|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 4, 2016 16:40:30 GMT
c) in which way would automated bidding deter people from investing? The goal for SS is to find investment cash and this is done in the primary market (very successfully as we see in Loan 74). The main goal for the secondary market is liquidity and you can say everything against bots, but certainly they can only help reaching liquidity faster! I would have thought it was blindingly obvious why bots would deter people from investing. Considering that 99.999999% of the population wouldn't have a clue about how to create a bot, then that same 99.99999% would not be happy if they were unable to invest because of people like you. You have way too many 9s in there. I know at least 6 people I talk to regularly who could (and in some cases have) do it. Maybe 99.9% to 99.99%, although I suspect a lot of teenagers can do what we old fogies find hard. I don't support the idea though, which is why I suggested some sort of prefunding / queuing / allocation scheme for the SM, where (having deposited the funds maybe) you can sign up to buy £x in PBLy if/when it shows up. There is no generally acceptable answer - just like taxes. Is it fairer that everyone gets/pays £z, or is it fairer that everyone gets/pays w%?? I could argue either end (but we always wind up with an in-between kludge on taxation).
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204 
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 4, 2016 17:04:22 GMT
c) in which way would automated bidding deter people from investing? The goal for SS is to find investment cash and this is done in the primary market (very successfully as we see in Loan 74). The main goal for the secondary market is liquidity and you can say everything against bots, but certainly they can only help reaching liquidity faster! I would have thought it was blindingly obvious why bots would deter people from investing. Considering that 99.999999% of the population wouldn't have a clue about how to create a bot, then that same 99.99999% would not be happy if they were unable to invest because of people like you. You have way too many 9s in there. I know at least 6 people I talk to regularly who could (and in some cases have) do it. Maybe 99.9% to 99.99%, although I suspect a lot of teenagers can do what we old fogies find hard. I don't support the idea though, which is why I suggested some sort of prefunding / queuing / allocation scheme for the SM, where (having deposited the funds maybe) you can sign up to buy £x in PBLy if/when it shows up. There is no generally acceptable answer - just like taxes. Is it fairer that everyone gets/pays £z, or is it fairer that everyone gets/pays w%?? I could argue either end (but we always wind up with an in-between kludge on taxation). I think with regards to tax the answer is easier. I would vote to abolish it.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Jan 4, 2016 17:14:00 GMT
I think with regards to tax the answer is easier. I would vote to abolish it. I don't much fancy living in a violent and lawless hellhole, so I'm less than keen on that idea.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Jan 4, 2016 17:16:54 GMT
Anyone get the SMS alert for this loan going live?
|
|
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 17:28:34 GMT
Anyone get the SMS alert for this loan going live? They dont send them anymore. Havent had one since PBL68 and before that PBL64. Would have expected one for PBL73 as it wasnt instantly filled by PF but nowt so I expect they have given up and are saving the cash required to send 6000 texts (Well if everyone signed up) In fact, wonder if thats what phone providers had in mind when they included unlimited texts in contracts! 
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 4, 2016 17:40:50 GMT
 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! Can anybody explain this thinking to me please? Because I really don't understand it. Investor A has £1,000 in each of ten loans. He/she chooses not to invest in a new small loan because they might only get £300 of it. Investor B also has £1,000 invested in each of the same ten loans. However B does invest in the new small loan, in spite of the fact that they will only get £300 of it. Now I accept the point that A might want the same amount in all loans, and I accept that A might not want small parts, but those choosing not to buy into a smaller loan because "I won't get enough of it" end up with less diversification as a result. What am I missing?
|
|
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 18:26:52 GMT
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! Can anybody explain this thinking to me please? Because I really don't understand it. Investor A has £1,000 in each of ten loans. He/she chooses not to invest in a new small loan because they might only get £300 of it. Investor B also has £1,000 invested in each of the same ten loans. However B does invest in the new small loan, in spite of the fact that they will only get £300 of it. Now I accept the point that A might want the same amount in all loans, and I accept that A might not want small parts, but those choosing not to buy into a smaller loan because "I won't get enough of it" end up with less diversification as a result. What am I missing? I don't necessarily agree with the post but I think I can explain it. The BH are investing much more than £1000 - up to 5 or 6 figures. They cannot effectively diversify into £300 lumps which would hardly touch their larger investments.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 4, 2016 18:43:57 GMT
I understand that. But there's a difference between an absolute statement like "...no longer be able to...", and a more nuanced one that says "... no longer be able to effectively with smaller loans...".
|
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Jan 4, 2016 19:25:40 GMT
Sorry for the dumb question but what is BH and CB in this context please?
TIA
LW
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Jan 4, 2016 19:27:26 GMT
BH = "Big Hitter".
CB = "Cash Back".
|
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Jan 4, 2016 19:37:33 GMT
BH = "Big Hitter". CB = "Cash Back". Thanks - I was trying to find other platforms matching the initials. LW
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 3,242
|
Post by jonno on Jan 5, 2016 10:27:09 GMT
I think with regards to tax the answer is easier. I would vote to abolish it. I don't much fancy living in a violent and lawless hellhole, so I'm less than keen on that idea. You're not from Manchester then?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Jan 5, 2016 17:39:43 GMT
Out of interest what would the % allocation been under the previous method? Or would savingstream be prepared to say what the total amount pre-funded was for this loan? It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure how informative the answer would be as I suspect people may already have taken SS's notice that PBL074 would be filled by the 'bottom-up' method to mean that there was no point in inflating their pre-funding amounts for that loan. So they wouldn't have bothered to increase their pre-funding as they would have if the old 'percentage' method was going to be used. And they might even have reduced their pre-funding to more realistic amounts, though with no penalty for excessive pre-funding there really was no incentive to reduce existing high settings. Can someone remind me whether or not the new pre-funding limitation -- being the greater of £10k or your SS account size -- had already been implemented by the time of PBL073's release?
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Jan 6, 2016 8:46:53 GMT
Or would savingstream be prepared to say what the total amount pre-funded was for this loan? It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure how informative the answer would be as I suspect people may already have taken SS's notice that PBL074 would be filled by the 'bottom-up' method to mean that there was no point in inflating their pre-funding amounts for that loan. So they wouldn't have bothered to increase their pre-funding as they would have if the old 'percentage' method was going to be used. And they might even have reduced their pre-funding to more realistic amounts, though with no penalty for excessive pre-funding there really was no incentive to reduce existing high settings. Can someone remind me whether or not the new pre-funding limitation -- being the greater of £10k or your SS account size -- had already been implemented by the time of PBL073's release? 15/12 new pre fund limits introduced 18/12 PBL073 launched
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Jan 6, 2016 10:02:20 GMT
It's an interesting question, but I'm not sure how informative the answer would be as I suspect people may already have taken SS's notice that PBL074 would be filled by the 'bottom-up' method to mean that there was no point in inflating their pre-funding amounts for that loan. So they wouldn't have bothered to increase their pre-funding as they would have if the old 'percentage' method was going to be used. And they might even have reduced their pre-funding to more realistic amounts, though with no penalty for excessive pre-funding there really was no incentive to reduce existing high settings. Can someone remind me whether or not the new pre-funding limitation -- being the greater of £10k or your SS account size -- had already been implemented by the time of PBL073's release? 15/12 new pre fund limits introduced 18/12 PBL073 launched Was curious as much as anything. To be able to compare with other pre-fund stats as in Investor 's list and was wondering along the lines outlined by mikes1531 above.
|
|
Depends if the expression on his face is sufficiently foul. 
