mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 8, 2015 12:19:01 GMT
Seems like prefunding on PBL071 was upped considerably compared to 069 and 070. I had the same prefund set for all three and got just over 10% on 071 and 27% on the other two. PBL071 was half the size of the other two. So if people put in the same pre-funding requests for all then everyone would have received an allocation of half the percentage they did on the other two.
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662 
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Dec 8, 2015 13:08:05 GMT
Sheet has been updated, PBL071 is indeed the first loan to break the 4m prefund level.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Dec 8, 2015 16:32:07 GMT
Sheet has been updated, PBL071 is indeed the first loan to break the 4m prefund level. And on a loan of only $400k+ so you had to prefund 1000% of your real requirement to get it. This ratio is climbing steeply so I reckon on any loan under £500k you should now prefund 1200-1500%. Madness. The simplest solution is to restrict prefunding to available funds. Prefunding and the ability to invest now /pay later are both individually desirable, but in tandem they are causing chaos which will only get worse.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Dec 8, 2015 16:42:11 GMT
Just seen £66,750 of 070 available. It went in <5seconds.
I guess someone pre-funded £250k and got £68,750 (27.5%), but only wanted £2k.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Dec 8, 2015 17:14:13 GMT
So whatever I want, I need to multiply that by 10, right go it.
Or maybe I should prefund the whole loan, and sell any excess on the SM.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Dec 8, 2015 17:14:59 GMT
Maybe a limit should be placed on prefunding, something like 10% of your portfolio.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Dec 8, 2015 17:21:58 GMT
Sheet has been updated, PBL071 is indeed the first loan to break the 4m prefund level. And on a loan of only $400k+ so you had to prefund 1000% of your real requirement to get it. This ratio is climbing steeply so I reckon on any loan under £500k you should now prefund 1200-1500%. Madness. The simplest solution is to restrict prefunding to available funds. Prefunding and the ability to invest now /pay later are both individually desirable, but in tandem they are causing chaos which will only get worse. We recognise that as a solution but would people stand for it?
|
|
|
|
Post by queenvictoria on Dec 8, 2015 17:26:02 GMT
And on a loan of only $400k+ so you had to prefund 1000% of your real requirement to get it. This ratio is climbing steeply so I reckon on any loan under £500k you should now prefund 1200-1500%. Madness. The simplest solution is to restrict prefunding to available funds. Prefunding and the ability to invest now /pay later are both individually desirable, but in tandem they are causing chaos which will only get worse. We recognise that as a solution but would people stand for it? It is the ability to fund afterwards that makes SS stand out from the crowd. I'd be sorry to see this facility go.
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Dec 8, 2015 17:27:14 GMT
And on a loan of only $400k+ so you had to prefund 1000% of your real requirement to get it. This ratio is climbing steeply so I reckon on any loan under £500k you should now prefund 1200-1500%. Madness. The simplest solution is to restrict prefunding to available funds. Prefunding and the ability to invest now /pay later are both individually desirable, but in tandem they are causing chaos which will only get worse. We recognise that as a solution but would people stand for it? Nope.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,022
Likes: 5,148
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 8, 2015 17:30:55 GMT
So whatever I want, I need to multiply that by 10, right go it. Or you could be a bit more intelligent than that, and look at the total pre-fund pledges on recent loans, compare that to recent market conditions and - particularly - the size of the loan, and base your prefund on that. So, if you fancy a bit of Hull or Chelmsford, just bid what you want - they'll be undersubscribed. Spread those evenly, we've all got a grand. Sunningdale might go either way, depending on when it launches - if it's just after something else, it'll be under. If there's been a drought, it'll be over, but probably not by much. But the tiddlers? Nah. They'll be hugely over. Bid high, get small. Bid low, get nowt. Remember, if every single SS lender got an equal slice of Suffolk, there'd only be about £50 of Suffolk each.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Dec 8, 2015 17:30:46 GMT
That would simply favour the deep pockets brigade even more as it would prevent those with limited cash sitting idle from getting any useful portions of smaller loans at all. I don't care at all that I need to bid for £5k to get £1k as it doesn't need me to move money around "in hope". If I had to have cash on hand to bid then I'd lose out every time to those with £100k+. It works fine so please leave it as is. The only fair alternative would be give everyone an equal share, as SS originally mooted but quickly reversed when the big boys objected.
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300 
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Dec 8, 2015 17:35:19 GMT
We recognise that as a solution but would people stand for it? It is the ability to fund afterwards that makes SS stand out from the crowd. I'd be sorry to see this facility go. I don't think the ability to fund afterward is the real problem and i would also hate to see to go. A percentage cap could probably work. Limit the per funding amount to 10 % of you total investment plus any cash balance. This will mean people who want more than 10% will have to transfer money into their accounts but everyone else will be restricted to a fairly decent chunk.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Dec 8, 2015 17:37:42 GMT
And on a loan of only $400k+ so you had to prefund 1000% of your real requirement to get it. This ratio is climbing steeply so I reckon on any loan under £500k you should now prefund 1200-1500%. Madness. The simplest solution is to restrict prefunding to available funds. Prefunding and the ability to invest now /pay later are both individually desirable, but in tandem they are causing chaos which will only get worse. We recognise that as a solution but would people stand for it? Personally, as much as I like the post-fund ability, I would, yes. However as has been said elsewhere ( ablrateandy perhaps, given the recent kerfuffle over a couple of their loans?), no allocation method will be considered "fair" by all. Certainly no allocation method can be advantageous to all. Again, speaking for myself, I don't take the "overfund" approach. Partly because I think it's gaming the system, and partly because I worry about the risks of getting into a position that is absurdly larger than I want. Of course the downside is that it takes me longer to get my funds invested. The most elegant approach I've seen to date is MT's "limit per day until date x" approach. But they have far few investors to worry about than SS, and it would alienate the big hitters. I would also advise thinking about some sort of queuing approach to the SM as suggested by somebody in another thread (I'll dig it out later). The SM at the moment is crazy. If the massive over-demand were to quickly reverse for some reason it could prove catastrophic for the platform. Without some management there the only thing likely to calm the demand is a loan going nastily sour, forcing people to think about how much they are investing in what, and why.
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Dec 8, 2015 17:38:55 GMT
It is the ability to fund afterwards that makes SS stand out from the crowd. I'd be sorry to see this facility go. I don't think the ability to fund afterward is the real problem and i would also hate to see to go. A percentage cap could probably work. Limit the per funding amount to 10 % of you total investment plus any cash balance. This will mean people who want more than 10% will have to transfer money into their accounts but everyone else will be restricted to a fairly decent chunk. That seems eminently fair and feasible... Comments please.
|
|
gt94sss2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 281
Likes: 137
|
Post by gt94sss2 on Dec 8, 2015 17:40:09 GMT
And on a loan of only $400k+ so you had to prefund 1000% of your real requirement to get it. This ratio is climbing steeply so I reckon on any loan under £500k you should now prefund 1200-1500%. Madness. The simplest solution is to restrict prefunding to available funds. Prefunding and the ability to invest now /pay later are both individually desirable, but in tandem they are causing chaos which will only get worse. We recognise that as a solution but would people stand for it? I would favour measures to stop people playing the system - certainly to the extent they have (you will have data on this) - or preventing some customers from taking part if they continually 'abuse' the system. You could perhaps tweak the system so large investors get allocated a smaller % than those bidding for smaller amounts. However, I would be against limiting pre-funding to available funds as I don't like having funds tied up unnecessarily on any platform and not knowing if/when it might be used - and it doesn't always work well on some of the other platforms who have tried it (Ablrate seem to making a meal of it today for instance). The ability for investors to fund transactions 24 hours after making them is a real competitive edge for SS and I would hate to see that go. EDIT: Limiting pre-funding to a % of existing investing investments might work if you could tell us exactly when funds needed to be in an account beforehand (and perhaps require you to reconcile deposits faster)
|
|
