where the alternative of having at time after initial allocation come in. The key difference between those two is time and precision: the method I described ties up MoneyThing's money for less time but means some over-funding will happen. The allocate then fund (and final allocation after that variant) means less excess money but slower recycling of MoneyThing's money. Either of those should do a good job of delivering even allocations. Of course that's assuming that MoneyThing's definition of fair includes even allocation. There are many competing and equally valid possible views about what fair could mean and those don't all include even allocation. While MT's money is tied up in the loan, they aren't saying lenders for theirs.... the benefit is theirs, I wouldn't think its an issue, unless they have another big loan drawing down the following day. I would prefer to be told i'm going to get for example £2225 of a loan, be given a 24 hour window to send the money and then be allocated the amount offered, without having to be online at 4pm, which I rarely can, and without having to be online the following day at 4pm if I wanted more of the loan, on the second occasion, most likely having to withdraw cash which I couldn't invest, creating work for myself, "The things, and more accounting transactions generally. Its a simple process, We say how much we are prepared to take, MT bottom feed the requests, decide maximum allocation available and send a generic email stating max allocation is £xxx, please pre-fund your account by xx hours tomorrow with your requested amount. One visit to the site to declare your requested amount, and possibly a minimum bid size also One email from MT saying what the max is after requests allocated One visit to the site to notify the deposit amount One visit to your online bank to send the money One transaction for MT to deal with handling the deposit.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 1, 2017 21:30:16 GMT
Hasn't INPL already been categorically ruled out by Ed? Edit: I would just state that we would only continue on a 'cleared funds basis' regardless of what system we introduce. Regards, Ed.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 21:58:38 GMT
I would prefer to be told i'm going to get for example £2225 of a loan, be given a 24 hour window to send the money and then be allocated the amount offered, without having to be online at 4pm, which I rarely can, and without having to be online the following day at 4pm if I wanted more of the loan, on the second occasion, most likely having to withdraw cash which I couldn't invest, creating work for myself, "The things, and more accounting transactions generally. Its a simple process, We say how much we are prepared to take, MT bottom feed the requests, decide maximum allocation available and send a generic email stating max allocation is £xxx, please pre-fund your account by xx hours tomorrow with your requested amount. One visit to the site to declare your requested amount, and possibly a minimum bid size also One email from MT saying what the max is after requests allocated One visit to the site to notify the deposit amount One visit to your online bank to send the money One transaction for MT to deal with handling the deposit. I'd very much dislike that if by generic email you mean that everyone is told that the max bid is £xxx with xxx being the same for everyone. Because many people will not want the maximum so there will be a lot of money left over at the end for FFF scrum or something else to deal with. If on the other hand you meant that xxx will be different for each person then that's the more precise matching approach and one I like. Like you, I don't find 4PM a good time. I should be asleep at that time of day so I'm not tired for work later.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 22:02:13 GMT
Hasn't INPL already been categorically ruled out by Ed? Edit: I would just state that we would only continue on a 'cleared funds basis' regardless of what system we introduce. Regards, Ed. I think the variation isn't INPL because it's telling people their expected allocation but not actually assigning it until a final run with cleared funds only. While INPL I think actually does the deal then takes ownership off you if you don't fund.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 2, 2017 6:32:15 GMT
Hasn't INPL already been categorically ruled out by Ed? Edit: I think the variation isn't INPL because it's telling people their expected allocation but not actually assigning it until a final run with cleared funds only. While INPL I think actually does the deal then takes ownership off you if you don't fund. If it's just an "expected" allocation that may be subject to change depending on what cleared funds actually materialise before a final run is done, then I agree with you. My reading of fp 's post was that he didn't want an estimate based on what was known at the time. He wanted to know his allocation, at which point prefunding would close and bidders would then have 24 hours to transfer the funds to cover their allocation. That seems to be INPL to me. There will always be some people who fail to fund. I think your proposal would have this distributed around the people whose bids had not been fully filled during the final run, whereas fp would like to see this put on the SM 24 hours after the final run.
|
|
mtb9
Posts: 48
Likes: 35
|
Post by mtb9 on Feb 2, 2017 8:11:12 GMT
Each PSP platform has its own Unique Selling Point whether it be pre-funding, 10am bidding, interest paid at the end of the loan period etc, one of MT's unique selling points is it's 4pm bidding process and is a contributing factor in why most of us joined MT....we were willing to participate in the 4pm bidding. (We knew when we joined it was a 4pm bid process, so its what we've signed up for)
To me this is a simple matter of IT capacity and % of bid limit, if the IT capacity can be increased to meet the demands and the % of loan available set to meet the demand of the 4pm bidding then MT should be able to retain its Unique Selling Point.
To change the process into something that is similar to another platform takes away MT's USP and a contributing factor in originally joining MT, keep the 4pm bidding process but improve the IT and the % of bidding level and I'm sure we can all enjoy the benefits of MT through it's original concept.
Keep your USP it's what keep MT original and so good.
Thanks
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 2, 2017 8:19:50 GMT
I'd very much dislike that if by generic email you mean that everyone is told that the max bid is £xxx with xxx being the same for everyone. Because many people will not want the maximum so there will be a lot of money left over at the end for FFF scrum or something else to deal with. If on the other hand you meant that xxx will be different for each person then that's the more precise matching approach and one I like.Like you, I don't find 4PM a good time. I should be asleep at that time of day so I'm not tired for work later. james, The idea of a generic email specifying the maximum amount is so MT don't have to code it so everyone gets a different email, all accounts would be allocated the amount they requested up to the limit reached on the bottom up distribution. If you request £50, yet max allocation is £2250, then your account would be allocated £50, but you receive an email saying the maximum is £2250 so you know to fund your account up to the amount you requested, however if you request £10,000 you would only fund your account to the tune of £2250, because that is the maximum allocation. In most cases loans are oversubscribed, the amount left to release on the SM would be maybe £2k at most if accounts are funded to the nearest £1, this could be released at a random time over the next 24-48 hours In 95% of cases, there would be very little left to put on the SM, and if there was a large amount there would be no FFF as everyone has already been allocated the amount they wanted, this would then be picked up at leisure by people deciding they want more.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 2, 2017 8:24:23 GMT
I think the variation isn't INPL because it's telling people their expected allocation but not actually assigning it until a final run with cleared funds only. While INPL I think actually does the deal then takes ownership off you if you don't fund. If it's just an "expected" allocation that may be subject to change depending on what cleared funds actually materialise before a final run is done, then I agree with you. My reading of fp 's post was that he didn't want an estimate based on what was known at the time. He wanted to know his allocation, at which point prefunding would close and bidders would then have 24 hours to transfer the funds to cover their allocation. That seems to be INPL to me.There will always be some people who fail to fund. I think your proposal would have this distributed around the people whose bids had not been fully filled during the final run, whereas fp would like to see this put on the SM 24 hours after the final run. It isn't INPL, as you don't get any loan parts until you have paid, if you don't pay, it goes back in the pot for release onto the SM over the next 24-48 hours.... no set time, it could even be set up to release it in dribs and drabs. The problem with re-distributing further if funds aren't received is that many investors don't want dead cash sat in their accounts, if you want £10k, but max allocation is only £2k, then in most cases it would mean transferring out again, more work for everyone
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 2, 2017 12:33:35 GMT
It isn't INPL, as you don't get any loan parts until you have paid, if you don't pay, it goes back in the pot for release onto the SM over the next 24-48 hours.... no set time, it could even be set up to release it in dribs and drabs. The problem with re-distributing further if funds aren't received is that many investors don't want dead cash sat in their accounts, if you want £10k, but max allocation is only £2k, then in most cases it would mean transferring out again, more work for everyone So perhaps this could be framed in terms personal limits rather than an allocation of loan parts. Those who participate in "pre-funding" would have have their own limit based on what they requested for the first 24 hours. Those who do not participate would have a limit of £0 for the first 24 hours.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 2, 2017 14:02:00 GMT
The key feature of INPL is that you get immediate ownership before having to fund. So creative people did things like buying, collecting interest for a day or so then never funding. Either selling or having the loan taken off them. Money made for no actual investment of money at all. And that then resulted in the loans being dumped on to the secondary market, frustrating the intent which was to try to fairly allocate among those who wanted an investment instead of a free flip.
Nothing described here would allow that, it's all just about telling you how much funding you need with varying levels of speed and precision. No investing without having actually paid for the purchase yet.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 2, 2017 14:27:59 GMT
The problem with re-distributing further if funds aren't received is that many investors don't want dead cash sat in their accounts, if you want £10k, but max allocation is only £2k, then in most cases it would mean transferring out again, more work for everyone Assuming that most people fund I'd expect no more than single digit Pounds per person participating to be available due to failures to fund. Instantly taken if it shows up on the secondary market, I'd rather see it spread out among those who want more than they were initially told and who have such trivial amounts left in their accounts. Or not if they really want zero in their account. A form letter saying that allocations up to say £750 were filled would be close but not quite right. Normally some who wanted it at that level would get it and some not, depending on just who among them got the final few Pounds of allocation. Not a big deal to know that some will put in a Pound too much but I doubt it's hard to be more specific. Or to be generic and specific for the ones who didn't get it but did want the threshold amount.
|
|