mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 187
Likes: 121
|
Post by mike on Feb 2, 2017 16:27:07 GMT
Not too much strain on the server today! While there have been some other recent problems on top of the loan the other day from memory most loans have got away pretty well. Even with the "problem" loan while it was a bit of a pain from comments here everyone seemed to get their allocation. There was a recent poll on this which resulted in most votes for the status quo. So has this loan changed things so much that a different route needs to be taken? Once you start moving from the simplicity of the current system which most lenders like where does it stop? MoneyThing you have a winning formula, the number 1 voted P2P lending site and you are thinking of changing it. REALLY?
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 1,842
|
Post by archie on Feb 2, 2017 18:11:49 GMT
COL see that the race is on...... email Just a quick update to let you know we will have pre-funding available for pipeline loans next week. This will give investors who can't make the 10am slot an opportunity to invest in future loans. We are also moving to larger servers which will help improve investor experience at loan launch times. We'll give prior notice of the time and date as soon as it's been confirmed. They've also said the bid limit for pre-funding is less than the bid limit when it goes live.
|
|
jimc99
Member of DD Central
Posts: 284
Likes: 115
|
Post by jimc99 on Feb 2, 2017 18:53:39 GMT
Just about to post that Collateral are introducing prefunding but you beat me to it.
Come on MT get implementing, you know it makes sense!
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 10,881
Likes: 11,105
|
Post by ilmoro on Feb 2, 2017 21:01:58 GMT
No. Prefunding on MT is a bad idea. I'm pretty sure FCA would prefer no INPL. Buying loan parts wth money to that doesn't or may never appear is a bad idea.
Prefunding is different to INPL and most proposals havent mentioned it. Ed has stated that INPL is not & would not be considered. You would not be buying the loan parts, you would be pledging to buy the loan parts and the investment would only happen with cash in your account ie prefunded. Same as Ablrate have done & Collateral are about to do.
|
|
GeorgeT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 1,575
|
Post by GeorgeT on Feb 2, 2017 21:09:28 GMT
Not too much strain on the server today! While there have been some other recent problems on top of the loan the other day from memory most loans have got away pretty well. Even with the "problem" loan while it was a bit of a pain from comments here everyone seemed to get their allocation. There was a recent poll on this which resulted in most votes for the status quo. So has this loan changed things so much that a different route needs to be taken? Once you start moving from the simplicity of the current system which most lenders like where does it stop? MoneyThing you have a winning formula, the number 1 voted P2P lending site and you are thinking of changing it. REALLY? I couldn't have put it better myself.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Feb 3, 2017 7:06:06 GMT
For all those wanting no change, when I started investing with MT loans launched at variable times of the day 10 am being a frequent one; there were no bid limits; there were no managed portfolios; there was no secondary market; there were no renewal options.
MT has evolved, quite rightly, and grown to the much improved model that everyone loves now. However, it's due it's next evolution in my opinion, and if we want to see it grow develop and prosper we need to adapt to the changes that will bring. Everyone was lamenting that MT didn't hang on to a Bradford development loan (that went to the dark other side) and hasn't got the whole of the current Bradford offering, if (as I hope) it's going to do that and more in the future then things will need to change. Server meltdowns when a new loan goes live are unsustainable, as are manual payment systems in my view. I welcome that MT is demonstrating that one thing that has been a constant, excellent communication, and has invited us to participate in the discussion.
I personally now favour some kind of pre-funding, but I'm fairly sure Ed will make the correct move for the business, and I might moan a bit, but I'm likely to adapt myself and continue to support them.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 3, 2017 7:58:45 GMT
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Feb 3, 2017 10:32:12 GMT
*shudder* thanks for that - DISLIKE !!
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 3, 2017 14:51:16 GMT
No. Prefunding on MT is a bad idea. I'm pretty sure FCA would prefer no INPL. Buying loan parts wth money to that doesn't or may never appear is a bad idea.
Ed has already said that there will be no INPL at MoneyThing. Why do you think bids that get you nothing until you have paid for them are a bad idea? The favoured options seem to involve people saying what they want then the system allocating money round robin/ bottom up so everyone gets roughly the same amount unless they wanted less. There are variations around that involving things like: 1. Running mock allocations to tell people their current expected allocation so they can fund, then a final one using only money in the account. 2. Similar but some time allowed after a semi-final allocation to fund. At this point more people can't say they want in, so the allocations largely stop changing. So it's more precise but slower than 1. Generally nicer if MoneyThing thinks the extra time is worth it. 2b. What to do with the bits that don't get funded if approach 2 is used, fast fingers or spread it around after the funding deadline expires. Irrelevant for 1 because it can't happen with that one, you only get what you had funds for at the first 4PM. 3. Letting people give a minimum amount, so they don't get shrapnel, for whatever their personal definition of that is. Good because it means that their allocations get spread around all instead of them selling on the secondary market.
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Feb 3, 2017 14:57:43 GMT
Just a thought. Would server pressure be reduced if selling/buying were limited to £25 minimum?
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 3, 2017 15:54:47 GMT
Mainly to the extent that it would be too high for some people and cause them not to participate. Unless there was also a constraint on sale size all a person would have to do is buy 25 then sell 24 to get 1 and that would increase the load.
There would be some unlikely to be significant reduction in the number of database records involved.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 3, 2017 16:04:34 GMT
Website seemed to cope dramatically better at / soon after 4pm today.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Feb 3, 2017 16:05:10 GMT
seems quite smooth today
great new system
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 3, 2017 19:58:39 GMT
My sympathies. Yes, getting 4PM back would be nice, as would the sleep gain.
|
|
mason
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 640
|
Post by mason on Feb 4, 2017 7:17:55 GMT
Website seemed to cope dramatically better at / soon after 4pm today. People were clearly a lot more relaxed about securing their slice this time, with the very conservative limit pretty much guaranteeing there would be availability into the evening and the next day. This was a largeish loan and so the relatively low limit still allowed people to get a decent slice. Personally I'd be perfectly happy with this system being applied to future loans, but launching a small, say £10k loan, on the same basis would mean setting an initial limit that was sub-£25.
|
|