|
|
Post by goldservice on Jul 20, 2014 17:19:01 GMT
On 10 July 2014 between 16:40 and 16:41 one bidder, B*****a, successfully put in 161 bids of £100 each at 14% for loan 6888 RB A for £20,000 which then finished early. I make that over 80% of the loan. How does this square with "an API User is not permitted to bid for loan parts in a loan which add up in total to more than 20% of the requested amount for that loan" (from T&Cs for API users).
Also: "We want to ensure that our API has a minimal effect on the marketplace. Investors who use bespoke bidding programs that use the API are bound by additional restrictions which regulate bidding frequency and accepted behaviour.
Funding Circle will ensure that the marketplace remains a fair and open place for both website users and API consumers and that no unfair advantage is given to either group.
In order to ensure those using the API are in line with other investors, we are restricting the users to three bids per minute." (from FAQs/FAQs for Investors/API)
I'm confused!
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Jul 20, 2014 18:29:58 GMT
This is fairly blatant market manipulation which is either tolerated or ignored by FC. Following discussions of similar behavior from another user I have concluded that this practice does force up the rate on certain loans.
A normal bid distribution, including autobid, will result in bids spread across all rated by the time the loan 100% fills, this means that perhaps only a few hundred pounds will be entered above 14% and the bid rate can drop quickly. If a large proportion of a loan is bid at high rates then manual bidders may be tempted to bid at higher rates than they otherwise would, based on the number of bids that would need to be knocked out. This leads to the very high bid volumes at auction end when the bots come in at a high rate and can afford to keep re-bidding as the rate drops.
Individual manual bidders are not disadvantaged since they are still free to underbid.
The problem with early finishing auctions is that bidders who like to keep their powder dry until the last minute (as on Ebay) can have the rug pulled from under their feet, so it pays to try and stay in an auction from the start.
The monopolistic bidder is of course tying up large sums on a speculative venture, unless they are individuals with inside information on whether an auction might finish early.
|
|
chrisf
Member of DD Central
Posts: 224 
Likes: 67
|
Post by chrisf on Jul 20, 2014 19:59:42 GMT
I work in an open plan office where several people are keen FC'ers, and for a long time now we have used the verb 'to Baz***er' on situations like when someone returns from holiday and brings in some sort of foreign sweeties, and some bugger goes and eats way more than their fair share of them.
'There were 10 doughnuts there half an hour ago, who has Baz***gered half of them?'
|
|
chrisf
Member of DD Central
Posts: 224
Likes: 67
|
Post by chrisf on Jul 20, 2014 20:09:47 GMT
I work in an open plan office where several people are keen FC'ers, and for a long time now we have used the verb 'to Baz***er' on situations like when someone returns from holiday and brings in some sort of foreign sweeties, and some bugger goes and eats way more than their fair share of them. 'There were 10 doughnuts there half an hour ago, who has Baz***gered half of them?' And what I meant to add was: Yes, This is well out of order, FC having a rule about 20% max to one bidder and not bothering to administer the rule.
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Jul 20, 2014 22:27:05 GMT
I work in an open plan office where several people are keen FC'ers, and for a long time now we have used the verb 'to Baz***er' on situations like when someone returns from holiday and brings in some sort of foreign sweeties, and some bugger goes and eats way more than their fair share of them. If you look at your FC total as a % of total loans outstanding on FC that will give you an idea of your 'fair share'. Apply that to any new auction and you will find that for most of us our 'fair share' is below the minimum bid size so most of us are already non-compliant on such grounds. Looking at 6888 this was a small auction so it would not have taken much time to displace those 'winning' bids which themselves were displacing bids almost all from another single bidder (JCB*****n previously known (speculation on my part) as B*z) which were pitched at 14.5-15%. The early acceptance is, I believe, more luck than anything else so persistence may be rewarded (so just as by placing a bid or bids at 15% every time you see a new auction you may well eventually get one which accepts early with some of your bids at 15%). A number of the large/automated bidders mentioned in this and other threads do not appear to be present at the end of most auctions having dropped out at higher %s so it does not follow that early bidding in size will cause congestion/processing issues in auctions which go full term.
|
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Jul 21, 2014 8:41:03 GMT
A number of the large/automated bidders mentioned in this and other threads do not appear to be present at the end of most auctions having dropped out at higher %s so it does not follow that early bidding in size will cause congestion/processing issues in auctions which go full term.
The point is that the auction becomes top heavy. A non manipulated request for £100k might have £25k offered at MBR, and say £10k rolling down to lower bid points at the end. The bid bots will be programmed to drop out when the rate is no longer attractive. The auctions with dominant bidding at the top rates have very little at MBR, so at the end there could be £30k rolling down from much higher rates and being rebid at a point 0.2 lower when kicked out. I have rarely seen the regular mass bidders in at the end, I suspect they may be using more than one ID, and they may also be operating together.
|
|
|
|
Post by aloanatlast on Jul 22, 2014 9:09:05 GMT
Yes. After Lofty etc have shut out the Autobidder, we high-rate junkies will pile in, hoping for a payday at 12 or 13%. We'll sit there for a week with little disturbance. But most of the time we'll just be keeping the seat warm for the bots that will knock out 50 thousand quid's worth of us in the last 10 minutes.
Whereas, in the auctions that are mostly filled by Autobid ballast, there isn't much room at the top, so we're out early and the pickings for the late-buying flippers are thin.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 24, 2014 21:22:19 GMT
A number of the large/automated bidders mentioned in this and other threads do not appear to be present at the end of most auctions having dropped out at higher %s so it does not follow that early bidding in size will cause congestion/processing issues in auctions which go full term.The point is that the auction becomes top heavy. A non manipulated request for £100k might have £25k offered at MBR, and say £10k rolling down to lower bid points at the end. The bid bots will be programmed to drop out when the rate is no longer attractive. The auctions with dominant bidding at the top rates have very little at MBR, so at the end there could be £30k rolling down from much higher rates and being rebid at a point 0.2 lower when kicked out. I have rarely seen the regular mass bidders in at the end, I suspect they may be using more than one ID, and they may also be operating together. Oh an examination of closed auctions showed, last I looked, that JCB*****, b*z (and his close relative b*z*ng*), among others (and these 3 may all be a tripartite being) were still bidding fairly frantically (i.e. multiple bids per second) at the end of any auctions where the rate was still deemed flippable, although our vertically magnificent front-loader generally seems to shoot once and then retire (goodness knows where all the £960s hide when not in play!). I have, over in the other place, frequently commented on this '20% of any auction' rule, but as someone said upthread, FC either can't, or won't, bother to enforce it. Shouldn't be rocket science, and even if done manually a couple of rapped knuckles and a stiff fine ought persuade miscreants to cease and desist.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jul 25, 2014 6:31:11 GMT
All too true, in which case why have a '20%' rule in the first place?? It just brings rules into disrepute.
|
|
jm72
Posts: 109
Likes: 2
|
Post by jm72 on Jul 25, 2014 7:44:28 GMT
All too true, in which case why have a '20%' rule in the first place?? It just brings rules into disrepute. I thought the 20% rule was only for those using the API. Given that the API doesn't seem to have been released, surely this doesn't apply?
|
|
is
Posts: 108
Likes: 14
|
Post by is on Jul 25, 2014 8:08:32 GMT
All too true, in which case why have a '20%' rule in the first place?? It just brings rules into disrepute. I thought the 20% rule was only for those using the API. Given that the API doesn't seem to have been released, surely this doesn't apply? Indeed - FC themselves said so. Also it would be unenforceable (different accounts, concerted action etc). In any case I see no particular problem with bids over 20% (I bought over 90% of some smaller loans I liked, when I was quick enough), but the issue is the deficient autobid - I don't see why it can't bid on 100% full auctions (beyond helping FC maintain the very high % of auctions that fill completely in a cheaper way than the cashback offers we saw earlier in the year). Let's see how whole loans will be implemented for general consumption, perhaps reducing the need for mouse overload. Placing a sizeable amount of cash now, at the rate you like, is too cumbersome (compared to say AC - but that platform has other issues).
|
|
is
Posts: 108
Likes: 14
|
Post by is on Jul 25, 2014 8:14:51 GMT
I see tall*** is back in play this morning, more of the 960s freshly delivered to the account, no doubt. One point that may be worth considering, is that since closing rates of auction loans act as a fixing for the whole loans, as I understand, shutting out the autobidders results in juicier pickings there  ... |
|
...