TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Mar 5, 2016 22:52:26 GMT
Not working now.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Feb 18, 2016 21:33:39 GMT
I thought it was worth to mention 17174, a large E of £263,160, went CVA after two payments:
18 Feb 2016
We have downgraded this loan as the company director has informed us that they are proposing a Company Voluntary Arrangement. We will be negotiating with the guarantor to ascertain how the loan will be repaid going forward. We will update investors with any further developments.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 11, 2016 21:34:41 GMT
Six point whatever? Not for me.
Let's go back to the 14% containers, please.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Jan 6, 2016 21:40:10 GMT
Are cash-backs of any kind a thing of the past? I am about to make my single largest withdrawal ever from Flintstones Cannibals.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 17, 2015 18:25:41 GMT
I'm thinking of waiting for T2 or T3 to see if the CB gets bumped to 2% in the lead-up to Xmas. Ordinarily I'd do the same, but this is a slightly more dangerous game now. (1) if T2 or T3 was to be Billy No-Mates over Xmas, would it need CB at all (ok, probably yes), but (2) with the random allocation of loans to PL or WL, will we actually see T2 and/or T3 - probably yes to at least one of them but the WL situation does add an unknown factor for one's strategy. You are absolutely right. However, 8% + 1%CB for 12 months doesn't really fit the bill.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 15, 2015 14:44:44 GMT
18316: This loan has been re-listed under the correct business name. Thanks FC.
Is there any T&C clause that prevents correcting a typo? Or it is just the usual lack of common sense.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Funding Circle (FC)
E-Alert!
Dec 14, 2015 14:14:29 GMT
SteveT likes this
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 14, 2015 14:14:29 GMT
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 9, 2015 16:58:34 GMT
I am struggling to know what the issue is, other than excessive demand, and a sense of outrage at people 'gaming' the system. There were circa 1200 investors in yesterday's loans, for the smaller loan that averages at c £350, so worst case scenario we all game the system with £250k pre-funds and get a prorated £350 each (and if you want less, sell the surplus). If the current system doesn't bother SS it doesn't bother me. I'm not sure (but stand to be corrected) that I've seen many people complain they haven't got what they wanted. I have seen people on AC complain at the small allocations they've received as a result of the pro-rated allocation on small popular loans there. I've even seen people complain they haven't got anything on MT with it's pre-announced 24hr % caps 'cause they didn't get home fast enough and the loans have sold out (sometimes even in minutes for very small ones). More loans of all sizes to match or outpace investor growth, and barring bad news, I think this will settle. I'm hoping SS are on the way to deliver this. Few systems are neutral to all, and a lot of systems can be abused, some people will still game with loan caps it will just lower the 'magnification', restrictions based on holdings / cash balance will be gamed by deep pockets, not allowing sales of allocated amounts will cause other problems, over complicating it will put a lot of people off. I'm trusting SS to sort out the extreme serial abusers trying to bid for what they can't possibly fund or garner unfunded interest. The current system suits me fine, and I feel it will settle with greater deal flow, but I'm also assuming SS know their investor base so if they feel a change is needed they come up with something as equitable to all as possible, and as simple as possible; but P.S don't forget to tell us beforehand.Not changing the system would result in one dominant strategy for all investors consisting in pre-funding 250K for any loan lower than 1m. I am ok with that, but it makes no sense.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Lendy (L) in Administration
PBL 72
Dec 9, 2015 15:14:54 GMT
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 9, 2015 15:14:54 GMT
I got two emails notifying me of two different allocations with two different loan part IDs. My deficit was the aggregate of both parts. Then the deficit went down to just the value of one of the parts. Then PBL072 vanished from My Loans list altogether. What is going on?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 9, 2015 14:06:31 GMT
That proposal will put new investors at a serious disadvantage. The alternative being suggested at the time was that everyone would have to pre load their accounts to finance the prefunding amount which I believe would be a huge backwards steps.
This approach would only require new investors or people who want to greatly increase their investment to put up cash in advance of loans going live (my suggestion would be that if you have £1000 in your account you could prefund all pipeline loans for that amount, you wouldn't need to have £10,000 to prefund 10 loans for £1,000 each).
While this could be seen as unfair initially it would quickly get less unfair as you get more loan parts. A way to remove this disadvantage to new investors is to change the % based on the number of loans you hold so (While I always belief in keeping things and therefore I would, if it was my decision, not bother with this):
0 Loans, you must pre load cash to allow you to prefund 1 Loans, you can Prefund up to the value of your first loan 2 Loans, you can Prefund up to 80% value of your total loan amount 3 Loans, you can Prefund up to 70% value of your total loan amount ..... 10+ Loans, you can Prefund up to 10% value of your total loan amount
Any set of rules based on the size of the portfolio of each individual lender is unfair by definition. There were other proposals that made much more sense: - Putting limits to pre-funding depending on loan size.
- Holding the ability to sell in the SM for a number of days.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 9, 2015 13:27:14 GMT
I don't think the ability to fund afterward is the real problem and i would also hate to see to go. A percentage cap could probably work. Limit the per funding amount to 10 % of you total investment plus any cash balance. This will mean people who want more than 10% will have to transfer money into their accounts but everyone else will be restricted to a fairly decent chunk. That seems eminently fair and feasible... Comments please. That proposal will put new investors at a serious disadvantage.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Funding Circle (FC)
E-Alert!
Dec 9, 2015 11:53:00 GMT
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 9, 2015 11:53:00 GMT
18164: Is this the Guinness record of the shortest time between listing and canceling due to a technical error?
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 9, 2015 11:48:52 GMT
From email: "Bidding opens at 11.30am on 8th December 2015 and closes at 11.30am on 9th December 2015"
If I am not wrong, the system is still accepting bids.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 8, 2015 17:36:10 GMT
I too have been slowly moving funds to SS and, on a lesser extent, MT and AR. Having said that, I am more uncomfortable with SS, MT and AR in terms of platform risk.
|
|
TitoPuente
Member of DD Central
Posts: 624
Likes: 655
|
Post by TitoPuente on Dec 8, 2015 13:33:02 GMT
There is no perfect solution. I've worked doing something very, very similar to this for 15 years, using multiple different allocation processes and order processing. Let's see how this goes, but the key restriction is that people can't bid over their available funds. If they do, I will cut them back to what they have on account. There is no perfect solution, but limiting pledges would have been a better solution than not doing so. You first attempt to setting rules in the begging of this thread was "more perfect".
|
|