|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 21, 2014 19:46:56 GMT
Manual investment is always on, but if your holding and target are equal then it will ignore you. There's still a debate to be had around auto diversification and whether that too should operate on manual investments. At the moment you have to have a target, it's your current holdings. When the site was set live if you had an active auto invest target then that target was used otherwise it was set to your current holdings. There has been an oversight where if you had a different target set in AI and had disabled either buying or selling then that has been incorrectly ignored as it wasn't mapped to the new system which doesn't have those concepts. What we should have done is in those instances instead set the target to be your current loan holding. This was a last minute change as our original intention was to ignore the old AI settings completely but there were complaints on this forum that several lenders had spent a lot of time reviewing loans and setting targets so we imported the settings - apologies that this has caused further issue. I'm not sure how best to correct for that now - I suspect that if I start making blanket changes to the settings then it's going to overwrite changes that people have made since then which will cause as much anger as if I leave it as is. You can quickly see all your holdings and targets via the loan book screen (https://www.assetzcapital.co.uk/investments/loan-book) so I'm tempted to leave it as is and ask lenders to set their targets to whatever level of investment they actually want. That the target doesn't track principal repayments - this is identical to the old system. Indeed there was a debate on this forum about whether or not it should. I have a solution in mind so that it will count down with each repayment as they're made, but suspect that this will still cause confusion. For example if you set your target to £500 but nothing is immediately available and then a loan repayment occurs, should your target adjust? Should it only track your current holdings and not scale the rest, should it scale everything, etc. I don't remember there ever being a consensus on how it should work last time it was discussed, so for now it is set to copy the old behaviour but I am happy to discuss this further and come up with a solution everyone is happy with. Where this has caused confusion is that the system can now buy and sell in much smaller units. Loan units are no longer held in £100 chunks, each lender will usually end up with one loan unit in each loan for each method of investment used. As such we had to support merging and splitting of loan units to any arbitrary size, which has also meant that anyone looking to sell can sell any amount making it much easier to buy and sell loan units. This freedom has allowed the system to adjust your investments, as instructed but perhaps not intended. However I repeat this is not a change in behaviour but one of opportunity for the system to make an adjustment. If a £1 loan unit had come up for sale on the old site then that same £1 adjustment would have been carried out there. The other thing to remember is that all of these changes are built upon more automated systems in order to still give lenders as much manual control as is practical. Both API based investments and fully automated investments on platform are coming soon and with that there'd be no way of competing manually, it wasn't at all practical to retain a fully manual process much in the same way as you see automated bidding starting to dominate sites like Funding Circle. Using manual invest and setting your target will give you the same opportunity as any of the other methods of investing the platform supports whilst still letting you choose which loans you want to put your money in to. If you want a more fire and forget approach where you don't have to micro-manage your loan book then there will be products for you. And if you fancy programming the site to run your investment strategy how you see fit then that facility will be there as well. But for those who don't want to use those tools there will still be this existing manual investment option, and their opportunity to invest will not be any different to those using the other solutions. All of this is already coded and live on the site with the interface hidden, so all of that complexity and those systems are there in operation behind the scenes and everything you see has to work in tandem with those solutions. There are commercial not technical reasons why they haven't launched yet but they will be released in the coming days and weeks. Bumping this to a new page so more people will see it. The problem is chris is that whilst the MAI might function in the same way as the AI, the functionality cannot be disabled as you could with the AI and you can't set a ceiling for the % holding so every loan effectively becomes a bullet loan unless there is manual intervention every time a repayment of capital is made.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Oct 21, 2014 19:47:10 GMT
Hi Chris, Because you haven't got enough issues, just letting you know this one. 21st Oct 2014 at 19:29 Purchase loan part 843662 (old id 803571) for 8.05 GBP - principal 8.05, annualised rate 13.200, loan: Kidderminster Bridging Loan (64) BUT debited -8.06.
Looking at your transaction history it's debited the right amount but there's been a couple of other transactions as the same time. Are you sure? The list of balances for your account (with the first digits removed) are: 50.94 51.94 59.99 62.10 65.18 100.00 This correlates with both your current displayed balance and all the transactions I can see. Edit: the transactions that produce those balances are (ignoring the initial deposit): -1.00 -8.05 -2.11 -3.08 -34.82 All of those figures match to the descriptions. Or am I missing something?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087 
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 21, 2014 19:49:26 GMT
Oh dear, silly Gnasher has done a Grumpy, or something like that by using the old method on the new system. I wanted to increase my target in CWT(125) from 2000 to 2500, so I indicated "increase" and typed in 2500 (... instead of 500!). Suddenly I was the proud owner of £4500 - s&%t! Changed my target back to 2500 and I now appear to hold 3800, not quite so bad. But the difference in how this works on the old and new system needs great care. Very confused as I cannot see all movements on my statement. Edit : OK now found out how to see my transaction statement, and the system has indeed sold £700 of my unwanted investment, phew, perhaps it will see some more soon. So beware - take care folks!
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Oct 21, 2014 19:50:32 GMT
What did Granny Grumps always say? Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves?  Or....'Many a mickle makes a muckle', as my granny would have said
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Oct 21, 2014 19:56:37 GMT
Hi Chris, Because you haven't got enough issues, just letting you know this one. 21st Oct 2014 at 19:29 Purchase loan part 843662 (old id 803571) for 8.05 GBP - principal 8.05, annualised rate 13.200, loan: Kidderminster Bridging Loan (64) BUT debited -8.06.
Looking at your transaction history it's debited the right amount but there's been a couple of other transactions as the same time. Are you sure? The list of balances for your account (with the first digits removed) are: 50.94 51.94 59.99 62.10 65.18 100.00 This correlates with both your current displayed balance and all the transactions I can see. Edit: the transactions that produce those balances are (ignoring the initial deposit): -1.00 -8.05 -2.11 -3.08 -34.82 All of those figures match to the descriptions. Or am I missing something? Chris, Your Correct, I should have added them up. Thanks.
|
|
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 Oct 21, 2014 19:58:27 GMT
Hi Chris, Because you haven't got enough issues, just letting you know this one. 21st Oct 2014 at 19:29 Purchase loan part 843662 (old id 803571) for 8.05 GBP - principal 8.05, annualised rate 13.200, loan: Kidderminster Bridging Loan (64) BUT debited -8.06.
Ive got one like that too. Bought £1.10, debited £1.11. Presumably a rounding issue but overtime could build to a significant reconcilation issue between cash & loans I also had one like that earlier, but my overall balance had only reduced by the correct amount, so I put it down to being a display-rounding thing, rather than a price-paid-rounding thing. Edit: crossed posted with Chris - we seem to tally anyway.
|
|
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 Oct 21, 2014 20:04:31 GMT
You've sent me off down a thought tangent here (apologies for taking it off topic - somebody feel free to move the post elsewhere if appropriate). I'll preface my query by saying I agree with what you're asking for. But you've just made me curious about my own attitude to the risks. If the amount of a loan you might be holding was at a comfortable risk level for you personally, and all other loan-related variables were equal, what is it about holding 100% of a loan that you wouldn't like versus, say, 10% of the loan? That is to say, why do you think it is preferable to be sharing the risk with other lenders? So, if your holding were £20K for example, why would it be OK if the whole loan was for £200K but not if the whole loan was for just that £20K. I can see that if 'feels' more comfortable, but is it really any different? Edit: I can see samford71 has unwittingly provided me a partial answer to this already whilst I was posting  . But your actual risk doesn't increase by keeping your amount the same, it just doesn't decrease. Surely the risk level has decreased as LTV is reduced, even if you had acquired 100% of the loan? Good point. I'm glad there's a valid reason for me liking to keep my amount topped up, even if I didn't know what it was
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 21, 2014 20:04:42 GMT
Oh dear, silly Gnasher has done a Grumpy, or something like that by using the old method on the new system. I wanted to increase my target in CWT(125) from 2000 to 2500, so I indicated "increase" and typed in 2500 (... instead of 500!). Suddenly I was the proud owner of £4500 - s&%t! Changed my target back to 2500 and I now appear to hold 3800, not quite so bad. But the difference in how this works on the old and new system needs great care. Very confused as I cannot see all movements on my statement. Edit : OK now found out how to see my transaction statement, and the system has indeed sold £700 of my unwanted investment, phew, perhaps it will see some more soon. So beware - take care folks!
Actually I don't think you are twerps my view is that it would have been far more intuitive to have 'increase to' and 'decrease to' rather than 'increase by' and 'decrease by' particularly with the MAI targets being set to the holding balance if there was no AI target in place. I have a holding which has an MAI target of £374.68 so rather than just entering a new target of £500 I have to do the math to calculate the increase and enter ....erm where did I put my calculator..... £125.32.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 21, 2014 20:17:56 GMT
Something @samford brought up earlier, and other people elsewhere too have mentioned it, and it will affect me soon.
I will need to stump up a four figure sum soon to cover my Llandudno Hotel target and my current investment target is set to buy that amount. When AC announce that drawdown is imminent I will put the money into my cash account.
Then I must transfer it into my Manual Loan Investment Account. What facility has AC placed on this new site so I can make sure that the money waits until Llandudno draws down, and does not get gobbled up by other loans where my investment target has yet to be filled? Will I, as someone else suggested, have to go through all my loans and equalise everything, target = holding ? That would not acceptable. Will we be able to target funds for this kind of eventuality?
If the question has been answered before, please link it for me. (Tomorrow will do - home James ... I mean Chris!)
Ta.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 21, 2014 20:22:17 GMT
"Actually I don't think you are twerps my view is that it would have been far more intuitive to have 'increase to' and 'decrease to' rather than 'increase by' and 'decrease by' particularly with the MAI targets being set to the holding balance if there was no AI target in place."
batchoy I totally agree with the red bit..... I twirpify myself because I actually knew and understood how it worked, yet still must have had a brain failure for those few seconds. 
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Oct 21, 2014 20:26:59 GMT
I twirpify myself because I actually knew and understood how it worked, yet still must have had a brain failure for those few s econds. More bananas needed
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Oct 21, 2014 20:37:12 GMT
"Actually I don't think you are twerps my view is that it would have been far more intuitive to have 'increase to' and 'decrease to' rather than 'increase by' and 'decrease by' particularly with the MAI targets being set to the holding balance if there was no AI target in place."
batchoy I totally agree with the red bit..... I twirpify myself because I actually knew and understood how it worked, yet still must have had a brain failure for those few seconds.
That's my point even if you know how it works you intuitively think in terms of the final value not of the step to get there because you are setting a target, as a result there is a significant chance that you will inadvertently enter the target value. This type of design was part of system design 101 when I was responsible developing and running programmes for testing the software on medical electronic systems that could kill people if data entry errors were made, and we put many hundreds of man hours into trying to understand the way users were thinking when they entered information.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Oct 21, 2014 21:00:47 GMT
What did Granny Grumps always say? Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves? Or....'Many a mickle makes a muckle', as my granny would have said Or to quote Mr Micawber: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and six pence, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Oct 21, 2014 21:01:53 GMT
I twirpify myself because I actually knew and understood how it worked, yet still must have had a brain failure for those few s econds. More bananas needed I'm on to it! (I blame too much salad with my pilchards and chips .....)
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Oct 21, 2014 21:06:01 GMT
Something @samford brought up earlier, and other people elsewhere too have mentioned it, and it will affect me soon. I will need to stump up a four figure sum soon to cover my Llandudno Hotel target and my current investment target is set to buy that amount. When AC announce that drawdown is imminent I will put the money into my cash account. Then I must transfer it into my Manual Loan Investment Account. What facility has AC placed on this new site so I can make sure that the money waits until Llandudno draws down, and does not get gobbled up by other loans where my investment target has yet to be filled? Will I, as someone else suggested, have to go through all my loans and equalise everything, target = holding ? That would not acceptable. Will we be able to target funds for this kind of eventuality? If the question has been answered before, please link it for me. (Tomorrow will do - home James ... I mean Chris!) Ta. If this is a shadow bid, Chris said in response to an earlier question of mine that he thought the cash would be taken from the main account (ie before it is transferred into the MLIA), or words to that effect. But he also said he was not sure and would check!
|
|
. But your actual risk doesn't increase by keeping your amount the same, it just doesn't decrease.
