imp
Posts: 9 
Likes: 4
|
Post by imp on Feb 22, 2016 12:25:54 GMT
Okay - what's the glaring flaw in requiring people to have the funds available for their pre-funding? Because if you don't get all you ask for then you have money tied up in SS and have to wait 24hrs to get it out again. This is a grown ups platform where we are trusted to pay up after the loans are allocated and makes SS one of the best! LW This is still asking for funding after the allocation. It just means that instead of people putting what they don't want to pay for on the SM, for the first 24 hours it goes back to other pre-funders who did not get their full allocation.
|
|
imp
Posts: 9
Likes: 4
|
Post by imp on Feb 22, 2016 12:27:10 GMT
Okay - what's the glaring flaw in requiring people to have the funds available for their pre-funding? It means having idle money sitting earning nothing. The system as it is now is working. I don't see where that would happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Feb 22, 2016 12:52:51 GMT
I understand from SS that it was 2.5x over funded as of this morning. This suggests we'd get about 40% of our pre-fund (assuming it remains at 2.5x). It won't remain there now (rushing off to increase prefund even more)! Is this gaming if you are prepared to pay for and hold any excess until it can be sold? I'd call it a 'feature' rather than 'gaming' - an entirely logical and considered reaction to loan scarcity and the knowledge that it is hard to diversify on the secondary market. Jack P
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on Feb 22, 2016 12:57:58 GMT
Okay - what's the glaring flaw in requiring people to have the funds available for their pre-funding? It means having idle money sitting earning nothing. The system as it is now is working. Exactly. Nobody wants to lose this valuable function.
|
|
imp
Posts: 9
Likes: 4
|
Post by imp on Feb 22, 2016 13:03:50 GMT
It means having idle money sitting earning nothing. The system as it is now is working. Exactly. Nobody wants to lose this valuable function. But you wouldn't - you would be earning interest on your allocation from the first day. It's just that stuff which would have been put on the SM on the first day would instead go to other pre-funders who hadn't got their full allocation.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunspot on Feb 22, 2016 13:32:10 GMT
Delaying by 72 hours the trading of new loans is an interesting idea, but if the object of the exercise is to discourage over-bidding, I have a better solution - require users to PAY IN FULL, before they're able to commence trade in new loans. In other words, they would either have to stump up the cash, or sell something else first.
I think that would focus minds!
On the matter of this particular loan though, I'm on the fence. I just don't understand why the money is needed. In my book, if a prospective purchaser wants alterations made, he (or she) should buy the property and engage their own builders. The fact that this is a new-build seems irrelevant to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Feb 22, 2016 13:48:00 GMT
Exactly. Nobody wants to lose this valuable function. But you wouldn't - you would be earning interest on your allocation from the first day. It's just that stuff which would have been put on the SM on the first day would instead go to other pre-funders who hadn't got their full allocation. WRONG! you would have dead money on SS for the amount that you were not awarded and that takes up to 24 hours to extract. I can't see why you object to paying up once the allocation has been made. LW
|
|
imp
Posts: 9
Likes: 4
|
Post by imp on Feb 22, 2016 13:54:04 GMT
But you wouldn't - you would be earning interest on your allocation from the first day. It's just that stuff which would have been put on the SM on the first day would instead go to other pre-funders who hadn't got their full allocation. WRONG! you would have dead money on SS for the amount that you were not awarded and that takes up to 24 hours to extract. I can't see why you object to paying up once the allocation has been made. LW I think we're misunderstanding each other - that's exactly what I'm proposing. I'm just saying that the allocations which people don't want to pay for within the first 24 hours after receiving it - which currently they would put on the SM - should be reallocated among other prefunders who didn't get their full allocation in the same proportion.
|
|
Investor
Member of DD Central
Posts: 662 
Likes: 590
|
Post by Investor on Feb 22, 2016 14:01:18 GMT
Let's see if we can clear this up from your original statement, and follow it through to what I believe the inevitable conclusion would be. Apologies if I have misinterpreted your thought process.
Pre-launch: Prefunding bids take place as now.
(Everyone will bid £250k or whatever their maximum is, as there is no mechanism to stop this)
Launch day: Allocations made in the same way they are now. Investors have 24 hours to either fund their allocation fully, fund it partially or reject it altogether. (They can then reduce it to their actual requirement)
Launch day + 24 hours: Unfunded and rejected allocations are divided among remaining investors in the same proportion as original allocation. Loan goes live and SM trading is permitted. (What you have proposed is basically that everyone gets a proportion of their existing holdings+cash)
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 22, 2016 14:05:20 GMT
Okay - what's the glaring flaw in requiring people to have the funds available for their pre-funding? It means having idle money sitting earning nothing. The system as it is now is working. Does anyone who uses SS and MT find the lack of "invest now pay later" on MT makes any practical difference? It is the combination of INPL and pre-funding, both admirable features in their own right, which causes the problem. They simply don't work well together.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Feb 22, 2016 14:08:14 GMT
I reckon over-subscribed, but not by much. I'll guess at 90% of pre-fund. Adrian I think you are way of with your pre funding levels for this one, I think 3 or 4 times oversubscribed is closer to the mark. I doubt it. I reckon the pre-funded total will be £4m - £4.5m so we should get about 65% - 75% I understand from SS that it was 2.5x over funded as of this morning. This suggests we'd get about 40% of our pre-fund (assuming it remains at 2.5x). I was going to vote for 3-4x, until I saw Please turn me over's message. I expect that will prompt some pre-funding increases, so now I'll suggest 4-5x, though maybe that info won't have a big effect because the proportion of SS investors who would see it here will be pretty small. Then again, if the pre-funding total for this loan is the same as for the Bedfordshire farm -- £20.5M -- that would be 6.9x and result in a 14.5% allocation. Hmmm... [Wanders off to increase his pre-funding.]
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,019
Likes: 5,147
|
Post by adrianc on Feb 22, 2016 14:11:42 GMT
Then again, if the pre-funding total for this loan is the same as for the Bedfordshire farm -- £20.5M -- that would be 6.9x and result in a 14.5% allocation. Hmmm... [Wanders off to increase his pre-funding.] Last weeks' Bedfordshire shenanigans followed a drought...
|
|
|
|
Post by xyon100 on Feb 22, 2016 14:13:45 GMT
It means having idle money sitting earning nothing. The system as it is now is working. Does anyone who uses SS and MT find the lack of "invest now pay later" on MT makes any practical difference? It is the combination of INPL and pre-funding, both admirable features in their own right, which causes the problem. They simply don't work well together. The ability to invest and pay later is one of the major attractions of SS, along with the simple and effective secondary market. My entire P to P investment portfolio is spread across 5 platforms, but 50 percent of my portfolio is with SS. I'm no longer investing on one site at all any more due to cash sitting idle waiting for investments and the cash continuing to sit idle while the investment is activated. I also don't like secondary markets where people can add premiums. No such problems with SS. There might be some tweaking to do regarding loan allocation, but I don't really think there is much wrong to fix here.
|
|
|
|
Post by xyon100 on Feb 22, 2016 14:17:34 GMT
Then again, if the pre-funding total for this loan is the same as for the Bedfordshire farm -- £20.5M -- that would be 6.9x and result in a 14.5% allocation. Hmmm... [Wanders off to increase his pre-funding.] Last weeks' Bedfordshire shenanigans followed a drought... Exactly. Things can get a bit silly following a shortage of investments, but mostly this system works just fine.
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 22, 2016 14:35:31 GMT
Does anyone who uses SS and MT find the lack of "invest now pay later" on MT makes any practical difference? It is the combination of INPL and pre-funding, both admirable features in their own right, which causes the problem. They simply don't work well together. The ability to invest and pay later is one of the major attractions of SS, along with the simple and effective secondary market. My entire P to P investment portfolio is spread across 5 platforms, but 50 percent of my portfolio is with SS. I'm no longer investing on one site at all any more due to cash sitting idle waiting for investments and the cash continuing to sit idle while the investment is activated. I also don't like secondary markets where people can add premiums. No such problems with SS. There might be some tweaking to do regarding loan allocation, but I don't really think there is much wrong to fix here. There is no money "sitting idle" on MT. Deposits and withdrawals are actioned in minutes (automatically I assume) plus whatever time your bank takes (should be <2 hours or you need a new bank). The only drawback compared to SS is that you have to do two bank transfers instead of one if you want to withdraw the uninvested cash. About 60 secs of work is a small price to pay to avoid the gaming shambles on SS IMHO.
|
|
