Post by elsee on Aug 1, 2018 15:17:55 GMT
Below is a summary of the values tracking the percentage change between each measurement point.
You'd expect the numbers to jump around because of external factors and also as my date points are uneven, with some gaps bigger than others.
BUT the thing that I find wrong and that relates to "duty of care"; transparency; and FCA approval is that the percentage change is different between the three loan parts:
| 31-May | 04-Jun | 08-Jun | 12-Jun | 13-Jun | 24-Jun | 28-Jun | 11-Jul | 12-Jul | 15-Jul | |
| DFL019 | 0.26 | 2.79 | 6.52 | 1.91 | 1.94 | 5.73 | 0.96 | 8.03 | 0.25 | 9.31 |
| PBL178 | 4.25 | -1.68 | 2.24 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 1.29 | 0.09 | 0.56 | 0.00 | 8.79 |
| PBL179 | 24.59 | 0.58 | 1.59 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 23.08 | 11.18 | 75.19 | 10.19 | 5.47 |
If the system were fair and transparent, it ought to work like this:
1) All loan parts are added to the sale queue when customers click "sell loan part". At that point, all loan parts are treated equally, that is, they all join the queue and enter the market in a first-come-first-served sequence.
2) Once the loan parts are on the secondary market, then normal supply/demand rules apply. Some parts may sell very quickly. Some others may never sell at all.
In my opinion, this would be a fair system.
What my numbers show, is that the sale queue is not neutral. Some loan parts do better than others, essentially jockeying for position to enter the market. I can't say if this is handled manually by Lendy, or if it is done with algorithms, but either way it is NOT FAIR and NOT TRANSPARENT (sorry)...
I mean look at those figures, PBL178 actually went backwards at one point (the queue increased instead of reduced)
This is just not right and Lendy needs to explain.