Website comments and questions

Will automatic investment filters (to allow you to bespoke your own specifications and criteria) have a filter to limit the maximum % of the loan to hold? If so that will fix the amortisation problem for those who want to use it (as long as it is a % of the current outstanding).

chris will it be possible to transfer a holding from MLIA to an automatic account?

Don't worry, a fix is in the works and we should have something live later this week all being well. Thanks for the feedback.

Another web-weirdness to pass on. While logged in and active on other tabs, I opened the "list of my loans" (which should have reset any activity timer) in a new tab. Then I middle-clicked my way down the list (opening multiple loans into new tabs).

When I looked up, it had opened about 80% of them in new tabs. The rest of the tabs said "Log in...." -- there was no pattern to it, some were okay, some were not, mixed.

At the moment, the system handles buying and selling very differently.  If I offer £100 of a loan for sale, and there are ten people who'd like to buy, then each buys £10 worth.   But if I try to buy £100 of a loan and there are ten people who'd like to sell, the 'it could be you' finger comes down out of the cloud and selects one lucky winner who gets to sell the whole £100 to me.   I really appreciate buying loan parts in small bits and pieces fairly often, and I'd much rather if sales happened the same way -- a bit sold here, a bit sold there, and a resulting feeling that I was making steady progress instead of long periods of drought punctuated by an occasional lightning strike.  Logic tells me that over sufficient time the law of averages should mean that the results would be the same for both approaches, but the 'little and often' scheme seems to provide a much better user experience than having to wait for lightning to strike.

chris:  Is it intended to leave this difference in procedures in place for the foreseeable future?  Or is there a plan on the back burner to make the two buyer/seller matching procedures more similar?  I hope it's the latter, but if it's the former do I need to add this to the Suggestion Box or will it happen automatically as a result of this message?

chris: I'm probably missing something here, but I would have thought that the law of averages would even things out for underwriters as well.  If 90% of what's for sale are underwriters' units then it shouldn't make any difference in the long run whether they get 90% of every sale or 100% of 90% of sales.  I suppose there's an issue if they'd be treated as single individuals as is now the case for distributing sales where those are distributed based on the number of lenders wanting to buy rather than being proportional to the amount that lenders want to buy.  So some sort of adjustment would have to be necessary to compensate for that.  No doubt you can come up with a reasonably equitable plan that would keep the underwriters happy. 

For starters, you might consider adjusting the current plan so that the units for sale are classified as either underwriter or non-underwriter, and if the random picker chooses to allocate a purchaser to the non-underwriters' units then those transactions would be spread among all the non-underwriters selling.  That should mean no difference to the underwriters compared to the current method but a more even distribution of sales among the non-underwriters so the latter would see the benefits of 'little and often'.

I must admit that I prefer to reduce the transaction count, to minimise transactions below £10, unless that's the remaining balance to be bought or sold.  I've ended up with holdings of £1 and £3 on two loans I'm trying to acquire, which is financially insignificant, and I have a 12 page 567 item transaction log since 21 October.  

Maybe the person who sold it to you had purchased one of the loan parts since the interest had last been paid.  AIUI the loan parts are only amalgamated one a loan repayment has been made, when the accrued interest is reset to zero.