cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 15, 2016 18:44:33 GMT
There was a half-way suggestion that they could at least fill the first million bottom up .. same as they would if the total loan was less than a million. Personally I'd 'bottom up' the whole thing, else it is gaming central. If they are going to change it, and I for one would like to see it changed, then I think the best method would be for all loans to be first million ‘bottom up’, the remainder of the loan and everyone gets what they ask for unless oversubscribed, then everyone gets an equal percentage of their prefund. I wouldn't be unhappy to see bottom up all the way, because I'm in that band of investor which that would benefit; but I think it’s important to remember that SS have to keep all the investors happy, and that includes the larger investors who are looking to re-invest the substantial interest that they receive via SS each month. Gaming should be looked into. I remember a post that said that deposits where now being completed the same day (is this now the case; can anybody confirm?). If SS started to ask for negative balances to be resolved the same day, or the next working day then this would go some way to stop the gaming.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 15, 2016 19:07:42 GMT
Re deposits: I deposited some money on Saturday (morning) which appeared in my SS account on the same day. I deposited some money today (late in the work day) and still is not there but expect it to be there tomorrow morning.
Can someone remind me where the idea that SS might change again the way they allocate amounts comes from?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 15, 2016 20:46:25 GMT
I wouldn't be unhappy to see bottom up all the way, because I'm in that band of investor which that would benefit... : I haven't tried to analyse the situation. Which group of investors do you think would benefit from bottom up for all loans? All but the biggest?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 15, 2016 20:54:53 GMT
I wouldn't be unhappy to see bottom up all the way, because I'm in that band of investor which that would benefit... : I haven't tried to analyse the situation. Which group of investors do you think would benefit from bottom up for all loans? All but the biggest? I don't know; I would suspect that only SS would know the answer. Just to clarify, I'm not saying that £1 million is the magic number; if SS reviewed there investor books, it may be higher (or indeed less) to make it as fair as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2016 21:14:48 GMT
Given the number of loans in the pipeline, I think Savings Stream need to keep the larger investors happy too.
I think a few larger investors mentioned last time that they would become overweight in the largest loans if more loan funding went to bottom up.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 15, 2016 22:28:27 GMT
But my suspicion is they'll have the same problem if everyone just game-plays and bids 10x what they want.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,144
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 16, 2016 7:55:33 GMT
But my suspicion is they'll have the same problem if everyone just game-plays and bids 10x what they want. Indeed. When there's £700k, barely over a month's worth of interest, in new loans coming onto the market in a month, and nearly 2,000 people wanting a chunk, the small number of big hitters who each want to get tens of thousands of new money into the platform are never, EVER going to be satisfied.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 16, 2016 8:12:54 GMT
But my suspicion is they'll have the same problem if everyone just game-plays and bids 10x what they want. Indeed. When there's £700k, barely over a month's worth of interest, in new loans coming onto the market in a month, and nearly 2,000 people wanting a chunk, the small number of big hitters who each want to get tens of thousands of new money into the platform are never, EVER going to be satisfied. The problem is perhaps that the appetite of the big hitters is far too large. I can help them if they only give that extra money to me. I would be very willing to carry the burden. 
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 16, 2016 11:58:48 GMT
I think you guys are under-callng 'big hitter' by about an order of magnitude .. I suspect they'd like to 'diversify' to have £50k-£100k in all loans (as opposed to using the cash to buy the Bigglesw*de farm in one bite). 8>.
|
|
awk
Posts: 276
Likes: 147
Member is Online
|
Post by awk on Feb 23, 2016 17:17:12 GMT
Given the increasing numbers of active investors pre-funding, I wasn't expecting to get anything like £730 on PBL082.
There must be a sizeable proportion who wanted less than £730 and got allocated in full.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 23, 2016 19:06:53 GMT
Given the increasing numbers of active investors pre-funding, I wasn't expecting to get anything like £730 on PBL082. There must be a sizeable proportion who wanted less than £730 and got allocated in full. There are 1625 investors in PBL082 at the moment, so that's an average of £520 each. There are bound to be quite a few who wanted only a couple hundred ££ -- or less -- of it, so the £730 maximum allocation doesn't seem out of line with that. This does make me wonder what would have happened if PBL081 has been allocated on the 'bottom-up' basis. There are 1645 investors there, so the average investment is just over £1800. Does that, combined with the PBL082 result, suggest that the maximum allocation on a bottom-up basis would have been about £2500? Or does the range of investors' desired holdings mean the maximum allocation on that basis would have been more like £4k? savingstream: Did you work out what the maximum allocation of PBL081 would have been if it had been allocated on the 'bottom-up' basis? If so, would you mind sharing that info with us? I realise that the calculated result would be biased towards a lower number because many investors will have increased their pre-funding in anticipation of not being allocated 100% of their requested amount, but it still would be an interesting data point to have.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 23, 2016 19:38:04 GMT
The BHs would have got more on PBL81 if I had been allocated what I actually wanted, bottom up, instead of gaming it and getting more than I needed! I suspect that'd be true across quite a few other people too. PBL82 I actually got closer to what I wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by eascogo on Feb 23, 2016 21:58:31 GMT
Given the increasing numbers of active investors pre-funding, I wasn't expecting to get anything like £730 on PBL082. There must be a sizeable proportion who wanted less than £730 and got allocated in full. Got £894 (PBL081) and £730 (PBL082), having pledged £2,000 on each whilst hoping to be allocated near £1,000 each. Wasn't far off then.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Feb 24, 2016 14:30:18 GMT
The BHs would have got more on PBL81 if I had been allocated what I actually wanted, bottom up, instead of gaming it and getting more than I needed! There is absolutely no way that the excess you were allocated by gaming would have ended up going to the BHs instead. It would go to smaller investors who weren't gaming... as indeed would a good chunk of what the BHs actually received under the present system.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 24, 2016 17:01:22 GMT
The BHs would have got more on PBL81 if I had been allocated what I actually wanted, bottom up, instead of gaming it and getting more than I needed! There is absolutely no way that the excess you were allocated by gaming would have ended up going to the BHs instead. It would go to smaller investors who weren't gaming... as indeed would a good chunk of what the BHs actually received under the present system. Unproven. It wouldn't have gone to me .. someone else would have got it. Anyone else overgaming would not have got or wanted it. I think we need savingstream to actually say how it would have worked out under both systems.
|
|
