I'm not sure the divergence, whether it be in philosophy or in reality is as diametrically opposite as you are suggesting it is.
Sure it is. 90%/10% vs 10%/90%. I could be mistaken about Prosper's extremely low rejection rate as it's been a while. Don't make me dig up their latest filings to verify that. If Prosper screened applicants so carefully then there would be no need for the 35%+ interest rates we see over there. It's a whole different ballgame; neither better nor worse.
Besides, though 90% rejection rate sounds good, I'm not sure what is says about the longer term viability of a company if it s in fact accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the history of history I can't think of a single company that has survived while consistently excluding 90% of its potential customers. Can you?
1. Hedge funds
2. "1%-er" type establishments
3. Uppity private schools
4. American freaking Express[/b]
Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid.
Please! What
1% type establishments specifically? Give me names.
Hedge Funds do not exclude 90% of their potential customers...........i.e. customers who meet their general requirements & apply. On the contrary they accept 90% or more that meet the minimum requirements whatever those requirements are.
"uppity" private schools don't reject 90% of applicants who meet their minimum requirements. If you meet their general requirements & have the money, you're pretty much in. I attended one of them for a year in Britain (Battle Abbey) Besides, uppity private schools aren't real businesses. They operate largely through endowments.
Amex DEFINITELY does not reject 90% of their applicants today nor did they even do so in the past when they were actually exclusive. Today anyone with even marginal credit can get one. Trust me, I would know.
Finally I believe you are also wrong about Prosper rejecting only 10% of applicants. Please do tell me where this number comes from.