cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853 
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Apr 28, 2016 20:46:48 GMT
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. I tended to vote based on my thoughts about the SM , the passing the parcel scenario to try and gain free interest. (dont want to go down this route again as it has been discussed extensively previous) if you are made to hold your purchase for 3 days with a 48hr pay up or else, then no passing the parcel... so legitimate buyers only. Yes; that is true. Although I don't think that you actually keep any interest from your scenario, I'm pretty sure some who think they are cheating the system do just that. Problem is that I and others do like to diversify in the SM, and that often involves buying and selling the same loan parts on the same day. The following is a solution that I have thought up... - Forced to hold all loan parts gained from the PM for 3 days - Able to trade freely on the SM throughout the day, but at 11:59pm you're forced to hold any loan parts gained within the previous 24hours for 3 Days I wonder how hard that would be to implement.
|
|
ped
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 84
|
Post by ped on Apr 28, 2016 20:49:42 GMT
No for SM but yes for PM. I would think 3 days is long enough and given the max 48hrs to fund it will sort out the issue of gaming.
Dude think you missed a trick on this poll. |
|
cooling_dude
Bye Bye's for the PPI
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 4,298
|
Post by cooling_dude on Apr 28, 2016 20:52:04 GMT
No for SM but yes for PM. I would think 3 days is long enough and given the max 48hrs to fund it will sort out the issue of gaming.
Dude think you missed a trick on this poll. Don't you dare criticise my Poll  However I agree; give it a couple of days once everybody has forgotten this one, and I will start a new one 
|
|
ped
Member of DD Central
Posts: 255
Likes: 84
|
Post by ped on Apr 28, 2016 21:04:33 GMT
Hehehe, always enjoy the Polls CD.
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Apr 28, 2016 21:18:56 GMT
cooling_dude I tended to vote based on my thoughts about the SM , the passing the parcel scenario to try and gain free interest. (dont want to go down this route again as it has been discussed extensively previous) if you are made to hold your purchase for 3 days with a 48hr pay up or else, then no passing the parcel... so legitimate buyers only. Yes; that is true. Although I don't think that you actually keep any interest from your scenario, I'm pretty sure some who think they are cheating the system do just that. Problem is that I and others do like to diversify in the SM, and that often involves buying and selling the same loan parts on the same day. The following is a solution that I have thought up... - Forced to hold all loan parts gained from the PM for 3 days - Able to trade freely on the SM throughout the day, but at 11:59pm you're forced to hold any loan parts gained within the previous 24hours for 3 Days I wonder how hard that would be to implement. Yes.. very good compromise, all the genuines win and all the players lose.. i like it..
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Apr 28, 2016 21:44:42 GMT
SS would be crazy to change anything. They have a winning formula. Imposing arbitrary rules at this stage would be unwise. Everyone is on equal footing already and everyone has the same chance of making the investments they wish. Some get what they want and some don't but so what. I have been in both camps and it is not a big deal.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 29, 2016 7:15:15 GMT
I would certainly prefer a minimum hold period to the alternative used to discourage frivolous purchases used by several other platforms. Bottom up allocation (as use for under £1m loans) would discourage overbuying too, with fewer unwanted side effects, IMO. AIUI, the main side-effect of bottom-up allocations would be to frustrate the largest investors, possibly causing them to leave the platform for other investments (and meaning their money isn't available when SS need it for the next truly enormous loan). Anyone for whom the maximum allocation becomes a barrier can work around such restrictions it by signing up accounts for spouse, children, dog, cat and budgie, and getting the maximum bottom-up allocation on each one, but that's probably too much faff, when there are plenty of other investments that don't impose such petty limits. The best method I can think of would be a blend between fixed (bottom-up) and proportional allocations... e.g. allocation of an initial £100 to all investors with a pre-funding target set (so that there's no need for the smallest investors to try to game the system by bidding £200 or £300 when they want £100), with the remainder split proportionally. Exact cut-off point between "bottom up" and "proportional" allocation could be optimised to ensure that as many investors as possible are "happy" with the result, whilst keeping the bottom-up portion low enough that it's a minor irrelevance to the largest investors, reducing the temptation for them to game the system by operating multiple accounts.
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 29, 2016 7:27:42 GMT
Rather than a Fixed £100, I would suggest that a Fixed amount of each loan be allocated bottom up, the rest going proportional. It's daft that the many wanting. £100 or £200 can get it in a £300k loan, but have to game the system if the loan comes in at £1,000,001.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 29, 2016 8:28:21 GMT
Rather than a Fixed £100, I would suggest that a Fixed amount of each loan be allocated bottom up, the rest going proportional. It's daft that the many wanting. £100 or £200 can get it in a £300k loan, but have to game the system if the loan comes in at £1,000,001. That's essentially the same, except that the "fixed amount" under my proposal is exactly equal to the total targets of the smallest investors plus the pre-determined threshold amount times the number of investors seeking a larger amount. The only difference I can see is that your system retains uncertainty over the amount that can be bid without needing to game the system, causing some investors near the threshold to game it unnecessarily. If, for example, a specific loan has a £500 threshold stated, everyone who really wants £500 or less can just bid what they want without having to even consider gaming, but under your system, in which the cut-off between fixed and proportional allocations is not known in advance, they might bid £100 extra "just to make sure"... and those seeking amounts in the region of £1000 may feel it necessary to game a little more due to the uncertainty (compared to the proposal where everyone knows they'll get the fixed £500). Uncertainty becomes increased for the largest investors of course, but they are still able to get a meaningful allocation (not possible for the largest investors under a pure bottom-up system unless they game it by operating multiple accounts), and whether or not they choose to game the system has no effect on the smallest investors and less effect on medium to large investors than the current system.
|
|
huxs
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300 
Likes: 218
|
Post by huxs on Apr 29, 2016 8:35:13 GMT
Rather than a Fixed £100, I would suggest that a Fixed amount of each loan be allocated bottom up, the rest going proportional. It's daft that the many wanting. £100 or £200 can get it in a £300k loan, but have to game the system if the loan comes in at £1,000,001. That is how I see it, I want £300 per loan so under £1m I will get most of what I want between £1,000,001 and about £3m need to guess what multiples I need to PF to get about £300 and over £3m can go back to PF £300. But I guess me putting in £600 when I want £300, and maybe having to sell £50 isn't really the problem SS are trying to solve.
If the first £1m of all loan where bottom up allocated and everything else split as currently would that work??
SS, you should have enough data to make a good guess, with the current active users (ones that use PF and have brought loans in the past month) and the rough average of what they currently hold per loan (which would give you and idea of what they really want v's they PF) where would this approach leave everyone for a £1m, £2m £3m loan etc? I would be surprised if the first £1m of a loan would not satisfy most investors wanting upto £5-600 per loan which would keep a large majority of investors happy and then anything above could be split between anyone wanting more.
|
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Apr 29, 2016 8:36:05 GMT
... and back on topic, if I currently sell within a few days, it's purely for convenience, and I'd be perfectly happy with the proposed restriction. I'm not sure it's the best tool for the job, but it's a tool that would certainly have at least some of the desired effects.
This would tend to have the biggest impact on new investors, who would need to avoid tying up too much of their bankroll initially, until their first purchases become at least 7 days old - the recommendation to grab whatever you can first, and then diversify later would need to be toned down with additional provisos and qualifications.
Edit:
The marketplace could become a bit interesting, as we'd then have a rush to re-adjust pre-funded holdings exactly 7 days after a loan launched, rather than on the day of launch!
|
|
poppyland
Member of DD Central
Posts: 237
Likes: 243
|
Post by poppyland on Apr 29, 2016 8:45:11 GMT
I don't find it a problem when people ask for more than they need via prefunding and then dump the rest on the secondary market. I was happy to pick up some extra bits in the latest loan within an hour of it going live. I had been allocated a slightly smaller chunk than I wanted, so it was good to be able to buy more.
I think the current system works fine, so I would not be in favour of people being forced to keep new loan parts.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladywhitenap on Apr 29, 2016 9:02:41 GMT
An emphatic NO vote!
I find "gaming" and selling the excess, the only way to achieve what I want.
After many months of steady purchses I have got the lump sum invested here that I wanted and spread over 30 or so loans.
Now I need to re-invest interest and any repaid loans each month.
So to get a specific figure invested without fiddling about all month, I have to judge the market, pre-fund and sell off if I get too much.
Don't break what is working just fine please ss!
LW
|
|
|
|
Post by westcountry on Apr 29, 2016 9:11:07 GMT
I e-mailed Saving Stream last night about this, as I think it's a bad idea. I had a reply from Tim this morning, I'm not sure whether I should post it in full, so I will just share the main points.
1) The main problem isn't gaming the pre-funding, but with people buying loan parts on the secondary market, and selling them within 48hrs - getting interest without ever putting money in SS.
2) Saving Stream see making investors hold any loan parts they've purchased for 7 days as a fair requirement for using the platform.
So it sounds like this will probably be going ahead, for both pre-funding and secondary market purchases :-(
|
|
|
|
Post by earthbound on Apr 29, 2016 9:15:54 GMT
I e-mailed Saving Stream last night about this, as I think it's a bad idea. I had a reply from Tim this morning, I'm not sure whether I should post it in full, so I will just share the main points. 1) The main problem isn't gaming the pre-funding, but with people buying loan parts on the secondary market, and selling them within 48hrs - getting interest without ever putting money in SS. 2) Saving Stream see making investors hold any loan parts they've purchased for 7 days as a fair requirement for using the platform. So it sounds like this will probably be going ahead, for both pre-funding and secondary market purchases :-( Just as i suspected, i been banging on about this playing the SM for free interest, was told many times that interest was not payed to the players, seems all along it was.
|
|
