sildenafil
Member of DD Central
Posts: 86
Likes: 60
|
Post by sildenafil on Feb 1, 2017 13:47:50 GMT
I haven't read through the whole thread but this sounds like the best idea to me Why do you think that this method that guarantees a 4PM surge every time is better than the ones discussed in the first few posts that guarantee that it will only happen if there is insufficient lender demand? What advantages does it have or disadvantages do the others have that cause you to have that view? Too many of the ideas sound good in theory but to implement would take up a lot of time/resources for MT. Others are just plain crazy (there will still be fff at 4am if some of the plans are put forward from this thread). This idea is a lot simpler and in my opinion makes the most sense if a pre-funding system is going to be put in place.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 1, 2017 14:09:58 GMT
I'm pretty sure MT has already said they won't allow post payment, and I agree with that. If people cant be bothered to pre-fund their account why should they be allowed to bid. Also how on earth do you fairly redistribute the allocations of those who successfully bid but then don't provide the funds next day? It isn't post pay..... its post bid, then you pay once you know allocation, then the loan goes live and gets allocated.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 1, 2017 14:12:13 GMT
I haven't read through the whole thread but this sounds like the best idea to me Why do you think that this method that guarantees a 4PM surge every time is better than the ones discussed in the first few posts that guarantee that it will only happen if there is insufficient lender demand? What advantages does it have or disadvantages do the others have that cause you to have that view? This method does not create a surge at all, explain how it does?
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Feb 1, 2017 18:05:50 GMT
I would like to add my support to the pre-funding system proposed by fp, cooling_dude and others, where the pre-funding is run 24hrs before the loan starts, and you then have 24hrs to purchase your pre-funding allocation before the loan goes live. This system would also keep the pattern of loan sales on the morning of a new loan going live, which another poster mentioned. MoneyThing, do you have any thoughts on the timescale of implementing a pre-funding system, if you decide to go down this route?
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 18:32:45 GMT
Why do you think that this method that guarantees a 4PM surge every time is better than the ones discussed in the first few posts that guarantee that it will only happen if there is insufficient lender demand? What advantages does it have or disadvantages do the others have that cause you to have that view? This method does not create a surge at all, explain how it does? " Anything left over or not paid for onto the SM at the end of the 24 hour period, FFF time." By design it will produce FFF whenever there are unfunded bids and I expect that to happen every time. Some of the alternatives described on the first two pages either do not allow unfunded bids at all or do a final round of reallocations based on only funded bids that evenly distribute the money from unfunded bids. Those approaches guarantee both no scrum and even allocation for those who bid for more than was available. So I was wondering why there was a preference for an option that has a FFF scrum vs the earlier proposals that eliminate it by using a final allocation based on funding in the accounts instead.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 1, 2017 18:44:48 GMT
This method does not create a surge at all, explain how it does? " Anything left over or not paid for onto the SM at the end of the 24 hour period, FFF time." By design it will produce FFF whenever there are unfunded bids and I expect that to happen every time. Some of the alternatives described on the first two pages either do not allow unfunded bids at all or do a final round of reallocations based on only funded bids that evenly distribute the money from unfunded bids. Those approaches guarantee both no scrum and even allocation for those who bid for more than was available. So I was wondering why there was a preference for an option that has a FFF scrum vs the earlier proposals that eliminate it by using a final allocation based on funding in the accounts instead. To be fair james, the likelihood of there being anything left is quite slim, and it doesn't need to be released at a set time anyway, as with the remainder of the M********* H*** loans which were dripped onto the SM in 10k lots over a few days. In answer to your question, there is a preference as it obviously makes sense and works for those with the preference.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 18:45:08 GMT
Why do you think that this method that guarantees a 4PM surge every time is better than the ones discussed in the first few posts that guarantee that it will only happen if there is insufficient lender demand? What advantages does it have or disadvantages do the others have that cause you to have that view? Too many of the ideas sound good in theory but to implement would take up a lot of time/resources for MT. Others are just plain crazy (there will still be fff at 4am if some of the plans are put forward from this thread). This idea is a lot simpler and in my opinion makes the most sense if a pre-funding system is going to be put in place. Thanks. So why do you prefer the unfunded bid scrum that this produces vs the proposals which do a final allocation based on amounts in the accounts, which redistributes the money evenly with no scrum?
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 18:54:48 GMT
To be fair james , the likelihood of there being anything left is quite slim, and it doesn't need to be released at a set time anyway, as with the remainder of the M********* H*** loans which were dripped onto the SM in 10k lots over a few days. In answer to your question, there is a preference as it obviously makes sense and works for those with the preference. Well, I hope that there won't be many unfunded bids but I don't see a reason to design in a scrum for them when it's trivial to do a final allocation run and avoid it. Main time when there might be really large unfunded amounts is due diligence discussion after bidding and before the funding deadline. However, that's assuming only good intent. Unfortunately it seems that in bid then fund platforms this has been gamed using high bids from other accounts that will never be funded. Then exploited via FFF. A final bid round instead of FFF reduces the potential to gain from this. Doesn't eliminate it because it would still cause many to fund only up to the initial allocation level. But the spreading of the money around greatly reduces the benefit. If someone else has a preference for creating that scrum, that's understandable, presumably they hope to gain from it by getting more than others, but I do prefer that it be an explicit statement that they are trying to get that feature designed in.
|
|
bramhall17
Member of DD Central
Posts: 88
Likes: 148
|
Post by bramhall17 on Feb 1, 2017 19:01:22 GMT
If MT deem a significant number people have been 'gaming the system' in any significant way then pre-funding seems the soundest way to go.
|
|
fp
Posts: 1,008
Likes: 853
|
Post by fp on Feb 1, 2017 19:06:08 GMT
To be fair james , the likelihood of there being anything left is quite slim, and it doesn't need to be released at a set time anyway, as with the remainder of the M********* H*** loans which were dripped onto the SM in 10k lots over a few days. In answer to your question, there is a preference as it obviously makes sense and works for those with the preference. Well, I hope that there won't be many unfunded bids but I don't see a reason to design in a scrum for them when it's trivial to do a final allocation run and avoid it. Main time when there might be really large unfunded amounts is due diligence discussion after bidding and before the funding deadline. However, that's assuming only good intent. Unfortunately it seems that in bid then fund platforms this has been gamed using high bids from other accounts that will never be funded. Then exploited via FFF. A final bid round instead of FFF reduces the potential to gain from this. Doesn't eliminate it because it would still cause many to fund only up to the initial allocation level. But the spreading of the money around greatly reduces the benefit. If someone else has a preference for creating that scrum, that's understandable, presumably they hope to gain from it by getting more than others, but I do prefer that it be an explicit statement that they are trying to get that feature designed in. 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"?
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 1, 2017 19:12:42 GMT
Well, I hope that there won't be many unfunded bids but I don't see a reason to design in a scrum for them when it's trivial to do a final allocation run and avoid it. Main time when there might be really large unfunded amounts is due diligence discussion after bidding and before the funding deadline. However, that's assuming only good intent. Unfortunately it seems that in bid then fund platforms this has been gamed using high bids from other accounts that will never be funded. Then exploited via FFF. A final bid round instead of FFF reduces the potential to gain from this. Doesn't eliminate it because it would still cause many to fund only up to the initial allocation level. But the spreading of the money around greatly reduces the benefit. If someone else has a preference for creating that scrum, that's understandable, presumably they hope to gain from it by getting more than others, but I do prefer that it be an explicit statement that they are trying to get that feature designed in. 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). I think you are trying to fix a problem that isn't there, but yes, obviously at 'go live time' if the money is not in the accounts then there are several ways of handling any surplus loan parts .. just allocating extra among accounts which wanted some, and DO have a positive balance, would be fine by me, but I suspect it is a layer of complexity not likely to be needed. Funding failure could certainly happen .. deliberate funding failure seems hard to think of a use for. I am sure MT have sanctions they could apply .. like if you only fund half what you ask for, next time you only get half what you would have done ..
|
|
|
Post by bollidear on Feb 1, 2017 19:13:10 GMT
Well, its been a while, but this thread has brought the bile levels to a point where I need to have a say. Ed is quite correct - it is time for a change. We don't need to overanalyse the issue and solution - just revert to experience and common sense without the need to listen to those who argue in the face of fairness and practicality. We all remember how SS suffered similar issues and came up with a good pre-funding solution. This could be improved by requiring funds to be ring-fenced at time of pre-funding to eradicate the negative balances issue. I agree it should be one account per person, but obviously limitless per household. For those who think 4pm is ok, even 8pm or whatever - take yourself out of your bubble and realise there are plenty of people and investors for whom a timed release would not be fair. Next time you drive home in the evening from your wine fueled soiree to a surrealist art exhibition, take the time to consider the 30-40% (Source) of our working population that isn't geared to 9-5 hours. All I can ask is that Ed follows his gut instinct and the backing of reason minded seasoned investors. Dont be afraid to try a 'beta' solution to pre-funding - but just keep it simple and fair. Making it convenient for the greedy, egotistical's out there, really should not rate any higher than a penny investor's desire to top up their tax-free nest egg..... Ultimately the one thing that is a universal truth its that all successful P2P sites have had growing pains with IT hardware, fair funding of loans and whining investors. Ed's engagement with the community is really appreciated - now lets let Ed make the right decision, not based on placating a disproportionately vocal minority.
|
|
|
Post by MoneyThing on Feb 1, 2017 19:22:31 GMT
I would like to add my support to the pre-funding system proposed by fp, cooling_dude and others, where the pre-funding is run 24hrs before the loan starts, and you then have 24hrs to purchase your pre-funding allocation before the loan goes live. This system would also keep the pattern of loan sales on the morning of a new loan going live, which another poster mentioned. MoneyThing , do you have any thoughts on the timescale of implementing a pre-funding system, if you decide to go down this route? Evening westcountry, Really depends on the degree of complexity/changes required for the adopted model (if we go down this route). I would say however I do want to look at this sooner rather than later. I have yet had a moment to properly digest all of the great contribution to this thread - but a big thanks to everyone none the less. With all your help I look forward to come up with a solution that is fair & simple. Back in a bit... Ed
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 20:42:21 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.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Feb 1, 2017 20:52:45 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 allocating extra among accounts which wanted some, and DO have a positive balance, would be fine by me, but I suspect it is a layer of complexity not likely to be needed. The extra complexity is minimal because it's just another tweaked run of the new allocation method. None of the suggestions seems particularly challenging to implement technically.
|
|