jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808 
Likes: 3,242
|
Post by jonno on Jan 4, 2016 13:05:58 GMT
So you were quite happy to put £5k into a £320k loan, you can't quite understand why that wouldn't scale, and you feel singled out and hard done by? Sorry, but... This really does strike me as the fairest way so far. You've got a bunch of people sat around your kitchen table, and a lovely freshly-baked cake. The cake isn't big enough to give everybody the size of slice they want. So what do you do? You give all those who only want a small slice that, then you give everybody else the same. You don't give half the cake to the fat b'std in the corner who wants the whole thing to himself, do you? A company should keep happy the investors. If I have availability for 20k immediately and want to put 5k on this loan, I am not happy to get exactly the same as another investor asking for 300. I was happier with the previous system, even when I got 15% of my requests because that was what everyone was getting. I am totally unhappy to receive 6% of my request when someone is getting 100%. I am also very unhappy to see someone 'lucky' getting 8000k I am also very unhappy to see the SM literally bombarded by very fast bots... and SS doing absolutely nothing about it... (if they don't care, the only solution is to put down mine....tonight will prepare it!) You mean......... you're preparing world domination from your Temple of DooooooooM? 
|
|
noh
Posts: 34
Likes: 15
|
Post by noh on Jan 4, 2016 13:06:07 GMT
So you were quite happy to put £5k into a £320k loan, you can't quite understand why that wouldn't scale, and you feel singled out and hard done by? Sorry, but... This really does strike me as the fairest way so far. You've got a bunch of people sat around your kitchen table, and a lovely freshly-baked cake. The cake isn't big enough to give everybody the size of slice they want. So what do you do? You give all those who only want a small slice that, then you give everybody else the same. You don't give half the cake to the fat b'std in the corner who wants the whole thing to himself, do you? A company should keep happy the investors. If I have availability for 20k immediately and want to put 5k on this loan, I am not happy to get exactly the same as another investor asking for 300. I was happier with the previous system, even when I got 15% of my requests because that was what everyone was getting. I am totally unhappy to receive 6% of my request when someone is getting 100%. I am also very unhappy to see someone 'lucky' getting 8000k I am also very unhappy to see the SM literally bombarded by very fast bots... and SS doing absolutely nothing about it... (if they don't care, the only solution is to put down mine....tonight will prepare it!) The majority of investors are happy with this arrangement. A small minority of one so far are not.
|
|
nush
Member of DD Central
Posts: 396
Likes: 113
|
Post by nush on Jan 4, 2016 13:07:12 GMT
i think this way of working the pre funding is as fair as it could be, it also shows that SS are as interested in little me and my investments as they are in the big boys, so thank you for that SS
|
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Jan 4, 2016 13:08:18 GMT
Well I for one am a happy investor even though I got only 10% of (a reduced from normal) PF level because I'm confident the process was conducted fairly.
LW
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1,862
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 4, 2016 13:17:09 GMT
Investor activity shows m*************3 getting £8300...... We rounded down from c £310 each to £300 each investor as most people like round numbers. The £8300 was the surplus of c1300 investors x c£8 each. Everyone got £300 if they asked for more than that (apart from lucky m*************3). This is OK with me ... provided the £8k was not bought by a bot.
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Jan 4, 2016 13:18:07 GMT
So you were quite happy to put £5k into a £320k loan, you can't quite understand why that wouldn't scale, and you feel singled out and hard done by? Sorry, but... This really does strike me as the fairest way so far. You've got a bunch of people sat around your kitchen table, and a lovely freshly-baked cake. The cake isn't big enough to give everybody the size of slice they want. So what do you do? You give all those who only want a small slice that, then you give everybody else the same. You don't give half the cake to the fat b'std in the corner who wants the whole thing to himself, do you?  Depends if the expression on his face is sufficiently foul.  Agree though that this is the fairest way forward, there should be a focus by SS towards min £1m loans (preferably £2-3m) and leave the tiddlers (<£500k) to the tiddler platforms! I doubt SS will be able to run those size loans if this continues for a few months, unless they can source a lot of them. Bigger investors will no longer be able to diversify and will end up either holding higher percentages of the larger loans only (unlikely) or simply move the money elsewhere. I think given that there are c1400 active investors, if they continue with this 'small investor first' mentality they will be limiting themselves to 2.8m loan size maximum. Will be interesting to see how the small investors react when the BH tide goes out. However the positive news is lots more CB opportunities coming up!
|
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 4, 2016 13:23:49 GMT
Glad I'm not SS dealing with trying to keep everyone happy which is an impossible task.
I like the new PF system.
What I don't understand is the SM speed. I see a piece pop up and disappear in less than 1 or 2 seconds. It's physically impossible to purchase that fast so surely automated systems are at work here?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 13:26:33 GMT
The majority of investors are happy with this arrangement. A small minority of one so far are not. I think this forum cannot and will not represent the majority of investors anyway (and I am one of the small ones BTW). The earlier system matched every request percentage-wise and that was fair, in the sense that everyone got the same xx% of their availability/declared interest. Now you have large unbalances percentage-wise and that is an implicit invitation to reduce the exposure to SS for people with larger availabilities. (people who had put aside 4-5-6k for this loan will now probably invest them on other networks). Of course for the future the only way forward is with bots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Jan 4, 2016 13:29:54 GMT
The majority of investors are happy with this arrangement. A small minority of one so far are not. I think this forum cannot and will not represent the majority of investors anyway (and I am one of the small ones BTW). The earlier system matched every request percentage-wise and that was fair, in the sense that everyone got the same xx% of their availability/declared interest. Now you have large unbalances percentage-wise and that is an implicit invitation to reduce the exposure to SS for people with larger availabilities. (people who had put aside 4-5-6k for this loan will now probably invest them on other networks). Of course for the future the only way forward is with bots. The old way wasn't that fair given the fact the we figured out the system and using over pre-funding would get you closer to your real allocation.
|
|
awk
Posts: 276
Likes: 147
|
Post by awk on Jan 4, 2016 13:29:57 GMT
Yes, well done SS .... and thank you for rounding down !!
I was planning to throw any shrapnel back
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 13:30:01 GMT
We rounded down from c £310 each to £300 each investor as most people like round numbers. The £8300 was the surplus of c1300 investors x c£8 each. Everyone got £300 if they asked for more than that (apart from lucky m*************3). This is OK with me ... provided the £8k was not bought by a bot. I have not seen/analysed that, but can guaranteed 100% that in the following hour I have seen bots on the secondary market (sweeping nice parts like 200 and 230 GBP). I know for sure as I am testing mine and was beaten by faster ones (a bot war is about to start!)
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperpot on Jan 4, 2016 13:32:49 GMT
A company should keep happy the investors. If I have availability for 20k immediately and want to put 5k on this loan, I am not happy to get exactly the same as another investor asking for 300. I was happier with the previous system, even when I got 15% of my requests because that was what everyone was getting. I am totally unhappy to receive 6% of my request when someone is getting 100%. I am also very unhappy to see someone 'lucky' getting 8000k I am also very unhappy to see the SM literally bombarded by very fast bots... and SS doing absolutely nothing about it... (if they don't care, the only solution is to put down mine....tonight will prepare it!) If bots operate, they don't do so out of hours. There can be many loans with availability for extended periods in the wee hours. It's very easy to appear bot like though, when something comes up for sale click through to the page, click on the amount to fund box, hit a load of numbers (doesn't matter what or how much) and hit enter. Hey presto, it's all yours, then throw back what you don't want. Quick fingers can do it all in about one or two seconds, as the page 'soft' re-loads every 4 seconds, a sale can go through before some people even know its there. BTW I'm in the 4 figure per loan category, but realise it's somewhat selfish to want the same amount in all loans, regardless of size. This method means I can reduce the diligence required on smaller loans and focus my effort on the larger ones, makes the platform more time efficient for me. We just need a Stream of £2m loans now... Depends if the expression on his face is sufficiently foul. Agree though that this is the fairest way forward, there should be a focus by SS towards min £1m loans (preferably £2-3m) and leave the tiddlers (<£500k) to the tiddler platforms! I doubt SS will be able to run those size loans if this continues for a few months, unless they can source a lot of them. Bigger investors will no longer be able to diversify and will end up either holding higher percentages of the larger loans only (unlikely) or simply move the money elsewhere. I think given that there are c1400 active investors, if they continue with this 'small investor first' mentality they will be limiting themselves to 2.8m loan size maximum. Will be interesting to see how the small investors react when the BH tide goes out. However the positive news is lots more CB opportunities coming up! Yes, to elaborate, the size of loan should be (as far as possible) tailored to the size of platform. A reasonable flow of £1-4m loans is what SS should be looking for, leaving the smaller platforms with the proportionally higher work load of smaller loans.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 4, 2016 13:33:18 GMT
Not sure that people would have got much more than 6% under the old system (in fact I suspect considerably less) So the big hitters wouldnt be happy and the small players wouldnt be happy with £30 or less. At least this way there seems to be some people who are happy So weve had a massive cake (pbl73) for everyone to gorge themselves on, a small cake (PBL74) where everyone got a reasonable slice, just waiting for the wafer thin mint now (PBL49+)  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 13:33:46 GMT
I think this forum cannot and will not represent the majority of investors anyway (and I am one of the small ones BTW). The earlier system matched every request percentage-wise and that was fair, in the sense that everyone got the same xx% of their availability/declared interest. Now you have large unbalances percentage-wise and that is an implicit invitation to reduce the exposure to SS for people with larger availabilities. (people who had put aside 4-5-6k for this loan will now probably invest them on other networks). Of course for the future the only way forward is with bots. The old way wasn't that fair given the fact the we figured out the system and using over pre-funding would get you closer to your real allocation. The fact that someone might be cheating does not mean that allocation system was not fair. I would have preferred extremely high penalties on those not having money ready (say 1k GBP fine on anyone not having money in the account within 24h of funding request, even seizing their other investments) rather than changing a fair system because someone played with it. In any case if this is the system on the PM, the fight will move on the SM.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 4, 2016 13:34:07 GMT
This is OK with me ... provided the £8k was not bought by a bot. I have not seen/analysed that, but can guaranteed 100% that in the following hour I have seen bots on the secondary market (sweeping nice parts like 200 and 230 GBP). I know for sure as I am testing mine and was beaten by faster ones (a bot war is about to start!) I picked up an extra £200 part and I'm definitely not a bot. When there are a lot of people all waiting on parts to appear, they're inevitably going to disappear in a trice. Can we please not start down the boring "there must be bots" discussion dead-end again?
|
|
Depends if the expression on his face is sufficiently foul. 
