why would they want to hide their recent successes in 3.0 loans?
(which are the vast majority of Prosper's originations)
When did 1.0 end? I'm curious to see the data showing the majority of the loan originations during that time as I thought a good portion had been made during 2.0...Data?
Prosper 1.0 ended when the SEC shut them down.
Prosper 2.0 was the very short time when they tried to go around the SEC and opened as a California Only company.
Prosper 3.0 is since SEC approval.
Whats the point of taking away the marketplace performance?
The numbers were already so tainted that there wasn't much point in keeping it.
But this action does follow Prosper's tradition of hiding and burying anything that might smell like marketplace "transparency".
Without the numbers, only suckers are gonna sign up. Which probably suits Prosper just fine.
What do you mean by the numbers were already so tainted? The numbers are the numbers, despite how Prosper may calculate and advertise them, IE, annualized ROI, etc, the fact is the numbers could be worked by anyone to determine a realistic expectation.
BAEVentures
The performance statistics are tainted by several things. The two most egregious examples are that Prosper keeps re-defining what the different credit grades are, so you can't see how all old C's performed as almost all of them are currently classified as HR, and the fact that Prosper has knowingly removed loans from the data because they were "repurchased" even though Prosper didn't make the lenders on those loans whole.
Excellent on the 1.0 vs 2.0 and 3.0 data then. I guess I started lending during 1.0 without knowing it =).
In terms of Prosper continuously changing the "credit grade" data, I see this as something that Prosper viewed as 100% necessary in order to sustain growth. Not only did they adjust their rating system, change the labeling and criteria of their rating system, but they also adjusted the minimum requirements to become a borrower. Adjusting those requirements forces an adjustment in their rating system.
Given that the details of how they rate borrowers has always been proprietary (which I don't necessarily agree with), I never thought the Prosper ratings held much weight anyways (except for the first few days I was lending and absolutely clueless). I know that all of my extensive analysis of Prosper loans as well as most other intelligent lenders, was typically performed with no regard to "Prosper Ratings" and "Prosper Credit Grades" as they were unproven and held no water, instead, I would think that most of us viewed credit data, and picked our loans primarily by FICO score range as well as other details.
In terms of the deleted/removed loans, that was a total of what, 60 loans? While I will agree that is "tampering" when compared to the 32,917 loans originated, it is hardly relevant. I was not a part of any of that so never took much interest, but my understanding was that Prosper repurchased those notes, but at a deep discount, resulting in a minimal amount of principal being returned to the lenders? Perhaps they felt that since these loans were re-purchased, and that their overall data didn't have a way to account for that, they would rather have them removed than corrupt the other data.
Just my 2 cents.
BAEVentures
