I'm on a few teams that make a point to try to increase their standings, presumably when looking at the default sort. I've wondered several times (and then didn't look into) whether it is better in that case to have "team loans" where everyone tries to jump on the same loan, or if it is better for the standings to have each team member do their own thing. If the default is number of loans, it would appear that
acting as a team holds down the team standings... 
Someone on the GLBT team posted the following list of the top few teams and their stats when looked at per member. Seen in this light, team Belgium is certainly to be commended! I am humbled by their dedication!
First, I'm with Ian. The stats may be of some interest, but ultimately they don't tell the whole story.
Second, acting as a team is not a problem. Quite the opposite. Number of loans is the number of times a team member has lent money. This is different from the number of borrowers who have been lent money by team members. e.g, the LLL team shows 1304 loans to 613 borrowers.
Incidentally, the LLL stats show:
8.75 loans per member
$237.92 per member
Also, Belgium's stats are skewed by one member with nearly 20,000 loans.
Finally, what really counts in my view is whether loans are being funded. That's the bottom line.
