|
bamalucky
|
 |
« on: March 01, 2010, 09:44:50 pm » |
|
Finally, it is important to reiterate that the best estimate of net returns from the entire portfolio of Prosper loans are roughly 6% as demonstrated by an independent University of Maryland study conducted using Prosper’s data, which is fully transparent and publicly available via Prosper’s API and data downloads. http://blog.prosper.com/2008/09/02/the-facts-of-the-matter/Those facts were lies then & are still lies today. Lobby please |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bamalucky
|
|
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2010, 09:54:47 pm » |
|
Someone needs to dig out the contacts & ask them to run the data now
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bamalucky
|
|
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2010, 10:35:45 pm » |
|
page 33 Conclusion However, as lenders realize the
actual risk on the Internet, the P2P market has excluded more and more subprime borrowers
and evolved towards the population served by traditional credit markets. This suggests that,
unless P2P platforms can improve the power of social networks for borrowers with low credit
scores, P2P lending is likely to compete head-to-head with traditional banks in the future and
would not provide a viable alternative for those excluded from traditional credit markets. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
|
|
|
|
NewHorizon
|
|
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2010, 10:44:18 pm » |
|
page 33 Conclusion However, as lenders realize the
actual risk on the Internet, the P2P market has excluded more and more subprime borrowers
and evolved towards the population served by traditional credit markets. This suggests that,
unless P2P platforms can improve the power of social networks for borrowers with low credit
scores, P2P lending is likely to compete head-to-head with traditional banks in the future and
would not provide a viable alternative for those excluded from traditional credit markets. Even then, I'm not seeing how Prosper CAN compete head-to-head with traditional banks given the fees and non-competitive interest rates Prosper offers. ETA: nominate 4 lobby |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bankomatic
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2010, 11:13:53 pm » |
|
page 33 Conclusion However, as lenders realize the
actual risk on the Internet, the P2P market has excluded more and more subprime borrowers
and evolved towards the population served by traditional credit markets. This suggests that,
unless P2P platforms can improve the power of social networks for borrowers with low credit
scores, P2P lending is likely to compete head-to-head with traditional banks in the future and
would not provide a viable alternative for those excluded from traditional credit markets. Even then, I'm not seeing how Prosper CAN compete head-to-head with traditional banks given the fees and non-competitive interest rates Prosper offers. ETA: nominate 4 lobby Oh that one is simple. A lot of banks don't even offer unsecured loans anymore, for example Bank of America. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Senator
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2010, 10:15:39 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Stats as of 6/28/2010:
Total withdrawals: $3,488.74 minus (-) Total deposits: $3,600.00 = ($111.26)
Cash balance: $0
Principal value of active notes: $0
Total active notes: 0 of 70.
Successful loans are made to persons who are on a clear path to financial stability. -Mjerryfirst May 18th, 2008.
I know that when I make my 10% those "unbelievers" will call it luck cause that will be the easiest way to excuse their mistakes. -Researchpro May 5th, 2009.
It's a great time to be poor and irresponsible in America. -PPT May 2009
|
|
|
|
NewHorizon
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2010, 08:42:12 am » |
|
...our IRR estimates may have overestimated the return of investment
because we do not consider any cost that lenders may incur in processing Prosper information.
The time that lenders spend on screening listings and digesting Prosper history could be long
and stressful.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bamalucky
|
|
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2010, 02:15:15 pm » |
|
It's easy for them to respond & allow comments on a blog that is 2 years old & you can only see with a direct link.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
|
|
|
|
NewHorizon
|
|
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2010, 02:39:08 pm » |
|
Little steps....  ETA: It's easy for them to respond & allow comments on a blog that is 2 years old & you can only see with a direct link.
Easier still to complain about it.  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 09:29:42 am by NewHorizon »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
brianguy
|
|
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2010, 08:22:54 pm » |
|
page 33 Conclusion However, as lenders realize the
actual risk on the Internet, the P2P market has excluded more and more subprime borrowers
and evolved towards the population served by traditional credit markets. This suggests that,
unless P2P platforms can improve the power of social networks for borrowers with low credit
scores, P2P lending is likely to compete head-to-head with traditional banks in the future and
would not provide a viable alternative for those excluded from traditional credit markets. Even then, I'm not seeing how Prosper CAN compete head-to-head with traditional banks given the fees and non-competitive interest rates Prosper offers. ETA: nominate 4 lobby Oh that one is simple. A lot of banks don't even offer unsecured loans anymore, for example Bank of America. credit cards notwithstanding. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
