Analysis Featured

Author Responds to Lending Times Critique

Loren Picard

I’d like to thank George Popescu, publisher of the Lending Times, for allowing me to respond to his critique, contained in his July 13th digest, of a few points within my recent American Banker BankThink opinion piece titled “There Are No Universal Truths in Marketplace Lending.” 

The first critique is as follows (quoted text is from the opinion piece; highlighted is in the original by Lending Times):

“For example, given the “success” of automating the origination and underwriting of consumer loans, other lending products are trying to automate their entire processes from A to Z, with varying levels of success. Small business loans seem to be benefitting from such automation, real estate not so much.” [Comment: I don’t understand why the author claims that real estate is not a success from automation. I entirely disagree. ]

My statement doesn’t say that “real estate is not a success from automation.”  It merely states that real estate has not benefited as much as other asset classes.  At some point this is semantics between George and myself, but it raises a much bigger issue which should be addressed.  When somebody states that marketplace lending’s strength is in the processes, including automation, the question that needs to be answered is: What is being automated?  In this I see two phases of automation, the collection and verification of data; and the automation of a credit decision.  When people hear “automation + marketplace lending” they jump to the conclusion that credit decisions are being automated.  With regards to real estate, nothing is further from the truth. You can jump on a consumer unsecured loan site and get approval within minutes.  That doesn’t happen in real estate.  In fact, if one were to dig into the real estate model of marketplace lenders (especially commercial real estate) you will find a lot of humans making a lot of judgment calls regarding the credit decision.  In fact, even the origination of the loans for the majority of the real estate marketplace lenders employ highly seasoned real estate professionals to pass judgment on whether a loan will ever get to application, let alone underwritten, approved, and funded.

If real estate marketplace lenders truly benefited greatly from automation (to the same extent as other product types) they would not be struggling to ramp up production of quality assets.  We are in the middle of a real estate lending boom, so now is the best time to let automation talk hold.  The reality is, in my opinion, real estate marketplace lenders are mortgage banks that have employed technology to make the investment process simpler for the investor as well as the tracking of investments/loans after loan closings.  This in and of itself is nice to have, but not as revolutionary as say what Lending Club and OnDeck have implemented. It doesn’t mean technology doesn’t have a place in real estate, it is just that all lending currently uses technology to some extent and I believe the art of real estate lending will not be usurped by the “science” of technology (maybe machine learning will make me change my mind). For purposes here, I exclude residential mortgage banking firms (nonbanks) that originate half the conforming and jumbo loans in the U.S.  These firms are not considered marketplace lenders as currently defined.  Their use of technology is now skyrocketing and mortgage banks have a good chance of making a real difference in terms of borrower experience and decisioning via technology.

The second critique is:

“What is happening now is that everybody is clustering around the same ideas — automated, instant, and convenient. These are lofty goals. The last decade’s subprime residential loans could arguably be described as having these same attributes of automated (i.e., everybody was approved), instant and convenient — and we are still paying the price.” [Comment: I believe that the author is mixing here blind fraud and automated systems which have many more verification points than any paper process was ever able to. Once again, I really disagree with the author here.]

Let’s set aside the idea of “blind fraud” (not sure what that means) and deal with just decision making.  The subprime residential loan crisis was the result of bad underwriting policies and procedures.  Just because borrowers may have fudged on their income doesn’t let the lender off the hook.  The process, whether automated or manual, should require the lender to verify borrower submitted information.  To the extent the residential subprime lenders didn’t verify information, the decisions did become automated—everyone was automatically approved.  One of the critiques of the currently unsecured consumer marketplace lenders is that they don’t verify income of all the borrowers. To do so is understandably cost prohibitive and time consuming and would reduce the borrower satisfaction experience.  Assuming we are not talking about identity verification, how is this any different than taking a subprime residential home loan borrower at his word regarding his income?

It is true that automation does look at many more data points when underwriting a loan.  I would argue that outside of the basics of underwriting any loan—income (person or property), cash flow, etc.—most of the online automation is used to prevent identity theft type fraud.  And this is as it should be.  If you are going to remove the person from the front end of the process, then you have to replace it with a lot of data points to verify identity.

So, to come full circle, George started his critique of my piece with this statement:

A good pretext for a frank discussion about marketplace lending.

The whole point of an opinion piece is to abet discussion.  Opinion pieces by their very nature are limited in scope (to do otherwise would be to create rambling musings of a pedantic windbag).  I think it is time, as I say in my piece, that we should be critically evaluating each of the models as they apply to each of the asset classes.  The responsibility for this falls firmly into the hands of loan investors.

Again, thank you, George, for this opportunity to respond to your critique.  I challenge your readers to continue the conversation and help make the Lending Times ground zero for a long overdue evaluation of all aspects of the marketplace lending model…or shall I say, models?

Author:

Loren Picard
Loren Picard

About the author

George Popescu

Serial entrepreneur.

George sold and exited his most successful company, Boston Technologies (BT) group, in 2014. BT was a technology, market maker, high-frequency trading and inter-broker broker-dealer in the FX Spot, precious metals and CFDs space company. George was the Founder and CEO and he boot-strapped from $0 to a $20+ million in revenue without any equity investment. BT has been #1 fastest growing company in Boston in 2011 according to the Boston Business Journal and the only company being in top 10 fastest in 2012-13 as it was #5 in 2012. BT has been on the Inc. 500/5000 list of fastest growing companies in the US for 4 years in a row ( #143, #373, #897 and #1270). After the company sale in July 2014 until February 2015 George was Head-of-Strategy for Currency Mountain ( www.currencymountain.com ), a USD 100 million+ holding company focused on retail and medium institutional currencies, precious metals, stocks, fixed income and commodities businesses.

• Over the last 10 years, George founded 10 companies in online lending, craft beer brewery, exotic sports car rental space, hedge funds, peer-reviewed scientific journal ( Journal of Cellular and Molecular medicine…) and more. George advised 30+ early stage start-ups in different fields. George was also a mentor at MIT’s Venture Mentoring Services and Techstar Fintech in NY.

• Previously George obtained 3 Master's Degrees: a Master's of Science from MIT working on 3D printing, a Master’s in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from Supelec, France and a Master's in Nanosciences from Paris XI University. Previously he worked as a visiting scientist at MIT in Bio-engineering for 2 years. George had 3 undergrad majors: Maths, Physics and Chemistry. His scientific career led to about 10 publications and patents.

• On the business side, Boston Business Journal has named me in the top 40 under 40 in 2012 in recognition of his business achievements.

• George is originally from Romania and grew up in Paris, France.

Add Comment

Click here to post a comment

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

Testimonials

default image

"Your daily letter is great!" , Ram , Founder and CEO, PeerIQ

default image

"Hi George - just want to tell you that you are doing a great work with Lending Times;-) Brgds, Kasper" , Kasper, Partner and Co-founder at Dansk Faktura Børs A/S

default image

"I've been following your newsletter for some time now and have been very impressed with the content." Charlie,Co-Founder | Bolstr

default image

"Hey George, I must say I really enjoy your site. It has inspired me to do some changes at our platform and we are the biggest consumer lender in Sweden." , Ludwig, CEO @ Savelend Sweden AB

default image

"Your daily email is very useful. It gives quick update on what's going in the market. Thank you very much for all that info." Yann Murciano, Head of Base Metals Trading at Morgan Stanley

Our daily p2p news digest

Daily News Summary Digest Sent Daily To Your Inbox