Comments on: Minor Update http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update The LendingStats Blog Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:33:33 +0000 By: sonson http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11405 sonson Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:40:59 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11405 <strong>greatings...</strong> wow... greatings…

wow…

]]> By: imobi http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11402 imobi Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:46:48 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11402 <strong>hi...</strong> disagree... hi…

disagree…

]]> By: China man http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11398 China man Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:12:31 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11398 <strong>hey...</strong> agree... hey…

agree…

]]> By: sonson http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11397 sonson Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:44:38 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11397 <strong>hey...</strong> exellent... hey…

exellent…

]]> By: AlexanderGreat http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11396 AlexanderGreat Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:03:02 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11396 <strong>yo...</strong> wonderful... yo…

wonderful…

]]> By: AlexanderGreat http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11388 AlexanderGreat Thu, 01 Jan 2009 09:38:00 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11388 <strong>greatings...</strong> disagree... greatings…

disagree…

]]> By: chineseman http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11385 chineseman Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:08:16 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-11385 <strong>hello...</strong> thanks... hello…

thanks…

]]> By: LendingStats http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-9738 LendingStats Fri, 26 Sep 2008 21:23:53 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-9738 Sean: The reason there hasn't been a lot of activity on the site has been because of the Wall Street 'blow up'. I'll write a rant about the recent events over the weekend. Needless to say there are fortunes to be made and lost in this whole fiasco. Sean: The reason there hasn’t been a lot of activity on the site has been because of the Wall Street ‘blow up’. I’ll write a rant about the recent events over the weekend. Needless to say there are fortunes to be made and lost in this whole fiasco.

]]> By: Sean http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-9735 Sean Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:59:41 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-9735 Half of Wall Street blows up, and no comments on this blog?!? Is this blog even still live? Or is the blogger squirreled away some where playing video games? :-p Half of Wall Street blows up, and no comments on this blog?!? Is this blog even still live? Or is the blogger squirreled away some where playing video games? :-p

]]> By: Michael Del Greco http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-9733 Michael Del Greco Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:53:23 +0000 http://www.lendingstats.com/blog/2008/07/25/minor-update#comment-9733 I have been thinking about it and they way Prosper allocates bids for portfolios is just not right. Once an account has $50 in it the portfolio plan should place a bid. If more than $50 becomes available the portfolio plan should increase the already placed bids to the maximum. The system now skips to the next loan to bid. Doing so means the lenders funds are not working rather they are sitting idle bidding on portfolio plans that will close further out into the future. This is unfair to the lender as the criteria they have established ($ amount per loan) is not being met. It is also unfair to borrowers because loans are expiring without being 100% funded because portfolio plans are skipping right over them even if their loan application expires first to bid on other loans that may or may not be funded. Please reconsider and give lenders the option to skip to the next loan or to fully fund prior to skipping to the next loan to fund. I have been thinking about it and they way Prosper allocates bids for portfolios is just not right.

Once an account has $50 in it the portfolio plan should place a bid. If more than $50 becomes available the portfolio plan should increase the already placed bids to the maximum.

The system now skips to the next loan to bid.

Doing so means the lenders funds are not working rather they are sitting idle bidding on portfolio plans that will close further out into the future. This is unfair to the lender as the criteria they have established ($ amount per loan) is not being met.

It is also unfair to borrowers because loans are expiring without being 100% funded because portfolio plans are skipping right over them even if their loan application expires first to bid on other loans that may or may not be funded.

Please reconsider and give lenders the option to skip to the next loan or to fully fund prior to skipping to the next loan to fund.

]]>