webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 22, 2016 14:45:21 GMT
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. Most of the money is for refinance, not the alterations. I do not expect this loan to run for the full 6 months. As soon as the alterations are completed the sale should go through and the loan repaid.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Feb 22, 2016 15:27:36 GMT
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. I just don't think MT and SS are comparable. If MT had as many active investors as SS there would have been a mere c. £300 each on their largest loans so far, and about a fiver on their smallest. So, if numbers increase and they maintain their 1% or even 0.5% allocation cap there'd be an FF scrum and those that don't like 4pm would no doubt be complaining loudest. Their withdrawal and deposit processes are manual (they are very good, but try making them out of hours) which in my view will need to be automated sooner rather than later if they're going to keep growing. In respect of SS, requiring funding upfront or restricting new loan after sales, only favours the deep pockets in my view. Like others I've yet to hear a suggestion for change that might be preferable other than filling everything bottom up, which I wouldn't mind, but know wouldn't be popular with the BHs or even some medium ones I suspect. On the other hand, as the drought may have ended let's hope the situation will gradually improve.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204 
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Feb 22, 2016 16:39:44 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. Yes it does. I invest much more on SS.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 22, 2016 20:22:45 GMT
I'm a big fan of INPL, but I do wish they'd moderate the gaming a bit (on the big loans - 'bottom up' seems to have sorted the smaller ones quite a lot). I do worry that if I go on vacation to WiFi deprived neighbourhoods I might miss a 'please send munny' request, but hey, maybe they'll sell off some of the overdue loans, since they owe me my money back on those anyway ('they' being, so far, Lendy). Having money sat doing nothing (see Zopa .. well, when I left them anyway) is annoying.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 22, 2016 21:37:20 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... And followed a £3m repayment on the Beaminster loans...
|
|
jonah
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 1,113
|
Post by jonah on Feb 22, 2016 21:47:09 GMT
Last weeks' Bedfordshire shenanigans followed a drought... And followed a £3m repayment on the Beaminster loans... There is interest coming on Tuesday though, which will be another few hundred k looking for a home. I don't think these two will threaten an SM inversion to being stuck, but they will get us closer. It would be nice if a few of the negative numbered loans repaid.
|
|
sam i am
Member of DD Central
Posts: 697
Likes: 555
|
Post by sam i am on Feb 22, 2016 21:48:57 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. Yes. It's about the only thing that occasionally annoys me on MoneyThing (mostly I think they are excellent). I suppose I am spolit by Savingstream. Sometimes on MT I see a loan part I want to buy and can't. I don't want to have cash sitting around all the time in my account on the off-chance that the right loan part will be for sale. It's not been too much of a problem for me so far because I am relatively new to MT and still increasing my funding but soon I will reach my comfortable limit and then want to rebalance some of my holdings. That will be more difficult than on Savingstream because the only way to do it is to hold a cash float. With Savingstream I can buy now and sell something (or fund with cash) later.
|
|
freddy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 147
Likes: 145
|
Post by freddy on Feb 23, 2016 7:06:51 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. It is curious that the potential buyer doesn't just buy the property and then engage a builder to undertake the modifications. I've never bought a new build house, but I suppose a buyer may want a particular specification (e.g. bathrooms, kitchen) to be agreed on exchange of contracts and then the work finished by the date of completion. Obviously we don't know but my best guess would be that the purchaser has agreed the asking price ( or close to it) on the proviso that his required changes are made at the sellers cost. This would also enable the seller to use same builder who knows the build and will complete to same specification. A lot less hassle for the purchaser who probably just wants to move into a completed house without the immediate upheaval of getting the builders in.
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Feb 23, 2016 10:56:21 GMT
Parts being allocated now - 44.7% of PF for me
|
|
treeman
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,026
Likes: 557
|
Post by treeman on Feb 23, 2016 11:02:50 GMT
And it's already popping up on the SM
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 23, 2016 11:45:25 GMT
think I got 100% of 82 or very near if did not so guess a lot of this will be coming on later with people vastly overfunding what they actually wanted
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Feb 23, 2016 11:47:10 GMT
think I got 100% of 82 or very near if did not so guess a lot of this will be coming on later with people vastly overfunding what they actually wanted Nope. 82 was massively oversubscribed. I think you may have just had a relatively low prefund and it filled bottom up.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Feb 23, 2016 11:47:21 GMT
think I got 100% of 82 or very near if did not so guess a lot of this will be coming on later with people vastly overfunding what they actually wanted PBL082 was filled bottom-up so I doubt it! It was a tiddler.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Feb 23, 2016 11:52:50 GMT
forget that I got confused thought that was the one I had put under a £1000 on but was not
|
|
webwiz
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 210
|
Post by webwiz on Feb 23, 2016 12:57:45 GMT
Filled bottom up to a max of £730.
|
|
