johni
Member of DD Central
Posts: 362
Likes: 322
|
Post by johni on Feb 4, 2017 13:50:37 GMT
More than happy to keep with the way things are, especially if a lower initial bid limit produces the same result next time. Find it surprising how many people buy a loan only to sell it within a week. This is happening on each new loan.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 4, 2017 14:09:43 GMT
Some people use P2P that has short term accounts or a secondary market with fast sales as in effect a savings account. New loans become a way to add some money to the savings pot.
It's perhaps a touch irritating because it leads to money being concentrated into larger holdings via secondary market buys that could have stuck around more spread out for longer. Presumably also more work for MoneyThing on the in and out transactions.
One thing I've been pondering for a while is the potential value of a form of rapid access account that might be used to soak up some of the demand for that. If the allocate, fund then finally allocate sort of approach is used that account might be used to fund the loans short term until the final funding is done. Same for funding during time between deal and loan offering. Assorted potential catches, one being the need for the interest rate to be comparable to the highest on the main loans else there would be some tendency to still use those. A potential gain here is the much more rapid freeing up of MoneyThing's own float and quite likely substantially larger potential deal sizes that might be fundable from this account instead of touching the float at all. The trouble is, there would probably be more demand from lenders than it could take. Which might in turn just go back to the main loans being used to get more money placed.
If that sort of thing is done, my guess is that the account would end up in one chunk being able to do deals of ten million plus within a short time.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Feb 24, 2017 12:50:33 GMT
Rather than a pre-funding model how about a target-setting model. The lender sets a desired target of investment, and then gets a share if some of that loan becomes available.
This means that a lender can set the level he / she wants on a loan, and then that's it. No more work for the lender, other than checking now and again that there's enough money in his / her account to fund any purchases (if you don't allow 24 hours to fund any deficits).
May I suggest a transaction minimum of £10 to keep the volumes down, both on your servers and for reduced admin for both you and the lender.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 24, 2017 13:21:59 GMT
I quite like the way collateral have done it first 24 hour low amount prefunding level, enough for everyone to get a bit and then a highter amount for the 2nd limit. Although granted it means I get a smaller amount but its more fair.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 24, 2017 13:54:41 GMT
Rather than a pre-funding model how about a target-setting model. The lender sets a desired target of investment, and then gets a share if some of that loan becomes available. This means that a lender can set the level he / she wants on a loan, and then that's it. No more work for the lender, other than checking now and again that there's enough money in his / her account to fund any purchases (if you don't allow 24 hours to fund any deficits). May I suggest a transaction minimum of £10 to keep the volumes down, both on your servers and for reduced admin for both you and the lender. As soon as it becomes "effortless" to lend via a P2P platform, the countless hordes who can't be bothered to make an effort descend, allocations plummet and rates are reduced. Witness AC (where average rates used to be 11-12% and are now 8-9%), FC (9-11% down to 6-8%), SS (12% down to 9-10%). Be careful what you wish for.
|
|
mike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 187
Likes: 121
|
Post by mike on Feb 24, 2017 16:27:58 GMT
Rather than a pre-funding model how about a target-setting model. The lender sets a desired target of investment, and then gets a share if some of that loan becomes available. This means that a lender can set the level he / she wants on a loan, and then that's it. No more work for the lender, other than checking now and again that there's enough money in his / her account to fund any purchases (if you don't allow 24 hours to fund any deficits). May I suggest a transaction minimum of £10 to keep the volumes down, both on your servers and for reduced admin for both you and the lender. As soon as it becomes "effortless" to lend via a P2P platform, the countless hordes who can't be bothered to make an effort descend, allocations plummet and rates are reduced. Witness AC (where average rates used to be 11-12% and are now 8-9%), FC (9-11% down to 6-8%), SS (12% down to 9-10%). Be careful what you wish for. SteveT's point is spot on. MT already have more lender demand than supply of loans and making the supply side even more user friendly is a good idea? Yeah right!
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Feb 24, 2017 16:59:12 GMT
As soon as it becomes "effortless" to lend via a P2P platform, the countless hordes who can't be bothered to make an effort descend, allocations plummet and rates are reduced. Witness AC (where average rates used to be 11-12% and are now 8-9%), FC (9-11% down to 6-8%), SS (12% down to 9-10%). Be careful what you wish for. Obviously a fair point, but unfortunately 'preventing the hordes descending' might not be high on Ed's to do list. I don't think anyone is asking Ed to prevent the hordes from descending. They are suggesting it is not worth adding complexity or spending out on development to encourage the hordes to descend.
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Feb 24, 2017 20:58:38 GMT
Rather than a pre-funding model how about a target-setting model. The lender sets a desired target of investment, and then gets a share if some of that loan becomes available. This means that a lender can set the level he / she wants on a loan, and then that's it. No more work for the lender, other than checking now and again that there's enough money in his / her account to fund any purchases (if you don't allow 24 hours to fund any deficits). May I suggest a transaction minimum of £10 to keep the volumes down, both on your servers and for reduced admin for both you and the lender. I like the target setting approach, but if someone sets targets in the thousands, if there is enough activity, it could make a huge number of loan parts. Maybe in conjunction, re-visit the amalgamation idea where [say] once a month you sell all your loan parts back to yourself to create a single part for each loan/tranche. I think there was an issue with that though; you need the money to buy the amalgamated part available in your account. So maybe the platform could use the float to buy all your pieces first, then sell them back to you. If automated to be done one at a time, shouldn't be a huge amount of capital needed to facilitate. Likely to breach fca rules as the platform shouldn't be owning parts I would guess.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Feb 27, 2017 9:17:15 GMT
If a target-setting plan was implemented that generated a lot of small transactions then it might be prudent to merge each lender's holdings on a given loan into one loan part, to keep down the number of loan parts. This might be done at the next point interest is paid out for that loan.
In any case a £10 transaction minimum would dramatically keep down the transaction count (compared to, for instance, Assetz Capital).
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,163
Likes: 5,976
|
Post by registerme on Mar 1, 2017 11:16:02 GMT
MoneyThing, let me know if this still needs to be stickied? If not I'll remove the status and it will gracefully retreat into history......
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Mar 1, 2017 11:18:24 GMT
MoneyThing , let me know if this still needs to be stickied? If not I'll remove the status and it will gracefully retreat into history...... Thanks RM. I think you can let it ebb now as we have got enough feedback to work with for the time being. Will probably create a new thread once launched for 'peer review'. Regards, Ed
|
|