arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810 
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Sept 2, 2015 16:53:55 GMT
In hindsight, we think the most equitable way of dividing the oversubscribed loans was to divide it equally as a proportion of the upper limit for each investor. Mr £100 upper limit will get exactly the same % proportion as Mr £100k upper limit. We think thats the 'fairest' way of splitting it each loan. The next one is over £1.8m or £2.5m, the PF pot is very slightly less than this so everyone will get their full allocations for these 2. So you have changed the model without informing anyone first. This demonstrates you are not listening to your investors. After the fiasco of the last live loan you did manage to you regain a lot of credibility with launching the pre funding model. You have lost it again by changing the rules before this loan went live. Shame on you. Whilst I too am disappointed, we shouldn't forget that we represent a small minority of SS's overall investors and many won't be feeling as aggrieved as this because they were just promised "a proportion" not exceeding their pre-funding limit. Our friends at savingstream are human too, and all that's happened here is that we didn't get as much of the loan as we wanted. My main concern is that the new approach is open to the type of "gaming" that others have alluded to, and therefore I think SS should change it to prevent that.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Sept 2, 2015 16:56:33 GMT
1: Did you get a portion of the loan?
2: Would you have got a portion of the loan if the PF was not in place?
3: Do you understand that this is just one single loan and that there is at least £10m coming through the pipeline in September, not all yet on the website.
4: We need the 'big hitters' as well as 'the smaller investors' in order to scale the business significantly. There are only 4300 investors so far and the pockets of the majority are small. The BH's will enable us to reach the £150m+ figure next year, we do not know the £ value of each individual small investor.
5: Everything we do, some are going to love or loath. We will do everything we can to make the majority happy, but sometimes expediency and simplicity wins the day. KISS.
6: Yes there are mistakes with the admin and tech and sometimes we change our minds when a better idea presents itself. We aim to keep you informed as much as possible but the model relies on providing quick funding to our borrowers.
7: We do not know which loans will come through next, they are in legals for a few weeks then all of a sudden the lawyers are ready to go. For instance, we have just been told Brent Farms wants to go live on Friday, so that will be released tomorrow probably.
|
|
indy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 57
Likes: 18
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 16:57:53 GMT
Post by indy on Sept 2, 2015 16:57:53 GMT
Just noticed a couple of folk only got 41P
Now that is micro investing! They must have their pre-funding set to £1.09p also micro investing!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sterilized on Sept 2, 2015 16:58:54 GMT
So you have changed the model without informing anyone first. This demonstrates you are not listening to your investors. After the fiasco of the last live loan you did manage to you regain a lot of credibility with launching the pre funding model. You have lost it again by changing the rules before this loan went live. Shame on you. Whilst I too am disappointed, we shouldn't forget that we represent a small minority of SS's overall investors and many won't be feeling as aggrieved as this because they were just promised "a proportion" not exceeding their pre-funding limit. Our friends at savingstream are human too, and all that's happened here is that we didn't get as much of the loan as we wanted. My main concern is that the new approach is open to the type of "gaming" that others have alluded to, and therefore I think SS should change it to prevent that. I agree in part however because savingstream are human they could have communicated this beforehand. Humans on the whole are good communicators but in this case there has been none.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:00:48 GMT
Post by adrianc on Sept 2, 2015 17:00:48 GMT
I go away for just an hour or so & pbl54 goes live. Eh?
|
|
paulgul
Member of DD Central
Posts: 401
Likes: 92
|
Post by paulgul on Sept 2, 2015 17:01:06 GMT
1: Did you get a portion of the loan? 2: Would you have got a portion of the loan if the PF was not in place? 3: Do you understand that this is just one single loan and that there is at least £10m coming through the pipeline in September, not all yet on the website. 4: We need the 'big hitters' as well as 'the smaller investors' in order to scale the business significantly. There are only 4300 investors so far and the pockets of the majority are small. The BH's will enable us to reach the £150m+ figure next year, we do not know the £ value of each individual small investor. 5: Everything we do, some are going to love or loath. We will do everything we can to make the majority happy, but sometimes expediency and simplicity wins the day. KISS. 6: Yes there are mistakes with the admin and tech and sometimes we change our minds when a better idea presents itself. We aim to keep you informed as much as possible but the model relies on providing quick funding to our borrowers. 7: We do not know which loans will come through next, they are in legals for a few weeks then all of a sudden the lawyers are ready to go. For instance, we have just been told Brent Farms wants to go live on Friday, so that will be released tomorrow probably. Sounds like somebody is getting there knickers in a twist - the point is you didn't keep to what you stated in the thread about pre-funding - how can anyone, borrowers or investors, trust a company that doesn't keep its promises and just changes there mind as they go along
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 2, 2015 17:02:58 GMT
1: Did you get a portion of the loan? 2: Would you have got a portion of the loan if the PF was not in place? 3: Do you understand that this is just one single loan and that there is at least £10m coming through the pipeline in September, not all yet on the website. 4: We need the 'big hitters' as well as 'the smaller investors' in order to scale the business significantly. There are only 4300 investors so far and the pockets of the majority are small. The BH's will enable us to reach the £150m+ figure next year, we do not know the £ value of each individual small investor. 5: Everything we do, some are going to love or loath. We will do everything we can to make the majority happy, but sometimes expediency and simplicity wins the day. KISS. 6: Yes there are mistakes with the admin and tech and sometimes we change our minds when a better idea presents itself. We aim to keep you informed as much as possible but the model relies on providing quick funding to our borrowers. 7: We do not know which loans will come through next, they are in legals for a few weeks then all of a sudden the lawyers are ready to go. For instance, we have just been told Brent Farms wants to go live on Friday, so that will be released tomorrow probably. Well said, some people are never satisfied. I didn’t get the full prefunding amount but I’m not complaining as at least I got a reasonable share which is more than you could say about recent SS loans. I believe this is the fairest way for everyone, I’m not asking for special privileges but as a small investor I get rather p*ssed off by being shut out by the big hitters be it on SS or any other platform.
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:04:03 GMT
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 2, 2015 17:04:03 GMT
Can we go back to pre pre-funding?  No way.
|
|
alan
Posts: 55
Likes: 14
|
Post by alan on Sept 2, 2015 17:04:20 GMT
1: Did you get a portion of the loan? 2: Would you have got a portion of the loan if the PF was not in place? 3: Do you understand that this is just one single loan and that there is at least £10m coming through the pipeline in September, not all yet on the website. 4: We need the 'big hitters' as well as 'the smaller investors' in order to scale the business significantly. There are only 4300 investors so far and the pockets of the majority are small. The BH's will enable us to reach the £150m+ figure next year, we do not know the £ value of each individual small investor. 5: Everything we do, some are going to love or loath. We will do everything we can to make the majority happy, but sometimes expediency and simplicity wins the day. KISS. 6: Yes there are mistakes with the admin and tech and sometimes we change our minds when a better idea presents itself. We aim to keep you informed as much as possible but the model relies on providing quick funding to our borrowers. 7: We do not know which loans will come through next, they are in legals for a few weeks then all of a sudden the lawyers are ready to go. For instance, we have just been told Brent Farms wants to go live on Friday, so that will be released tomorrow probably. ...and your point (in response to changing the rules) is?
|
|
sam1319
New Member
Posts: 1
Likes: 1
|
Post by sam1319 on Sept 2, 2015 17:04:40 GMT
This is not inline with what was communicated to members in SavingStreams previous email.
It goes completely against the spirit of what SavingStream should be about.
The email described a bottom up approach ensuring everyone got paid the same minimum absolute value and then any "big hitters" could come along and scoop up the rest.
I have been a massive fan of SavingStream and the platform they have developed up to this point but I am completely against this approach.
The loan should be cancelled and the allocation reapplied under the methodology communicated previously.
SavingStream this is a terrible solution as now you are enticing people to increase there limits above their economic means in an attempted to try and predict an outcome that will result in there desired participation.
Please act responsibly and go back to the method you first described and that we all believed would be followed.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Sept 2, 2015 17:05:39 GMT
Apparently Ive missed something I am unclear yet as whether this is a bad thing  |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 2, 2015 17:08:13 GMT
5: Everything we do, some are going to love or loath. We will do everything we can to make the majority happy, but sometimes expediency and simplicity wins the day. KISS. 6: Yes there are mistakes with the admin and tech and sometimes we change our minds when a better idea presents itself. We aim to keep you informed as much as possible but the model relies on providing quick funding to our borrowers. That's all very well and good, but it's only a few days since you explained one model to us all with this footnote... Those investors with higher limits might be disappointed that they didn't get their full allocation, but they should be happy that they have participated in an equitable distribution model which should assist with the growth and opportunities available. So, apparently, this "equitable distribution model" now won't "assist with the growth and opportunities available"? Now, I can't see how switching models has helped in "providing quick funding to ... borrowers" - maybe I'm missing something here, and you wouldn't mind explaining that? Sure, it could just be a "mistake" - in which case, perhaps you would be so kind as to admit it and apologise. Perhaps the pre-testing wasn't as robust as it could have been, and you realised it was too complex and just wouldn't work very well? That's fine. To err is human, but to own up to it is divine, to misquote Alexander Pope. But you seem to be spinning this as purely the remaining option - "change ... minds". Well, that's fine and good - perhaps if you'd let the first pre-funded loan (or first few) go out as planned and pre-billed, then said "Well, this didn't actually work terribly well, so for the next one we're changing our model to a straight %age", you wouldn't be getting this backlash. Don't get me wrong - I'm not actually that unhappy at the change in model. What I am is slightly nonplussed at your response to those who are.
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:09:00 GMT
Post by duncandive on Sept 2, 2015 17:09:00 GMT
In hindsight, we think the most equitable way of dividing the oversubscribed loans was to divide it equally as a proportion of the upper limit for each investor. Mr £100 upper limit will get exactly the same % proportion as Mr £100k upper limit. We think thats the 'fairest' way of splitting it each loan. The next one is over £1.8m or £2.5m, the PF pot is very slightly less than this so everyone will get their full allocations for these 2. Just NOT on... We all read and understood the format set out (by SavingStream) for Pre-funding. And with this in mind, those of us who opted in, set our levels. Now the loan has gone live and we find you have pulled a fast one and CHANGED ALL THE RULES.... Sorry but this is NOT how you keep the majority of your members happy, from what I have been reading above. We are adults and as such would like to be kept informed of any critical changes that Will Affect Our Money. Yes I am Dissapointed. Take a look at Your model on the Pre-funding page and it shows that All the Micro Investors should have been fully funded. I can accept that I did not receive my full Pre-fund amount, BUT when the 'Little guys' get stomped on, I do take OFFENCE..
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:10:03 GMT
Post by savingstream on Sept 2, 2015 17:10:03 GMT
This is not inline with what was communicated to members in SavingStreams previous email. It goes completely against the spirit of what SavingStream should be about. The email described a bottom up approach ensuring everyone got paid the same minimum absolute value and then any "big hitters" could come along and scoop up the rest. I have been a massive fan of SavingStream and the platform they have developed up to this point but I am completely against this approach. The loan should be cancelled and the allocation reapplied under the methodology communicated previously. SavingStream this is a terrible solution as now you are enticing people to increase there limits above their economic means in an attempted to try and predict an outcome that will result in there desired participation. Please act responsibly and go back to the method you first described and that we all believed would be followed. Whilst we appreciate the point, in reality it just wouldn't work. Remember this allocation system will only apply for loans below the amount in the PF pot and there are many loans coming through.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 2, 2015 17:11:02 GMT
Unless I’ve read a different version of the prefunding model to everyone else, other than getting less than I targeted which I understood to be a possibility, everything has happened as I expected it to.
|
|
