cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 17, 2016 21:05:52 GMT
Well done contrarian ; This entire post is summed up perfectly in that picture.  
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Feb 17, 2016 21:05:56 GMT
I think I have finally found the wisdom not to try to win all arguments on the internet.
Now, is anybody selling CDS on SS loans?
|
|
|
|
Post by Duane Dibley on Feb 17, 2016 21:15:38 GMT
Just be patient with the pre-funding for peat sake, and try your luck with the SM when larger loans come through the pipeline. Once upon a time, not so very long ago, patience was considered a virtue. But that was back in the day when Saving Stream offered £10,000 loans on old narrowboats and we thought we were lucky when a £50,000 speedboat loan came along. Unfortunately with the new intake of investors it's a case of 'I want it all and I want it NOW'.
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Feb 17, 2016 21:15:59 GMT
Same old scaremongering and straw man arguments. No-one is suggesting abolishing the SM or significantly altering it even. Just a slight tweak, that in itself can easily be tweaked again, if necessary, to address a manifest problem that - judging by the poll - over half of users are experiencing. Implementing a queuing system would not be a small tweak; it would require a lot of programming, and quite simply from Lendy Ltd point of view it is completely unnecessary Lendy Ltd is current easily getting the money for all its loans; so how does changing the SM help them? I have not advocated a queuing system. What we have is an unfair situation. Why? Because some people are leveraging their younger, faster reflexes/superior internet/automated tools to achieve what is known as "faster finger first"? Nope. That's life, and we cannot easily expect SS to do much about that, aside perhaps from killing the overt bots, which they claim to have done. However, and it's a very distinct question.... Should such superior advantage grant such lucky people the opportunity to completely dominate the SM, by appropriating, in one bite, any loan part, however large, to the detriment and clear and increasing frustration of an unknown number of would-be buyers? I say that is a wholly disproportionate advantage, and inconsistent with the changes to prefunding, which were intended to give smaller investors a chance of something... The answer, rather obviously, is to introduce a very slight handicap, to those who are otherwise advantaged by their reflexes and technology. A limit on any one transaction, of say £250/£500/£1000, whatever savingstream feels appropriate, based on experimentation and market conditions, no doubt. A safety valve is incorporated to ensure, as far as possible, that liquidity is never impacted, and all parts are sold the same day. Very simple to implement and modify, it is merely input validation and substitution, at the front end of the system. The pseudocode is as follows:- 'new pseudocode
IF TIME() < "23:00:00" AND bid > 500
bid = 500
ENDIF
'end of new code
EXECUTE(bid)
|
|
|
|
Post by meledor on Feb 17, 2016 21:23:48 GMT
If fastest-finger is good for the SM, then why isn't it good for the PM? What was wrong with the way loans were launched before?
Because the PM and SM have different purposes. The purpose of the primary market is for Saving Stream to be able to get the new loans funded in way that is fair to lenders so that they will continue to lend. The purpose of the secondary market is to enable those lenders to sell those loans when they want to. It is therefore in the interest of both Saving Stream and lenders for there to be different methods used on the PM and SM which reflect these different objectives. There seems to be a mistaken belief that the SM is there to as a means to dramatically increase the size of one's lending when it is the PM that is the means to do that, especially in a state of excess demand.
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Feb 17, 2016 21:27:10 GMT
I really don't have too much of an axe to grind with reCAPTCHA as I'm about fully invested. Do I feel insulted by having to use it? Well, not really, but it is most definitely a pain in the proverbial, and I have much sympathy with all who have reported the 'impossibility' of it's use. I gave up with it after the first couple of days as there was no improvement over what went before for me. I tried again today as there was a substantial amount for sale, and I can report that I did manage to make my first two SM purchases. However, two successes from 70-80 attempts doesn't give me great incentive to waste more time. What really annoyed me today has been the "I'm all right Jack" attitude of some who find the current system suits them. Any suggestion to make the SM accessible, with ease, for all is apparently likely to result in Armageddon! Heaven forbid that they lose the advantage over others they've found. As for the dismissive, sometimes contemptuous, sometimes overly aggressive, attitude of whose who appear not to be able to accept that the experience of others might be as valid as their own, well........I don't dare put my feelings in print. If there's one thing I can't stand it's intolerance!  |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 17, 2016 21:28:33 GMT
Implementing a queuing system would not be a small tweak; it would require a lot of programming, and quite simply from Lendy Ltd point of view it is completely unnecessary Lendy Ltd is current easily getting the money for all its loans; so how does changing the SM help them? I have not advocated a queuing system. What we have is an unfair situation. Why? Because some people are leveraging their younger, faster reflexes/superior internet/automated tools to achieve what is known as "faster finger first"? Nope. That's life, and we cannot easily expect SS to do much about that, aside perhaps from killing the overt bots, which they claim to have done. However, and it's a very distinct question.... Should such superior advantage grant such lucky people the opportunity to completely dominate the SM, by appropriating, in one bite, any loan part, however large, to the detriment and clear and increasing frustration of an unknown number of would-be buyers? I say that is a wholly disproportionate advantage, and inconsistent with the changes to prefunding, which were intended to give smaller investors a chance of something... The answer, rather obviously, is to introduce a very slight handicap, to those who are otherwise advantaged by their reflexes and technology. A limit on any one transaction, of say £250/£500/£1000, whatever SS feels appropriate, based on experimentation and market conditions, no doubt. A safety valve is incorporated to ensure, as far as possibly, that liquidity is never impacted, and all parts are sold the same day. Very simple to implement and modify, it is merely input validation and substitution, at the front end of the system. The pseudocode is as follows:-
This would make no difference. There are 6000 investors on SS; if only 1% are trying to grab a loan on the SM, then that makes 60 people simultaneity trying to invest in that one loan. A time delay wouldn't solve that issue. The reason for the very liquid SM ATM is because of the lack of activity on the PM. When some of the larger loans materialise, the SM will become easier to invest in. To a certain extent we saw that this morning, and even in the lead-up, such as late last night; the SM was very easy to invest in and no fastest finger first required.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 17, 2016 21:29:31 GMT
meledor .. So we should bring back the bots then? They definitely improved liquidity (by several seconds). @cooling_dude .. yep, in any undersupply/overdemand situation, someone is going to lose out .. the same applies to the PM. I'm not sure why people think the logical solution to the problem is different in the two cases. I'd rather see something fairer for SM sales too, and it would NOT impact liquidity (in fact it would probably make the demand a bit more obvious. right now all we know is demand>supply .. not by how much).
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Feb 17, 2016 21:36:14 GMT
I have not advocated a queuing system. What we have is an unfair situation. Why? Because some people are leveraging their younger, faster reflexes/superior internet/automated tools to achieve what is known as "faster finger first"? Nope. That's life, and we cannot easily expect SS to do much about that, aside perhaps from killing the overt bots, which they claim to have done. However, and it's a very distinct question.... Should such superior advantage grant such lucky people the opportunity to completely dominate the SM, by appropriating, in one bite, any loan part, however large, to the detriment and clear and increasing frustration of an unknown number of would-be buyers? I say that is a wholly disproportionate advantage, and inconsistent with the changes to prefunding, which were intended to give smaller investors a chance of something... The answer, rather obviously, is to introduce a very slight handicap, to those who are otherwise advantaged by their reflexes and technology. A limit on any one transaction, of say £250/£500/£1000, whatever SS feels appropriate, based on experimentation and market conditions, no doubt. A safety valve is incorporated to ensure, as far as possibly, that liquidity is never impacted, and all parts are sold the same day. Very simple to implement and modify, it is merely input validation and substitution, at the front end of the system. The pseudocode is as follows:- 'new pseudocode
IF TIME() < "23:00:00" AND bid > 500
bid = 500
ENDIF
'end of new code
EXECUTE(bid)
This would make no difference. There are 6000 investors on SS; if only 1% are trying to grab a loan on the SM, then that makes 60 people simultaneity trying to invest in that one loan. A time delay wouldn't solve that issue. It's not a time delay. It's a single transaction limit (with unlimited transactions), and a time release of the limit.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 17, 2016 21:41:29 GMT
meledor .. So we should bring back the bots then? They definitely improved liquidity (by several seconds). @cooling_dude .. yep, in any undersupply/overdemand situation, someone is going to lose out .. the same applies to the PM. I'm not sure why people think the logical solution to the problem is different in the two cases. I'd rather see something fairer for SM sales too, and it would NOT impact liquidity (in fact it would probably make the demand a bit more obvious. right now all we know is demand>supply .. not by how much). I'm not saying it would affect liquidity; I'm saying we don't know that it won't affect liquidity. It works at the moment, and the SM is very liquid; why would Lendy Ltd want to (or indeed need to) risk that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2016 21:58:30 GMT
solicitorius, it's a bad idea. If you've ever watched bots snapping up E rated loans in £20 parts on funding circle, you'd realize that limiting transaction size doesn't help.
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Feb 17, 2016 22:02:33 GMT
meledor .. So we should bring back the bots then? They definitely improved liquidity (by several seconds). @cooling_dude .. yep, in any undersupply/overdemand situation, someone is going to lose out .. the same applies to the PM. I'm not sure why people think the logical solution to the problem is different in the two cases. I'd rather see something fairer for SM sales too, and it would NOT impact liquidity (in fact it would probably make the demand a bit more obvious. right now all we know is demand>supply .. not by how much). I'm not saying it would affect liquidity; I'm saying we don't know that it won't affect liquidity. It works at the moment, and the SM is very liquid; why would Lendy Ltd want to (or indeed need to) risk that? They're not risking anything, with a minimal, easily adjustable/removable tweak. No more than they risk anything by tweaking the PM. What they are risking is increasing negative energy/negative vibes surrounding the platform, after an extraordinarily good year for everyone. That is worth something. Take a look a TrustPilot. There has to be a positive way forward, just as there was with the PM. Repetitive scaremongering, and empty rhetoric does not get us further forward.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 17, 2016 22:03:54 GMT
Unfortuntly most people on here are wanting to use the secondary market to diversify. The reason behind the secondary is to give you the option to sell if you need to for whatever reason it was never designed to be used primarily for diversification that was just a bonus to others that wanted it. From SS point of view it works fine why change it.
|
|
|
|
Post by solicitorious on Feb 17, 2016 22:04:22 GMT
solicitorius, it's a bad idea. If you've ever watched bots snapping up E rated loans in £20 parts on funding circle, you'd realize that limiting transaction size doesn't help. What bots on SS? I thought we had that covered? And, btw, I've never had a problem picking up E parts on FC. I think you're scaremongering.... As it happens, I have £10k of E parts up for sale there at the moment. If you hurry you might beat the bots. Toodle-pip! Next! 
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 17, 2016 22:10:10 GMT
I'm not saying it would affect liquidity; I'm saying we don't know that it won't affect liquidity. It works at the moment, and the SM is very liquid; why would Lendy Ltd want to (or indeed need to) risk that? They're not risking anything, with a minimal, easily adjustable/removable tweak. No more than they risk anything by tweaking the PM. What they are risking is increasing negative energy/negative vibes surrounding the platform, after an extraordinarily good year for everyone. That is worth something. Take a look a TrustPilot. There has to be a positive way forward, just as there was with the PM. Repetitive scaremongering, and empty rhetoric does not get us further forward. It's not scaremongering; it's just my (any many other people's) honest opinion, which just happens to be different to your own. And what empty rhetoric do you mean; I thought we were having a healthy grown up argument ! I just can't understand why you're in such a hurry to invest your money; why can't you just wait for the PM?
|
|
