|
|
Post by chielamangus on Aug 6, 2015 9:23:43 GMT
It used to be called the Great British Business Investment Account but was shortened. Missed a reference. It's too late now, of course, but the "Great" in the title really grates. Great as in Great Britain is just a designation to define the area of the major part of the United Kingdom (mainland Britain and most of the surrounding islands). The French use Grande Bretagne to differentiate from Bretagne (Brittany). There is nothing particularly great (in the modern sense) about Britain, and anything which describes itself as "Great British" is embarrassing simply because 90 per cent of the population has no idea what the "Great" really means. I have no doubt that I will be in a minority of one on this, but I wanted to register my dislike of the term.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2015 9:28:40 GMT
I guess it is a generational thing, to me it just sounds like Tony Blair marketing, but to the kids maybe the Great British Bake Off.  |
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Aug 6, 2015 9:29:21 GMT
Can't remember if this has been said before, so apologies if this isn't an original idea.
It would be handy to be able to list the loans in order of repayment date so I can see at a glance what is due to be paid in the next week. I do this offline atm in a calendar, but on-site would be preferable.
Also would it be possible, like the dashboard heading, to have a user defined set of tabs for the loans list and pick the ones most suited to your own needs? Maybe another tab just to the right of 'repaid', called 'custom view' or words to that effect.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092 
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Aug 6, 2015 12:39:32 GMT
I struggle to understand why one would consider that to be 'highly customised to specific user...' You have certain inclusions and exclusions about what you want the calculation to do. Another user will want other inclusions and exclusions - for example don't include upcoming loans [unless underwriter funds have been called], or to include "negative" amounts (holdings > target) for tradeable loans. Your very specific set of inclusions and exclusions of what goes into (or not) the calculation are highly customised to you. Edit: yes, a simple summation of (relevant amount) for each loan is a simple calculation. What makes it "complex" is having the facility for each user to specify exactly what the "relevant amount" they want to have summed in each of numerous different circumstances, or which loan(s) should be ignored for the purpose of the summation. For myself, for example, I'd completely ignore any loans not expected to draw down within the next week... now that FP is available, others may want to count only those that are expected to draw down "today", or where it is plausible they may draw down "today".
|
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Aug 6, 2015 16:01:01 GMT
I guess it is a generational thing, to me it just sounds like Tony Blair marketing, but to the kids maybe the Great British Bake Off. Yep, great British this and great British that. It's a generational thing because the younger generation have never had a proper education. I speak with feeling as i have two grandchildren staying with me for the summer and the knowledge base that I acquired as a kid is completely unknown to them. For their part they know a lot about apps, films and modern music, and have various esoteric facts gleaned from TV. We have no common culture. They both attend "grammar" schools. I suppose I'm what is known as a grumpy old man, but there is a hell of lot to be grumpy about these days!
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 6, 2015 16:30:04 GMT
I'm afraid it's 'progress'. My dad knew more than I do, and his dad...
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Aug 6, 2015 17:16:59 GMT
It used to be called the Great British Business Investment Account but was shortened. Missed a reference. It's too late now, of course, but the "Great" in the title really grates. Great as in Great Britain is just a designation to define the area of the major part of the United Kingdom (mainland Britain and most of the surrounding islands). The French use Grande Bretagne to differentiate from Bretagne (Brittany). There is nothing particularly great (in the modern sense) about Britain, and anything which describes itself as "Great British" is embarrassing simply because 90 per cent of the population has no idea what the "Great" really means. I have no doubt that I will be in a minority of one on this, but I wanted to register my dislike of the term. The Government seem to use it currently (http://www.greatbusiness.gov.uk/) and we are Great aren't we ! Very British to hide our light under a bushel though !
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 6, 2015 18:24:48 GMT
I struggle to understand why one would consider that to be 'highly customised to specific user...' You have certain inclusions and exclusions about what you want the calculation to do. Another user will want other inclusions and exclusions - for example don't include upcoming loans [unless underwriter funds have been called], or to include "negative" amounts (holdings > target) for tradeable loans. Your very specific set of inclusions and exclusions of what goes into (or not) the calculation are highly customised to you. Edit: yes, a simple summation of (relevant amount) for each loan is a simple calculation. What makes it "complex" is having the facility for each user to specify exactly what the "relevant amount" they want to have summed in each of numerous different circumstances, or which loan(s) should be ignored for the purpose of the summation. For myself, for example, I'd completely ignore any loans not expected to draw down within the next week... now that FP is available, others may want to count only those that are expected to draw down "today", or where it is plausible they may draw down "today". for most people most of the time, it is likely that they will have more targets set on existing loans (reached or otherwise) than on upcoming. In realative terms it is trivial to discount by eye your targets on upcoming loans, or upcoming loans which have not had underwriting bids called, or whatever other criteria you want to apply, than it is to sum your total set of targeted loans and then work from there. Hence why I suggested the simple number which is of use to all and can be easily 'calculated from' to get what you want for most situations rather than a more complicated customisable solution to have system fully calculate the number you want to get to. but horses for courses. If one wants to see complexity rather than simplicity then so be it. Edit: note that my only exclusion was where holding > target, since that is cash which is to all intents and purposes 'locked up'.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Aug 6, 2015 20:13:38 GMT
for most people most of the time, it is likely that they will have more targets set on existing loans (reached or otherwise) than on upcoming. In realative terms it is trivial to discount by eye your targets on upcoming loans, or upcoming loans which have not had underwriting bids called, or whatever other criteria you want to apply, than it is to sum your total set of targeted loans and then work from there. [...] Edit: note that my only exclusion was where holding > target, since that is cash which is to all intents and purposes 'locked up'. For most people most of the time, it is likely that they will have more with holding <= target than holding > target [...] ... and whether that is cash that is "to all intents and purposes 'locked up'" would be entirely dependent on what circumstances you set a target smaller than a holding. In many cases, sales of loan units where holding > target will occur more quickly than the current set of drawdowns. There's already a "total target investment", and "total investment" that can be used as the base for anyone whose specific requirements are reasonably close to what's included / excluded from that. If you want to exclude the amount that you consider 'locked up' from this, or add in the targets for upcoming loans, it's just as trivial. Edit: in any case, there's a new version of the site due soon, so lets see what that already includes!
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 6, 2015 22:13:31 GMT
Largely agree, althugh a bit 50:50, but nonetheless not relevant. Either way with current setup you need to either do a review of your targetted loans and sum up the loans diff on loans with target > holding, or sum up the loans of holding > target and factor that against the system generated number of 'targettted loans. That's a zero sum game: it requires a review (by eye or if download available by ssheet) of your set of targetted loans either way. Laborious. Those two numbers in practise bear no relation at all to what float you may require in the account to cover your 'calls'. Since the former includes your 'puts' which are failing to have matching positions. Its not whether they come close or not, they have no meaningful relation: they can only come close by co-incidence. In the cases where sale of loan units occur 'more quickly', they will generally happen pretty damn fast: hence my prior comment on transitory. Again in practise, rather than discussion of hypotheticals, when assessing the amount of net funding you need to have in the accoutn (float) the amount that you have 'up for sale' is pretty much irrelevant: if it hasn't gone in a few minutes (with the AC way of working) then the market in that loan is de facto illiquid, so it can't be factored in to funds required to cover buys. Cutting out the theoretical: as a straight forward example: last night I did a review to check hjow much cash I needed to put in. My dispalyed 'targetted investment' was below my current investment, and yet I had a substantial short fall in funds to cover my targets. The only way to assess was as per my point one: by eye run through of my total set of targetted loans running over a couple of pages of listing. If there is a better way to do this as stand please advise. I am not aware of one.
|
|
|
|
Post by lynnanthony on Aug 7, 2015 5:23:57 GMT
Cutting out the theoretical: as a straight forward example: last night I did a review to check hjow much cash I needed to put in. My dispalyed 'targetted investment' was below my current investment, and yet I had a substantial short fall in funds to cover my targets. The only way to assess was as per my point one: by eye run through of my total set of targetted loans running over a couple of pages of listing. If there is a better way to do this as stand please advise. I am not aware of one. I take the view that targeted loans that have already drawn down will most likely only top up slowly, with shrapnel, so can largely be ignored apart from leaving a permanent small float to cover them. Thus I only need to run my eye over the upcoming section to check what funds I need available. Ten loans at the moment. Not onerous. By sorting in expected draw down date order I can also assess roughly when I need to make funds available.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Aug 7, 2015 9:20:33 GMT
In the cases where sale of loan units occur 'more quickly', they will generally happen pretty damn fast: hence my prior comment on transitory. Again in practise, rather than discussion of hypotheticals, when assessing the amount of net funding you need to have in the accoutn (float) the amount that you have 'up for sale' is pretty much irrelevant: if it hasn't gone in a few minutes (with the AC way of working) then the market in that loan is de facto illiquid, so it can't be factored in to funds required to cover buys. In my experience, when I reduce a target, some of the resulting sales occur "instantly", some occur within the next few days, and some occur after up to a few weeks. I've only seen one or two where desired sales seem virtually impossible (other than those blocked from trading which are an entirely different matter). This seems to me to match the timescale of drawdowns, some of which occur in a few days, and some occur after up to a few weeks. Further, you also need to factor in the repayments that will occur over the next few days/weeks to see if your desired buys are "covered". It's likely that you use the site very differently to me, and we both use it very differently to the next man... which is why a number that seems the most obviously useful number to you is not necessarily interesting to many other people... Already said - csv download, and run whatever calculations you want in your own custom spreadsheet... once set up the first time, it'll be far quicker than adding things up "by eye".
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 8, 2015 8:24:36 GMT
New subject chris. Now that loans may be eligible for either the GEIA or the GBBA, how about including that on the loan frontpage? |
|
|
|
Post by chielamangus on Aug 8, 2015 9:40:22 GMT
I'm afraid it's 'progress'. My dad knew more than I do, and his dad... My sympathy to you. It must be dispiriting to know that you are more ignorant than all your forefathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 8, 2015 10:04:36 GMT
I'm afraid it's 'progress'. My dad knew more than I do, and his dad... My sympathy to you. It must be dispiriting to know that you are more ignorant than all your forefathers. Nah, not really. It means I'm the most knowledgeable living generation of my family  ? The truth is that 'knowledge' changes from generation to generation with its relevance continually updated. Although some of my great, great, great grandfather's core beliefs - sobriety, frugality, mistrust of the 'establishment' would still have a place in the world today, many of his life skills would not - sharpening a quill and driving a horse drawn carriage to name only two.
|
|
?