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 Nov 6, 2014 9:17:31 GMT
There's an algorithm behind the scenes which splits loan units up when they're being sold and distributes those chunks across multiple sellers. It's not been taught that if there's only one seller then that's not necessary, which whilst a sensible optimisation is not essential for it to work. It's on my to do list but lower priority. Thanks for the explanation Chris.
|
|
baz657
Member of DD Central
Posts: 500
Likes: 189
|
Post by baz657 on Nov 6, 2014 10:06:58 GMT
C** (Loan 143) is now live but there is a typo on the main page (C** W Ind) and all the repayments are dated 6th November 2014 - one for chris? |
|
Jim
Posts: 16 
Likes: 6
|
Post by Jim on Nov 6, 2014 10:24:00 GMT
Manual Loan Investments Account - Outstanding Bids The site appears to have been updated today as Manual Loan Investments Account now includes Outstanding Bids including all unfunded bids. As a result the Total Investment is now overstated by the total amount of the unfunded bids. chris could this possibly be changed to only show funded bids so that an accurate total investment is displayed. Regards. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin on Nov 6, 2014 11:04:33 GMT
Manual Loan Investments Account - Outstanding Bids The site appears to have been updated today as Manual Loan Investments Account now includes Outstanding Bids including all unfunded bids. As a result the Total Investment is now overstated by the total amount of the unfunded bids. chris could this possibly be changed to only show funded bids so that an accurate total investment is displayed. Regards. This is now fixed. Thanks for letting us know.
|
|
unmadem
Member of DD Central
Posts: 377
Likes: 181
|
Post by unmadem on Nov 6, 2014 11:22:57 GMT
Manual Loan Investments Account - Outstanding Bids The site appears to have been updated today as Manual Loan Investments Account now includes Outstanding Bids including all unfunded bids. As a result the Total Investment is now overstated by the total amount of the unfunded bids. chris could this possibly be changed to only show funded bids so that an accurate total investment is displayed. Regards. This is now fixed. Thanks for letting us know. To me it doesn't look like it has been fixed Colin. Instead it looks like it has reverted back to not taking account of any bids. As jim says including the funded bids would be great i.e. the total of "bids" (not shadow bid) on the your bids report.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Nov 6, 2014 11:26:01 GMT
The bids info doesn't really help much as some are funded and some are still shadow, but the dashboard figure only shows (or did show) the total bids, not what is outstanding. Could it only show either 'fully funded' bids to be included in the total investment figure, or 'outstanding' so I know how much I need to leave in my cash account, Colin? (Might need to talk with admin?) Edit: cross post with unmadam |
|
|
|
Post by Colin on Nov 6, 2014 13:41:04 GMT
This is now fixed. Thanks for letting us know. To me it doesn't look like it has been fixed Colin. Instead it looks like it has reverted back to not taking account of any bids. As jim says including the funded bids would be great i.e. the total of "bids" (not shadow bid) on the your bids report. Thanks for letting me know. The developer working on this has just made a change with should resolve things. Please let me know if you have any further issues.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Nov 6, 2014 15:52:29 GMT
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? Unless I'm very much mistaken, the change that you advocate would make no difference whatsoever to how quickly you get loan parts. If there are more buyers than sellers, the system already shares the parts around. If there are more sellers than buyers, there is no need to. chrisIt's not a massive deal but I prefer things the way they are. If put in an order for £X of a loan where there are parts available I would prefer this to be met in as few transactions as possible. However, if it turns out that the majority of underwriters would prefer a more proportional method, I won't complain. : The change I was suggesting related to my selling parts, not getting them. I accept that it would not affect my average selling rate -- that's what my reference to the 'law of averages' was trying to say -- but I was thinking that a steady stream of small sales would provide a more satisfying user experience than the current 'feast or famine' approach. But I understand why some people would rather have fewer transactions -- like niceguy37, I also have more than 10 pages in my MLIA statement since 21/Oct. I suppose it all depends on whether AC think the current procedure might be off-putting to some lenders.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 6, 2014 15:56:46 GMT
pikestaff: The change I was suggesting related to my selling parts, not getting them. I accept that it would not affect my average selling rate -- that's what my reference to the 'law of averages' was trying to say -- but I was thinking that a steady stream of small sales would provide a more satisfying user experience than the current 'feast or famine' approach. But I understand why some people would rather have fewer transactions -- like niceguy37, I also have more than 10 pages in my MLIA statement since 21/Oct. I suppose it all depends on whether AC think the current procedure might be off-putting to some lenders. Or some means of summarising activity (totals per loan)
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Nov 6, 2014 16:33:00 GMT
pikestaff: The change I was suggesting related to my selling parts, not getting them. I accept that it would not affect my average selling rate -- that's what my reference to the 'law of averages' was trying to say -- but I was thinking that a steady stream of small sales would provide a more satisfying user experience than the current 'feast or famine' approach. But I understand why some people would rather have fewer transactions -- like niceguy37, I also have more than 10 pages in my MLIA statement since 21/Oct. I suppose it all depends on whether AC think the current procedure might be off-putting to some lenders. Or some means of summarising activity (totals per loan) I do think it would be handy to have an activity log on each loan, showing us purchases and sales amounts and dates, but this is not essential. Once we have Green Investments etc bedded in, we can see what sort of management overview screens would be useful.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 6, 2014 17:04:07 GMT
@niceguy What I was fretting about was the 5 page reports of transactions each for a few quid making it hard to see wood for the trees.
|
|
niceguy37
Member of DD Central
Posts: 504
Likes: 254
|
Post by niceguy37 on Nov 6, 2014 17:25:25 GMT
@niceguy What I was fretting about was the 5 page reports of transactions each for a few quid making it hard to see wood for the trees. I agree entirely. At present I have targetted 47 loans out of 74, but have holdings or interest due on 59 loans. As AC expands there are going to much greater numbers of loans, so the volume of transactions is likely to escalate, hence my suggestion of dividing over-subscribed loans into £10 chunks rather than £1. I've been monitoring my account closely since the new site went live, keeping money in the account to ensure I was eligible to get some of any of the loans I was after, but it's more time-consuming that I can manage long term. I know AC will be fully occupied tidying up this current release, then bringing in Phase 2 and 3, and which ought to be their main focus at present, but longer term I think we will need some sort of summary screen. I'm also on Funding Knight and they have some very useful features such as pie charts and movement summary for a specified period, a loan capital by maturity graph, and expected repayments.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 6, 2014 18:28:26 GMT
As AC expands there are going to much greater numbers of loans, so the volume of transactions is likely to escalate, hence my suggestion of dividing over-subscribed loans into £10 chunks rather than £1. My vote would also be for a smaller number of larger transactions, rather than a larger number of smaller transactions. The current system of allowing transfers as little as £0.01 and splitting larger transfers into chunks as small as £1 seems great for a technical demonstration of the capabilities of the platform, but these limits seem to me too small for day-to-day practical use. Personally I wouldn't stop at £10, but would increase both these limits 100-fold, so that transfers must always be at least £1, and that multiple counterparties are only sought for a transfer in excess of £100 (allocating up to £100 to each counterparty found), or in cases where the first selected counterparty does not have capacity to match the entire order. This should go a long way towards reducing "spammy" transactions on the statement. In addition, it seems to me that a minimum non-zero holding should be present - whilst someone already holding the loan could freely increase their holding by units as little as £1 (the larger limit proposed above), it would seem to me to make sense that someone with no existing holding should either continue to have no existing holding, or acquire a chunk large enough to be worth the overhead of tracking repayments, informing them by email of changes to the status of the loan and collating replies to votes. £10 would seem a sensible minimum for this (with smaller holdings pre-dating the imposition of a minimum, or holdings which have been reduced below £10 by amortisation both allowed to remain), as indeed would the previous £20 minimum.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 6, 2014 22:55:45 GMT
@niceguy What I was fretting about was the 5 page reports of transactions each for a few quid making it hard to see wood for the trees. I agree entirely. ......my suggestion of dividing over-subscribed loans into £10 chunks rather than £1. .... That would make a decent difference, in my case reducing 150 transactions down to 45
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 6, 2014 23:08:17 GMT
We'll try and get a grand total on the dashboard this week. As bids of any sort become loan units they will show on the dashboard as it stands. Thanks for the fix, I feel much more in control now
|
|
