goopy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 307 
Likes: 144
|
Post by goopy on Mar 1, 2016 10:43:54 GMT
I really like the buy now, pay soon after system. It gives so much more flexibility in adding funds to the platform. But more than that, it makes it much easier to re-balance portfolios by waiting until you are able to purchase a loan part you want before selling something else on the SM. If deposits are required, I predict that the SM would become much, much slower. Then we would have a whole host of other complaints. Agreed, if its a choice between gaming caused by this approach (which I am still not convinced about) or reducing the SM liquidity (that this would definitely do unless everyone was happy to have money sitting around waiting for people to sell). Then I say stick with the current approach.
SS fundamentally works and any changes will more than likely come with unforeseen problems as people try to beat the systems in other ways.
Totally agree. This is another one of those 'if it aint broke don't fix it' scenarios, as far as I'm concerned everything works well as it is - even with the so called gaming.
|
|
star dust
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,998
Likes: 3,531
|
Post by star dust on Mar 1, 2016 11:02:53 GMT
I don't see the 'problem' that this scenario is supposed to fix. You'd swap one type of gaming for another and kill or severely hamper the SM. The change mooted would suit 'gaming' by BHs who could afford to have large sums of money sitting uninvested on the platform ahead of a new loan or to mop up on the SM for a while. I would be extremely unlikely to even try to buy anything on the SM outside the monthly interest payment run if this were introduced, and I don't suppose I'd be the only one. The only mitigating factor might be if they simultaneously introduced 24/7 faster payment deposits and withdrawals, but as someone else has pointed out this would not assist investors with overseas banks, who it seems SS have a fair few of.
I hope that SS deal severely with any 'abusers' of the current system, but other than that I think they would be in danger of losing their shine if they introduced it.
|
|
|
|
Post by supernumerary on Mar 1, 2016 11:08:35 GMT
Thanks for the poll cooling_dude, I have voted to keep it the same. No change. On Saturday I received the latest allocation of the new loan PBL084. I received an allocation in excess of £9,000… At that moment I was in negative balance. So I then sold sections of other loans that I already held to pay for the new loan. I announced on here that I would be selling sections of loans to diversify. Heads up, that I will be selling a load of different loans in the next few minutes. ALL loans are 178 days plus. I am diversifying my loans, as a consequence of the new loan...  Hope that is helpful to you.  Whereupon sl75 saw the message and put their cooking on hold… I'm supposed to be cooking dinner, but saw your message - don't see much for sale right now. Did it all get snapped up as fast as you listed them? Are you still working on it? Let us know when finished so I can leave the computer for more than a few seconds to pop stuff in the oven! Sadly by the time sl75 saw the message the loans had all gone… I don’t think he was able to grab anything. It has all gone, approx. £9,000 plus went pretty quickly... Varying amounts in these loans; PBL058 PBL057 PBL081 PBL059 PBL060 Perhaps next time I do this, I will announce a time and sell the whole lot off within the minute of stating it. So, if I hadn’t been able to go negative in my account, I wouldn’t then have been able diversify and by doing so, help others to diversify as well. IMHO, I think the current system works well and this example illustrates why I think it should be kept as it is. Additionally, this morning I have been lucky enough to buy enough loans, so that when my February interest is paid today, it will be getting interest on the February interest straight away. BTW, this is the first time I have managed to do this and I have been a member for several months now. Again, thanks for the poll and the chance to discuss all of this, cooling_dude. |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2016 11:12:04 GMT
I don't see the 'problem' that this scenario is supposed to fix. You'd swap one type of gaming for another and kill or severely hamper the SM. The change mooted would suit 'gaming' by BHs who could afford to have large sums of money sitting uninvested on the platform ahead of a new loan or to mop up on the SM for a while. I would be extremely unlikely to even try to buy anything on the SM outside the monthly interest payment run if this were introduced, and I don't suppose I'd be the only one. The only mitigating factor might be if they simultaneously introduced 24/7 faster payment deposits and withdrawals, but as someone else has pointed out this would not assist investors with overseas banks, who it seems SS have a fair few of.
I hope that SS deal severely with any 'abusers' of the current system, but other than that I think they would be in danger of losing their shine if they introduced it.I think your statement in bold is key; it does seem that the overwhelming opinion from members is that they do not want to see the INPL method eliminated, and I respect that opinion; I too would be upset if INPL was eliminated. If SS indicate that they do combat the SM gaming, then it would put my mind at ease; but there will always be the smaller "Interest Hoppers" that will niggle me. I would love to hear @savingstreams thoughts on this subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunspot on Mar 1, 2016 11:14:36 GMT
The system works, so I would keep it as is, with one proviso...
Credit should be limited to value of your holdings, with an introductory value of perhaps £2,000. This would eliminate the temptation to set up a dummy account in order to offload unwanted stock. At the moment, the secondary market works sufficiently well that this issue does not arise, but that may not always be the case, and in my experience, it pays to be prepared.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2016 11:17:47 GMT
supernumerary I completely agree. The ability to diversify without having funds its the key feature of SS that I love. My suggestion (found within this thread) was to allow INPL up to £50,000 the nly up to the amount you have invested+deposited (same as the PM); this would not impact on the ability to diversify without funds. However, I am in the minority; quite happy to accept the status quo as long as SS indicate that they do indeed combat "interest hopping"
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2016 11:18:38 GMT
The system works, so I would keep it as is, with one proviso... Credit should be limited to value of your holdings, with an introductory value of perhaps £2,000. This would eliminate the temptation to set up a dummy account in order to offload unwanted stock. At the moment, the secondary market works sufficiently well that this issue does not arise, but that may not always be the case, and in my experience, it pays to be prepared. I think sunspot .... we might just have agreed about something
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2016 11:36:14 GMT
p2pindependentforum.com/post/96465So it seems that SS have listened, and there may indeed be some problems with people gaming the SM. As such they are considering a credit limit based on account balance. Couldn't be happier if they did; can't see why that would upset anybody other than the gamers
|
|
ianj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 656
Likes: 520
|
Post by ianj on Mar 1, 2016 11:38:30 GMT
Like the credit facility, but Saving Stream need to clamp down on those that abuse the system. Perhaps payment should be made within 24 hours and not 48 hours. While you may wish that the system were not as currently implemented (nobody applied pressure on SS to make it thus) it is far from fair to imply that anyone delaying balancing their account is abusing the system. The current requirement is for balancing to be achieved within 48hrs, and nobody complying within this period (ie 47hr 59min) is guilty of any abuse. The term' abuse' can only be applied to taking longer, and as those that do have their purchases reversed and put on the market (not credited with any interest) they derive no benefit. When in Rome..... (or T.T.M.A.R.) 
|
|
|
|
Post by sunspot on Mar 1, 2016 12:05:38 GMT
There's currently almost £500,000 up for grabs, mostly in two loans.
I wonder how much of that was accumulated on credit, and has just been released!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2016 12:11:59 GMT
Mar 1, 2016 11:29:04 GMT saving stream said: 'We have been clearing some unpaid accounts out and have released them onto the market. We are considering a credit limit based on account balance to prevent this'
Great idea from saving stream. |
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 1, 2016 12:24:20 GMT
... I think that the same rules that apply to the PM pre-funding should apply to SM; All investors can INPL up to £50,000 then no investor can INPL more than they have already invested + what the member has deposited. I thought the lowest size of pre-funding limit was £10k. Has it been increased to £50k?
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Mar 1, 2016 12:25:37 GMT
... I think that the same rules that apply to the PM pre-funding should apply to SM; All investors can INPL up to £50,000 then no investor can INPL more than they have already invested + what the member has deposited. I thought the lowest size of pre-funding limit was £10k. Has it been increased to £50k? No. You completely right; I was going by memory TBH, and have since realised I was wrong. It is indeed a 10k limit for new investors.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunspot on Mar 1, 2016 12:27:53 GMT
Nearly £500,000 of PBL084 available!!!!
And gone again two minutes later.
I'm reminded of PBL073 which took a while to fill, but was snapped up entirely TWICE that I noticed, only to be reopened again on both occasions, presumably because the investors didn't have the money.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Mar 1, 2016 12:36:17 GMT
Presumably the scenario here is on the SM where the seller could withdraw cash before the buyer deposits funds. Provided Saving Stream have their own cash in the separate client account to cover this I don't believe there would be a problem.
IIRC, an AC representative has indicated that the advice they've been given is that it isn't good enough to have platform funds set aside to cover credit that's been given to clients but that the money has to be in the proper client account and everything has to balance at the end of every day -- which would require a balancing payment to be made every day, and that could become an onerous task. I suppose the platform might be able to overfund the client account with their own money, but I don't know where that would put them if disaster struck and the platform had to be shut down. Would they be able to recover the money in the client account that didn't actually belong to clients? This is a case of asking two sets of 'experts' for advice and getting three different opinions.  In the end, it will depend on exactly how the FCA interpret the rules and how much, if any, flexibility they're willing to allow the platforms to have.
|
|
In the end, it will depend on exactly how the FCA interpret the rules and how much, if any, flexibility they're willing to allow the platforms to have.