arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810 
Likes: 426
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 9:20:55 GMT
Post by arbster on Sept 3, 2015 9:20:55 GMT
I'm probably being extremely stupid, but I can't understand the email I got yesterday regarding this loan. It said: Congratulations, you have been allocated a £77.78 investment in PBL55 - Land with planning, Wales ..... We have created an auto-deposit for £342.64 to cover the shortfall in your available balance. What is this £342 shortfall when I currently have a credit balance of £47.41? SS have confirmed the emails were a bit flaky. I'd ignore all except the part about £77.78.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 9:27:52 GMT
Post by SteveT on Sept 3, 2015 9:27:52 GMT
I'm probably being extremely stupid, but I can't understand the email I got yesterday regarding this loan. It said: Congratulations, you have been allocated a £77.78 investment in PBL55 - Land with planning, Wales ..... We have created an auto-deposit for £342.64 to cover the shortfall in your available balance. What is this £342 shortfall when I currently have a credit balance of £47.41? The emails contained an error. I suspect everyone was told someone else's shortfall figure (eg. the "mail merge" picked up the next row down in the spreadsheet). Presumably that's why uncletone was billed over £30k for the big-hitter's shortfall!!
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 9:32:10 GMT
Post by nickthefool on Sept 3, 2015 9:32:10 GMT
I'm probably being extremely stupid, but I can't understand the email I got yesterday regarding this loan. It said: Congratulations, you have been allocated a £77.78 investment in PBL55 - Land with planning, Wales ..... We have created an auto-deposit for £342.64 to cover the shortfall in your available balance. What is this £342 shortfall when I currently have a credit balance of £47.41? The emails contained an error. I suspect everyone was told someone else's shortfall figure (eg. the "mail merge" picked up the next row down in the spreadsheet). Presumably that's why uncletone was billed over £30k for the big-hitter's shortfall!! I think there was just something in the calculation that was mixed up. I had a balance of 0, and was told the correct shortfall, so I assume others with a 0 balance were too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Butch Cassidy on Sept 3, 2015 9:47:06 GMT
I think overall the SS guys are doing a great job – 12% return, secured against assets, not great default problems as yet & a dynamic, flexible & helpful management team that is willing to interact with this forum. It is easy to complain when everything doesn’t work as promised or how you would expect or like it to but please get it in perspective, these are the growing pains of a young business. Try being a lender on Bondora or even FC if you really want to feel ignored & unwanted!
SS are learning what works as they go along – I accept that they may make mistakes with IT or implementation but that is part of being a young & fast growing business in a new sector. The fact that they are always helpful, responsive & willing to take investors views into account should grant them some slack, remember this new prefunding model has only just been designed & this was it’s first test, albeit not perfect, everyone got something which is an improvement on the previous server meltdowns & I expect further progress as lessons are learnt.
They are essentially victims of their own success with demand currently overwhelming supply, which is a sign of them getting most things right. They are promising a healthy loan pipeline & a more balanced distribution of the scarce supply so before anyone posts hysterical tantrums take a breath & judge them against their other competitors, everyone is free to move elsewhere if they are unhappy with the current offering.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Sept 3, 2015 9:49:50 GMT
I did think the original allocation model seemed skewed to small investors at the expense of the largest (which suited me!). Using a % allocation is probably fairer at both ends of the spectrum but only if there's a cap (with the smaller loans) to the maximum sum allocated. Otherwise, were I an unscrupulous big-hitter wanting £50k, I'd simply raise my pre-funding limit to (say) £500k each time a small loan is about to be listed and clean up. Ideally there should also be a minimum level that is funded in full. For this loan, if everyone had been allocated £100 (or even £200) and no-one more than 1% (roughly £6k) then I'd say that was a fair balance. The PF drop down box only goes up to 100k, I've seen much larger bids than that in the past so the big hitters might be more miffed than the smaller guys. It might get a bit silly though if there were several people opting for 100k on the smallest loan in the list (121k) so I'd wholeheartedly agree with the minimum of £100. Is that possible/practical to implement savingstream? Otherwise, a loan one sixth the size of yesterdays will result in people being allocated just 6 or 7%. It would get tedious, having to make a transfer for a single figure allocation, I'd rather not bother at all for less than £100. Surely if they had implemented the model as stated, my understanding is that is what would have happened. In a very oversubscribed situation everyone with a pre-set target would get at least £100 (i.e the minimum pre-fund level). However, they have 4300+ investors, so if they all set a target for any loan less than £430,000k, that ain't gonna work already. An alternative to achieve this would be capping, but for small loans I think we would be back to the fastest to / on the website. I think this is going to be a learning curve for both investors and SS, my plea to SS would be for a better indication of loan order (or the ability to separately target the refinement they suggested), and pre-notification of any changes to the model (although in this particular case I am not sure it would have made much difference?).
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 9:51:22 GMT
Post by patright on Sept 3, 2015 9:51:22 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. I see many problems with this and I apologize because I am not a native english speaker, of course this only reflect my own opinion. 1- The tone does not sound really friendly to say the least 2- it's clear that SS at least in this message does not really care about small investors, they set rules then changes them without notice as they wish: "sometimes we change our minds when a better idea presents itself." and we as investors just have to deal with it 3-"there are only 4300 investors so far and the pockets of the majority are small" sound to me like: Big Hitter = crucial small investor: disposable The amazing growth that SS is seeking, is it at the expense of safety? " BH's will enable us to reach the £150m+ figure next year" Now based on this PF fiasco, some lessons could be drawn that are worrisome moving forward: for exemple, the Provision Fund, would it be disposed off fairly or would it be used to refund the BH first since they represent the only hope for huge growth Obviously I am not at this time accusing anyone of any wrong doing, just worried of the trend I see from this post
|
|
paulgul
Member of DD Central
Posts: 401
Likes: 92
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 10:43:01 GMT
Post by paulgul on Sept 3, 2015 10:43:01 GMT
I think SS biggest problem is lack of communication, apart from the prefunding issue, they've admitted on here the email sent out yesterday was incorrect but they haven't sent out a corrected email or even just an apology for the incorrect email. I would imagine only a small percentage of investors read this forum so most may not even realize a mistake was made - I wonder how many paid up without checking, I bet there were some.
|
|
ikorodu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 75
Likes: 9
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 11:04:04 GMT
Post by ikorodu on Sept 3, 2015 11:04:04 GMT
This is my first lending experience with SS, I have other lending with RS, LW, Wellesley and FC, so am not new to p2p.
The pre funding model clearly still needs some work, but on the face of it appears to have at least achieved allowing those who wanted to invest, to actually do that.
My biggest concern is the way that SS have changed the rules without consultation or (more importantly) communication. Not communicating leads to people filling in the gaps in the news with a version of events that may or may not be accurate. It also leads to mistrust, which can not be a good thing for a company engaged in this business.
This issue is one that is not unique to SS, I've seen the same with other p2p lenders as well. For example RS have a FAQ on their site that outlines what would happen to loans if a lender was to die. But when pushed on this forum said they'd look at things differently than their stated policy, but will not change the policy.
It all adds to a general feeling that the p2p companies will change the rules/terms at any time if what they said they would do no longer suits them. Now obviously things change and so terms need to change, but its normally best to tell those effected by any change, before you make it.
In SS case with the pre-funding model, I think it would have been better for them to follow the rules as they originally set out for PBL55, but at the same time issue a statement that told all of a change of the rules due to the issues that the original model caused them for this 'smaller' loan. My guess (I'm filling in the gaps here!) is that the outcome of the pre fund calcs were discussed (maybe just within SS or even with the big investors) and as the big hitters were not happy the rules were changes there on then.
|
|
mack
Posts: 85
Likes: 90
|
Post by mack on Sept 3, 2015 11:05:54 GMT
Some of the comments on here are just amazing!
SS can do whatever they see fit, it's their business! It's up to them how they wish to be funded. Without a doubt they need large investors, that's why they have had rapid growth this year. But then the smaller ones complain. Without large scale funding they would not have had the ability to have more loans anyway.
But then the other comments thanking them are just bizarre. As a business they want to make money, they are not not out to do you a favour. I am perfectly happy if they run the business well with a high level of due diligence and communicate well with investors. If they are doing it properly there will be plenty of loans now and in the future.
What they do BADLY is not communicate correctly, not send out weekly updates, change the funding system without notification and think that's okay. At least keep investors informed. That kind of attitude should be more of a worry,not what percentage you got of some loan.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Sept 3, 2015 11:09:11 GMT
Now obviously things change and so terms need to change, but its normally bets to tell those effected by any change, before you make it. I agree with that, equally, look at the furore over the recently announced FC changes. P2P is new and evolving rapidly. They and we will learn along the way, and the journey won't be for everybody (or at least not everybody on every platform). I suspect that SS have realised that, at the least, they messed up with comms on this. I expect them to learn from it.
|
|
ikorodu
Member of DD Central
Posts: 75
Likes: 9
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 11:16:46 GMT
Post by ikorodu on Sept 3, 2015 11:16:46 GMT
Now obviously things change and so terms need to change, but its normally bets to tell those effected by any change, before you make it. I agree with that, equally, look at the furore over the recently announced FC changes. P2P is new and evolving rapidly. They and we will learn along the way, and the journey won't be for everybody (or at least not everybody on every platform). I suspect that SS have realised that, at the least, they messed up with comms on this. I expect them to learn from it. The recent FC changes are a good example, in my view, of how to communicate. FC have made their decision and are unlikely to change it, but are at least letting people know ahead of the actual change. If people don't like it they won't invest, but at least they get the chance to make a decision.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Sept 3, 2015 11:28:43 GMT
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 11:43:38 GMT
adx likes this
Post by patright on Sept 3, 2015 11:43:38 GMT
Some of the comments on here are just amazing! SS can do whatever they see fit, it's their business! It's up to them how they wish to be funded. Without a doubt they need large investors, that's why they have had rapid growth this year. But then the smaller ones complain. Without large scale funding they would not have had the ability to have more loans anyway. But then the other comments thanking them are just bizarre. As a business they want to make money, they are not not out to do you a favour. I am perfectly happy if they run the business well with a high level of due diligence and communicate well with investors. If they are doing it properly there will be plenty of loans now and in the future. What they do BADLY is not communicate correctly, not send out weekly updates, change the funding system without notification and think that's okay. At least keep investors informed. That kind of attitude should be more of a worry,not what percentage you got of some loan. not exactly as they see fit no..it's a regulated business operating under a license
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
PBL55
Sept 3, 2015 11:45:28 GMT
Post by am on Sept 3, 2015 11:45:28 GMT
I can't get all that excited over which prefunding algorithm is used (though changing it without notice should have been a no-no). If the 80/20 rule applies then SS's interests are more aligned with the larger investors, and we can't expect them to tilt the scales too greatly in favour of small investors. On the other hand some of the small investors are the potential larger investors of the future - once they have developed confidence in the asset class and platform - so SS doesn't want to exclude them. So they have to find a middle way. The problem remains the excess of demand over supply - prefunding has solved the web site meltdown problems, but not the problem of satisfying demand. It seems to me that if supply and demand were more in balance the larger investors would get their fair share of the market in the larger loans, so tilting the scale towards the smaller investors is justifiable.
(Part of the reason I'm not all that excited is that I prefer to study the loan proposition before rather than after investing, so I didn't participate in either the prefunding or the previous feeding frenzies.)
But I note that currently FC are currently being criticised for not catering to the "29%", and SS are being criticised for catering to their larger investors.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Sept 3, 2015 11:48:45 GMT
As an investor who can't get as much on SS as I want I just hope that all those who are dissatisfied take their money elsewhere.
|
|
