54 Segments of Prosper Data = Thin Data | P2P Lending, Peer to Peer Lending, People to People Lending

#1Chrisfs on 11.02.07 at 8:40 am

Rather than 293 buckets, shouldn’t that be 54 buckets of 293 loans each (assuming they are equal which they probably aren’t). Where are you getting 293 buckets ?

Some will be sparse and some will hide good/bad loans, such as there is only one segment of HR with autofunding that isn’t broken down further into # of DQs, so the 0 DQs and 6+DQs share a single combined expected loss rates, but guess who carries most of that, and who is the less risky of the two.
I haven’t checked the actual numbers, but as long as people don’t get scared off by the big estimated loss numbers, there may be possiblities there.
As you mention loan amounts will be a factor as well

#2pjz on 11.04.07 at 8:02 am

What amazes me after all the fuss about DTI

#3pjz on 11.04.07 at 8:04 am

There are no DTI buckets!!! Higher DTI is obviously worse. Prosper data does not show that because lenders would fund every junk loan under 20% DTI. So Prosper is using numbers that were biased by Prosper.

Chrisfs:

Rateladder is saying 54 buckets, not 293:

“There are currently 15,832 loans on Prosper. 15,832 / 54 = 293 per segment assuming equal size buckets.”

#4pjz on 11.04.07 at 8:56 am

Correction. A’s do have a DTI bucket

But As do not have a DQ bucket!
A’s with DQs will now be funded by Prosper Portfolios!

#5» Portfolio Plans — The Good, The Bad, and The Uglyon 01.13.08 at 11:56 am

[…] are based on the slices of data… Which brings me to the ugly. There are almost certainly thin data issues. Readjustments can help, but Heisenberg rules this […]

#6» Prosper API Developer Email Updateon 03.03.08 at 4:52 pm

[…] the ROI would be nice, but I have already pointed out what I consider to be the major flaws: thin data and large buckets of loan criteria. Related Articles Prosper Starting To Use the Developer Mailing […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *