ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204 
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 12, 2016 16:48:26 GMT
I joined Saving Stream shortly before "Bot Wars" broke out. However, if I was joining today, I'd probably be leaving tomorrow. Having watched bots being tested, without any sanctions being applied to the culprits, I can only conclude there's a distinct lack of leadership behind the scenes. Granted, their business model means that finding credible borrowers will always be their highest priority, but keeping lenders happy doesn't appear to feature at all on their list of concerns right now, making me wonder if they have more pressing problems that they're not telling us about! After all, how difficult would it be to send out an email that threatens to freeze the buying rights entirely of offenders, and cash out all their recent investments?? If SS cannot even address the problem with a simple mailshot, I fear for their future. I cannot disagree more strongly with you on the highlighted point. SS have shown that they can build a strong platform which has a lot of positive points and advantages compared to competitors. If there are people who are abusing that is not SS' fault. We do not know what they are brewing behind the scene and probably not making their aims publicly known is part of a plan. People have clearly shown that they are ready to learn the rules of a system to be able to use them, extend them, bend them . . . in their favour. So what is better than if you are planning anything that stops such abuse than to not allow all the information that prevents this from becoming public in the first place?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 12, 2016 16:51:10 GMT
I don't think you can avoid the bot argument when talking about this subject! As a relative early adopter of Assetz and SS, the SS 'problem' is much the same as Assetz in the early days (platform 'too popular' - impossible to get parts) - Assetz solution was to use targets etc. all making it more complex and removing the immediacy of lending to a particular borrower. I like SS because it's simple and would really resist it using complications to ration parts, so banning bots would give us a better chance given the undersupply of loans. But it'd not change the underlying problem - the elephant in the room here which is that SS's 12% plus it's simple 'buy now pay later' model is too attractive given the alternatives. My bet is that it could get away with 10% if it kept the same simple buy now pay later model.... it could then up its deal flow...... Space available to be flamed here [...................] Jack P If you are happy to get 10% instead of 12% you can return the difference to SS or give them to charity. As for myself I prefer the 12% as I need the money.
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 12, 2016 17:29:36 GMT
I still think setting a maximum amount you can invest in one loan on the SM for 24hr period would solve the issue of bots - it would be fairly easy to implement for SS too as MT and FS easily do it on new loans
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jan 12, 2016 17:47:33 GMT
I still think setting a maximum amount you can invest in one loan on the SM for 24hr period would solve the issue of bots - it would be fairly easy to implement for SS too as MT and FS easily do it on new loans But the level at which to set such a limit would be hard to get right. Occasionally very large holdings (tens of thousands) can be placed on the SM, which might take many days to sell if accounts are limited to a couple of hundred pounds per day. But set limits much higher than this and the bots will get most parts regardless. At the very least, such limits would have to be customised by loan size.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunspot on Jan 12, 2016 18:26:20 GMT
Rationing purchases on a per user basis per 24 hours would cause unnecessary damage to liquidity. Several other solutions have been proposed that would have no such negative impacts, and would tackle the problem at its very root.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Jan 12, 2016 18:51:29 GMT
[quote timestamp="1452611037"
All you have written is explained how AC works. I know because I use AC (but much less than before). The problem which you haven't covered is:
a) you end up with loads of shrapnel with different start dates - very difficult to keep track of in terms of interest calculations. When I say difficult I do not mean mathemetically hard but unnecessarily cumbersome for the amounts involved.
b) it does not solve the issue of excess demand - loans that were popular you don't even get shrapnel.
AC solved the problem of excess demand by having riskier loans (risky in terms of the borrower lacking credibility rather than asset security) or else reducing interest rates and then offering collective funds at even lower rates. Let's hope SS do not follow suit. Strange as it may seem, I use AC too .. also less than I used to. The shrapnel can, as far as I am concerned, cheerfully be aggregated .. start date is not exciting except for interest calculation, which is what computers were invented for, I could handle 'you now have £x and £z interest' without needing to know exactly which minute the bits arrived (if I want to know I have a computer for that too). b) is true, as I have said in several threads here (and hopefully SS are working it as #1 priority) .. apart from lack of (new) deal flow, the problem is that the SM is =not= a market, there is no pricing or balancing mechanism. Right now we have too many buyers, not enough sellers - it could easily go the other way (with dire liquidity results). If it keeps up I guess we can expect to see SS chasing more volume with lower rates (including lower rates for us), or trying to throttle demand some other way (negative cashbacks?!? refusal to accept new lenders or new funds from existing ones?).
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 12, 2016 19:10:46 GMT
Rationing purchases on a per user basis per 24 hours would cause unnecessary damage to liquidity. Several other solutions have been proposed that would have no such negative impacts, and would tackle the problem at its very root. I don't think it would have a problem with liquidity if it was set at a reasonable level of say £500 per loan. There appears to be enough buyers available on SS that even at a much lower threshold would probably not take long to sell. £10k chunk would only need 20 buyers and even £100k only 200. This would be much better than one or two people getting all of the £10k/£100k Obviously for launches of new loans and the left overs that are sizable amounts (100k+), then this could be lifted This DOES get to the root of the problem, bots won't be able to hover up everything as they would need multiple accounts The other suggestions are just not workable - how do you protect against a bot?
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenbiscuits on Jan 12, 2016 19:14:15 GMT
I got an email confirming my loan part had been bought before the one telling me I had put it up for sale had arrived.
Based on the above, the Secondary market is definitely working.
As for buying on the secondary market I found myself up at the wee hours over the Xmas break and picked up a fair bit. Ive not tried to buy in january, Has it changed to the point where you still can't buy at 2am when the bots are sleeping?
|
|
|
|
Post by highlandtiger on Jan 12, 2016 19:15:40 GMT
This thread is currently at 3 pages of people trying to change the SM with various complicated systems. At a risk of repeating myself. IT ISN'T complicated. Just BAN bots. Change the T&C's to stress that bots are banned and anyone using them will find themselves not able to use SS. It's not complicated, it doesn't need to copy other p2p companies, it doesn't need convoluted queuing systems, or bidding processes, it just needs to get rid of automated systems. Is it really that difficult to understand and implement.  |
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 12, 2016 19:16:53 GMT
I'd also be happy with a pre-funding method, a bit like AC and how SS currently distribute new loans
I choose an amount I want to invest on the SM, SS allocates evenly to all lenders a proportion of whatever is put on the SM to everyone who has set a prefund limit
If the pre-fund limits are reached, it goes up for grabs in the normal way on the SM
You can't say THAT would limit liquidity!
|
|
stevio
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,065
Likes: 894
|
Post by stevio on Jan 12, 2016 19:18:36 GMT
This thread is currently at 3 pages of people trying to change the SM with various complicated systems. At a risk of repeating myself. IT ISN'T complicated. Just BAN bots. Change the T&C's to stress that bots are banned and anyone using them will find themselves not able to use SS. It's not complicated, it doesn't need to copy other p2p companies, it doesn't need convoluted queuing systems, or bidding processes, it just needs to get rid of automated systems. Is it really that difficult to understand and implement. But how do you distinguish between bots and people who are the quickest on the draw?
|
|
|
|
Post by highlandtiger on Jan 12, 2016 19:25:09 GMT
This thread is currently at 3 pages of people trying to change the SM with various complicated systems. At a risk of repeating myself. IT ISN'T complicated. Just BAN bots. Change the T&C's to stress that bots are banned and anyone using them will find themselves not able to use SS. It's not complicated, it doesn't need to copy other p2p companies, it doesn't need convoluted queuing systems, or bidding processes, it just needs to get rid of automated systems. Is it really that difficult to understand and implement. But how do you distinguish between bots and people who are the quickest on the draw? Quite easy really, most people require around 5-10 seconds to purchase a loan part. Anything that buys something quicker than say 5 seconds after a loan appears, and does it regularly with a similar purchase time, will be a bot. I assume bots are able to purchase within a second or two, something that most people just can't match doing it manually.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jan 12, 2016 19:27:59 GMT
If you are happy to get 10% instead of 12% you can return the difference to SS or give them to charity. As for myself I prefer the 12% as I need the money. I was happy as it was two years ago with 12% and able to buy and sell - adjust up and down - 12% is no use to me if it is inaccessible. £300 per new loan is barely worth bothering with. If SS knocked 2% off lenders and borrowers, deal flow would rocket up and we'd get a lot more - albeit at less %. That would be totally dependent on it staying as 'buy now pay later' and SIMPLE and not some Assetz clone. Anyone wishing for more deal flow has to accept that either interest rates need to go down or quality goes down to get more borrowers. Mind you SS has yet to have a default - that'd burst the bubble! Jack P
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Jan 12, 2016 19:42:15 GMT
If you are happy to get 10% instead of 12% you can return the difference to SS or give them to charity. As for myself I prefer the 12% as I need the money. I was happy as it was two years ago with 12% and able to buy and sell - adjust up and down - 12% is no use to me if it is inaccessible. £300 per new loan is barely worth bothering with. If SS knocked 2% off lenders and borrowers, deal flow would rocket up and we'd get a lot more - albeit at less %. That would be totally dependent on it staying as 'buy now pay later' and SIMPLE and not some Assetz clone. Anyone wishing for more deal flow has to accept that either interest rates need to go down or quality goes down to get more borrowers. Mind you SS has yet to have a default - that'd burst the bubble! Jack P I've read that SS already had a default and they dealt with it well. Re Assetz - I do not that modelling SS on AC is going to solve any problems. I recently joined AC and I have money there waiting to be invested. Yes I get 3.75% on it but what is that compared to 12%. On SS I do not have to transfer money before I buy and I do not want to loose that. I would prefer as you said the situation as it was 2 years ago, but you have to accept that there are more people now and we have to allow for everyone. This includes the £300 that you quote on smaller loans. Not everyone has the amount of money that you imply. Re others talking about a minimum bid to avoid shrapnel, I think that a minimum bid need to take account smaller bidders. Also it need to consider that it should allow for any interest paid to be invested. If someone earns less than, let us say £100 in a month why should that person be allowed to buy a loan part?
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Jan 12, 2016 20:09:35 GMT
Quite easy really, most people require around 5-10 seconds to purchase a loan part. Anything that buys something quicker than say 5 seconds after a loan appears, and does it regularly with a similar purchase time, will be a bot. I assume bots are able to purchase within a second or two, something that most people just can't match doing it manually. I'm pretty sure I can buy a loan part quicker than 5 seconds when I'm seriously fighting for it. You'll have to set the time lower. But you'll still catch any well-written bots. You've undoubtedly upset GSV with your 'second or two' comment - he gets all sniffy when anyone says his Dove bot takes more than half a second.
|
|
