|
|
Post by p2plender on Jun 15, 2016 20:55:14 GMT
Ok thanks guys/gals.
Oh and I think 'remain' will win the day no worries.
|
|
LittleBear
Member of DD Central
Posts: 98 
Likes: 76
|
Post by LittleBear on Jun 15, 2016 22:20:20 GMT
I was feeling a bit left out, but my emails to advise me of my pre-fund allocation have just arrived. Only about 12 hours after the allocation was made. Does that mean the 24 hours to clear my negative balance have only just started???  |
|
|
|
Post by harvey on Jun 15, 2016 22:25:46 GMT
I was feeling a bit left out, but my emails to advise me of my pre-fund allocation have just arrived. Only about 12 hours after the allocation was made. Does that mean the 24 hours to clear my negative balance have only just started??? I would say in the circumstances yes,that is only reasonable and fair. And given the enormity of the loan launches in the last 1 day and the website glitches that have been widely reported as a consequence of that,I think it would be professional suicide for Saving Stream to get really strict about the funding timetable this week. I would say make sure you do the money transfer by tomorrow evening and there won't be any problem I am sure. In any event, my experience tells me they do the deposit reconciliations first thing in the morning and only once a day, and so by first thing tomorrow morning it won't have been 24 hours since you were allocated your loan parts anyway so as long as your money is there in the kitty by early Friday morning I think you will be fine.
|
|
sqh
Member of DD Central
Before P2P, savers put a guinea in a piggy bank, now they smash the banks to become guinea pigs.
Posts: 1,428 
Likes: 1,212
|
Post by sqh on Jun 15, 2016 22:40:57 GMT
Any longer term SSers have an idea as to when SM may clear to more normal levels? Don't forget the loan updates indicate that there are several loans due to payback very soon. Just one repayment could clear the decks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrclondon on Jun 15, 2016 23:37:29 GMT
Any longer term SSers have an idea as to when SM may clear to more normal levels? Don't forget the loan updates indicate that there are several loans due to payback very soon. Just one repayment could clear the decks.
Also 2 more fairly big loans on AC are due to repay this week. I'm currently intending my stake in those two loans will head to SS and FS.
|
|
tx
Member of DD Central
Posts: 300
Likes: 127
|
Post by tx on Jun 15, 2016 23:46:32 GMT
The secondary market is now like dead. My initial reason to come to SS was the golden liquidity, but the 12m in one blow had shown the aggressive expansion of SS. Don't like that at all.
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 16, 2016 6:14:58 GMT
The secondary market is now like dead. My initial reason to come to SS was the golden liquidity, but the 12m in one blow had shown the aggressive expansion of SS. Don't like that at all. SS has always been characterised by periods of feast and famine (pointed out many times before). This isn't the first time that a spike in new loan origination has caused an SM glut, nor will it be the last. Experienced SS lenders appreciate this and plan for it (I started selling parts I wanted to offload the moment those loans appeared with PBL numbers already allocated)
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Jun 16, 2016 6:16:22 GMT
>>> but the 12m in one blow had shown the aggressive expansion of SS. Don't like that at all. It might be that SS is the only platform that can handle a tranche of loans that big and that quick.... which could differentiate it from other platforms and certainly the banks. By my reckoning the website worked well enough, anyone that wanted to diversify can now do that, those who have held back because there were no loans available may now jump in. I reckon mopped up in a week. I have always thought that the instant liquidity for negative-day loans showed desperation from buyers who could later regret it. I think people are now far more aware of the risk they take in return for 12%, some nervousness is good. Jack P
|
|
SteveT
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,875
Likes: 7,924
|
Post by SteveT on Jun 16, 2016 7:01:49 GMT
I was feeling a bit left out, but my emails to advise me of my pre-fund allocation have just arrived. Only about 12 hours after the allocation was made. Does that mean the 24 hours to clear my negative balance have only just started??? Mine only arrived 5 minutes ago (7.56am Thursday!)
|
|
kermie
Member of DD Central
Posts: 691
Likes: 462
|
Post by kermie on Jun 16, 2016 7:35:38 GMT
No emails for me either; I sold on the SM this evening and only got sale completed notifications for 1 of the 2 parts (despite both selling quickly).  Edit: the second "sale completed" email did arrive, but still no sign of any go-live allocation notices. Bad form to reply to my own post, I know.....anyway... "go-live allocation notices" all arrived round about 8am this morning. A pigeon might have been faster (although with all the pigeons needed, perhaps a lot messier)  .
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Jun 16, 2016 8:19:04 GMT
No emails for me either; I sold on the SM this evening and only got sale completed notifications for 1 of the 2 parts (despite both selling quickly). Edit: the second "sale completed" email did arrive, but still no sign of any go-live allocation notices. Bad form to reply to my own post, I know.....anyway... "go-live allocation notices" all arrived round about 8am this morning. A pigeon might have been faster (although with all the pigeons needed, perhaps a lot messier) . (Yep. I got twelve)  Edit 10:39 .... and now I've had three emails asking me to clear my negative balance I say now I've had three e .... Attachments:
|
|
pom
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 1,244
|
Post by pom on Jun 16, 2016 8:39:53 GMT
Still plenty of demand for the new loans anyway - having received a more than I really wanted I sold some excess as soon as my deposit cleared and it went instantly.... so that's my funds for today's launch sorted.
|
|
arbster
Member of DD Central
Posts: 810
Likes: 426
|
Post by arbster on Jun 16, 2016 8:46:14 GMT
I'm afraid I disagree, somewhat. Pre-funding is about ensuring that people have a fair chance of getting a share of each investment. In a perfect world, everyone gets exactly what they want. For smaller loans, everyone gets a pro-rated share of what they want. It's only because people have taken to "gaming the system" that different funding approaches have had to be taken. If, as savingstream advises, everyone sets their pre-fund to the amount they actually want of a particular loan it a) enables them to assess demand, b) ensures a fair distribution of smaller loans and c) prevents nasty surprises on loan launch day. You've missed the point entirely. No one is debating the fairness of the prefunding model. I'm complaining about the lack of announcement to it changing and allowing people to plan accordingly. I get very nervous when companies I invest with arbitrarily change the rules without any prior announcement and then respond in such a weasily fashion. I think you missed my point, actually. Forgetting whether we think we understand the prefunding "model", and whether we think savingstream used a different, right or wrong algorithm for allocation, the only point I'm making is that if people set their prefunding to a level they would be comfortable receiving 100% of, there would be no problem. It's only because people have tried to unpick and "game" the model that problems have arisen. From a general layperson's perspective there has been no change and therefore no need to "announce" anything - investors should ask for as much of a loan as their assessment of the associated risk dictates. They will get no more than that, but may get less. The problems only arise when people try to predict the percentage they'll get and increase prefunding above the level they're comfortable with to try to get more than their "fair share". So, I think savingstream's response is perfectly fair - prefund what you want, not more.
|
|
bjorn
Posts: 102
Likes: 39
|
Post by bjorn on Jun 16, 2016 10:29:58 GMT
You've missed the point entirely. No one is debating the fairness of the prefunding model. I'm complaining about the lack of announcement to it changing and allowing people to plan accordingly. I get very nervous when companies I invest with arbitrarily change the rules without any prior announcement and then respond in such a weasily fashion. I think you missed my point, actually. Forgetting whether we think we understand the prefunding "model", and whether we think savingstream used a different, right or wrong algorithm for allocation, the only point I'm making is that if people set their prefunding to a level they would be comfortable receiving 100% of, there would be no problem. It's only because people have tried to unpick and "game" the model that problems have arisen. From a general layperson's perspective there has been no change and therefore no need to "announce" anything - investors should ask for as much of a loan as their assessment of the associated risk dictates. They will get no more than that, but may get less. The problems only arise when people try to predict the percentage they'll get and increase prefunding above the level they're comfortable with to try to get more than their "fair share". So, I think savingstream's response is perfectly fair - prefund what you want, not more. Couldn't agree more. Whatever assumptions people are making about how the system works behind the scenes, bidding more than you can afford to fund with external funds will always risk ending up with more than you can afford. And it would be another risk to assume that there'll be sufficient liquidity in the SM so that you can offload everything you want in the run up to and following a big launch.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Jun 16, 2016 10:59:58 GMT
I think you missed my point, actually. Forgetting whether we think we understand the prefunding "model", and whether we think savingstream used a different, right or wrong algorithm for allocation, the only point I'm making is that if people set their prefunding to a level they would be comfortable receiving 100% of, there would be no problem. It's only because people have tried to unpick and "game" the model that problems have arisen. From a general layperson's perspective there has been no change and therefore no need to "announce" anything - investors should ask for as much of a loan as their assessment of the associated risk dictates. They will get no more than that, but may get less. The problems only arise when people try to predict the percentage they'll get and increase prefunding above the level they're comfortable with to try to get more than their "fair share". So, I think savingstream's response is perfectly fair - prefund what you want, not more. Couldn't agree more. Whatever assumptions people are making about how the system works behind the scenes, bidding more than you can afford to fund with external funds will always risk ending up with more than you can afford. And it would be another risk to assume that there'll be sufficient liquidity in the SM so that you can offload everything you want in the run up to and following a big launch. Blimey - I'm not sure how much clearer I can be. I wanted lots of PBL110 and if SS had stuck to their announced system, I would have got lots. I have funds to pay for everything I asked for. If you announce a system, stick to it. Don't arbitrarily change the rules without telling people.
|
|
.
