Fool Article

[112233]

maybe prosper will try to take their domain name away

[AmexFan]

maybe prosper will try to take their domain name away

They may succeed this time ... 'fool' is too close to 'prosper.com' . . .

[BrassKnuckles]

Hey NA-- funny how you can have this discussion here, but if you try it at the *official* prosper forum, they would censor it all out... sort of makes your argument pointless... 

[futuretrump]

Now submitted to Digg

[ira01]

The article has a recommend link if you feel the article is worth recommending. You need to be registered though.

The article is now #10 (of 10) on the Most Recommended list of articles published in the last 7 days.  We need some more recommendations.

I also added a comment:

I am the ira01 mentioned in the article. It was a pleasure finally reading an article about Prosper that didn't appear to be written by Prosper's marketing department. If I had a nickel for every "article" appearing in newspapers, magazines, or online that simply regurgitated Prosper's misleading statements about its default rate, typical lender performance, and the like, I could retire a rich man. Perhaps Chuck Saletta can do another piece on some of those issues.

For example, using lendingstats.com, one of the two main third-party data sites (which compile Prosper's own data in easy to use formats), the median (i.e., half do better, half do worse) estimated ROI of all 13,000+ "moderately seasoned" lenders (those with >20 loans and an average loan age of >6 months) is a paltry 2.57%. Considering that E-Trade and others are offering 3.3% on 100% liquid, FDIC-insured savings accounts (with better tax treatment to boot), that is obviously terrible. But you surely won't see that figure anywhere on Prosper's website or in its advertisements.

@opinion1956: Prosper already tried to silence a lender critic last year by sending a cease and desist letter from its lawyer seeking to take away the www.prosperreport.com website (which hosts an archive of Prosper's own former official forum which it deleted without warning last year in an effort to keep lenders in the dark) on baseless cybersquatting and other legal theories. Public Citizen graciously agreed to represent the lender pro bono, and sent Prosper a letter essentially telling it to "bring it on." Prosper folded like a cheap suit (no doubt realizing that its position was without merit). So too here. Believe it or not, we do still have free speech in this country -- including criticism of corporations. And in California, where both Prosper and I are located, there is extremely strong protection against SLAPP suits seeking to punish the "little guy" for exercising his free speech rights.

[ira01]

Now submitted to Digg

Link?

[futuretrump]

I just submitted it.  It will take a while to actually come up and then I will link it.

[ira01]

I have blogged about The Motley Fool article -- http://www.prospers.org/blogs/ira01/2008/08/30/finally_a_realistic_though_narrow_articl. 

[xraider]

I commented, too.

Opinion1956, what in the Fool article is inaccurate?  More importantly, for purposes of your accusation, what in the blogging is false?  Feel free to post your response on the www.prosper.com forums if you're a Prosper employee or if your response somehow otherwise passes moderation there, or on www.prosper.org.  If you're not a member at www.prosper.org, there are several topics in the lobby, including one about this article, where you can comment.   

Many lenders, myself included, were led to Prosper by irresponsibly optimistic reporting in financial articles.  It's nice to see that a respected financial service is reporting on some of the warts that have caused a lot of people to lose a chunk of money. 

At least in the stock market we can sell and move on at any time.  Since Prosper now refuses to default late loans (in violation of the terms of service in effect when most of us started lending, I might add), the end of my Prosper relationship is nowhere in sight.

[onthefence]

I commented, too.

Opinion1956, what in the Fool article is inaccurate?  More importantly, for purposes of your accusation, what in the blogging is false?  Feel free to post your response on the www.prosper.com forums if you're a Prosper employee or if your response somehow otherwise passes moderation there, or on www.prosper.org.  If you're not a member at www.prosper.org, there are several topics in the lobby, including one about this article, where you can comment.   

Many lenders, myself included, were led to Prosper by irresponsibly optimistic reporting in financial articles.  It's nice to see that a respected financial service is reporting on some of the warts that have caused a lot of people to lose a chunk of money. 

At least in the stock market we can sell and move on at any time.  Since Prosper now refuses to default late loans (in violation of the terms of service in effect when most of us started lending, I might add), the end of my Prosper relationship is nowhere in sight.

Screwed up the spelling of prospers.org.

[xraider]

oh no!  I did!  And I proofed it repeatedly.  I'll post an errata.

ETA I think Fool did that editing on its own.

Further ETA: Who is posting on fool as opinion1956?  At least most of us are using our Prosper lending names.  Pretty hilarious that opinion1956 is complaining about the lack of attribution when (1) the author of the article is identified by name; and (2) opinion1956 won't even use his/her Prosper lending name. 

[DakotahFury]

Someone please set "dtpilot" straight...
Fer cryin' out loud...he's touting Experian ROIs as an indicator of decent returns. Talk about misleading...

[beerbud1]

i added my 2 cents for whatever it is worth

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Further ETA: Who is posting on fool as opinion1956? 

Do you really have to ask? 

 

[Xenon481]

Further ETA: Who is posting on fool as opinion1956? 

I already made the suggestion that it is either NA or MHS and neither has rebutted.