Insulting

Actually apparently there are fractions of pennies. Tried to sell part of a loan today and it kept auto resetting the final digit down by one. When I finally gave up trying to change it and executed, it asked if I wanted to sell x.9999999999998. Then had to go back in and sell a penny to clear funding defecit. Odd thing was I wasnt trying to sell my whole holdiing

I have my opinion that's all, but I do also respect yours.  No hard feelings I hope; I'm happy to agree to disagree  .

Interested in others opinion's, I don't think so ... unless they agree with you of course

I like SS as a platform, and I like the product.  My main interest is in its long term sustainability so that I can contribute to it and benefit from it.  I understand their emphasis on KISS (for instance I have little sympathy with the recent negative reviews on TrustPilot), but I think that, along with deal flow, the SM as it is currently implemented, is one significant platform weakness.  I'm over-simplifying, but you can run a lending business with £5m of loans and 500 lenders on a spreadsheet.  You can't run a £100m lending business with 10,000 lenders on a spreadsheet.  At some point the KISS principle will have to sit down and have a frank discussion with reality.

To be long term sustainable the SM needs to be effective and equitable.  At the moment it is not.  There are ways that it could be more so, but it will require investment by SS, and may disadvantage some current investors.  I think that's a trade worth doing, but it's not up to me .

Whether held by SS, or by lenders, the view that the "SM is only for selling" is naive.  For every seller there needs to be a buyer (cooling_dude, don't forget that it wasn't that long ago that you were quite happy that you'd managed to get £48k invested on the platform via the SM ).  Personally speaking I have targets for loans.  The last few days have seen me not meet those targets in the PM (because I am not willing to overfund).  Neither have I been able to effectively invest repayments / interest in the SM, largely because of the current implementation.  Up to a point I'm ok with that, but it does mean that I am effectively withdrawing funds from the platform.  As contrarian indicated, this may change over the next month or two as the pipeline comes to fruition, I hope so.  Similarly changes to the way the PM works would help eg bottom up for all loans, but I accept that this may negatively impact "big hitters".

Interestingly, months ago I had an email chat with SS because I was contemplating significantly increasing my investment.  It went well, and I decided to do so.  I was planning to increase it fivefold.  Now I fully accept that it would be stupid to expect this to happen overnight, but the fact that my investment, instead of increasing, has actually decreased is.... telling.  Put it down to deal flow, increased numbers of lenders, some loans I didn't like, and SM shenanigans.

Pre-funding has improved, and will hopefully continue to improve.  Bots have been eliminated (even if people taking advantage of SM mechanisms hasn't).  Deal flow is looking up.  So I haven't given up, and will continue to invest via the PM, but those defending the status quo should understand that frustrations are real, and rational.

What about people who would like to have a relatively even spread of loans in their portfolio?  If they limit themselves to the PM, then they will get a relatively small amount of sub-£1M loans and no chance of increasing that.  For larger loans, they can't predict how much they might receive from their pre-funding, so they either just put in a slightly inflated request and hope they get what they want, or they put in a grossly inflated request and plan to sell off the excess if the SM will take it from them.  IMHO they'd be a lot better off -- and probably willing to invest more at SS -- if they had a chance of rebalancing their portfolio via the SM.

And for those who keep saying that the main purpose of the SM is to allow a quick exit...  Aren't you forgetting that there are two sides to every transaction?  One side is selling so that they can get their money back.  But the other side must, by definition, be buying because they're trying either to increase their investment or to rebalance their portfolio.  Since there must be as many £££ changing hands buying as selling, the SM must be fulfilling both purposes.

In shifting to bottom-up allocations for smaller loans, SS have tried to make the PM allocations 'fairer'.  The next logical step, ISTM, would be to try to make the SM fairer as well.  Changing the PM allocation method had no obvious impact of SS's ability to fund loans.  IMHO, there's no reason to believe that a shift in SM allocation away from fastest finger first, winner takes all, would have any significant impact on sellers' ability to exit loans quickly.

I can never buy on the SM, so don't even try,I just "game" the PM. Personally I have no problem with the SM, but a tweak would seem fair and appease members.
Just limit bids to say £500, with a 30 sec delay, and remove this once the situation changes.
Then again aren't we just asking SS to spend money and time to fix a minor issue, and like has been said, the PM is the place to build a portfolio, SM buys are a bonus.

I don't know, just bring back the PBL0005 days, old members will understand.