POLL - SS forcing you to keep new loan parts....

I voted for 3 days because it might reduce excessive pre-funding for the larger loans.

I can see plenty of reasons to not want it, especially if it applies to SM purchases as well as new loans (eg if in the heat of the moment you over-buy by mistake), but personally I would be prepared to put up with some inconvenience if I no longer had to game the system to get nearer to the amount I actually want.

I'm pretty sure there already is a limit on allowable -ve balances but this is probably only going to be an issue for BH newbies.  (If I remember correctly you can go -ve to the tune of your current paid-for holdings or £10k whichever is greater.)

As long as it only applies to new loan parts apportioned on Go Live day (which looking at my loans it appears to be) and not SM purchases

And as long as the period it applies to is longer than the INPL period. It will hopefully help encourage investors to prefund
a) what they want
b) what they can afford
..  to fund

judging by what is on the SM now, there are a lot of "small" investors clearing balances.

(and small is not meant to be derogatory... I'm small too!!)

Zak

Isn't this poll just asking:

Do you have a combination of nerve and liquidity that allows you to successfully game the current system (option 1) or are you jealous of such people (one of the other options)?

Seems to me that 42% of voters are gaming.

Based on the what has been reported of the erroneous implementation today, I will vote no.

Would it really be fair for savingstream to hit someone whose pre-funding targets are normally c £100 with a sledgehammer designed to curtail the current distortion in the pre-funding market caused by those wanting a six figure sum, quadrupling that on pre-funding, being allocated twice what they actually want, then dumping the remainder (or even all) on the SM?

Far better, IMO, to be more selective in targeting whose who cause the greatest distortions. It really wouldn't be too difficult to allow sales on pre-funding allocations below a certain level, or a sliding percentage sale allowed, based on time held and /or size of allocation. In other words, lets retain the maximum possible flexibility for as many lenders as possible.

As yet I can't see a cast-iron rationale for preventing sales of recent SM purchases. Some might argue that it will prevent anyone 'hoovering up' anything on the SM then selling, but only after interest has been earned, without parting with any cash. What it won't stop is buying £X,XXX in Loan A, 48hrs later selling £X,XXX in Loan B and buying £X,XXX in Loan C, then 48hrs later etc, ect, until Loan A is eligible for sale.

And, based on today's reports, recent SM purchases would be ineligible for sale, but older purchases in the same loan could still be sold. So if you wish to hold for 48hrs, earn interest before selling, while parting with zero cash, you only have to buy into loans you already hold.

I'd be amazed if it were really that small.

If you and already hold sellable loans, pre-funding above requirement is easy (much easier that purchasing on the SM at times, particularly for popular, medium sized loans) and the least demanding solution currently available to achieve a holding near your target; no nerve required, just a look at percentages on recent loans will give a fair idea of what to expect.

That's not to say that everyone who uses it will agree it's the fairest mechanism. I use it but would prefer a more equitable solution. There have been numerous previous suggestions, some quite sensible, as to how this practice could be circumvented, but the consensus always appears to be that SS want to keep their 'big hitters' sweet. So percentage allocation goes on, as does the game for every new loan.

I also voted for 3 day; 7 days does seem to be a tad excessive.  I've been thinking about it and agree with others that it seems a tad unnecessary for the SM, and is more something that is required mainly for the PM.

Looking at the poll, so far we have 58% for and 42% against.  However, as commented by users on this thread, some have voted for no, because they like the idea, but only for the PM.