Prosper Archives - Page 19 of 22

Peer-to-Peer Marketplaces Join Forces to Influence Lawmakers with the "Coalition for New Credit Models"

By Jim Bruene Posted on October 22, 2009
Categories: Lending Club, P2P Lending, Prosper

Caught up in the regulatory crackdown in all things financial, new models that would transparently originate consumer and small business loans between individuals, the so-called P2P marketplaces, have struggled mightily to satisfy SEC requirements (my feelings about that). In fact, all three peer-to-peer U.S. lenders had to shut down for extended periods in 2008/2009 to reengineer their marketplaces. See our previous coverage here (note 1).

Earlier this year, Lending Club spearheaded a largely marketing-oriented campaign called UnCrunch America, which brought together several companies including Credit Karma, Virgin Money, Geezeo and On Deck Capital to publicize alternative lending. You can see our previous coverage, but that program appears shuttered with the URL redirecting to Lending Club.

This week, a new multi-company effort called, Coalition for New Credit Models, officially launched (press release). This group is spearheaded by rival loan marketplace Prosper, whose founder Chris Larsen has spent considerable time lobbying federal and state legislators during the past year.

The coalition’s stated goals are largely political, hoping to influence legislators to reverse the SEC ruling that classified P2P loans as security offerings as well as adopt new programs to help support new methods for consumers and businesses to access capital.

Chris Larsen’s quote in the press release compares the need for financial innovation to that needed to solve energy problems:

This country has been in an energy crisis for years, and we are now in a financial crisis. America’s economic future depends on new and alternative credit models being embraced in the same way green technologies are being nurtured by policy leaders to help solve the energy crisis.

It’s a worthy effort, and we hope their voices will be heard on Capital Hill. With traditional bank financing still a pipe dream for many small businesses, this is an ideal time to test new methods of getting capital to entrepreneurs who can productively put it to use.

About the coalition members
We are proud that five of the seven (Credit Karma, Loanio, Prosper, The Receivables Exchange, and SecondMarket) have appeared on stage at FinovateStartup and three of those (Prosper, Credit Karma, and Loanio) have also presented at Finovate in NYC (note 2).

Here they are in alphabetic order:

Credit Karma: The San Francisco-based Finovate alum (video) launched in 2008, displays free credit scores and credit report info in an ad-supported business model.
Loanio: This Nanuet, NY-based peer-to-peer lender launched at Finovate 2008 in October 2008 (video). However, it suspended business activities a few weeks later to register its securities with the SEC. It has yet to reopen.
ProFounder: The Palo Alto, CA-based startup provides a platform where entrepreneurs raise seed funding from their social network and affiliates.
Progreso Financiero: The Mountain View, CA-based firm provides loans to underbanked Hispanic families using a proprietary credit score enabling it to make loans to families without FICO scores.
Prosper: The San Francisco-based startup, which presented at the inaugural Finovate in 2007 (video), has facilitated $180 million in p2p loans since launching Feb. 2006.
The Receivables Exchange: The New Orleans-based startup showed its account receivable marketplace at FinovateStartup this past April (video).
SecondMarket: The NYC startup and FinovateStartup alum (video) is the largest centralized marketplace for illiquid assets such as auction-rate securities, bankruptcy claims, CDOs, private-company stock, whole loans, and more.

Notes:
1. For more on peer-to-peer lending, see our Online Banking Report: Peer-to-Peer Lending (Dec. 2007)
2. Uncrunch America members Lending Club and On Deck Capital are also Finovate alums.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Prosper Back in Peer-to-Peer Lending Game with Full Approval of SEC

By Jim Bruene Posted on July 13, 2009
Categories: Loans & Credit, P2P Lending, Prosper

At our FinovateStartup conference two months ago, Prosper won a Best of Show award for the re-launch of its peer-to-peer lending platform. But apparently, the SEC didn’t share our audience’s enthusiasm over Prosper’s plan to operate under State of California regulatory authority while its SEC filings were undergoing final scrutiny. So Prosper went offline again, waiting until today at 5:30 PM Pacific to reopen (note 1).

The company can now set aside the last nine months of regulatory servitude and pursue its vision: allowing loans to be originated online in an auction process. Sure, thousands of pages of Prosper documentation are now on file at the SEC, with thousands more on the way, and lenders (aka investors) must now meet various state-mandated “investor suitability” requirements (note 2). But fundamentally, it’s the same peer-to-peer lending service the company introduced in 2006, albeit with hundreds of incremental improvements (note 3).

The latest version launched today includes a number of tweaks that include a higher minimum credit score (640), new risk ratings, and lower minimum bid amount ($25), but the only major changes are:

A secondary market is now available for lenders to sell their previously originated loans
A hard rate floor that establishes a minimum yield for loans. It varies by credit score and is determined by adding the current 3-year national CD rate to the expected loss rate of the loan. For example, a C-rated loan with a 6% loss rate now has a floor of approximately 8.3% (6% + 2.3%). The vast majority of loans would have been originated at rates above the floor anyway, so the impact should be small.
Because each individual state must now approve lending/investing at Prosper, only 14 are currently on board: California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. More states will be added in the weeks and months ahead. Borrowing is permitted in all states except Iowa, Kansas, Maine and North Dakota.

On hold is the planned option to allow institutional lenders to post already-originated loans directly into the marketplace (Open Market), see previous post.

To support the grand re-opening, CEO Chris Larsen penned a blog post entitled: Prosper is Back! (We mean it this time) which features a humorous YouTube clip of him asking his dad to post a loan listing on Prosper (embedded below). It’s good to see they’ve maintained a sense of humor.

Prosper homepage minutes after its 5:30 PM Pacific relaunch (13 July 2009)

Notes:
1. The SEC approved the Prosper filings Friday afternoon, 10 July 2009.
2. Investor suitability requirements may involve one or more of the following: minimum net worth, minimum annual income, maximum investment as a percent of net worth.
3. For more on the P2P loan marketplace, see our Online Banking Report on Peer-to-Peer Lending (published Dec. 2007).

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Peer-to-Peer Lender Prosper Reopens Today at FinovateStartup

By Jim Bruene Posted on April 28, 2009
Categories: Finovate, P2P Lending, Prosper

There’s good news in peer-to-peer lending today as Prosper reopened for business. The announcement was timed around its appearance at FinovateStartup today.

The company is adding a loan-resale component called Open Market (see diagram below). Open Market loans are initiated by other financial institutions, then resold on the Prosper platform. Open Market loans must have been originated by Prosper-vetted financial institutions, and be current and have had at least three on-time payments.

We’ll look deeper at the new Prosper in coming weeks; for more coverage now, check out articles today at The Wall Street Journal, CNET and the San Francisco Chronicle.

How Open Market lending works

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Open Letter to SEC: Leave Peer-to-Peer Lending Alone

By Jim Bruene Posted on December 17, 2008
Categories: Lending Club, P2P Lending, Prosper, What NOT to Do!

Dear Mr. Cox:

I don’t have to tell you that the Madoff mess has dominated the Wall Street Journal headlines for the past few days. You probably saw Jane Kim’s recap today tallying the $25 billion in known losses so far in a wide-reaching, long-running fraud perpetrated by a firm overseen by your agency.

It’s not that I blame you for the Madoff fraud. The cops can’t catch every crook. But now that you have your hands full with this matter, I have an idea as to how you can free up some staff resources to sort out the mess Mr. Madoff left.

You’ve probably been too busy to read Netbanker (see note 1), but if you had, you’d know that I haven’t been very happy with the way the U.S. peer-to-peer lending industry has been treated by the SEC this year. Thanks to your agency’s efforts, the three major providers have all been shut down for extended periods and several others have been dissuaded from opening at all.

Currently, just a single company, Lending Club, remains in operation, but they were crippled much of the year by a dark period as they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars meeting SEC registration requirements. Thankfully you approved their registration statement and they are now open for business, albeit weighed down by massive ongoing reporting requirements.

As recently as last year, we had as many as a dozen companies in various stages of launching companies in this space. The goal is to connect people with excess funds to those in need of money with a fair rate of interest established via open bidding in a transparent market. What more can you ask for?

And even before the SEC became involved, it’s not like these companies were skating by with no regulation. They spent considerable time and money obtaining lending licenses in individual states and/or working with existing regulated financial institutions to originate loans. In addition, the startups all had to comply with a myriad of federal consumer protection statutes. In fact, you could say they were already operating as highly regulated companies.

The biggest of the group, Prosper, even made all its data available to the world including the good, the bad, and the very, very ugly. They could very well be considered the first open source financial institution in the world. Their unique transparency gave us all a ringside seat to watch the ebb and flow of a new market gaining traction.

No, Mr. Cox, it has not been a smooth ride for Prosper. More than 20% of the loans made the first year have already gone bad, and ultimately the losses may end up above 30%. But with an average interest rate of 17% on the 70% of the balances ultimately repaid, most lenders will get most, if not all, their principal back from their speculative bets. That’s a better return than blue chip stocks over the same period. And I’m sure the investors in Madoff Securities would be happy with to have 98% of their principal returned.

But even before the SEC got involved in P2P lending, things were improving for lenders. The open market fostered quick learning as lenders learned from both from their own mistakes and those of others in the community.

And the exchange operators were learning even faster. Prosper now makes much more borrower info available and began verifying certain applicant statements. As a result, returns appear to be improving. Although, against the backdrop of a severe recession, it’s hard to make good comparisons.

Had these companies been left alone, journalists would be writing stories about how P2P companies were stepping into the lending void left by the turmoil in the banking sector. And how wise the U.S. regulators were in letting this new area thrive amidst the collapse of HIGHLY REGULATED financial companies around the world.

But instead, the SEC decided it needed to keep closer tabs on the tiny $100 million annual volume originated in these markets (that’s just a single day’s worth of fraud by Mr. Madoff). Your agency came to the surprising conclusion that loans, made between individuals in a regulated peer-to-peer market, are securities and needed SEC oversight. And based on recent events, what exactly does that even mean? Besides requiring a flood of documents uploaded to your servers, are you really going to assign an agent to watch over these $3,500 loans. I don’t know what your 2009 staffing plans are, but I’m guessing everyone will still be pretty busy.

The decision to classify these loans as securities will ultimately cost Prosper as much as $10 million, a potentially fatal blow. Prosper has been shut down as it goes through the SEC-registration process. The SEC ruling has already cost the company at least $2 million in cash: $700,000 just to create the documentation for your agency to review, $1 million to pay-off state securities regulators, and an undisclosed amount to settle with your agency. And the company must still settle or fight the class-action suit, where lenders, who knew perfectly well the risks they were taking (Hello… they were lending to strangers on the Internet!), will try to win back their loan losses by asserting that Prosper was selling unregistered securities.

Furthermore, you are driving innovation and competitors out of the market. The original pioneer in the industry, Zopa, withdrew from the U.S. market, despite a thriving business in the United Kingdom because of the threat of SEC registration. End result: There is just a single U.S. P2P loan exchange operating today. Had you stayed out of it, we’d have at least five, probably more.

I have this to say to the SEC:

Rethink your oversight model: We’ve seen hundreds of billions lost by SEC-regulated companies this year. You weren’t even able to sniff out a $50-billion Ponzi scheme in your own backyard. Maybe you don’t have enough resources. I buy that. Even mammoth funds with virtually unlimited resources were duped by Madoff. So let me ask the obvious question. If you are short on staff, why are you wasting them on controlling the $100-million P2P market where every bid, loan, and repayment are open to scrutiny by the community.
Embrace openness: Instead of stomping on a new, open and self-regulating market, maybe you could learn from it. As Don Tapscott proposed in his BAI Retail Delivery keynote last month, let’s open source financial holdings. If Madoff had made his trading data public, his customers could have monitored the flow themselves, and figured out about $49.9 billion dollars ago that he was fabricating his results.

Bottom line: Leave the P2P lenders alone. Their open approach reflects an order of magnitude far better than the broken regulatory model employed on Wall St.

Regards,

Jim Bruene, Editor & Founder
Online Banking Report & Netbanker.com

<whew!…stepping off soapbox>

Note:
1. In the spirit of openness, Prosper, Lending Club, Zopa, Loanio, Pertuity Direct and other P2P startups are customers of ours, buying research reports and admission to our events. But the total gross revenues from the sector amounted to less than 2% of our total revenues. We do not invest in any companies we cover, nor do they pay us for consulting, or influence our editorial coverage in any material way.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Prosper Pays $1 million to States to Settle Securities Complaint; Nightmare Not Over Yet

By Jim Bruene Posted on December 1, 2008
Categories: P2P Lending, Prosper

No one said it would be easy trying to disrupt a multi-trillion dollar industry. Prosper’s latest blow is the cool $1 million it spent to settle what could have been a legal black hole, individual states suing it for securities law violations. Here’s today’s press release from the NASAA announcing the settlement.

With state securities regulators off its back, Prosper now has two of its three problems settled. Last week it announced a settlement with the SEC (here). Terms were not disclosed.

But there is one major hurdle remaining: potential claims from lenders wanting their money back. Attorney Broox Peterson commented on Prosper’s potential legal liability yesterday (here):

Sale of a security that has not been registered under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 gives rise to a private right of action under Section 12(a)1 of that Act. The remedy that can be enforced with this private right of action is rescission of the sale of the unregistered security. In practical terms this means that investors in unregistered Prosper notes that were ultimately uncollectible can get their money back.

If a significant portion of the lenders, who hold an estimated $30+ million in bad debt, successfully sue Prosper for a refund on the grounds they were sold an unregistered security, it could be very expensive for the company. At least one class action suit has been filed against Prosper (The Rosen Law Firm suit filed Nov. 26 ).

Comment: Ultimately, I think the U.S. peer-to-peer lending industry will recover from these legal setbacks. However, the regulatory situation has put a damper on innovation, reduced competition (see note 1), and caused a significant reduction in credit available to consumers via P2P exchanges (see note 2).

Court cases aside, the bigger issue is whether P2P loan losses can be kept to a level that provides a reasonable rate of return for lenders. The jury is still out on that (see note 3).

Notes:
1. Zopa has now admitted that the reason it did not open a fully peer-to-peer loan market in the U.S. was because it expected this regulatory treatment (post here).

We always took the view that the SEC would likely view our platform, as operated in the UK and Italy, as requiring registration with them. That’s the key reason why we didn’t launch our UK model in the US…

2. P2P lender Lending Club, which reopened Oct. 14, is fully SEC compliant and open for business. Prosper and Loanio remain shuttered until the SEC filing process is completed sometime in 2009.

3. For more info on the market see our Online Banking Report on P2P Lending.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Peer-to-Peer Lending Volumes Worldwide

By Jim Bruene Posted on November 12, 2008
Categories: Lending Club, Loans & Credit, Metrics & Market Research, P2P Lending, Prosper, Virgin Money, Zopa

Industry blog, P2P-banking.com recently compiled a list of peer-to-peer loan volumes from around the world. The chart is reprinted by permission below.

These numbers are cumulative, all-time volumes since inception. More than half is from Virgin Money USA which has helped individuals put $370 million in loans together since it began as Circle Lending in 2001.

Because these companies don't all use the same model, I've revised the tables somewhat, excluding:

Facilitators: My definition of peer-to-peer lending excludes Virgin Money and Loanback because they do not serve as matchmakers (note 1). They do play a crucial role in putting a legal framework in place for friends-and-family loans and often end up servicing the loans as well. They are more like PayPal where Prosper/Lending Club are like eBay.
Microfinance markets: I would exclude Kiva as well. It's an awesome platform that allows U.S. citizens to loan money to third-world merchants at zero interest. A powerful tool for philanthropy, yes, but not really peer-to-peer. The same goes for MyC4 and Microplace.

So excluding the above companies, total worldwide originations are $262 million, with two-thirds of that from Prosper.

Here are the market shares of the 8 true P2P lenders that have originated more than $1 million since launch:

Company	US$ (mil)	WW Share
Prosper (US)	$178	68%
Zopa (UK)	$39	15%
Lending Club (US)	$20	8%
Money Auction (Korea)	$7.8	3%
Smava (Germany)	$5.8	2%
Zopa (Italy)	$4.3	2%
Boober (Netherlands)	$3.1	1%
Other	$4.5	2%
Total	$262	100%

Source: P2P-Banking.com, 28 Oct 2008

Note:
1. This does not mean I dislike Virgin Money's business model, just that its loan volume is not comparable to the others on the list.

2. For more info on the P2P lending market, see our Online Banking Report on Person-to-Person Lending

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

P2P Lender Prosper Closes Marketplace to Lenders; Loanio Unaffected for Now

By Jim Bruene Posted on October 16, 2008
Categories: Lending Club, Loanio, Loans & Credit, P2P Lending, Prosper

I was packing up my hotel room after five great days in NYC putting on Finovate, when I got a call from a reporter who asked me if I’d “heard the news.” Since we’d been talking P2P lending earlier in the week, I figured his question was related to that. But I couldn’t imagine what news could compete with the launch of Loanio, the closing of Zopa (US), the delayed launch of Pertuity Direct, and the grand reopening of Lending Club. That was already a full year’s worth of major developments packed into a two-week period.

So I about fell off the bed when he told me Prosper had closed off new lending until the completion of its SEC registration process, entering the same regulatory twilight zone from which Lending Club had just emerged the previous day. And this was only 14 hours after Chris Larsen had been quoted in an upbeat Prosper company blog entry about the role of his company during the credit crunch (note 1):

“At a time when every sector in the economy seems to be under pressure and shrinking, the growth Prosper has experienced is very respectable.”

Impact on Loanio
Because I’d just spent an hour with Loanio founder Michael Solomon the day before at our Finovate conference, I immediately wondered if he might be facing the same registration hurdle. But I reached him a few minutes ago via email and he’s thinking this probably benefits his new marketplace since lenders are frozen out of Prosper. He also doesn’t expect to enter into a similar registration process in the foreseeable future.

Here’s his full statement:

“…from the perspective of (Prosper) going silent, it is actually great for us as I think we will quickly gain lots of lenders and hopefully we can wow them into sticking around. From a regulatory standpoint, we believe that at some point we will seek to introduce a secondary market platform, but we will focus the greater part of the next 12 months on building our platform and seeking out a national bank partner to cover the rest of the U.S. Our plans for a secondary market are too far ahead for me to contemplate at this time.”

Thoughts
Regulators certainly have a right to require transparency in the marketplace and protection for consumers. But Prosper, with an open API of its transactions, balances and even repayment behavior, and which uses a completely market-driven, open-bidding process to set rates and select loans to fund, is about as open a business as you ever will see, especially in financial services.

For the sake of the nascent industry, I hope the registration is put on a fast track and Prosper is back in the game faster than the six months Lending Club waited. At this point, an alternative credit supply, albeit only $100+ million per year right now (note 2), sourced directly from willing individual investors and not from capital-constrained financial institutions, seems like something we should encourage.

Ultimately, Lending Club and now Prosper should benefit from improved liquidity that the secondary market allows. Since Prosper is not allowed to comment on the move, we can only speculate on what happened. But the timing of all this seems a bitter irony. Wasn’t a breakdown in the secondary markets a big part of what put us in such a bind now?

According to its blog, Prosper will continue to make loans “through alternative sources (of funds)” (note 3). So perhaps the impact to the Prosper marketplace will be small. Especially if they are back in full swing by year-end or early 2009.

Notice on Prosper’s website announcing quiet period (isn’t that an oxymoron?) 16 Oct. 2008

Notes:
1. See today’s NY Times article for more info on this week’s developments. Don’t miss the picture of Lending Club CEO Renaud Laplanche standing outside the Finovate 2008 demo hall.

2. For more info on the market, see our Online Banking Report on Person-to-Person Lending.

3. Presumably, to keep the loans flowing, Prosper can tap its own funds as well as those of institutional investors or other professional investors. We’ll know soon, thanks to its open API.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Person-to-Person (P2P) Lending Update

By Jim Bruene Posted on September 4, 2008
Categories: Lending Club, Loanio, Loans & Credit, Metrics & Market Research, P2P Lending, Prosper, Zopa

Now that we are well past the mid-point of 2008, it’s a good time to look at where we are with one of the most talked-about online financial subjects of the decade: person-to-person or social lending.

Currently, two U.S. companies are actively originating unsecured, multi-purpose P2P loans (note 1):

Prosper: Through July, the leader in the market is running 10% ahead of its 2007 loan-origination pace. The company has funded $55 million and is on pace to do just under $100 million for the year. Website traffic is up 15% compared to a year ago (see graph below) and through July there have been 13% more loan listings (see previous coverage here, Finovate 2007 Best of Show video here; monthly volume reports here).
Zopa: The company, which isn’t technically person-to-person (the loans are originated by six credit union partners) but definitely has a social aspect to its loan program, has not revealed any numbers, but they list 475 loans on the “browse all borrowers page.” Assuming average loan size of $8000 to $9000, they are doing less than $1 million per month. Zopa is using Google AdWords to pitch “instant approval” with a credit score of 640+ (see screenshot below), an aggressive marketing move, especially combined with the 8.49% APR touted on the landing page (see screenshot below; previous coverage here; FinovateStartup 2008 Best of Show video here).

In addition, three more P2P lenders appear very close to launching or relaunching:

Lending Club: The company, launched in May 2007, has been essentially closed to new business since March as they retooled loans into securities for regulatory reasons. However, the company is scheduled to present at our Oct. 14 Finovate conference, implying that they will be out of their quiet period by then (previous coverage here; Finovate 2007 video here).
Loanio: The startup appears to be very close to launching based on an a Sept. 3rd email sent to its house list announcing the launch “in just a few weeks” and adding in parenthesis (yes, we mean it this time!). The company will likely be the first to offer a co-borrower loan application (previous coverage here; Finovate Startup video here).
Pertuity Direct: The newest competitor in the space is Pertuity Direct which we wrote about last week. Its website claims a Sept. 15 launch, and we look forward to seeing their first public demo at Finovate on Oct. 14.

Finally, several companies are looking to launch P2P services in 2008 or 2009, including Globefunder, Community Lend (Canada) and one we just heard about today, Swap-A-Debt.

Forecast revision
Last December we published our second detailed Online Banking Report on Person-to-Person Lending. In that report, we predicted just under $200 million in originations this year. However, due to the inactive period at Lending Club, the delay in Loanio’s launch, and the more conservative approach by Prosper lenders, we are lowering the 2008 forecast by 25%, with an expected total of $135 to $150 million for the year as follows:

Prosper ($95 to $105 million)
Lending Club ($25 to $30 million)
Zopa ($5 to $10 million)
Loanio ($1 to $5 million)
Pertuity Direct ($1 to $5 million)

P2P lending traffic from Compete (July 2007 through July 2008)

Zopa AdWords ad on “loanio” search
(4 Sep 2008, 1 PM PDT from Seattle IP address)

Landing page (4 Sep 2008, link here)

Notes:
1. Specialists are involved in the student loan piece (GreenNote and Fynanz) along with Virgin Money and Loanback which help with person-to-person loan documentation and servicing.

2. Top-right graphic from April 2008 ABC News segment on Lending Club and person-to-person lending.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Prosper Kicks Off Nationwide Lending with New Slogan and TV/Radio Advertising

By Jim Bruene Posted on May 7, 2008
Categories: Loans & Credit, P2P Lending, Prosper

Armed with a new national lending capability (note 1), new slogan, “Let’s bank on each other,” and a window of opportunity to gain ground on the competition (note 2), person-to-person lending pioneer Prosper is preparing new marketing initiatives which include television and radio advertising. Prosper said in its blog Monday that the ads will begin test runs this week.

The two television spots feature short vignettes of real lenders and borrowers (see screenshot below). Prosper has also posted brief “behind-the-scenes” videos of the borrower and lender meeting while giving gushing testimonials about the service.

There is also a series of seven 30-second radio spots:

Meet the lender/borrower spots featuring same pairs as the TV ads (2 ads)
A young student borrowing from Prosper
A small business person borrowing from Prosper
A youngish woman borrowing from Prosper for debt consolidation
A man borrowing from Prosper for home improvement
A man borrowing from Prosper for a car loan

Preview the ads here (note 3).

Analysis
It will be interesting to see how the advertising is received. From a branding perspective, I think the ads are extremely effective, doing a good job communicating the benefits to both borrowers and lenders. And Prosper positions itself as a smart bank alternative without getting overly negative (e.g., Lending Tree’s $100-million “When banks compete” campaign in the late 1990s) or going so over the top (think WaMu) that you can’t recall who made the ad (see previous coverage here).

One thing I’m sure of: Prosper did a great job showcasing the ads on their website, including the very Web 2.0 touch of posting “behind-the-scenes” videos of the TV commercials.

Notes:

1. Prosper recently changed its process so all loans are originated by Utah industrial bank, WebBank, then resold to the winning Prosper bidders. The TV ad above even carries the fine print that, “Prosper lenders are loan purchasers.”

2. Prosper’s primary competitor, LendingClub, is currently operating at limited capacity as it seeks additional licensing/authority from regulatory bodies (coverage here). It, too, uses WebBank to originate all loans made through its platform. The latest entrant, Loanio, debuted its services at our April 29 Finovate Startup conference, but is still a few weeks away from a launch. A number of other P2P startups are in various stages of development with launches expected within the next 12 to 18 months.

3. For more information on the P2P lending market, see our Online Banking Report: Person-to-person Lending 2.0

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Q1 Prosper/Lending Club Loan Volumes Up 55% (Y/Y)

By Jim Bruene Posted on April 2, 2008
Categories: Lending Club, Loans & Credit, Market Research & Metrics, P2P Lending, Prosper

Last week's post on P2P lending traffic prompted several comments on how worthless website traffic is as a metric, especially when the two major players make their loan-production numbers public. With that in mind, I present the Q1 total loan production for Lending Club and Prosper.

prosper_logo While Prosper still had twice the overall loan volume of Lending Club in Q1 ($21 vs. $10 million), Lending Club is closing the gap in the prime/near-prime market (FICO 640+) originating two-thirds the volume of Prosper in March ($4 vs. $6 million). But if you take into account Lending Club's more stringent debt-to-income requirements (max 30%), the newcomer actually surpassed Prosper in these lower-risk loans ($4.1 vs. $3.7 million in March).

While the two-horse race is an interesting sidelight, the more important statistic is industry growth. In Q1, Prosper and Lending Club combined for more than $30 million in originations, up $10.7 million (55%) compared to about $20 million in Q1 2007. Only $3.4 million of the Q1 total (17%) was subprime, compared to $7.0 million (36%) a year ago.

Loan originations doubled in the prime/near prime (Prosper grades AA to C and all of Lending Club) ending the quarter at just under $27 million.

Why so much attention to a tiny sliver of the $2.5 trillion U.S. consumer loan market? It's new. It's different. It's social. And it's an experiment in online finance we get to watch in real time thanks to the transparency of the lenders. For more info on the market, see our recent Online Banking Report on P2P lending.

Q1 2008 Loan Volume: Prosper vs. Lending Club
in $ millions (U.S. only)

	Prosper All Grades	Prosper AA-C*	Prosper AA-C Low DTI**	Lending Club***	Total
Q1 2008	$20.5	$17.1	$10.7	$9.8	$30.3
March	$7.3	$6.0	$3.7	$4.1	$11.4
Feb	$6.0	$4.9	$2.9	$2.9	$8.9
Jan	$7.2	$6.1	$4.0	$2.8	$10.0
Q1 2007	$19.6	$12.6	$8.0	n/a	$19.6
'08 vs. '07	+$0.9	+$4.5	+$2.7	—	+$10.7
% change	+4.6%	+36%	+34%	—	+55%

Source: Online Banking Report compilation of company data, 2 April 2008
*Loans made to Prosper grade AA through C borrowers (FICO 640+)
**Loans made to Prosper grade AA through C borrowers with debt-to-income (DTI) less than 30%
***Lending Club only makes loans primarily to the "prime/low DTI" segment (FICO 640+, DTI <30%)

Note:
1. These prime/near prime/subprime distinctions can help financial institutions compare their prices to the marketplace rates.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Prosper, Lending Club Traffic Up 100,000 in February

By Jim Bruene Posted on March 25, 2008
Categories: Lending Club, Market Research & Metrics, P2P Lending, Prosper, Zopa

Looking at February's Compete data, estimated traffic (see comment 3) at the three major U.S. person-to-person lenders grew by approximately 100,000 unique users compared to January, a 16% gain. Prosper still dominates the category with nearly 10 times as many unique visitors as its nearest rival, Lending Club.

Update: In terms of funded loans, Prosper had double the volume of Lending Club in February: $6.0 million vs. $2.9 million. In January, the volume was $7.2 million vs. $2.8 million.

Lender	Launch	Feb. 2008	Jan. 2008	Mo. Growth	% Growth	Feb. 2007
Prosper	Feb '06	650,000	570,000	+80,000	14%	650,000
Lending Club	May '07	70,000	50,000	+20,000	40%	*
Zopa.com	Dec '07	16,000	14,000	+2,000	14%	*
Total		740,000	630,000	+100,000	16%	650,000

Source: Compete.com, estimated unique site visitors during Feb. 2008 *Not launched

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Updates on Credit Karma, Prosper, and GlobeFunder

By Jim Bruene Posted on February 27, 2008
Categories: Credit Karma, GlobeFunder, P2P Lending, Prosper

Here are three updates I've added to the posts from the last week:

Credit Karma, which we discussed here last week, is in private beta. But they have agreed to give NetBanker readers the invitation code to come in and kick the tires: CKFRND. Let us know what you think.
Prosper, discussed here yesterday, was named one of the Fast 50 2008, the 50 most innovative companies in the world by Fast Company magazine (here). The list is in the March issue.
GlobeFunder: I finally caught up with GlobeFunder founder Ben Decio last week. I noted in my NetBanker post a few weeks ago that the company was not yet accepting money from individual lenders. It sounds like that may be permanent. The company's current business plan is to use money from institutional lenders to fund all loan requests. That doesn't alter the value proposition to borrowers, since money is money, but it does move the company out of the P2P lending space.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook