Print

[cowdog]

Now the front page has the old rate back on it:

Lenders, earn Earn 9.49 - 12.81% returns (1)

(1) Rates of return shown are the average annual returns on Prosper loans originated between 7/1/06 and 11/30/07 to borrowers with AA - C credit grades who requested automatic funding, have 0 - 1 current delinquencies and 0 inquiries in the last 6 months on their credit record, as of 1/17/08. For more information click here.


Seems they added a clickable graphic for PD08, must have used the prior banner instead of the most recent one.

 

[traveler505]

Weird.  Still says "Earn 8.74% - 12.10% returns" for me, and I don't see a clickable PD banner.  Maybe they switched it back.

[globaleagle]

Did you see the SF Biz Journal Article re PD '08?  What a joke.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/02/25/daily9.html?surround=lfn

[ira01]

Did you see the SF Biz Journal Article re PD '08?  What a joke.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/02/25/daily9.html?surround=lfn

I commented on that here.  If Prosper isn't giving bribes to the journalists, it just shows that journalists must be the laziest (or stupidest) people around.  You would sure think that some journalist would want to do an intellectually rigorous piece on Prosper, rather than simply acting as a mouthpiece for Prosper's PR department.  Unfortunately, we haven't seen it yet.

[cowdog]

ack

[onthefence]

Journalists are good with the written word, very few are good with stats.

[onthefence]

There may be some truth to this, but that would only be based on January's data.

If you look here at AAs & As, there is a significant spike in loan listings.
http://www.ericscc.com/index.php?page=listing_volume

So technically, the article may be correct if you count the single month of January as the key predictor of the 'credit crunch'.

[ira01]

There may be some truth to this, but that would only be based on January's data.

If you look here at AAs & As, there is a significant spike in loan listings.
http://www.ericscc.com/index.php?page=listing_volume

So technically, the article may be correct if you count the single month of January as the key predictor of the 'credit crunch'.

But why should only January be considered?  The credit crunch started long before January.  Furthermore, February 2008 is shaping up to be Prosper's second lowest month since February 2007.

[onthefence]

But why should only January be considered?  The credit crunch started long before January.  Furthermore, February 2008 is shaping up to be Prosper's second lowest month since February 2007.

Ira01
1. I agree just using January is flimsy data.  I was trying to figure out where prosper got their party line from.
2. What do you mean by 2/08 being the 2nd lowest month since 2/07?  I think we all know by now that stats like this: http://www.lendingstats.com/loansFunded tend to be behind the curve until the month fully ends.

[ira01]

2. What do you mean by 2/08 being the 2nd lowest month since 2/07?  I think we all know by now that stats like this: http://www.lendingstats.com/loansFunded tend to be behind the curve until the month fully ends.

There's only 4 days left this month, and the LS chart you linked to projects originations for the remainder of the month.  While that projection is fairly new and undoubtedly not highly accurate, it would have to be off by a lot for my statement to not be correct.  In any event, we will see on Saturday.

[Rancidbeef]

If Prosper isn't giving bribes to the journalists, it just shows that journalists must be the laziest (or stupidest) people around.

Virtually every time I've had some prior or "insider" knowledge of something that got picked up by the press, they wound up getting something wrong about the story.  Sometimes its minor and sometimes its potentially life threatening.  And sometimes they just sensationalize it (I have a funny but long tale about this).  Whether its stupidity or laziness is debatable.

[onthefence]

If Prosper isn't giving bribes to the journalists, it just shows that journalists must be the laziest (or stupidest) people around.

Virtually every time I've had some prior or "insider" knowledge of something that got picked up by the press, they wound up getting something wrong about the story.  Sometimes its minor and sometimes its potentially life threatening.  And sometimes they just sensationalize it (I have a funny but long tale about this).  Whether its stupidity or laziness is debatable.

I'm with Rancidbeef.  I've seen quite a few screw ups in articles where I knew all of the details & was even around when the reporter was doing the interviews so I know what facts he/she received.

The quality of articles & fact collection of course very by the reporter. 

This is what I see:
1. Reporters have a deadline (normally daily)
2. Reporters have a life (or want to have a life)
3. These article turn into a daily grind for them... yeah... another fluff piece on a local restaurant, or this group or that group.  If they piss someone, some group, or an advertiser off you know their butts going to get chewed.
4. I think they like writing & talking to people but that's about it.  Why do further research when you can just take the low hanging grapes?  It's so much easier to go soft on the issues.
5. Most of the ones I know are scribbling notes on a pad during an interview.  So they really are not quite getting the quotes correct, much less following the story accurately.

I think that the hard nosed reporter digging for a scoop that will really wow them is either long gone, or a myth.  I'm not saying that there are not a few left still out there... but they are far & few in between.

Opinion pieces are sooo much easier to write.

[lenderguy]

I know a bit about the aviation world.  Whenever there was an aviation piece published in the mainstream press, we used to say, "OMG, they screwed this up.  *We* know the real facts; imagine how many facts they screw up about other stories that we will never know."

[dlv1945]

I've seen several newsworthy events at first hand, and every time the news had it significantly wrong. Once I was on a jury on a trial that got local coverage and afterward I read the papers. I was amazed that they completely missed everything we saw as significant.

I try hard to never believe anything I read in the paper or see on the news. Impossible, I know.

When people ask my opinion of the news of the day I often tell them I don't have enough information. They think I'm being evasive. Unless I saw the whole thing with my own eyes I don't know what happened. Isn't that sad.

[Mark12547]

I also have seen events I had been knowledgeable about get distorted in the papers. One place a reporter asked how Savings Bonds worked, I did my best to explain it, but once the magazine article came out, the explanation was so bad I said that I sounded like a moron! Other events I had inside information in also had misinformation reported.

Now, when people ask me about an article, I usually start with, "If it is as reported, ..." or "Based on what the article said, ..." because I know the source gets filtered through the reporter's understanding, and that may get edited before it makes its way to daylight, and at each handoff there are possibilities for misunderstanding.