|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Sept 26, 2016 13:09:28 GMT
AC order buying is the lowest effort due to this. I think some form of minimum value per buy e.g. £100 may have to be added (likely with a lottery for when purchasers exceed sellers) but over time it is one of the few scalable options. I have problems with setting a minimum of e.g. £100. One of my objection relates to my experience with testing new platforms. If I am testing a new platform I am not willing to put £100 in a single loan on a platform I am not familiar with. And I am glad I follow this rule as I had bad experiences with other platforms. So why should we put new lenders in this position. Another objection is the following. If I receive £57 of interest, why shouldn't I be able to buy a loan part for £57? Why should I be forced to either top it up to the example £100 or wait for another month? I think the 'minimum buy' would be user defined, possible even for each buy order .. so you place an order to buy £2500, but you don't want any pieces smaller than £x, which you decide. I probably still prefer the 'pick one at random and satisfy it, up to £x max, rinse and repeat' where £x could be £100 or £1000.
|
|
skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787 
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Sept 26, 2016 13:14:49 GMT
AC-style order-placing? "I want to buy £2,500 of PBL135" - £1000 comes on the market, gets shared out between those with orders, you get £100. Your order is now for £2,400. Continue until filled. Definitely will not get my support. What is your problem with this.........do you like spending hours of frustration staring at a screen having to refresh it every few seconds, then going through the frantic motions of recaptcha only to find you never get anything........or maybe worse, the loose change which when you try to sell nobody wants. I sometimes buy parts I don't even want just to feel my time has not been completely wasted! It is a lot fairer, far more relaxed and less time consuming. You can place buy or sell orders on your portfolio say once a week, come back a week later and make any adjustments. More of your wish list will probably be filled because you won't miss out on any parts that come up for sale.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 26, 2016 13:29:13 GMT
Definitely will not get my support. What is your problem with this.........do you like spending hours of frustration staring at a screen having to refresh it every few seconds, then going through the frantic motions of recaptcha only to find you never get anything........or maybe worse, the loose change which when you try to sell nobody wants. I sometimes buy parts I don't even want just to feel my time has not been completely wasted! It is a lot fairer, far more relaxed and less time consuming. You can place buy or sell orders on your portfolio say once a week, come back a week later and make any adjustments. More of your wish list will probably be filled because you won't miss out on any parts that come up for sale. Have you used AC? I have and am not liking adding a few pence at a time on the loans I want to buy. I know that there are a few here who like to have a 1p in a loan to keep track of it, but we are not talking about that. As it is, on SS I know when I bought a loan part and keep track of it and know how much interest it is generating. Try to do the same with a system like AC. It is maddening.
|
|
ben
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 589
|
Post by ben on Sept 26, 2016 13:35:43 GMT
I personally do not really use the secondary market much the main time I use it is to reinvest monthy interest payment, most months this has not been an issue I have just removed the interest and reinvested it when a new loan was issued and plenty of activity on secondary market.
SS release probably about 4 loans a month so with in 3/4 months you can easily have a good selection of loans without worrying about the secondary market, I am not sure what the rush to get fully invested is. There is plenty of other sites that offer slightly less.
|
|
hantsowl
Member of DD Central
Posts: 672
Likes: 546
|
Post by hantsowl on Sept 26, 2016 13:46:49 GMT
Look at a different example. "I want £500 of PBL126" - This was a small loan and investors allocated £60 through pre funding. Typical sales of this are £60 or less. Let's say a modest 100 people put in an order to buy. £60 becomes available. You end up buying a mere 60p. This will continue until you have many hundreds of tiny parts or you simply give up. I much prefer an even chance to grab the full £60 rather than a guarantee of many 60p bits. So drop the concept of individual parts. Let's face it, they're not really relevant - and it's not like FC, where they can never be "stuck back together" - you sell 100 x 60p parts, and there's one buyer, they have a £60 part. The 7-day-negative-balance sale ban could still be enforced. You have £60 of PBL126, of which £20 has been bought in the last seven days, so is unsellable until your negative balance is resolved. I'm not sure that you can drop the concept of individual parts. If I end up buying 60p of PBL126 over a number of different days, these will each have different interest payments at the end of the month (pro rata) and so will need to be kept as separate part loans. Yes, if I sell many of these parts they can be bought as a single larger part but I still have the problem of administering potentially hundreds of tiny parts and having to sell each individually.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,015
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Sept 26, 2016 13:58:27 GMT
So drop the concept of individual parts. Let's face it, they're not really relevant - and it's not like FC, where they can never be "stuck back together" - you sell 100 x 60p parts, and there's one buyer, they have a £60 part. The 7-day-negative-balance sale ban could still be enforced. You have £60 of PBL126, of which £20 has been bought in the last seven days, so is unsellable until your negative balance is resolved. I'm not sure that you can drop the concept of individual parts. If I end up buying 60p of PBL126 over a number of different days, these will each have different interest payments at the end of the month (pro rata) and so will need to be kept as separate part loans. Yes, if I sell many of these parts they can be bought as a single larger part but I still have the problem of administering potentially hundreds of tiny parts and having to sell each individually. Calculate the interest for newly-bought parts pro-rata, and sum the totals before rounding. Then, for selling, just sell the amount you want to sell, rather than worrying about which parts you want to sell. Works for AC just fine. You might not want to copy the way they work EVERYTHING to 97 decimal places, though, with <1p holdings...
|
|
skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Sept 26, 2016 14:15:25 GMT
As with all arguments there are always going to be positives and negatives. I am definitely not a supporter of captcha but I do see the need to have some control. Some like mikes1531 have suggested that they do not want to be at the computer 24/7. Fair I would say, but how will this proposal help. If someone places an attractive loan for sale at midnight, instead of being gobbled up it might take 20 minutes. You still need to be there. And what if it is placed, a second after you check? Result. If you want the latest - - you still have to check regularly or as regularly as you can. Other people, I will use GSV3MIaC 's post above as an example, have argued for a level playing field: "without favouring people with more time, faster internet connections" Is life a level playing field? And why should it be? Why should someone who have a strength, no matter what that is, not be allowed to use it? Isn't this the way to obtain a job in an interview session? Should I complain that someone has more experience or more knowledge or or or, if I do not get a job? Some ideas that came to me while asleep. . . . What do you think? BTW I left bots out - although technically if someone is able to code the bot themselves, rather than paying someone else to do it, I would see it as part of that person's skill set. All your arguements appear to favour the AC system, bar the last part of the above post, which indicates you are in favour of those with superior computer skills/hardware etc having an unfair advantage. I suppose, if you possess these things you would say that.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 26, 2016 16:33:17 GMT
If a platform is hoping to grow, they need scalable processes.
IMHO, FFF isn't scalable. It's bad enough when you're competing with 10's of people. If you're competing with 100's or 1000's then your chance of success becomes miniscule, with the end result that virtually all of the platform's customers have a negative experience. That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 26, 2016 16:38:53 GMT
As with all arguments there are always going to be positives and negatives. I am definitely not a supporter of captcha but I do see the need to have some control. Some like mikes1531 have suggested that they do not want to be at the computer 24/7. Fair I would say, but how will this proposal help. If someone places an attractive loan for sale at midnight, instead of being gobbled up it might take 20 minutes. You still need to be there. And what if it is placed, a second after you check? Result. If you want the latest - - you still have to check regularly or as regularly as you can. Other people, I will use GSV3MIaC 's post above as an example, have argued for a level playing field: "without favouring people with more time, faster internet connections" Is life a level playing field? And why should it be? Why should someone who have a strength, no matter what that is, not be allowed to use it? Isn't this the way to obtain a job in an interview session? Should I complain that someone has more experience or more knowledge or or or, if I do not get a job? Some ideas that came to me while asleep. . . . What do you think? BTW I left bots out - although technically if someone is able to code the bot themselves, rather than paying someone else to do it, I would see it as part of that person's skill set. All your arguements appear to favour the AC system, bar the last part of the above post, which indicates you are in favour of those with superior computer skills/hardware etc having an unfair advantage. I suppose, if you possess these things you would say that. I actually have a normal computer with a crappy broadband which peaks at around 200kbps. I do not see how you think that my arguments favour an AC-like system.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Sept 26, 2016 16:41:46 GMT
If a platform is hoping to grow, they need scalable processes. IMHO, FFF isn't scalable. It's bad enough when you're competing with 10's of people. If you're competing with 100's or 1000's then your chance of success becomes miniscule, with the end result that virtually all of the platform's customers have a negative experience. That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success. - A question: If my chances of success become minuscule as competition increases, doesn't this imply that each individual's chances diminish by the same amount?
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Sept 26, 2016 16:51:49 GMT
If a platform is hoping to grow, they need scalable processes. IMHO, FFF isn't scalable. It's bad enough when you're competing with 10's of people. If you're competing with 100's or 1000's then your chance of success becomes miniscule, with the end result that virtually all of the platform's customers have a negative experience. That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success. - A question: If my chances of success become minuscule as competition increases, doesn't this imply that each individual's chances diminish by the same amount? Yes.
|
|
skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Sept 26, 2016 17:01:54 GMT
I don't want to waste too much time with this, here's 2
"I actually have a normal computer with a crappy broadband which peaks at around 200kbps."
Computing speed etc makes no difference at all with AC as you are trading 24/7 whether you are present or not.
"I am definitely not a supporter of captcha"
AC doesn't use, or, need it
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2016 17:10:28 GMT
I suppose one day someone would use AC as a positive role model  Right now I'm finding all the systems are working fine in every portal I use. I do note that every time we get a drying up of supply of new loans everyone tries to find ways of fixing-the-system. The system is fine we just have a limited supply of loans, get over it. It will soon wash its face and either rates will drop or loans will start to flow again. Now when will AC pay back on those turbines..... mutters.... |
|
sl75
Posts: 2,092
Likes: 1,245
|
Post by sl75 on Sept 26, 2016 17:10:48 GMT
If a platform is hoping to grow, they need scalable processes. IMHO, FFF isn't scalable. It's bad enough when you're competing with 10's of people. If you're competing with 100's or 1000's then your chance of success becomes miniscule, with the end result that virtually all of the platform's customers have a negative experience. That doesn't strike me as a recipe for success. I personally think it's pretty scaleable. As the platform scales, the importance of buying on the SM diminishes (as the quantity of new loans through the pipeline will be enough to satisfy most users), so the proportion of user's you're "competing" against for any one loan reduces. It's not like the old days when there were entire months that went by with no new loans drawing down. For those who think it's their divine right to have more than the initial pre-funded allocation cap, they'll always be disappointed, as there's simply not enough of the loan to satisfy everyone who wants more (otherwise they'd have distributed more in the first place). Again, as the number of loans in the pipeline increases, this "problem" mostly solves itself, as users can no longer afford to maintain the same per-loan allocation.
|
|
