Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 18, 2016 8:51:35 GMT
Let's put it into perspective, we would only have got around £150 from bottom up funding, so not a big loss. Maybe they needed the money fast, so had to raise it that way.
Savingstream is responding less and less, let's hope we aren't forgotten.
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922 
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on May 18, 2016 8:59:26 GMT
Let's put it into perspective, we would only have got around £150 from bottom up funding, so not a big loss. Maybe they needed the money fast, so had to raise it that way. Savingstream is responding less and less, let's hope we aren't forgotten. I think they're probably posting about the same amount as they ever did - more a case that the volume of posts here is going through the roof. I'd certainly prefer they focus on the loans than responding to every query/comment here anyway.
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on May 18, 2016 9:16:22 GMT
Let's put it into perspective, we would only have got around £150 from bottom up funding, so not a big loss. Maybe they needed the money fast, so had to raise it that way. Savingstream is responding less and less, let's hope we aren't forgotten. £150 might not be a lot to a BH such as yourself Liz , but for other's it's a lot...  However; if you take into account all the possible future DFL tranches, then for diversification I would like to see them on the pipeline. Anyway, that's not the main problem; the problem is predominantly comms. SS gave detailed instruction on how the tranches were going to be released, and without any prior notice they just went ahead and dumped it onto the SM.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 18, 2016 10:40:50 GMT
Let's put it into perspective, we would only have got around £150 from bottom up funding, so not a big loss. Maybe they needed the money fast, so had to raise it that way. Savingstream is responding less and less, let's hope we aren't forgotten. £150 might not be a lot to a BH such as yourself Liz , but for other's it's a lot... However; if you take into account all the possible future DFL tranches, then for diversification I would like to see them on the pipeline. Anyway, that's not the main problem; the problem is predominantly comms. SS gave detailed instruction on how the tranches were going to be released, and without any prior notice they just went ahead and dumped it onto the SM. Point taken. Maybe it's more principle than the amount we would receive in the loan. PS hardly a big hitter, my equity and savings wouldn't buy a 1 bed flat in London, and 4 growing boys(sharing 2 bedrooms) to feed is putting quite a strain on finances, that's without a second car or expensive holidays(summer in Cromer will cost us £380). If we spent like other families, we wouldn't have a penny is savings. Rant over(a rant at the wider world, not you CD  )
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 18, 2016 12:44:02 GMT
Let's put it into perspective, we would only have got around £150 from bottom up funding, so not a big loss. Maybe they needed the money fast, so had to raise it that way. : How did you calculate your £150 number? I think it's a significant underestimate. There are only 1500 investors in DFL002 now. Add another 100 or so for new investors. Even if they all wanted a large part of the £500k released yesterday, they would have received over £300 each. However, not everyone already in this loan would have wanted to increase their position, and not everyone would have wanted £300 or more, so I'd suggest that a bottom-up allocation would have maxxed out at around £500. As for the possibility that SS wanted to act quickly... SS easily could have added the loan to the Pipeline, sent out an email announcing that the loan was coming very soon, apologised for the short notice, and set the loan live a few hours -- or even less -- later. That's why we have the ability to set a 'default' PF amount. There might have been a few people with a default PF set who really didn't want a part of this tranche and didn't have enough time to cancel their PF setting, but they could have sold any unwanted parts on the SM in a matter of seconds -- and SS would have known that would be the situation -- so I don't see that as an issue. The result would have been a fair allocation rather than the FFF debacle that actually happened, and wouldn't have delayed the fundraising by more than a very few hours. I really think savingstream made a mistake with this episode. And the fact that AFAIK they haven't responded at all here in the forum suggests to me that they haven't been able to come up with an excuse for their action that people might accept.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 18, 2016 13:22:34 GMT
Let's put it into perspective, we would only have got around £150 from bottom up funding, so not a big loss. Maybe they needed the money fast, so had to raise it that way. : How did you calculate your £150 number? I think it's a significant underestimate. There are only 1500 investors in DFL002 now. Add another 100 or so for new investors. Even if they all wanted a large part of the £500k released yesterday, they would have received over £300 each. However, not everyone already in this loan would have wanted to increase their position, and not everyone would have wanted £300 or more, so I'd suggest that a bottom-up allocation would have maxxed out at around £500. As for the possibility that SS wanted to act quickly... SS easily could have added the loan to the Pipeline, sent out an email announcing that the loan was coming very soon, apologised for the short notice, and set the loan live a few hours -- or even less -- later. That's why we have the ability to set a 'default' PF amount. There might have been a few people with a default PF set who really didn't want a part of this tranche and didn't have enough time to cancel their PF setting, but they could have sold any unwanted parts on the SM in a matter of seconds -- and SS would have known that would be the situation -- so I don't see that as an issue. The result would have been a fair allocation rather than the FFF debacle that actually happened, and wouldn't have delayed the fundraising by more than a very few hours. I really think savingstream made a mistake with this episode. And the fact that AFAIK they haven't responded at all here in the forum suggests to me that they haven't been able to come up with an excuse for their action that people might accept. I used the 380k as quoted earlier by another poster being released(maybe they got it wrong, not sure) and over 2000 investors, so maybe nearer £200 based on my figures. No point debating allocation. I do agree that ideally the tranches would be added to the pipeline, and maybe several small allocations on several tranches, do add up.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 20, 2016 15:12:15 GMT
I really think savingstream made a mistake with this episode. And the fact that AFAIK they haven't responded at all here in the forum suggests to me that they haven't been able to come up with an excuse for their action that people might accept. Me too. They really need to up their game in terms of doing what they said they would do, rather than shooting from the hip in whatever direction they fancy at the time. I didn't get what I wanted on either of the DFLs (because it was not all released on day1 I guessed) but was expecting further pre-funding bites. Now I wonder if we'll ever see any. There is less justification for 'rapid response' on later DFL tranches, since they have lots of information about when it'll be needed, compared to a PBL, which can have some rationale for being rushed out the door. Come on savingstream, what pray is the future intent, and why didn't it happen that time around?
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on May 20, 2016 15:29:10 GMT
I had a reasonable amount carried forward, but would have requested an extra £500 or so. However, SS senior staff are not stupid, so I am undecided whether they were careless in this instance, or just plain arrogant (particularly regarding their non-reponse as to why they dis-regarded their own stated procedures).
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on May 20, 2016 19:20:11 GMT
We hope it's not arrogant, because that's the slippery slope that Famously Clueless went down. However not talking to the customers is usually the first step, yes ..
|
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on May 20, 2016 20:22:48 GMT
We hope it's not arrogant, because that's the slippery slope that Famously Clueless went down. However not talking to the customers is usually the first step, yes .. The communications from savingstream on this forum have been appalling this month, and it's not like there haven't been issues to discuss... Posts by savingstream in 2016... Jan
| Feb
| Mar
| Apr
| May
(up to 20/05) | | 12 | 23 | 49 | 20 | 2 |
They done really well in March, keeping us informed about new loans, replied quickly to the questions posed about the new DFLs and even addressed individual investors issues. This activity won praise from myself and others and I thought this activity might continue, especially with the increased staff intake. However, it seems they have gone backwards as if suddenly they decided this forum wasn't worth their time. I hope that's not the case, but it does concern me somewhat.
|
|
Liz
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,426
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by Liz on May 20, 2016 20:38:47 GMT
And the two posts this month were just "loan now draw down", so no real communication.
Maybe they are just busy, I give them the benefit of doubt, for now, and there are an aweful lot of posts of late to wade through.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 21, 2016 2:34:21 GMT
I've just submitted a request for an explanation of this week's tranche release via the loan's Q&A option. I'll let everyone know if I get a reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by spareafewcoppersguv on May 21, 2016 10:02:08 GMT
I've just submitted a request for an explanation of this week's tranche release via the loan's Q&A option. I'll let everyone know if I get a reply. Thanks. I'd suggest maybe send the same request via email as well.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on May 21, 2016 14:07:25 GMT
I've just submitted a request for an explanation of this week's tranche release via the loan's Q&A option. I'll let everyone know if I get a reply. Thanks. I'd suggest maybe send the same request via email as well. I've had the standard automated response "Your request (7901) has been received and is being reviewed by our support staff." So I know they've received it. I'll give them a few days to respond first. If they don't, then I'll consider a direct email request.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on May 21, 2016 14:30:53 GMT
Thanks. I'd suggest maybe send the same request via email as well. I've had the standard automated response "Your request (7901) has been received and is being reviewed by our support staff." So I know they've received it. I'll give them a few days to respond first. If they don't, then I'll consider a direct email request. Ive had a query in asking if the info displayed on DFL1 is accurate in the light of DFL2 since Thurs morning without response. Previously I had asked about DFL2 spiel being inaccurate given what they had said. Completely ignored since launch date. Edit Recent query has now been answered
|
|
)
