Prop 'em up?

Looking at the "all bids" pages, I counted £89,260 of bids from lender names that appear more than once (the best proxy we have for a lower bound for manual bids), of which one lender had contributed as many as 100 bids!

This suggests that at least 18% of the auction total was sourced from manual bids, and as it was just 67% funded at the time I did the snapshot (now up to 68% funded), that autobid had funded at most 49% of the auction target at that time.

In practice there'll be numerous errors in such an estimate because:
- some manual bidders only bid once
- some autobid users will place top-up manual bids
- FC don't make lenders pick unique names, so autobid users who share the same name will exist.
- I missed some bids from the snapshot, because it took several minutes to copy-paste all the pages, during which time further bids arrived meaning I missed some. (I'd deliberately started from page 46 and worked backwards to avoid this creating artificial duplicates).

What reasons might there be to think autobid had contributed more than 50%?

Thanks SL75. The suspicion was due to the fact that Autobid was clearly bidding in the early hours when the fill was past 60% and there did not seem, from looking using FCViz, to be many repeat bids. Your valuable analysis confirms both that the 50% was not breached and also that the manual bidding has been significant. If this loan (7% before tax) can attract £90k manual bids in the first 48 hours, that rather suggests that it could go on to fill without help. Although this is a first tranche, the borrower has £1M in linked loans which makes the Autobid performance quite impressive. Clearly there will need to be much greater loan volume before FC needs to prop. Good for FC. Maybe game over for cash back flippers.
Edit: missed GSV post. We agree.

You can tell the difference between multiple otherwise identical usernames if you "view source" on the bids, based on the value of "data-user_id=...", but I wasn't personally delving into that level of detail.
I expect that's also how your browser knows to highlight your own bids when looking at the all bids list.

Looks good to me even without CB given the current market.  The timing, late Friday, has probably caught a lot of people out both those who have invested/diverted funds elsewhere or who have already hit the pub.  I saw it late but filled my boots!!!

That's OK then .

I agree, I would not expect to see generous cashback on a 10% secured A+ just yet.

I nearly blew my wad on this afternoon's "E" offerings and the A+ seemed to balance things up a bit.

I get the impression that our Fiendish Chums sometimes apply the higher rate instead of a lower rate+cashback if they want to be sure of filling a loan quickly. In this example, 10% fixed over 12 months is roughly similar to the 8%+2% CB we see on many A+ properties.

I also understand that for tax reasons they shouldn't be offering cashback on a permanent basis. Maybe this is a way to try and wean people off it.

I prefer the higher rate in lieu of cashback for loan parts that I want to keep, as I would expect them to be more saleable if I needed to liberate funds in an emergency. Flipping of cashback loans typically makes them really slow sellers.

Not only did they manage to get highbury1 away with no CB (all 500k of it) they seem to think tranche 2 will work as well. Did everyone stick their city bonuses into autobodge or something?!