P2P-Banking.com

The study “What’s in a Picture? Evidence of Discrimination from Prosper.com” by the economic professors Devin Pope and Justin Sydnor finds:

We analyze discrimination in a new type of credit market known as peer-to-peer lending. Specifically, we examine how lenders in this online market respond to signals of characteristics such as race, age, and gender that are conveyed via pictures and text. We find evidence of significant racial disparities; loan listings with blacks in the attached picture are 25 to 35 percent less likely to receive funding than those of whites with similar credit profiles.  conditional on receiving a loan, the interest rate paid by blacks is 60 to 80 basis points higher than that paid by comparable whites. Though less significant than the effects for race, we find
that the market also discriminates somewhat against the elderly and the overweight, but in favor of women and those that signal military involvement.
Despite the higher average interest rates charged to blacks, lenders making such loans earn a lower net return compared to loans made to whites with similar credit profiles because blacks have higher relative default rates. This pattern of net returns is inconsistent with theories of accurate statistical discrimination (equal net returns) or costly taste-based preferences against
loaning money to black borrowers (higher net returns for blacks). It is instead consistent with partial tastebased preferences by lenders in favor of blacks over whites or with systematic underestimation by lenders of relative default rates between blacks and whites.

Their conclusion:

Yet the data tell a very different story that suggests that this peer-to-peer lending market actually treats the races more equally than would be expected in a market with accurate statistical discrimination.

I would interpret this conclusion as a negation of p2p lending leading to racial discrimination. However Ron Shevlin at MarketingROI comes to different conclusions.

Short news update on Prosper.com developments:

• Changes at the Prosper management team: John Witchel (former CTO) and Tom Pigoski are no longer listed as part of the management team. A comment on this blog post indicates that John Witchel has left the company while Tom Pigoski is on family leave. Chris Denend is now CTO.
• Prosper says it will enable faster listings for qualified borrowers. In a streamlined process some borrowers may post loan listings without adding a title, description or picture.
• Reading statistics published by Prosper? Have a good look on the definitions! In the market survey results, published on Aug. 12th, it looks like on some parameters the year to date figures for 2008 are rising compared to 2007. However looking in the definitions, Prosper compares 7 months in 2008 to 6 months in 2007. (quote:
  2008 Year-to-Date: January 1, 2008 through July 31, 2008.
  2007 Year-to-Date: January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007.)

Lendingclub.com has in a new release some new account management features for lenders.
Lendingclub is currently not open for registration of new lenders.

On June 20th, Lendingclub.com filed a registration statement with the SEC to issue up to 600 million US$ in Member Payment Dependent Notes. The notes will be backed by loans and sold to lenders. The process for lenders remains pretty much the same as before the quiet period, only the legal setup will change to comply with regulation.

Link to SEC filing of Lending Club

Press release by Lendingclub regarding the SEC filing

Netbanker extracted some interesting data from the 100+ page Lendingclub filing. 

Globefunder's site got a new layout. It looks more structured and professional now.

Also it seems that Globefunder will open its d2c lending (d2c="direct to consumer") to individual lenders. Only in May an announcement of Globefunder sounded like under dtc lending the company would on the lender site be open only to institutional investors.

Now there are "Coming soon Lend Money to make money" signs on the new site. But it's not available yet. Clicking on them displays the message

We're sorry, that option isn't available yet at GlobeFunder.com. Please check back again soon, as we continue to make improvements to the site.

Fynanz announced a lending bonus.

We're excited to announce that we're giving you and other lenders who lend $3,000 or more, a 3% Lending Bonus. That's on top of the great rates that you're already earning as a lender through the Fynanz Student Loan Marketplace …

Lending Bonus is earned on the aggregate amount you lend across all the loans you make, provided you have lent at least $3,000 in loans between May 15th and September 15, 2008 up to a maximum of $50,000 in aggregate loans

Lenders can earn an additional 2%, if they refer at least 5 new lenders, which each lend 50 US$ minimum.

In a recent "Tips for Borrowers" post, Fynanz says it added 700 more approved schools whose students may apply for a Fynanz loan.

The Prosper study I featured yesterday lists the Prosper fees. While it does not attempt to calculate the revenues of Prosper.com it gives some indications regarding the operating costs:

According to Mendelson (2006), the primary costs of Prosper consist of …, (2) a $4 fee for identity authentication, credit pulling, and bank-account setup per active borrower, (3) customer service at the average rate of four interactions per loan and $2 per interaction, and (4) a fixed overhead cost of approximately $3 million per year. …

Given these estimates, it is difficult to measure Prosper accounting in precision. However, there is no doubt that Prosper’s revenue does not cover its full cost (as of February 2008). The difference is met by a large stock of venture capital.

Regarding the Prosper revenues, Mike did a calculation estimating the November 2007 revenues at 114,000 US$. If this is correct, it did not even cover fixed overhead.

Prosper changed fees since that last calculation.

The new study "Dynamic Learning and Selection: The Early Years of Prosper.com" by Seth Freedman and Ginger Zhe Jin, both at the Department of Economics, University of Maryland analyses Prosper data in a time frame from April 19th 2006 to December 31st 2007.

The study analyses the development of the Prosper.com marketplace and how lenders refined their strategies as a result to own experiences and changed settings.

They write:

Overall, we conclude that Prosper is evolving from a comprehensive market to a market that primarily serves the borrowers who have access to traditional credit. This implies that Prosper will compete head-to-head with the traditional banks rather than pick up a missing market. Assuming away any cost in information processing, we estimate that the average rate of return of a Prosper loan is 6% if Prosper loans continue to perform according to what we have predicted from their existing performance. From the lenders point of view, this number compares favorably to 6-month certificate of deposit and 3-year Treasury bill, but less favorably to the rate of return implied by the S&P 500 in the same time period.

Other findings are that high interest loans yield lower returns due to high default rates and that the probability for defaults of Prosper loans peak at month 10 and the edge down.

The main uses of Prosper loans are:

33% of all previous Prosper listings have mentioned credit card consolidation, which is higher than the mention of business (23%), mortgage (15%), education (22%), and family purposes (20%) such as weddings.  

Cited from the conclusion chapter of the study:

The first two years of Prosper has enlivened the concept of P2P lending, but the road towards success is full of challenge. While it is tempting to expect P2P lending to alleviate credit rationing for near- or sub-prime risks, we find Prosper evolving from a comprehensive market toward a market that primarily serves borrowers who have access to traditional credit. This implies that Prosper will compete head-to-head with the traditional banks, rather than pick up a missing market. This pattern is not unique to Prosper. …

How can Prosper compete with traditional banks? Our study suggests that the microfinance approach, as implemented through Prosper groups, has failed to select good risks or enhance loan performance. But on the up side, lenders are learning fast about the pitfalls of P2P lending thanks to the transparency of Prosper. Our calculation suggests that, if the loans continue to perform as what we have predicted from the market performance, Prosper loans could yield an average return of 6%.

See related post on the Prosper blog.

A recent Bankrate.com article gives an update on the development of p2p lending in the US.

Chris Larsen of Prosper.com sees the current financial situation as a chance for p2p lenders:

Home equity used to be the cash management tool for the credit-worthy borrower, and that has really, really dried up. In many ways, Prosper's three-year, 25,000 US$ loan is a pretty good proxy for what people were using home equity for — improving their home, starting a sole proprietorship, college costs and certainly for replacing credit card debt.

Javelin Strategy & Research is quoted that credit card debt is the main reason people want to use p2p lending:

We're forecasting that P2P lending specifically for credit card balances will grow from 38 billion US$ in 2007 to 159 billion US$ by 2012

The final advice of the article is:

Prospective borrowers and lenders would do well to thoroughly research P2P companies before jumping at the chance for a lower rate on a loan or a higher return on an investment. …

Greennote.com will offer p2p loans to help college students pay for their education. Unlike at the competitor Fynanz, at Greennote interest rates are equal for all loans - at launch 6.8%.

Greennote puts a lot of trust in students. All that's required is a school id. No credit checks.
From the Greennote Lender FAQ:

Q: Is there any collateral for the loan? Does the student go through a credit check?

No collateral is provided. This is an unsecured loan. And there is no credit check for the student. You are making this loan because you are helping your student and believe in his or her potential. It’s an investment in someone’s future. At the same time, this is not a handout and you will receive a return on your money.

However, as with any loan, there are risks involved. GreenNote cannot guarantee the repayment of any loan. If a student is unable to repay the loan and defaults after leaving school, GreenNote will provide collections services. We will report delinquencies to credit agencies, which will impact the student’s ability to get credit in the future.

The terms sound certainly attractive for students, especially for those with a low or no credit grade. Students can defer payments while in school:

Payments begin six months after the student finishes (or leaves) school. The student can also defer payments for the entire time he or she is enrolled in school, for up to a maximum of five years.

Student then have 10 years to pay back the loan. They can pay it back early any time without a penalty.

Whether this model appeals to lenders remains to be shown. A slogan on the site says: "Help students you know" - so Greennote is targeting relatives and friends who lend to students.

According to TechCrunch, Greennote raised 4.2 million US$ venture capital from Menlo Ventures and Glenbrook Partners last year.