tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477 
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on Apr 28, 2015 6:59:10 GMT
all they need is a better deal flow and a bit of algorithmic help and they should have a fantastic product We've been banging on about both of those for ages. I know. Perhaps it's naive to think that trying to get support in a forum (or just whinging a lot) is going to change ACs view. But we are both the customers and with Seedrs the investors. Or perhaps they are actively spending the Seedrs round and decided that GEIA was such a mess they might as well abandon it and maybe we are just weeks away from a far better product that will auto-balance over a wider range of loans or maybe I'm waiting for those flying pigs...
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 28, 2015 13:57:12 GMT
I'm not convinced that every occasion a whole amount is shown I have indeed transacted a whole amount (of pence). My guess is that one or more of your purchases is, in fact, rounded. This is certainly what happens - some transactions that appear as a whole number of pence on the statement must necessarily be transacting a number of loan units that are not an exact number of pence. It's also not limited to the GEIA (so I'm kind-of taking it off topic now!) For example, on a recent loan (155), I had a series of purchases that together are reported on the statement as totalling EXACTLY £300 (every transaction round to a penny). So far so good... However, then the loan made a repayment. My principal repayment was £6.64960000, so any reasonable person would then calculate my then current holding as £293.35040000. During the following 24 hours, further purchases were made of £3.08, £0.58, and £2.98, which any reasonable person would see as a total of £6.64, leaving me with a holding of £299.9904, which is £0.0096 short of the £300 target, but the site claims that my holding is EXACTLY equal to the £300 target. In other cases, I've set the target to zero on a loan that (as in the above example) must necessarily have had a non-round holding, and the system did indeed sell my entire holding, meaning that even though all the transactions DISPLAYED as a round number, at least one of them must necessarily have been a non-round amount. Last time this was brought up (with rather more detail provided in the example), I think chris refused to accept the simple addition in front of him proving that transactions involving movements on non-round quantities of loan units must necessarily have occurred, or tried to explain it away in some other way, rather than actually bothering to look into what was happening. It's perhaps possible that AC's systems have (presumably inadvertently) been involved in a form of "salami slicing" - e.g. having a cash transaction for an exact number of pence, but a transfer of loan units of a non-round amount (or vice versa)? In the end, it's not my job to make sure that AC's systems have financial transactions that balance, and I've better things to do with my time than to attempt to provide detailed test cases for someone who's not going to bother looking into them properly (especially when the last attempt at a simplified example failed... due to generating several sales on different dates - these things should be far easier to test on an offline testing copy of the site than on the live site). Whoever DOES have the job of making sure that transactions on AC's systems balance should be demanding an explanation for why they don't though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2015 17:18:42 GMT
Maybe this is normal
I started new bid for £1000 target. The loan went live and I had £1000 targeted and £1000 actually granted. This has been stable for a few weeks and suddenly became £1000 targeted but only £975 achieved.
Huh?
Any advice about what is going on?
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Apr 28, 2015 17:49:29 GMT
Maybe this is normal I started new bid for £1000 target. The loan went live and I had £1000 targeted and £1000 actually granted. This has been stable for a few weeks and suddenly became £1000 targeted but only £975 achieved. Huh? Any advice about what is going on? Can you PM me the specific details and the email address you use to log in to the site. I'll get one of my guys to check it out. It's likely to be a repayment came in reducing the size of one of your holdings and couldn't be reinvested due to lack of available loans, plus if one of your loan holdings then rose above 20% of your portfolio the system could have sold some loan units to get back to the diversification target. I'd like to see the specifics though so I can make sure this is the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Apr 28, 2015 17:53:13 GMT
I'm not convinced that every occasion a whole amount is shown I have indeed transacted a whole amount (of pence). My guess is that one or more of your purchases is, in fact, rounded. This is certainly what happens - some transactions that appear as a whole number of pence on the statement must necessarily be transacting a number of loan units that are not an exact number of pence. It's also not limited to the GEIA (so I'm kind-of taking it off topic now!) For example, on a recent loan (155), I had a series of purchases that together are reported on the statement as totalling EXACTLY £300 (every transaction round to a penny). So far so good... However, then the loan made a repayment. My principal repayment was £6.649There's one case of rounding that I'm aware of, your exact holding in a loan is saved as a percentage of the total loan as that doesn't change between repayments and makes it much easier to dynamically calculate what is owed to you if the repayment schedule change (such as default interest being applied). Some fractions cannot be expressed as a decimal number, for example 1/3rd, so if you had £100 invested in a £300 loan the system would be slightly out. The fractions are saved as a fixed precision number to 20 decimal places so any actual rounding errors should be very small60000, so any reasonable person would then calculate my then current holding as £293.35040000. During the following 24 hours, further purchases were made of £3.08, £0.58, and £2.98, which any reasonable person would see as a total of £6.64, leaving me with a holding of £299.9904, which is £0.0096 short of the £300 target, but the site claims that my holding is EXACTLY equal to the £300 target. In other cases, I've set the target to zero on a loan that (as in the above example) must necessarily have had a non-round holding, and the system did indeed sell my entire holding, meaning that even though all the transactions DISPLAYED as a round number, at least one of them must necessarily have been a non-round amount. Last time this was brought up (with rather more detail provided in the example), I think chris refused to accept the simple addition in front of him proving that transactions involving movements on non-round quantities of loan units must necessarily have occurred, or tried to explain it away in some other way, rather than actually bothering to look into what was happening. It's perhaps possible that AC's systems have (presumably inadvertently) been involved in a form of "salami slicing" - e.g. having a cash transaction for an exact number of pence, but a transfer of loan units of a non-round amount (or vice versa)? In the end, it's not my job to make sure that AC's systems have financial transactions that balance, and I've better things to do with my time than to attempt to provide detailed test cases for someone who's not going to bother looking into them properly (especially when the last attempt at a simplified example failed... due to generating several sales on different dates - these things should be far easier to test on an offline testing copy of the site than on the live site). Whoever DOES have the job of making sure that transactions on AC's systems balance should be demanding an explanation for why they don't though! There's one case of rounding that I'm aware of, your exact holding in a loan is saved as a percentage of the total loan as that doesn't change between repayments and makes it much easier to dynamically calculate what is owed to you if the repayment schedule change (such as default interest being applied). Some fractions cannot be expressed as a decimal number, for example 1/3rd, so if you had £100 invested in a £300 loan the system would be slightly out. The fractions are saved as a fixed precision number to 20 decimal places so any actual rounding errors should be very small, in the order of 10^-20. Your holdings are rounded up if they've very close to the next penny and down in other instances, whereas transactions tend to be rounded down. If you're within a penny then it'll definitely be an inconsistency in rounding. If it's more than that and you have a specific example that doesn't include investments in either Kare Plus or London Retail (both known to have had errors due to changes made to the loan parameters, and both of which have corrective payments currently being checked by the admin team before they're applied) then please PM me the specifics so I can get one of my guys to check it out.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 29, 2015 12:52:11 GMT
There's one case of rounding that I'm aware of, your exact holding in a loan is saved as a percentage of the total loan as that doesn't change between repayments and makes it much easier to dynamically calculate what is owed to you if the repayment schedule change (such as default interest being applied). Some fractions cannot be expressed as a decimal number, for example 1/3rd, so if you had £100 invested in a £300 loan the system would be slightly out. The fractions are saved as a fixed precision number to 20 decimal places so any actual rounding errors should be very small, in the order of 10^-20. Your holdings are rounded up if they've very close to the next penny and down in other instances, whereas transactions tend to be rounded down. If you're within a penny then it'll definitely be an inconsistency in rounding. If it's more than that and you have a specific example that doesn't include investments in either Kare Plus or London Retail (both known to have had errors due to changes made to the loan parameters, and both of which have corrective payments currently being checked by the admin team before they're applied) then please PM me the specifics so I can get one of my guys to check it out. Specific examples are difficult to generate on the live system with real money, and I don't really care to waste my time (and money!) generating yet more examples of a problem when you've made various excuses why previous examples aren't valid. I've made a reply on the following thread: p2pindependentforum.com/post/46606/thread
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on May 11, 2015 10:05:16 GMT
I moved £100 out of GEIA to finance another loan, and after it had sold holdings to raise the £100 it then proceeding to sell £0.01 each of Montrose, Aberdeen and Aerobics.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on May 11, 2015 14:52:58 GMT
I moved £100 out of GEIA to finance another loan, and after it had sold holdings to raise the £100 it then proceeding to sell £0.01 each of Montrose, Aberdeen and Aerobics. see threads passim. Think of it as an amusement. You're quite lucky it wasn't 0.0000000000000000000001
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 6,954
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on May 11, 2015 14:57:49 GMT
I'm off out to celebrate I got the 1p aerobics!
|
|
tonyr
Member of DD Central
Posts: 477
Likes: 258
|
Post by tonyr on May 11, 2015 19:56:06 GMT
I'm off out to celebrate I got the 1p aerobics! Summary of what's been said so far, GEIA has a mind of it's own and it's high. However, it sort of works and with a bit of luck it'll come down soon. Probably best to merge this thread or otherwise this forum will be taken over by the rantings about the GEIA failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on May 12, 2015 10:16:10 GMT
I moved £100 out of GEIA to finance another loan, and after it had sold holdings to raise the £100 it then proceeding to sell £0.01 each of Montrose, Aberdeen and Aerobics. It's been suggested that we move your thread to the Strange behaviour of the GEIA I've now done that as it's very similar and may help you and others.
|
|
