ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Social lending
Full text PdfPdf (458 KB)
Source
Electronic Commerce archive
Proceedings of the tenth ACM conference on Electronic commerce table of contents
Stanford, California, USA
SESSION: Session 10 table of contents
Pages 335-344  
Year of Publication: 2009
ISBN:978-1-60558-458-4
Authors
Ning Chen  Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
Arpita Ghosh  Yahoo Research, Santa Clara, CA, USA
Nicolas Lambert  Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGEcom: ACM Special Interest Group on Electronic Commerce
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21,   Downloads (12 Months): 51,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1566374.1566422
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Prosper, the largest online social lending marketplace with nearly a million members and $178 million in funded loans, uses an auction amongst lenders to finance each loan. In each auction, the borrower specifies D, the amount he wants to borrow, and a maximum acceptable interest rate R. Lenders specify the amounts ai they want to lend, and bid on the interest rate, bi, they're willing to receive. Given that a basic premise of social lending is cheap loans for borrowers, how does the Prosper auction do in terms of the borrower's payment, when lenders are strategic agents with private true interest rates?

The Prosper mechanism is exactly the same as the VCG mechanism applied to a modified instance of the problem, where lender i is replaced by ai dummy lenders, each willing to lend one unit at interest rate bi. However, the two mechanisms behave very differently -- the VCG mechanism is truthful, whereas Prosper is not, and the total payment of the borrower can be vastly different in the two mechanisms. We first provide a complete analysis and characterization of the Nash equilibria of the Prosper mechanism. Next, we show that while the borrower's payment in the VCG mechanism is always within a factor of O(log D) of the payment in any equilibrium of Prosper, even the cheapest Nash equilibrium of the Prosper mechanism can be as large as a factor D of the VCG payment; both factors are tight. Thus, while the Prosper mechanism is a simple uniform price mechanism, it can lead to much larger payments for the borrower than the VCG mechanism. Finally, we provide a model to study Prosper as a dynamic auction, and give tight bounds on the price for a general class of bidding strategies.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
w.lendingclub.com.
 
2
w.prosper.com.
 
3
w.zopa.com.
 
4
 
5
M. Ausubel. An Efficient Ascending-Bid Auction for Multiple Objects. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1452--1475, 2004.
 
6
 
7
Draaisma and C. Noussair. Optimal Bidding in a Uniform Price Auction with Multiunit Demand. Economics Letters, 56(2), 157--162, 1997.
8
 
9
 
10
Freedman and G.Z. Jin. Do Social Networks Solve Information Problems for Peer-to-Peer Lending? Evidence from Prosper.com. Working Papers 08-43, NET Institute, 2008.
11
 
12
Kalai, and E. Lehrer. Rational Learning Leads to Nash Equilibrium. Econometrica, 61(5), 1019--1045, 1993.
 
13
 
14
Krishna. Auction Theory. Academic Press, 2002.
 
15
 
16
R. Varian. Position Auctions. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25(6), 1163--1178, 2007.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Ning Chen: colleagues
Arpita Ghosh: colleagues
Nicolas Lambert: colleagues