Quote from: JoelKatz on September 13, 2012, 08:35:40 PM

Quote from: eroxors on September 13, 2012, 07:44:22 PM

Quote from: Puppet on September 13, 2012, 07:19:47 PM

IF you are going to +1 it, you might at least address Joel's point. Why would you want to protect the anonymity of defaulted lenders from the depositors that have to pay for it?

Joel is on ignore. As for the question, presumably you wouldn't need to protect the anonymity unless it harms collection efforts, which it very well may.

Not sure why I'm responding to someone who has my on ignore, but I do agree that if breaching anonymity would harm collection efforts, that would justify preserving it. I would think the depositors deserve to be told specifically which loans are being kept anonymous for that reason, and if there wasn't reasonable progress towards collection on a reasonable schedule, anonymity should then be breached. Without being a jerk, the threat of publicized default can be leveraged to obtain collection. It's not that you're abusing this to pressure them to pay, it's just that realistically, those covering the default are entitled to either reasonable payments or knowing who defaulted on them.

The tricky case would be the guy who says something like, "Keep me anonymous, and I'll pay 35%. Tell anyone who I am, and I'll pay nothing."

Take 35%, then leak it. When blackmailed I don't feel morally compelled to play fair.

I hope at least the threat of this will prevent this behavior.