nick
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,056 
Likes: 825
|
Post by nick on Nov 27, 2015 9:36:02 GMT
You will not find blender in the bidding list, since FC discriminates against chameleons. But associates of blender were very pleased to take about 7k of this loan. Is the grumble really about the breach of the 20% limit? Associated lenders are still separate and can bid 20%. It's not much different from forumites using the E alert to share the opportunity. And the excess over the 20% was only 10k, which seems to me to be a small miscalculation but basically compliant. A third 20% would have had far more impact. Is the grumble really not more about missing it? I was looking at the right time (for once), but have missed the odd special offer recently and get a bit cross. Poor old FC throw us a juicy bone and get bitten for their trouble. What are they supposed to do? If they wanted to be "fair" to investors, they'd dramatically reduce the 20% limit (say to 1% for the first 24 hours) and put some simple code in their program to enforce it. Of course, there's nothing in it for them to do this, but that does rather beg the question of why they have the 20% rule at all. FC have told me that they are working on applying code to automatically enforce the limit but couldn't give a time frame, maybe after they get round to launching their API............
|
|
acky
Posts: 481
Likes: 262
|
Post by acky on Nov 27, 2015 10:10:17 GMT
If they wanted to be "fair" to investors, they'd dramatically reduce the 20% limit (say to 1% for the first 24 hours) and put some simple code in their program to enforce it. Of course, there's nothing in it for them to do this, but that does rather beg the question of why they have the 20% rule at all. FC have told me that they are working on applying code to automatically enforce the limit but couldn't give a time frame, maybe after they get round to launching their API............ The code to reject a bid that would take the total investment to more than 20% of the loan amount must be extremely simple, so clearly it's not a priority.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 27, 2015 11:14:29 GMT
I agree that 20% is too high and would not wish to see more than 10%, nor less than 5%. But it does seem that this case is not the usual suspects.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 27, 2015 11:39:55 GMT
FC have told me that they are working on applying code to automatically enforce the limit but couldn't give a time frame, maybe after they get round to launching their API............ The code to reject a bid that would take the total investment to more than 20% of the loan amount must be extremely simple, so clearly it's not a priority. Strikes me that it'd be almost identical to the code they already have that rejects bids in excess of 100% of the loan amount - merely adding a filter to only consider bids by the same user.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Nov 27, 2015 11:55:09 GMT
The code to reject a bid that would take the total investment to more than 20% of the loan amount must be extremely simple, so clearly it's not a priority. Strikes me that it'd be almost identical to the code they already have that rejects bids in excess of 100% of the loan amount - merely adding a filter to only consider bids by the same user. That code doesn't work. The Wolverhampton loan, for example, had an excess of £220 bid before they cut off further bids.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 27, 2015 11:59:27 GMT
I rather suspect that there are parts of the platform code which will be redundant or wholly replaced in the future, and that the IT budget is being targeted elsewhere. Otherwise you would think that the serious malfunctions of double selling and the inability to see the transactions at the back end of the month might be receiving some attention. These are causing cost in customer service staff time.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 27, 2015 12:02:59 GMT
I rather suspect that there are parts of the platform code which will be redundant or wholly replaced in the future, and that the IT budget is being targeted elsewhere. Otherwise you would think that the serious malfunctions of double selling and the inability to see the transactions at the back end of the month might be receiving some attention. These are causing cost in customer service staff time. Customer service staff need to work too.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Nov 27, 2015 14:30:06 GMT
Strikes me that it'd be almost identical to the code they already have that rejects bids in excess of 100% of the loan amount - merely adding a filter to only consider bids by the same user. That code doesn't work. The Wolverhampton loan, for example, had an excess of £220 bid before they cut off further bids. On the contrary - it does work - the excess bids got removed...! (i.e. even though they might not be able to PREVENT people placing bids past 20% individually or 100% in aggregate, they can at least use the same mechanism to remove any such bids when discovered).
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 27, 2015 14:36:32 GMT
Futile Chuntering's system already checks that every bid placed has sufficient "Funds Available" to cover it before accepting it and updating the "My Live Bids" total. How much harder can it be also to check that the "My Live Bids" figure hasn't reached 20% (or, in a fairer world, 5%) of the total loan, a figure fixed and known at the outset?
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 27, 2015 14:42:30 GMT
The problem is that FC Property Finance would be held to the same limit and would not be happy with 5%. 10% perhaps.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 27, 2015 14:48:56 GMT
The problem is that FC Property Finance would be held to the same limit and would not be happy with 5%. 10% perhaps. Really!!?? They make the rules and they know how to bend them.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 27, 2015 14:51:49 GMT
Simple: they could just open a "Mrs FC Property Finance" account.
|
|
am
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 601
|
Post by am on Nov 27, 2015 15:23:25 GMT
Simple: they could just open a "Mrs FC Property Finance" account. I've commented before that it would be quite possible for FC "bids" to be added after the "auction" has closed. It would even have the beneficial effect of reducing their exposure, as there wouldn't be crowding out any last minute bidders.
|
|
acky
Posts: 481
Likes: 262
|
Post by acky on Nov 27, 2015 15:39:08 GMT
Simple: they could just open a "Mrs FC Property Finance" account. I've commented before that it would be quite possible for FC "bids" to be added after the "auction" has closed. It would even have the beneficial effect of reducing their exposure, as there wouldn't be crowding out any last minute bidders. ... which is one of several examples of how their inadequate IT system drives the business rather than the other way round.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Nov 27, 2015 15:50:43 GMT
FCPF likes to pretend to be a lender of some sort, and therefore work within the T&Cs. I suppose it helps with the approach to the secondary market, but we know they are just dumping unsold loan parts.
Mrs FCPF is a great idea, Stevet, completely in line with their pretended role, though a civil partnership would work equally well..
|
|
