Post by propman on Dec 14, 2018 12:49:07 GMT
Also, would you be supportive of minor changes to the current system? It makes sense for reinvested money to leapfrog new money, but not at all costs. When the reinvested money joins the queue, perhaps there could be a check so that it only leapfrogs new money younger than say 14 days. So for new customers, after the initial wait, they would at least then see their money invested properly instead of constantly getting shoved back to the end of the queue.
I disagree as when New money was taking > 14 days then relent money would be delayed significantly and lenders would need to review this as well as new offers on a regular basis. As I stated above, the long initial wait is a cost of getting onto the rapid relending merry-go-round where withdrawing repayments comes at a , presumably deliberate, cost of loss of the significant preference.
I could live with a maximum % of new money matching (say 90%) so that there remained some movement in the new money queue (eg £10m new money queued, £500k of repayments and £400k of lending, £360k of the 500k relent money would be matched together with £40k of new money), maybe even weighted average between the new and relent where relending has a substantial say 10x weight for relent money (so in above example relending would be 10x500/(10x500+10000) = 1/3 of the 400k = 133k relending and £267k of new money.
I say this despite having 20% of my money in LW waiting as new money.
What would others prefer?