|
|
Post by investorl on May 20, 2017 6:47:28 GMT
Today I figured out that Minimum Funds in Account was removed from portfolio editor and it was replaced by global settings.
Why this? To force investors to buy worst loans instead of the best ones?
How can you now configure following rules?
1) invest to 13%
2) invest to 12% if more than 100EUR is on my account
3) invest to 11% if more than 200EUR is on my account
.
.
.
Why can be such change proceed without letting know to investors?? Because of that, my autoinvest rules purchased a lot of bad investments while leaving the good ones in the marketplace. This cost me a lot of %% from my money.
Can any representative post any statement to this "change"? Why this change wasn't communicated to investors?
Till now I really loved Mintos but if this is how now Mintos works, I'm very disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by rahafoorum on May 20, 2017 7:06:10 GMT
They overwrote your autoinvest settings by removing this part?
|
|
|
|
Post by investorl on May 20, 2017 7:14:05 GMT
Unfortunately yes. Although there is still "Minimum Funds in Account" in rule details:  , this amount is the same for all rules and it's configured through global settings  |
|
|
|
Post by nesako on May 20, 2017 21:37:49 GMT
From my point of view, they have closed the unintentional "back door" to being able to prioritise portfolios. What I (personally) need is officially supported Portfolio prioritisation feature, so:
Fill Portfolio A to Max limit if any loans available, if not:
Fill Portfolio B to Max limit if any loans available, if not:
Fill.... well you get it
|
|
|
|
Post by investorl on May 21, 2017 5:38:54 GMT
@nesako: Why backdoor? What other purpose was for "minimum funds in account" if not for prioritising rules?
Also, your requirement is different from mine. You want to prioritise by max limit, I want to prioritise by the interest rate. This is different
|
|
kulerucket
Member of DD Central
Posts: 336 
Likes: 93
|
Post by kulerucket on May 21, 2017 6:03:52 GMT
@nesako: Why backdoor? What other purpose was for "minimum funds in account" if not for prioritising rules? Also, your requirement is different from mine. You want to prioritise by max limit, I want to prioritise by the interest rate. This is different I believe that the original purpose is to leave funds untouched e.g. for preparing to withdraw or for saving some for manual investment. The new way the feature works actually does this better, however what I really want is what nasako asks for. The old method is only really a workaround for prioritisation because it will leave a lot of funds untouched if the matches are rare. If for example my first rule is "any 13% buyback", I want it checked before everything else but I don't want to hold 100€ back for it just in case.
|
|
|
|
Post by investorl on May 21, 2017 6:17:45 GMT
You're right, it will leave some part of money untouched.
Unfortunately, proposed priority rules are also a bad, because imagine the following situation:
1rule: buy 13%
2rule buy 10%
In case that there will be a temporary (few hours, one day,...) shortage of 13%, the second rule will be automatically executed. All your money will be invested in 10% and when 13% will appear again, but you will already have 10% investments.
Because of that, the only solution would be "if more than 1-month money will not be invested, use rule 2".. But this is pretty complicated. So I believe that solution with "100EUR on my account" is a good enough solution.
|
|
kulerucket
Member of DD Central
Posts: 336
Likes: 93
|
Post by kulerucket on May 21, 2017 7:28:27 GMT
That would be fine for me as none of my rules will be 10% ones and I would not create rules I am not happy with. If I have money building up, it just gets moved to another platform. In a situation where there are both 12% and 13% available, I would rather take 13%, but I would not wait weeks for them because they are rare, and if the money accumulates too much dead time, 13% isn't worth it.
My rule structure is mainly about diversification where most rules are around 12%. Thinking about it, the most suitable thing for me would to fill the most empty rule first given the same priority.
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,317
Likes: 893
|
Post by JamesFrance on May 21, 2017 7:56:52 GMT
I have been wondering why my autos have not been reinvesting repayments recently. I have now discovered that someone set my minimum funds to €200 and it certainly wasn't me!  |
|
|
|
Post by nesako on May 21, 2017 9:29:50 GMT
@nesako: Why backdoor? What other purpose was for "minimum funds in account" if not for prioritising rules? Also, your requirement is different from mine. You want to prioritise by max limit, I want to prioritise by the interest rate. This is different This answer is covered to the point above by kulerucket. I would also prioritise portfolios by interest rate but limited to max investment per one originator (if two originators both offer 12% and all your money goes to the same originator, you do not get diversification), but I would not allow cash drag.
|
|
Sr. Lobo
Member of DD Central
Posts: 63
Likes: 17
|
Post by Sr. Lobo on May 21, 2017 12:12:56 GMT
I have been wondering why my autos have not been reinvesting repayments recently. I have now discovered that someone set my minimum funds to €200 and it certainly wasn't me! That was the maximun of you minimum amount of portfolios. But do not even claim, that's the way things should be, maybe you don't understand the logic:O
|
|
|
|
Post by investorl on May 21, 2017 18:40:37 GMT
That would be fine for me as none of my rules will be 10% ones and I would not create rules I am not happy with. If I have money building up, it just gets moved to another platform. In a situation where there are both 12% and 13% available, I would rather take 13%, but I would not wait weeks for them because they are rare, and if the money accumulates too much dead time, 13% isn't worth it. My rule structure is mainly about diversification where most rules are around 12%. Thinking about it, the most suitable thing for me would to fill the most empty rule first given the same priority. But the problem is that in situations when there are 12% and 13% you currently don't have any way how to prioritise 13% loans. And this is exactly why I utilised "minimum funds" feature. And based on my current experiences autoinvest buys you 12% and not 13%. And this is probably the reason why they removed this feature. To force investors to buy also worst investments.
|
|
|
|
Post by investorl on May 22, 2017 14:30:18 GMT
I received an official response from Mintos team. It seems that they are working (and completely reworking) autoinvest features and this was the step one. So now we have to wait until more info will be revealed. But based on hhave believe it will be good ;-)
And the second answer
|
|
kulerucket
Member of DD Central
Posts: 336
Likes: 93
|
Post by kulerucket on May 22, 2017 14:44:36 GMT
I have been very impressed with the improvements being made recently like the improvements to filtering so fingers crossed. Just removing a feature without any explanation was a bit of an error. Maybe they should have released steps 1 and 2 together.
|
|
