James note this stat, that 70% of P2P loans go unfunded, courtesy of the excellent Deutsche Bank research.
That’s quite a different play to Prosper and Zopa. In those cases, a large percentage of loans go unfunded. According to Deutsche Bank, as many as 70% of total loan requests don’t lead to a transaction.
Source: BankerVision: Forget anonymity in peer-to-peer lending
First off, I would note from my own observation that many loans while not funded first time around are funded on 2nd and 3rd attempts. This is symptomatic of this growing service, as both borrowers and lenders get used to it.
But that doesn’t account for 70%. The funding aspect is going to evolve. I can see situations where syndication funding is coming into play for such scenarios to sit alongside lender funds. This would provide comfort to lenders that syndicated funding is working with them, and help to mitigate personal risk assessment. I know of situations where such conversations are beginning to take place.
P2P lending is just getting off the ground. It hasn’t reached even infancy.
Bankwatch 
Sydndication funding? Now that is interesting indeed. What details can you share about that emerging trend in the P2P space?
Incidentally, another P2P site launched on Friday in the Netherlands. http://www.boober.nl. It appeas to be rather like Zopa in that it prices risk on behalf of lenders.
The founder, in his launch statement, made a rather interesting comment that suggested that bank margin spread was what was funding nice buildings and executive bonuses, but that with Boober, all of these would be savings passed on to borrowers and lenders.
Positioning as anti-bank right from the start.
Looking at the acellerating launch rate of these services, it is very clear that you’re correct about the maturity of P2P. I wonder which one will be the first to get to a *secured* loan product?
James … Re syndicated funding:
Can’t comment specifically yet to protect the innocent, but am aware of two scenarios that will provide that.