arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810 
Likes: 426
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:13:00 GMT
via mobile
locutus likes this
Post by arbster on Sept 2, 2015 17:13:00 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. So, actually it would have worked. If you'd left it the same then only the big hitters would be disappointed in the small loans, and on the big ones everyone is happy. With your new approach a vastly larger number of people have been disappointed on the small loans. I guess it depends who you think are more critical to the growth of SS. And I imagine there will be many more smaller investors queuing up to join SS, while big hitters are in short supply.
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:13:34 GMT
Post by xyon100 on Sept 2, 2015 17:13:34 GMT
While they fiddle about with who gets what with prefunding, with the new system in place, I want to see a system where I can decide which loans to prefund. I'm not putting prefunding in place when I risk getting a loan I don't want. Not now that we are now definitely lending to that borrower.
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:19:49 GMT
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 2, 2015 17:19:49 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. And the financial calculations are correct!
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:19:49 GMT
Post by sterilized on Sept 2, 2015 17:19:49 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. But this loan was below the amount in the PF pot and because of this many now will increase their PF levels. Hence the next one is now likely to be the same. Do you not mean above the level. If so then it still works as their are many more loans coming through.
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:21:57 GMT
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 2, 2015 17:21:57 GMT
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. So, actually it would have worked. If you'd left it the same then only the big hitters would be disappointed in the small loans, and on the big ones everyone is happy. With your new approach a vastly larger number of people have been disappointed on the small loans. I guess it depends who you think are more critical to the growth of SS. And I imagine there will be many more smaller investors queuing up to join SS, while big hitters are in short supply. I guess you're a big hitter then?
|
|
scraggs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 75
Likes: 62
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:28:18 GMT
Post by scraggs on Sept 2, 2015 17:28:18 GMT
I sense a huge abuse of the PF coming up.
Although it is not ideal and not as described for me getting a third of what I wanted was better than sitting at a screen hitting F5 and getting bugger all back.
Sadly SS will never please everyone whichever way they do things.
Actually I am more peed off with the oddball figure I have in it, I like to keep them as nice round figures.
Did anyone receive an SMS to say this was going live ?
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:28:46 GMT
Post by duncandive on Sept 2, 2015 17:28:46 GMT
Just pocketed a £1k of PBL020... Still £1,400 left..
So at least some of my P-f money has got a place to stay for a while..
|
|
mack
Posts: 85
Likes: 90
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:28:53 GMT
Post by mack on Sept 2, 2015 17:28:53 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. You read the same version but interpreted it totally differently (wrongly) to everyone else. SS it's just not on to change things and lack clarity as it looks unprofessional. Am not a small investor with SS so bit disappointed with the way things are developing. There was no warning at all loan was going live today where this has happened in the past in the updates. And there has not been an update as promised for yesterday??
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:40:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by arbster on Sept 2, 2015 17:40:52 GMT
So, actually it would have worked. If you'd left it the same then only the big hitters would be disappointed in the small loans, and on the big ones everyone is happy. With your new approach a vastly larger number of people have been disappointed on the small loans. I guess it depends who you think are more critical to the growth of SS. And I imagine there will be many more smaller investors queuing up to join SS, while big hitters are in short supply. I guess you're a big hitter then? Far, far from it. Just a realist.
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:42:34 GMT
Post by yorkshireman on Sept 2, 2015 17:42:34 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. You read the same version but interpreted it totally differently (wrongly) to everyone else. SS it's just not on to change things and lack clarity as it looks unprofessional. Am not a small investor with SS so bit disappointed with the way things are developing. There was no warning at all loan was going live today where this has happened in the past in the updates. And there has not been an update as promised for yesterday?? I suggest that there are several individuals posting on this thread who consider themselves to be “small” investors when in actual fact they are throwing several thousands of pounds into prefunding and are now sulking because they didn’t read the prefunding model correctly and didn’t get what they expected.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:43:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by arbster on Sept 2, 2015 17:43:01 GMT
Did anyone receive an SMS to say this was going live ? I imagine they didn't bother as it was fully funded by PF
|
|
j
Member of DD Central
Penguins are very misunderstood!
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 540
|
PBL55
Sept 2, 2015 17:43:29 GMT
Post by j on Sept 2, 2015 17:43:29 GMT
I go away for just an hour or so & pbl54 goes live. Eh? Elementary, my dear Watson!
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 2, 2015 17:47:50 GMT
because they didn’t read the prefunding model correctly Sorry, Yorkshireman, it's you who read the model incorrectly - or, more likely, mis-remembered it. As SteveT quoted it a few pages back... Potentially complicated numbers stuff coming up… For example - you set your limit to £1k. There are 400 people who have the same limit and 40 with a limit of £10k. A loan of £1m is launched. All 440 people will get £1k (£400k total) and the 40 people with higher limits will get an additional £9k each in the surplus thus they get £10k in total. The remaining availability will go to the market and can be bought by whoever wants it. It will become complicated when the loan is less than the amount in the Pre-Fund pot i.e £500k loan, 400 people with £1k, and 40 with £10k. Again, all 440 people will get £1k leaving £60k to divide by the 40 which is an additional £1.5k each, giving a total investment of £2.5k for those investors who set their limit higher. 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. The next loan might be able to take all of their demand plus more. See the difference between that and the everybody-gets-the-same-%age model that's actually been used? To take their second example - £500k loan, £800k in the pre-funding pot - everybody's going to get 62.5% of their pre-fund. So the small investors get £625 instead of £1000, the large investors get £6,250 instead of £2,500.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Sept 2, 2015 17:48:27 GMT
You read the same version but interpreted it totally differently (wrongly) to everyone else. SS it's just not on to change things and lack clarity as it looks unprofessional. Am not a small investor with SS so bit disappointed with the way things are developing. There was no warning at all loan was going live today where this has happened in the past in the updates. And there has not been an update as promised for yesterday?? I suggest that there are several individuals posting on this thread who consider themselves to be “small” investors when in actual fact they are throwing several thousands of pounds into prefunding and are now sulking because they didn’t read the prefunding model correctly and didn’t get what they expected. Not sure who you're referring too but I'm certainly not sulking. I actually got more of this one than I would have if the originally-communicated allocation process had been applied and smaller investors had got their full quota. I'm just confused why they went to the lengths of explaining in great detail how the new allocation process would work, only to abandon it completely without telling anyone first. Seems to have caused a lot of grief for no purpose.
|
|
indy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 57
Likes: 18
|
Post by indy on Sept 2, 2015 17:51:45 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. You are missing the point...you have changed the rules WITHOUT letting us know.
|
|
