guff
Posts: 730
Likes: 707
|
Post by guff on Jan 31, 2017 12:48:10 GMT
The main suggestion is pre-funding for 24 hours then 24hrs to send allocation. There won't be a big change for anyone who likes the current method - instead of a limit you get an allocation And I really like that idea No hanging around at 4 pm and no load on the server as go live traffic will be spread over 24hrs. Seems logical to me I am sure Moneything said earlier in the thread you will need to have your account funded, not 24 hours to fund it after allocation. Unless i am getting confused Which was why I proposed that allocation should be made at 0800 for final settlement by 1600. All done on the same day.
|
|
n
Member of DD Central
Yet another Nick
Posts: 879
Likes: 461
|
Post by n on Jan 31, 2017 12:49:56 GMT
I like the way it works now (but not the strain on the server). However I think the way forward is bottom up pre-funding (Ed has already said there will not be INPL).
The idea of having a live indication of the maximum theoretical allocation prior to launch is excellent. I would be happy to base my deposit on that and leave any small leftovers in my account to take advantage of SM opportunities (as with the interest dribbling in almost daily).
For renewals, if there ever came a time when availability was large I think that could also be pre-funded, but it doesn't seem likely for now. Perhaps built in as an option for Ed to choose on a loan by loan basis.
The primary purpose of the SM (as I see it) is to provide a quick exit for those needing to withdraw funds. As such it is working excellently and IMO shouldn't be changed. In any case I doubt that the amount being sold would go very far at all if it was distributed to all who wanted some, and the programming and operation would be bound to be well outside the KISS philosophy.
JMHO
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Jan 31, 2017 12:52:22 GMT
Before we decide on a solution, perhaps we should revisit what we are trying to achieve, since there is some disagreement there? In my view we are trying to 'smear out' the 4pm rush over some period of hours or days, while achieving a 'fair' allocation of loans among lenders. My definition of 'fair' is 'equal shares for all' (even spouses, but maybe not 'multiple accounts for on individual'). Other views seem to be much as they were on SS .. i.e. if someone has 10x the cash available they should get 10x as much of the loan, or if someone can be available at 4pm, or have a faster internet connection, or automation skills, or whatever, they should be similarly advantaged or handicapped. The current system is NOT 'fair', unless Ed gets the maximum bid size exactly right (which he doesn't), and even then requires you to be there during a 24 hour period. Setting it as 'amount of loan / number of investors' would guarantee everyone a small slice (for the duration of the lockout), but that's going too far the other way, unless the lockout is rather less than 24 hours (which gets back to cramming X bids into a short time, which doesn't scale well as X increases). If one were to divide by the number of investors, it might be better to make it active investors (e.g. defined as have bought on the PM in the last month) rather than registered investors. Dividing by the number of registered investors would end up with rather smaller allocations, and leave a lot of the loan available to deep-pocketed fast-fingered investors at the end of the lockout period. I'm not a big player, but with MT's level of deal flow I'd be disappointed to end up with £50 investments in a loan. I've been quite happy with the current system, even if it means that I miss the odd loan because I'm out of the house at 4pm, but I think I would prefer bottom up pre-funding to 'amount of loan / number of (registered) investors'.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 31, 2017 13:04:55 GMT
The main suggestion is pre-funding for 24 hours then 24hrs to send allocation. There won't be a big change for anyone who likes the current method - instead of a limit you get an allocation And I really like that idea No hanging around at 4 pm and no load on the server as go live traffic will be spread over 24hrs. Seems logical to me I am sure Moneything said earlier in the thread you will need to have your account funded, not 24 hours to fund it after allocation. Unless i am getting confused You would still have to have you account funded before the loan goes live - there would be no SS type INPL, just a process to determine what the allocation (or to keep others happy we can call it a Limit) should be
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Jan 31, 2017 13:10:56 GMT
The main suggestion is pre-funding for 24 hours then 24hrs to send allocation. There won't be a big change for anyone who likes the current method - instead of a limit you get an allocation And I really like that idea No hanging around at 4 pm and no load on the server as go live traffic will be spread over 24hrs. Seems logical to me I am sure Moneything said earlier in the thread you will need to have your account funded, not 24 hours to fund it after allocation. Unless i am getting confused You're confused, the idea is to use a similar pre-fund method to SS, only you bid for what you want before the loan goes live and once you know how much you've been allocated, refund your account by the deadline to secure your amount before the loan goes live, failing receipt of your payment, the unsold parts go onto the SM....
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,959
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Jan 31, 2017 13:11:27 GMT
TL;DR
Clearly lender demand exceeds borrower supply, so I suggest a three pronged attack, reduce rates by 1% to 2%, use the extra profit to increase server capacity, and the lower rates to attract more business.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Jan 31, 2017 13:16:17 GMT
TL;DR Clearly lender demand exceeds borrower supply, so I suggest a three pronged attack, reduce rates by 1% to 2%, use the extra profit to increase server capacity, and the lower rates to attract more business. You not making any friends with statements like that
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jan 31, 2017 13:20:01 GMT
TL;DR Clearly lender demand exceeds borrower supply, so I suggest a three pronged attack, reduce rates by 1% to 2%, use the extra profit to increase server capacity, and the lower rates to attract more business. You not making any friends with statements like that Yeh but he talks sense. Wonder if SS is to become the AE broker by offering at a reduced rate? Losing the AE's is perhaps the reality of sticking to 12% when the market (us lenders) are clearly signalling that 12% is generous! Jack P
|
|
archie
Posts: 1,836
Likes: 1,841
|
Post by archie on Jan 31, 2017 13:28:22 GMT
I don't think making the platform less popular is the way to solve the server issue.
|
|
vmail
Open image in a new tab.
Posts: 457
Likes: 217
|
Post by vmail on Jan 31, 2017 13:37:27 GMT
Move the start time from 4PM to 4AM, its a guaranteed way to reduce the load on the server.
|
|
|
Post by richardthe4th on Jan 31, 2017 13:39:56 GMT
Move the start time from 4PM to 4AM, its a guaranteed way to reduce the load on the server. Great idea! I'm not normally busy at 4am....
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 31, 2017 14:07:15 GMT
The main suggestion is pre-funding for 24 hours then 24hrs to send allocation. There won't be a big change for anyone who likes the current method - instead of a limit you get an allocation And I really like that idea No hanging around at 4 pm and no load on the server as go live traffic will be spread over 24hrs. Seems logical to me Wouldn't that tie the float up for an extra day though? Currently we only get notification once drawdown has taken place so we're certain the deal has 'happened', then MT get replenishing funds in the following day. Needs to all happen in that 24hr window** with MT doing the allocations at 4pm instead of us scrabbling for them. We just need to know how much is likely to be the max to limit money in/out on allocation day. ** Edit; ideally No, it would essentially be the same as it is now. For example: Current system: Loan announced on Monday Goes live (money starts coming in) 4pm Tuesday Money all in by 4pm Wednesday (occasionally 4.01pm) Pre-bid Allocation system: Loan announced on Monday Pre-bids placed by 4pm Tuesday Goes live (allocations notified and money starts coming in) 4pm Tuesday Money all in by 4pm Wednesday (4.01pm if any unpaid parts are released for FFF)
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Jan 31, 2017 14:15:26 GMT
so gaming the bid allocation (rather than Ed setting a sensible limit) then much fannying around certainly a step in the savingstream direction
must get a few accounts sorted for the pets in anticipation
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,871
Likes: 7,915
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 31, 2017 14:18:24 GMT
so gaming the bid allocation (rather than Ed setting a sensible limit) then much fannying around certainly a step in the savingstream direction must get a few accounts sorted for the pets in anticipation Gaming how? The allocation would be bottom up, so there'd be nothing to gain by overbidding. And how would the scope for using multiple accounts (if MT can be persuaded to open them for you, which I doubt unless your pets have a bank account and ID) be any different from now? In essence, all the proposed system would do is allow Ed to set the bid limit AFTER knowing how much his lenders are wanting, rather than trying to guess blind.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Jan 31, 2017 14:35:08 GMT
You're never going to stop people from operating accounts in the name of others with their permission and cooperation. However, MT could make this a bit harder by verifying the registered bank account belongs to the individual named on the MT account before the first withdrawal to said bank account is permitted. Enforcing the current rule that funds must come from an account in the name of the MT account holder would help a bit. Checking the account when withdrawing would currently have to be done via humans because there isn't an automated way to verify account holder name. That's due to change later this year when you will be told the name when setting up payments. A way to verify account holder is to require at least one deposit before allowing withdrawing to the account. The deposit will reveal the account holder name. On the subject of automated bots, prefunding is one of the solutions to that problem, if that is indeed a problem. What creates the problem is a system where humans struggle to make bids quickly enough on their own. No bot can get an advantage if bids are placed in advance and the MT server allocates the parts based on those advanced bids. Those who are really concerned about bots would favour an AC-like system of prefunding for both primary and secondary markets, which would make the use of bots completely redundant. Yes, the way to eliminate bot reward and hence temptation is to empower everyone on the site. I don't know the AC system but one approach would be to consolidate sell instructions for a while - few hours or hourly when loans due to launch perhaps - then have bottom up filling for those who have indicated a desire for more of a particular loan. Same sort of minimum acceptable and maximum holding desired approach as I described for the primary market. Immediate sale option for those who need it, perhaps. Consolidation is just to increase the average size of each piece purchased to reduce assorted overheads for humans, computers and our accounts reports. The secondary market shrapnel display issue should be largely solvable by showing a consolidated holding instead of lots of pieces. Would still start small but at least it wouldn't be permanent. Bigger catch is requirements to track each piece so there would be many more records in the system than at the moment, where buying is relatively concentrated both by number of buyers and average piece size, rather than spread over a high proportion of lenders. A way to reduce the shrapnel and record count issue is to have say a one Pound minimum allocation and virtualize a queue using last buy time for each loan. Person with least recent last buy gets an allocation first. New entrants get their last buy set to time of entry. This approach would reduce or eliminate the benefit of consolidating sales. If a Pound seems too small, five or more could be used and the size of buy tracked, the slot not being lost until the whole unit has been allocated. Else a one Pound sale would use someone's whole five or ten or whatever Pound position. In this sort of setup you wouldn't immediately lose your queue position if insufficient funds were in your account. You'd just be skipped. After funding you'd be at or near to the front of the queue when the next sale came along.
|
|