duck
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,871 
Likes: 6,914
Member is Online
|
Post by duck on Feb 20, 2016 8:56:12 GMT
They are not, the point I was making is that the number of 'investors' could well be inflated by people like me who have more than one account. Sure. And the point I was making was that they cannot know that - so they can only count the number of names on accounts. You are three people. .... apologies if my response read a bit like 'stating the bl..ding obvious', wasn't meant to. Personally I'm not sure if knowing 'how the number of investors is calculated' really accomplishes anything really meaningful. There is potential PR spin possibilities for having the highest number quoted and a higher number might attract new 'waverers'... but that has potential to back fire if loans don't fill. Active investor numbers with a guide range of investment size would certainly be very interesting ..... but we will never see that.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 20, 2016 9:58:17 GMT
I have been following this thread from the start but I cannot understand the reason behind it. Does it make a difference to us (lenders) knowing the exact figure? Isn't it more meaningful knowing how many lenders are active in a particular loan?
|
|
|
|
Post by wiseclerk on Feb 20, 2016 11:13:02 GMT
It doesn't really matter for the average investor, I think. To me it is interesting as I watch market trends and collect data on various marketplaces. Number of investors can be an interesting metric if it is active investors and not only registered investors.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 20, 2016 12:06:01 GMT
I have been following this thread from the start but I cannot understand the reason behind it. Does it make a difference to us (lenders) knowing the exact figure? Isn't it more meaningful knowing how many lenders are active in a particular loan? It was just me thinking out aloud   . There has been much talk about the difficulty of the SM and allocation of funds on the PM, and many (including me) use the "number of investor" figure stated on the SS website to argue the point; " of course it is going to be hard; there are xxxx investors on SS". However, the information provided on the SS wedsite seems to be a bad basis for that argument, as it seems to include investors who have invested, but have since sold all investments (i.e. their account is dormant). It's also nice to know because it is an indication of how the platform in performing. This is me typing out loud, and just an observation; 6000 investors seem's to be a best-case scenario, which would indicate that the average investor has about £11,500.00 of current investments but when looking at the worst case scenario that there are only 1700 investors it would indicate that the average investor has about £39,785.00. Personally, I would prefer the indicated "number of investors" to be only active investors.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgeydave on Feb 20, 2016 12:11:29 GMT
I have been following this thread from the start but I cannot understand the reason behind it. Does it make a difference to us (lenders) knowing the exact figure? Isn't it more meaningful knowing how many lenders are active in a particular loan? It was just me thinking out aloud . There has been much talk about the difficulty of the SM and allocation of funds on the PM, and many (including me) use the "number of investor" figure stated on the SS website to argue the point; " of course it is going to be hard; there are xxxx investors on SS". However, the information provided on the SS wedsite seems to be a bad basis for that argument, as it seems to include investors who have invested, but have since sold all investments (i.e. their account is dormant). It's also nice to know because it is an indication of how the platform in performing. This is me typing out loud, and just an observation; 6000 investors seem's to be a best-case scenario, which would indicate that the average investor has about £11,500.00 of current investments but when looking at the worst case scenario that there are only 1700 investors it would indicate that the average investor has about £39,785.00. Personally, I would prefer the indicated "number of investors" to be only active investors. Good point. But how do you decide who is an active investor. An account may be dormant for a number of reason. But you could trade at any time.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 20, 2016 12:16:43 GMT
It was just me thinking out aloud . There has been much talk about the difficulty of the SM and allocation of funds on the PM, and many (including me) use the "number of investor" figure stated on the SS website to argue the point; " of course it is going to be hard; there are xxxx investors on SS". However, the information provided on the SS wedsite seems to be a bad basis for that argument, as it seems to include investors who have invested, but have since sold all investments (i.e. their account is dormant). It's also nice to know because it is an indication of how the platform in performing. This is me typing out loud, and just an observation; 6000 investors seem's to be a best-case scenario, which would indicate that the average investor has about £11,500.00 of current investments but when looking at the worst case scenario that there are only 1700 investors it would indicate that the average investor has about £39,785.00. Personally, I would prefer the indicated "number of investors" to be only active investors. Good point. But how do you decide who is an active investor. An account may be dormant for a number of reason. But you could trade at any time. You also make a good point I think the best method would be; any investor with any amount invested in a current loan. I don't think SS will be too keen to change their current system for "number of investors" though... larger numbers (regardless of their importance) will alway give people more confidence in the platform.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Feb 20, 2016 12:22:23 GMT
It would be much easier to understand if all platforms changed the definition to "members with deposited funds" instead of an ambiguous "members" description.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Feb 20, 2016 12:27:04 GMT
Thincats for example has two member figures; 1, registered members, 2, members with funds. Although on loans it has the total value of loans made, but not the current value of the loan book, which again makes the site look bigger than it is. www.thincats.com/lending/statistics/ |
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Feb 20, 2016 12:34:05 GMT
Then we could look at ss's stats on loans; 189m security held vs 68m live loan book, implying a LTV across the platform of 36%. Totally misleading.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Feb 20, 2016 12:44:41 GMT
Thincats for example has two member figures; 1, registered members, 2, members with funds. Although on loans it has the total value of loans made, but not the current value of the loan book, which again makes the site look bigger than it is. www.thincats.com/lending/statistics/Great link Liz If we take TC "Number of members with funds (%)" as being 39.09%, we could assume (maybe illogically) that this percentage would be fairly consistent from one P2P site to another. So if we presume that SS "number of investor" is in fact, the total amount of people that have signed up to the platform, then SS own "Number of members with funds" would be near to 2500. That sounds about right to me; 2500 who have current investments with SS, with about 68% of these members actively taking part in the PM.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 20, 2016 13:12:10 GMT
I'm starting to understand. So if 2500 is the figure of current (active) members, then it will result to an average of £27053 (calculating from figures quoted above)
[average of £39,785.00 for 1700 members gives a total of £67,634,500.
divided by 2500 members results in £27,053.08]
I have to say I wish I am close to that average. Will be one day (hopefully).
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,005
Likes: 5,139
Member is Online
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 20, 2016 13:50:47 GMT
Isn't it more meaningful knowing how many lenders are active in a particular loan? Even that's only really meaningful when you're considering how hard to game pre-funds, but a much more useful figure would be to look back at previous pre-fund amounts. If I've got <say> a grand of a particular loan, I don't much care if the other £2,999,000 is from one other investor or 6,400.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 20, 2016 14:31:28 GMT
Yes, but that's driving by looking in the rear view mirror .. if the 'gaming function' on the last loan was 2.5x, (i..e you got 40% of what you bid), and there were 2500 active investors then, you probably need a different number next time if there are now 4500 active investors; and you probably need a higher gaming function anyway, since the less-than-fully-gruntled from the 2500 may well up their own bids next time in a vain attempt to get something closer to what they wanted (unless of course 40% of their bid was what they really wanted . .that's the trouble with % allocation gaming).
|
|
spiral
Member of DD Central
Posts: 967
Likes: 486
|
Post by spiral on Feb 20, 2016 15:51:02 GMT
If we take TC "Number of members with funds (%)" as being 39.09%, we could assume (maybe illogically) that this percentage would be fairly consistent from one P2P site to another. I think that these numbers too are misleading. I am on TC and have funds deposited but for 2 years now, I have made no new investments and am withdrawing repayments each month. I therefore don't consider myself an active investor. With regards to the 39% being representative, I think that number would be fairly representative all things being equal but many companies (and TC is not one) offer incentives to sign up. I suspect many do (I know of a few on other platforms) and just comply with the T&C's to get the incentive. Then bail out.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 20, 2016 18:25:54 GMT
Thincats for example ... ... on loans it has the total value of loans made, but not the current value of the loan book, which again makes the site look bigger than it is. Zopa do the same -- "Over 63,000 people have lent over £1.33bn through us."
Since they've been operating for over 10 years, a good proportion of those loans will have reached maturity, and many of those lenders will have left. In addition, I expect there will be lots of lenders in my position -- I still have an 'active' account, but I haven't made a new Zopa loan in nearly two years and I'm just letting the account run down as I withdraw all the repayments.
|
|
. There has been much talk about the difficulty of the SM and allocation of funds on the PM, and many (including me) use the "number of investor" figure stated on the SS website to argue the point; "of course it is going to be hard; there are xxxx investors on SS". However, the information provided on the SS wedsite seems to be a bad basis for that argument, as it seems to include investors who have invested, but have since sold all investments (i.e. their account is dormant).
