Online Lending Circles Hit Circuit Breaker: What Will Possible SEC Regulation Mean for P-to-P Lenders, a Rising Bank Competitor-And Potential Partner?
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Websites that help individuals make loans to other individuals online suddenly have been stopped their meteoric rise, calling into question whether such sites are the easy antidote to the current credit crisis. Collectively, site operators such as Prosper, Zopa, Virgin Money, GlobeFunder, and Lending Club tend to be termed for person-to-person lending. However, some reject that label, partly, it seems, to distance themselves from subprime, and now tarnish coming over the pto-p niche. Micro lending is another term for the practice, although that term has more often been used reference to loans made to the poor developing countries. We know what happened to peer-to-peer music sites, like Napster, which enjoyed explosive growth at the start of this decade: Lawmakers shut them down. While p-to-p lenders may not be facing something so drastic, April's announcement by Lending Club that it was ceasing to take lender applications pending a process to register with the appropriate securities authorities begs the question what the future of p-to-p will be. With the music sites, record companies were hemorrhaging revenues from songs that would have been sold, instead being shared for free online. contrast, with p-to-p loans, the upstarts have taken maybe just $250 million of the $400 billion now funded by credit cards. However, with the initial p-to-p defaults running one case near 20% market generally jittery about bad loans; with unsophisticated financial players (consumers) involved; and with uncertainty about where the buck stops, greater scrutiny now is not too surprising. A regulatory At the heart of the knot is whether p-to-p sites issue loans or securities. Typically, loans made on these sites are subdivided between many parties, so the $20,000 borrower gets has been advanced by ten individual lenders, each with $2,000 stake. subdividing or syndication makes it less like simple loan and more like structured debt instrument, or security. The U.S. securities law is very clear on this: if you have segment of consumer loan, then it is security, says Doug Dolton, chief executive of Zopa, which operates differently the U.S. than the U.K., precisely for that reason. The whole world of p-to-p lending, we're finding, is not simple, Dolton notes. A Canadian site and Dutch site have been shut down, he adds, and in the U.K., we had to carve out new category [with regulators]. Asheesh Advani, chief executive of Virgin Money, which operates similarly on both sides of the Atlantic--servicing pre-arranged private loans that are not subdivided--says, By design, we've avoided the minefield from the beginning. Lending Club could not take press calls during its mandatory quiet period with the SEC. Prosper, the biggest, true p-to-p lender (both Zopa and Virgin say they are not that category) said it filed an SI with the SEC last October and referred ABA BJ to statement issued after Lending Club's hiatus, noting that Prosper believes it is, structured... compliance with applicable state and federal laws. Banking law specialist Walt Moeling, partner Powell Goldstein LLP, Atlanta, says, If the SEC said 'you have to register as securities broker,' I don't think these sites could function. It is possible for bona fide loans, even when they are shared, to be distinguished from securities, he says, but factors considered include the financial sophistication of the parties involved and how tailored the offers are. The more it looks like 'take it or leave it' the more it looks like security, Moeling says Asked whether SEC regulation would kill the p-to-p model, Jim Bruene, former banker who is now editor and publisher of the e-zine NetBanker, said, Certainly, it's huge barrier to entry but my speculation is that it won't kill it. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle