|
|
Post by chris on Sept 16, 2015 18:47:26 GMT
Further to this the MLIA holds 5 times as much of this loan as the GBBA. : Thanks for that info. I presume this result depended on the relative sizes of the aggregated MLIAs and GBBAs, and the amount of total idle funds. Based on my GBBA putting 20% of its value into #174, I expect that any other GBBA with that much uninvested funds would have done likewise. So if the GBBA has priority, and the total value of all GBBAs with uninvested funds were to be more than five times the amount of initially available parts of a newly drawndown loan, and there were sufficient uninvested funds in those GBBAs, does that mean all the available parts of the new loan would go into those GBBAs? In addition to the above concern, what happens with GBBAs that are fully invested when a new loan draws down? Does the algorithm take that event as an opportunity to rebalance all those GBBAs' holdings by buying a bit of the new loan for each and selling some parts of the loans that those GBBAs are holding the most of? In that case, the aggregate GBBA size that it would take for GBBAs to 'corner the market' of a new loan's parts is even smaller. I suppose much of this issue would be avoided if the supply of new loans is sufficient to satisfy all the GBBAs and still have lots of parts left for MLIA investors. So we have to hope that AC can increase the deal flow faster than the GBBA is growing. I sure hope they can. No, the greatest split would be roughly 2/3rds vs 1/3rd in favour of the GBBA. It's given a weighting not complete priority, and we can tweak that weighting easily. At the moment the GBBA doesn't do anything with fully invested accounts when a new loan draws. I do have a plan to change it so that non-fully invested lenders can temporarily breach their diversification rules, as long as the PF as a whole does not, in order to help deploy their funds and then have them diversify immediately with the fully invested lenders. But I'll let the new systems bed in before making that tweak.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 16, 2015 18:48:43 GMT
Not at my PC but I think, if you click on your MLIA Available Funds figure, it shows a breakdown of where it's currently residing (but not where it's reached in the "Queued Awaiting Admission") Hovering over my MLIA 'Awaiting Investment' produces a pop-up telling me that all of it is in Cash and none is in the QAA, but it doesn't tell me that the Cash amount is queued for the QAA. Unless, of course, if it wasn't queued there wouldn't be any mention at all of the QAA in the pop-up. I would turn off my QAA idle funds sweep option to test that except that I expect that action would result in my money being taken out of the queue -- if it's there now -- and then put it back at the end of the queue if re-enabling that option re-queues that money. Is there anyone here who doesn't have the sweep feature turned on who can hover over their MLIA idle cash amount and tell us what their pop-up says? Queue position / total queued funds isn't display anywhere. It was briefly but was confusing as it didn't show position. I'll come up with a solution in the next week or two to show what you have queued and where it is in the queue.
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 16, 2015 18:49:07 GMT
Hovering over my MLIA 'Awaiting Investment' produces a pop-up telling me that all of it is in Cash and none is in the QAA, but it doesn't tell me that the Cash amount is queued for the QAA. Unless, of course, if it wasn't queued there wouldn't be any mention at all of the QAA in the pop-up. I would turn off my QAA idle funds sweep option to test that except that I expect that action would result in my money being taken out of the queue -- if it's there now -- and then put it back at the end of the queue if re-enabling that option re-queues that money. Is there anyone here who doesn't have the sweep feature turned on who can hover over their MLIA idle cash amount and tell us what their pop-up says? No that isn't it. I don't have sweep turned on. (I have a direct investment into QAA.) I have a pop up showing all in cash an none in QAA.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 16, 2015 19:58:06 GMT
Is there anyone here who doesn't have the sweep feature turned on who can hover over their MLIA idle cash amount and tell us what their pop-up says? I don't have sweep turned on. (I have a direct investment into QAA.) I have a pop up showing all in cash an none in QAA. Thanks for the info.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,331 
Likes: 11,550
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 16, 2015 22:48:34 GMT
chris probably does Otherwise, more than 5k as that was the excess and enough to suck in some of the queue as pikestaff's is now in, but not enough for mine to get in Indeed I do  Naturally you pick that moment to go all coy & shy on us 
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Sept 16, 2015 23:03:20 GMT
Indeed I do Naturally you pick that moment to go all coy & shy on us Considering the number of lengthy post whilst he is on holiday, I think we may have to let this one pass 
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 6,965
|
Post by duck on Sept 17, 2015 5:27:04 GMT
( duck: What fraction of their total GBBA does the amount of #174 bought for your partner represent? Is it close to 20%?) not close, just 1.478%. The account had been fully invested but some loan parts (mainly 165) were sold off over the previous few days so there was some cash available so this was used.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2015 13:26:33 GMT
not close, just 1.478%. The account had been fully invested but some loan parts (mainly 165) were sold off over the previous few days so there was some cash available so this was used. : And is it fair to presume that there was more cash available at the time, so that your partner could have picked up more #174 if the system had been willing to supply it? If that's the case, then it is a real mystery why some buy orders were filled completely, while other accounts that would have been happy to take more weren't completely satisfied. Could it be that demand was skewed more than 2:1 in favour of the GBBAs? In that case, the GBBAs' orders could have been scaled back while the MLIAs' orders were filled completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Sept 17, 2015 14:37:39 GMT
Underwriting called on #198
|
|
duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 6,965
|
Post by duck on Sept 17, 2015 16:20:11 GMT
not close, just 1.478%. The account had been fully invested but some loan parts (mainly 165) were sold off over the previous few days so there was some cash available so this was used. : And is it fair to presume that there was more cash available at the time, so that your partner could have picked up more #174 if the system had been willing to supply it? ... Well every last 'p' went on #174 so I can only assume if there was a bit more cash available a bit more would have been bought .... but I could be wrong.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on Sept 17, 2015 16:36:25 GMT
not close, just 1.478%. The account had been fully invested but some loan parts (mainly 165) were sold off over the previous few days so there was some cash available so this was used. : And is it fair to presume that there was more cash available at the time, so that your partner could have picked up more #174 if the system had been willing to supply it? If that's the case, then it is a real mystery why some buy orders were filled completely, while other accounts that would have been happy to take more weren't completely satisfied. Could it be that demand was skewed more than 2:1 in favour of the GBBAs? In that case, the GBBAs' orders could have been scaled back while the MLIAs' orders were filled completely. As posted by chris here, 5/6 of the available loan went to MLIA lenders: p2pindependentforum.com/post/62965/thread. If you want something to compare to, my order which was fully satisfied was for £1,500 and was made on 13/9. If any smaller/earlier orders were covered by cash in the MLIA and not met, this would indicate that either the algorithm is not being fair between MLIA lenders or it's a lottery. Do you have any knowledge/evidence of that? (Edit: I am aware that a few people did not have their MLIA orders met because they had sent their cash directly to the QAA and not via the MLIA, but that's not the system's fault!)
|
|
bigfoot12
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 816
|
Post by bigfoot12 on Sept 17, 2015 17:37:41 GMT
It looked to me that there was a small amount available after the draw down was switched on. It might have been a display issue, but it looked like about £10k. It was gone a few minutes later.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2015 17:51:21 GMT
It looked to me that there was a small amount available after the draw down was switched on. It might have been a display issue, but it looked like about £10k. It was gone a few minutes later. I saw only the large amount (£471k?) and then nil. There could have been a time during the allocation process when the number was going down and bigfoot12 might have refreshed the display at just that time.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 17, 2015 17:58:54 GMT
duck: And is it fair to presume that there was more cash available at the time, so that your partner could have picked up more #174 if the system had been willing to supply it? ... Well every last 'p' went on #174 so I can only assume if there was a bit more cash available a bit more would have been bought .... but I could be wrong. I guess I was confused by duck's initial comment -- My partners GBBA picked up an arbitrary 109.8244717565 ... ... which I took to mean that they didn't understand the amount allocated to that account. If that transaction used up all the available cash in that account then it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable amount. (Though I do wonder why it wasn't an exact number of pence.)
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Sept 17, 2015 18:40:18 GMT
Transactions no longer have to be for whole pence, so if that was all the money available in the account then that is what was allocated.
|
|
