Hacker News Reader

Comment by Johnny555 | Hacker News Reader

And there’s a trivial solution for the lending tree scenario (I’m making a big leap of faith that consumers really want txt spam from a dozen different lenders)

Instead of handing off customer contact info to a dozen different lenders, they can send the loan request to the lenders, and the lenders can send their offers back to lending tree who can then send it to the customer since the customer only authorized lending tree to contact them. Ideally lending tree would consolidate the responses so instead of a dozen txt messages, the customer receives a single one from lending tree.

View on HN

The other wrinkle is that vendors don't want the broker to control the relationship. They want to have it themselves. So a big part of why companies like Lending Tree can exist is because they sell the leads and don't have to do the work of being a CRM.

They don't have to give up control, if the offer is appealing they can consent to further contact.

In their minds, if they do not have contact info they do not own the relationship. If the broker has that, the broker owns the relationship. Making an offer through a broker means making an offer where they do not own the relationship.

In short - you are defining control differently than they do and coming to a different conclusion. You can do that, but expect vendors to be unmoved by it.

I think 6510 was proposing that the broker would present the smorgasbord of offers to the client, and after the client selects an offer, the lender would get the client's contact information. The lender would own their relationship after the client consents to that solitary relationship.

I understood what 6510 was proposing. My point is that the lenders consider this to be them not owning the relationship and it requires the broker to do all the CRM work. Neither sees the smorgasbord approach as good for them.

Could it be done that way? Sure! This just comes with the caveat that finding lenders willing to do it might be harder and they would likely pay less per-lead. So a higher volume would be required to make financial ends meet for the broker, who also is now developing and deploying more sophisticated software in addition to the whole sales funnel and marketing operation.

You may be thinking "Gee, this is great for everyone except the customer". Yes, it is. It sucks for the customer who gets spammed by a dozen lenders.

Right. Lenders and brokers want to exploit the customer for maximum profits. They do not want to respect customers, because they might make a little less money and it might take a bit more effort. The customer does not like that behavior, but an unregulated market rewards the worst actors so the customer cannot find what they would really want and is forced to settle. The FCC is supposed to protect the customer and regulate the market in this situation.

It would filter down the leads to a much smaller number of much greater quality (as people showed an interest in their specific product and access to their info is more exclusive) The budget would stay the same as would the number of customers. I think they should welcome the money saved on competitive harassment. You kinda had to do it because everyone else was doing it.

> expect vendors to be unmoved by it.

There's a large part of me that doesn't care what the vendors think. Their attitude toward potential customers is a not insignificant part of the problem.

control is all they have though. Big banks are behind the scene doing all the real work. All the people you talk to are doing is getting a contract signed. There are enough steps that this is valuable work that needs a lot of customer service (which is why big banks outsource it to 'independent' entities), but in the end nobody can actually give you a better rate/extra costs from the banks and credit unions already near you. The rate you care about is decided by your credit score and the current market. The closing costs are somewhat competitive, but they are in the end small.

I suppose if you have really bad credit these places might find someone willing to do a risky loans (at really bad interest rates) while the local banks and credit unions won't talk to you at all. However overall the places buying leads don't have anything to offer.

Yup. Too few people understand that almost all of these companies are solely loan origination and loan servicing.

They are not providing the capital, they are not making money through interest. They have almost no control over the rates they offer you.

They make money when a borrower signs a new loan agreement (origination) and by collecting the payments the borrower owes and passing them along to the real lender (servicing).

If you're wondering why your mortgage company used to keep calling you telling you to refinance (and some still are, even with the higher rates), it's because that's another loan origination for them - another payment. They don't care that you save long term on the interest, they want the payment for closing a new loan.

Same for loan consolidation (ex: consolidate your auto/credit debts!) style pitches. They're ONLY interested in originating a new loan, because that's how they get paid.

----

Basically - these guys don't have anything other than you, the borrower.

They're not selling you a loan, they're selling you to real lender, which is almost always the large government backed mortgage lenders (Freddie/Fannie).

This is why they jump to call you, or text you, or harass you. They are out there fishing for new borrowers to make money.

This is already a thing in the leadgen space it's called RTB. Tree has likely simply figured out that it's more profitable to sell the data multiple times.

Hot leads are very valuable, especially in the pay-per-call space. Every single one of those calls the GP is complaining about likely "reached duration" and paid out to Tree. Hehe.

Sausage factory goes brrrrrrr

I ve worked in an equivalent of lending tree. Literally no one in our company, no one, cared about loans. We were a marketing front for banks, spoke only to banks, optimized "funnels" to, well, funnel the poor souls to them, whatever the law allowed us to do. I had never met any sort of "lending expert" in that company, only SEO experts, data miners, adwords optimizers, former bank marketing managers, email copywriters, javascript programmers, etc.

I work in a bank now, and we can calculate interest rate, understand consumer default profiles, calculate acceptable risk ratio for our own capital, all those stuff that have to do with loans.

Point is, you cannot expect an externalized marketing department to do what you suggest. They dont care about borrowers one bit, lending is not their jobs. Banks just want to start a relationship with people and send whatever they can to whomever present an email adress, and they ll pay their marketing guys by the amount of converted leads.

The other trivial solution is to just list all the vendors that the customer could potentially deal with and give them the ability to select the ones they'd like to receive offers from. Yes, there's less potential overall revenue there, because less leads means less revenue for lead generation companies, but it's still better than the footgun they're currently being presented with.

That's how a mortgage broker works. It would probably require a lot more staff to operate that way.

That’s how it typically works in the UK, probably because of GDPR.

Might not stay that way now the EU laws are potentially getting ripped up.

That's not how it works in the UK and not because of GDPR.

Currently, organisations can claim both consent and legitimate interests as a legal basis so it is already possible to take my data from somewhere, pass it to other people and have those third-parties contact you.

"Legitimate Interests" was presumably some attempt to allow things like research and things that hadn't been thought of elsewhere but this leaves a nasty loophole that is already being taken advantage of.

In fact, some cookie consent banners, if you click "options", disable the consent tickbox by default but leave "legitiimate interests" ticked in some kind of dark pattern to imply that "we'd rather have your consent but we don't need it".

UK GDPR under threat? Do you have a link?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=retained+eu+law

(GDPR is UK's implementation of an EU directive, the kind of law that the Retained EU Law bill seeks to get rid of.)

Thanks for the link. In this case, the Data Protection Act 2018 is the UK's implementation of GDPR. GDPR is the EU regulation.

I don't see anything in there that would revoke the DPA, though. It even requires DPA-compatibility at one point, so to avoid recursion I imagine it won't be for that purpose.

I knew I remembered something else. There's also

https://www.itpro.co.uk/policy-legislation/data-protection/3...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com