ramblin rose
Member of DD Central
“Some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” — Alphonse Karr
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 857
|
Post by ramblin rose on Jul 21, 2014 14:22:51 GMT
Of course, if SS can increase the number of loans brought forward, or if the secondary market develops to the point where there's a good supply of opportunities most of the time, then a scrum like today's might be less likely. I agree that the loan went extremely quickly today, but it was hardly a scrum - it proceeded in a very orderly manner. Your suggested limits would be great for some, and not great for others. Clearly smaller lenders will only get the opportunity to lend where there are restrictions on smaller loans. But larger lenders wouldn't get any benefit from having the boaty loans in their portfolio if they can only put in what is 'small change' for them. So you either make it such that it's PBLs-only for smaller lenders (by allowing larger lenders to shut them out of boaty loans by putting larger amounts in), or effectively PBLs-only for larger lenders (by making their smaller boaty loans a negligible part of their loan book). Neither seems particularly fair really.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jul 21, 2014 14:51:56 GMT
Of course, if SS can increase the number of loans brought forward, or if the secondary market develops to the point where there's a good supply of opportunities most of the time, then a scrum like today's might be less likely. I agree that the loan went extremely quickly today, but it was hardly a scrum - it proceeded in a very orderly manner. Your suggested limits would be great for some, and not great for others. Clearly smaller lenders will only get the opportunity to lend where there are restrictions on smaller loans. But larger lenders wouldn't get any benefit from having the boaty loans in their portfolio if they can only put in what is 'small change' for them. So you either make it such that it's PBLs-only for smaller lenders (by allowing larger lenders to shut them out of boaty loans by putting larger amounts in), or effectively PBLs-only for larger lenders (by making their smaller boaty loans a negligible part of their loan book). Neither seems particularly fair really. I suppose it depends on your definition of a scrum. Yes, it went reasonably smoothly. But there were reports of lenders being allowed to make multiple bids in excess of the maximum allowed, and the system accepted more bids than there were loan parts available, so the system end isn't adequate yet. I called it a scrum because I responded quickly upon receiving the email, but I still was unable to participate. Perhaps 'feeding frenzy' would have been a better description. I accept that setting maximum limits is not an easy task, and someone always is going to be disadvantaged. Increasing the number of lenders SS have is an important goal for them, and if they're really trying to be P2P then they need to keep smaller lenders interested by giving them sufficient investing opportunities. Greater deal flow would help, but to do that they need a good base of investors to call upon. If they can get to the point where they have a steady stream of boat loans they could vary the maximum investment limits so that the smaller lenders have an opportunity to be in at least some of them. A system whereby most smaller lenders only can participate in large PBLs would work only if there are a lot of them available to choose from. At the moment, there aren't. Even if all the existing ones were available now instead of just PBL005, five -- or even ten or twenty PBLs -- isn't enough to build a diversified portfolio with. A small investor coming to the platform today will look at the current offerings, conclude there isn't enough diversity, and go elsewhere. Even a large investor would see only one opportunity, and probably go away disappointed.
|
|
