|
tash
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2008, 10:29:03 PM » |
|
What is the "plus" about removing the verified bank account?  The only reason to use this as a bidding criterion is to avoid having funds tied up in a listing that ultimately fails verification because the borrower cannot verify her account. If, as Andrew says, most verification failures occur for reasons other than the bank account, the confusion likely outweighs the benefit. I disagree. Back almost a year ago, I noticed that folks too lazy to verify their accounts before the listing closed (funded) had a much higher rate of delinquency. ( ego-inflating self-reference). I suspect that the trend hasn't completely reversed in the last year. It was statistically significant and I'm miffed that it went away. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tash
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2008, 10:34:23 PM » |
|
What is the "plus" about removing the verified bank account? The only reason to use this as a bidding criterion is to avoid having funds tied up in a listing that ultimately fails verification because the borrower cannot verify her account. If, as Andrew says, most verification failures occur for reasons other than the bank account, the confusion likely outweighs the benefit. I disagree. Back almost a year ago, I noticed that folks too lazy to verify their accounts before the listing closed (funded) had a much higher rate of delinquency. ( ego-inflating self-reference). I suspect that the trend hasn't completely reversed in the last year. It was statistically significant and I'm miffed that it went away. I just noticed that Fred93 has schooled me in another thread. So, nothing to see here - I know not what I'm talking about. Short summary: Prosper updates the "verified account" status after the loan funds, making this statistic rather meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
traveler505
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2008, 07:12:32 PM » |
|
The secondary market is conspicuously absent, but I guess they want to save as much as possible until the evening before PD, so they can spend the majority of time at PD explaining new stuff, rather than having to explain their lackluster performance thus far.
Illusionists refer to this as misdirection...
No announcement of maintenance downtime for tonight. And, from the reports thus far, there was nothing new to announce, beyond Friday night's rather minimalist release. Just a vague reference to new features and the secondary market sometime in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Trav, you can always take up another hobby..." -- BigGulp
Now blogging at http://blog.traveler505.com, home of the MNH Reports and other commentary on Prosper.com and P2P lending in general.
Need Help with Credit Repair & Rebuilding? Try CreditBoards.com.
|
|
|
|
globaleagle
|
|
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2008, 07:42:45 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pioneer11
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2008, 07:46:52 PM » |
|
greater transparency on who is borrowing  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have decided, the enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.  |
|
|
|
ira01
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2008, 08:25:51 PM » |
|
It's amazing how Prosper constantly gets newspapers to essentially regurgitate its press releases, with no critical thought at all. Maybe the reporter should have asked Larsen, in response to Larsen's claims that Prosper "is benefitting from the credit crunch that's sending more lenders and borrowers to the person-to-person lending marketplace," "how come your loan originations have been basically flat for the last 8 months as seen here"? Or in response to "Prosper also benefits from providing lenders with greater transparency on who is borrowing their money," how about asking "how come Prosper has been constantly reducing transparency, then, by preventing borrowers from sharing their information with lenders even when they choose to do so (contrary to Prosper's Privacy Policy), and eliminating interaction between borrowers and lenders on the forum"? Or maybe, "how about some transparency with respect to the junk debt sales"? Just unbelievable. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tash
|
|
« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2008, 01:00:49 AM » |
|
It's amazing how Prosper constantly gets newspapers to essentially regurgitate its press releases, with no critical thought at all. Maybe the reporter should have asked Larsen, in response to Larsen's claims that Prosper "is benefitting from the credit crunch that's sending more lenders and borrowers to the person-to-person lending marketplace," "how come your loan originations have been basically flat for the last 8 months as seen here"? Or in response to "Prosper also benefits from providing lenders with greater transparency on who is borrowing their money," how about asking "how come Prosper has been constantly reducing transparency, then, by preventing borrowers from sharing their information with lenders even when they choose to do so (contrary to Prosper's Privacy Policy), and eliminating interaction between borrowers and lenders on the forum"? Or maybe, "how about some transparency with respect to the junk debt sales"? Just unbelievable. You're acting like this is a problem unique to reporting on Prosper... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
zcommodore
|
|
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2008, 09:56:39 AM » |
|
One casualty I noticed from the changes the other day--the ability to see the performance history with the same criteria that you had for a given standing order (the Urbi change). Now, the only performance information you get is Prosper's estimated overall return for the portfolio plan. If you want to see the exact number of lates/defaults/current loans that met the criteria, you have to manually enter the information into the performance page.
Incidentally, they've changed the performance page as well such that it defaults to "no criteria" again and there is a new way to specify which criteria to use. I haven't had time to play with it since they changed it but it is different now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
j9359
|
|
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2008, 08:13:05 PM » |
|
I wonder why Prosper doesn't roll out some of these changes as a Beta test. Keep the old view around and let folks switch between the old and the new while they gather bug reports and suggestions. It would seem simple enough to keep some of the front end servers running the old code and just switch between them depending on which view you select.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
