elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Nov 1, 2018 8:37:04 GMT
Mr CL may be referring more to old FC practice of lenders in a beggar thy neighbour 0.001 increments (still practiceable on HC). 0.5 steps cuts out all such shenanigans with a more efficient sifting of genuine sellers from silly buggers. Just my opinion (and ACs), I will ignore yours too. Plenty of room for differing opinions for sure I don't get though how some sellers are genuine and some not. They all seem like sellers to me. As I said - if someone can show me how ABL's much less restricted model doesn't work I'd be grateful. Have a look at abl market. Thanks.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 1, 2018 8:40:17 GMT
Plenty of room for differing opinions for sure I don't get though how some sellers are genuine and some not. They all seem like sellers to me. As I said - if someone can show me how ABL's much less restricted model doesn't work I'd be grateful. Have a look at abl market. Thanks. I keep a very close eye. Healthy discounts on most things now, compared to healthy premiums a month or two ago - i.e. market price reacted to market sentiment. And remains highly liquid at the right price.
|
|
elliotn
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,063
Likes: 2,681
|
Post by elliotn on Nov 1, 2018 8:41:05 GMT
Have a look at abl market. Thanks. I keep a very close eye. Healthy discounts on most things now, compared to healthy premiums a month or two ago - i.e. market price reacted to market sentiment. And remains highly liquid at the right price. 0.5% steps only. Thanks.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 623
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Nov 1, 2018 8:49:47 GMT
Mr CL may be referring more to old FC practice of lenders in a beggar thy neighbour 0.001 increments (still practiceable on HC). 0.5 steps cuts out all such shenanigans with a more efficient sifting of genuine sellers from silly buggers. Just my opinion (and ACs), I will ignore yours too. Plenty of room for differing opinions for sure I don't get though how some sellers are genuine and some not. They all seem like sellers to me. As I said - if someone can show me how ABL's much less restricted model doesn't work I'd be grateful. The rationale for discounting at finite steps (say, 0.5%) is to limit gaming the FIFO principle. The ability to apply trivial discounts (-1.000000001% vs. -1%) rewards the fellows with all the time in the world to be online undercutting the ones that don't.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 1, 2018 8:51:01 GMT
Unless MT plans a fundamental re-write of their platform code (eg. to support SM Offers and Bids as per Ablrate, or even randomised SM allocations across lenders as per AC), I presume the existing SM would be modified so that, when listing a loan part to "Sell", a % discount can be applied (potentially also a % premium, who knows).
That part would then join the back of any existing selling queue at that level of % discount / % premium, and would sell through in due course on the same First In - First Out basis. Anyone buying on the SM would presumably always buy at "Best Available" price, rather than choosing any worse price they wish to buy at (a curious option offered by FS).
If so, 0.5% increments seems sensible to me, otherwise there could be dozens of individual queues at different prices.
Anyone modifying their offered discount would presumably go to the back of the queue at the revised discount.
One other question is how the Loans page would be modified to show what is available for sale. Perhaps all it needs is 2 columns, one showing the current best price (eg. -1.5%) and the other showing the quantity available at that price. Full SM availability in the loan (across all prices) could then be detailed on the individual loan page, or totalled in a 3rd column on the Loans page
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 1, 2018 8:56:40 GMT
The ABL model is fine, except for the 'failure to automatch' which means you CAN sell to yourself at a 10% discount when other buyers are offering to buy at par. Fix that and HMRC would have less of an issue, imo. ( You can make an offer at a low price, and then buy it .. you can't BID a low price and then sell to it though).
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 1, 2018 8:59:15 GMT
Plenty of room for differing opinions for sure I don't get though how some sellers are genuine and some not. They all seem like sellers to me. As I said - if someone can show me how ABL's much less restricted model doesn't work I'd be grateful. The rationale for discounting at finite steps (say, 0.5%) is to limit gaming the FIFO principle. The ability to apply trivial discounts (-1.000000001% vs. -1%) rewards the fellows with all the time in the world to be online undercutting the ones that don't. I think it boils down to a discussion on when meaningful becomes trivial. No one would suggest nanodiscounting be introduced, and that's a reducto ad absurdium argument. 1 decimal place seems reasonable to me - like on ABL & FS Limiting to whole numbers or half percents seems too little given that most things will be only a few percentage points either way. And P2P (and markets generally) always trades financial rewards for time. Up to you if the trade off is worth it.
|
|
mary
Member of DD Central
Posts: 698
Likes: 711
|
Post by mary on Nov 1, 2018 9:04:44 GMT
Outside of an ISA, the exposure to Capital Gains tax issues will mean that, if implemented, I will move to other platforms.
I do not have the time or inclination to make my tax affairs more complex.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Nov 1, 2018 9:26:12 GMT
Outside of an ISA, the exposure to Capital Gains tax issues will mean that, if implemented, I will move to other platforms. I do not have the time or inclination to make my tax affairs more complex. Hopefully the tax statement would give you all the details you need but I know what you mean
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Nov 1, 2018 10:00:30 GMT
Personally I favour discounts, but not premiums.
Discounts will improve the liquidity of our assets, allowing a lender to exit for whatever reason, and another lender to gain additional recompense for taking on those loans. I'm thinking that this might be useful if the seller was wanting to close their account, for example, to transfer their IFISA to another provider, or just really needs the money now due to whatever unforeseen circumstance. This provides mutual benefit to both seller and buyer.
Premiums, on the other hand, will not help lenders overall, IMHO. Looking at things at a platform level, borrowers are charged interest, which is available to lenders, after MT take their cut, in return for us providing capital. This interest is our (lenders') profit. At the moment we make this profit as interest on loans, but if we allow premiums, then this pot of cash will be divided between interest on loans and profits on sale of loans at a premium.
Those lenders with the time, inclination, expertise, cash on hand, fastest fingers (or possibly bots) will benefit from the profit of sales of loans at a discount, whilst those lenders (I suspect the general majority of "normal" lenders) who buy the loans at a premium will be worse off. I think lenders trying to fill an IFISA, or keep it completely re-invested, may be one of the groups of lenders most adversely affected (e.g. you get £30 of interest and want to just put it in a decent loan to start earning again, but find everything half-decent is at a premium).
It's tough enough making a decent return on my capital in P2P with unknown defaults, so although MT is my current favourite platform, if they introduce discounting I'll be voting with my feet.
MT needs a larger pool of "normal" lenders to fund growth, not reduce its appeal to only those with higher levels of expertise, time and capital.
|
|
picnicman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 238
Likes: 215
|
Post by picnicman on Nov 1, 2018 10:11:11 GMT
Unless MT plans a fundamental re-write of their platform code (eg. to support SM Offers and Bids as per Ablrate, or even randomised SM allocations across lenders as per AC), I presume the existing SM would be modified so that, when listing a loan part to "Sell", a % discount can be applied (potentially also a % premium, who knows). That part would then join the back of any existing selling queue at that level of % discount / % premium, and would sell through in due course on the same First In - First Out basis. Anyone buying on the SM would presumably always buy at "Best Available" price, rather than choosing any worse price they wish to buy at (a curious option offered by FS). If so, 0.5% increments seems sensible to me, otherwise there could be dozens of individual queues at different prices. Anyone modifying their offered discount would presumably go to the back of the queue at the revised discount. One other question is how the Loans page would be modified to show what is available for sale. Perhaps all it needs is 2 columns, one showing the current best price (eg. -1.5%) and the other showing the quantity available at that price. Full SM availability in the loan (across all prices) could then be detailed on the individual loan page, or totalled in a 3rd column on the Loans page Hi SteveT (and elliotn) - value both of your opinions - personally, I will go with the flow as what happens, happens. If it does change, what happens to the existing sale queues needs to be considered. Someone at the front of the queue now needs to be protected from being jumped by the first loan part for sale at a discount surely? I appreciate that may mean at the beginning that change is slow. I do not know the answer and no doubt someone will be unhappy with whatever happens, I am just saying that this needs to be considered by MoneyThing. Any comments welcome - Cheers P
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 1, 2018 10:15:30 GMT
Unless MT plans a fundamental re-write of their platform code (eg. to support SM Offers and Bids as per Ablrate, or even randomised SM allocations across lenders as per AC), I presume the existing SM would be modified so that, when listing a loan part to "Sell", a % discount can be applied (potentially also a % premium, who knows). That part would then join the back of any existing selling queue at that level of % discount / % premium, and would sell through in due course on the same First In - First Out basis. Anyone buying on the SM would presumably always buy at "Best Available" price, rather than choosing any worse price they wish to buy at (a curious option offered by FS). If so, 0.5% increments seems sensible to me, otherwise there could be dozens of individual queues at different prices. Anyone modifying their offered discount would presumably go to the back of the queue at the revised discount. One other question is how the Loans page would be modified to show what is available for sale. Perhaps all it needs is 2 columns, one showing the current best price (eg. -1.5%) and the other showing the quantity available at that price. Full SM availability in the loan (across all prices) could then be detailed on the individual loan page, or totalled in a 3rd column on the Loans page Hi SteveT (and elliotn) - value both of your opinions - personally, I will go with the flow as what happens, happens. If it does change, what happens to the existing sale queues needs to be considered. Someone at the front of the queue now needs to be protected from being jumped by the first loan part for sale at a discount surely? I appreciate that may mean at the beginning that change is slow. I do not know the answer and no doubt someone will be unhappy with whatever happens, I am just saying that this needs to be considered by MoneyThing. Any comments welcome - Cheers P You're still at the front of the queue for a par sale - so nothing changes. If someone wants to sell for less then they will get priority. Otherwise nothing has changed.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Nov 1, 2018 10:17:16 GMT
Outside of an ISA, the exposure to Capital Gains tax issues will mean that, if implemented, I will move to other platforms. I do not have the time or inclination to make my tax affairs more complex.
So only buy/sell at par. If you buy/sell a lot, you are probably already having to report it (outside an ISA), even if you make no profit/loss.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 7,918
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 1, 2018 10:21:36 GMT
Interesting thought but it would make little sense to launch discounts but then prevent them having any effect until hundreds of £000s of Par parts sell through.
A possible solution: suspend the SM for 24 hours, allow everyone already queued at Par to choose the price level they want their existing offer to move to (or stay at Par) and maintain their existing order in the new queues.
But frankly I suspect that’s a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Nov 1, 2018 10:23:04 GMT
Personally I favour discounts, but not premiums. Discounts will improve the liquidity of our assets, allowing a lender to exit for whatever reason, and another lender to gain additional recompense for taking on those loans. I'm thinking that this might be useful if the seller was wanting to close their account, for example, to transfer their IFISA to another provider, or just really needs the money now due to whatever unforeseen circumstance. This provides mutual benefit to both seller and buyer. Premiums, on the other hand, will not help lenders overall, IMHO. Looking at things at a platform level, borrowers are charged interest, which is available to lenders, after MT take their cut, in return for us providing capital. This interest is our (lenders') profit. At the moment we make this profit as interest on loans, but if we allow premiums, then this pot of cash will be divided between interest on loans and profits on sale of loans at a premium. Those lenders with the time, inclination, expertise, cash on hand, fastest fingers (or possibly bots) will benefit from the profit of sales of loans at a discount, whilst those lenders (I suspect the general majority of "normal" lenders) who buy the loans at a premium will be worse off. I think lenders trying to fill an IFISA, or keep it completely re-invested, may be one of the groups of lenders most adversely affected (e.g. you get £30 of interest and want to just put it in a decent loan to start earning again, but find everything half-decent is at a premium). It's tough enough making a decent return on my capital in P2P with unknown defaults, so although MT is my current favourite platform, if they introduce discounting I'll be voting with my feet. MT needs a larger pool of "normal" lenders to fund growth, not reduce its appeal to only those with higher levels of expertise, time and capital. 1) bots are just as much if not more of a problem with the current system where desirable loans are gone in an instant. 2) filling an ISA is even more difficult at the moment where you cant buy anything - the option of a premium would improve liquidity there (at the expense of a bit lower AER) 3) the ability to sell desirable loans at a premium helps cancel out the costs of selling undesirable loans at a discount, benefitting borrowers overall.
|
|