Print

[moneytree4172]

I got a settlement of $7.02.  I put $1200 into prosper and with the settlement added, I ultimately pulled out $1202.99.    I had $219.91 in charge offs.  So it looks like I was paid close to a 3.19% settlement. 

[Oak_Hill_Fire]

I got $46.81 on principal charge-offs of $1806.74 - 2.59%. I've been ignoring all emails from Prosper about statements for months ever since I transferred the last $3+ in delinquent payments 6 months ago and then seeing $.01 in the account the following month. Went there today to check the charge-off amount and there's $32 in there (or was - transfer initiated).....woohoo. I think I'm going to end up in positive territory and it's only going to take a little over a decade to do it.

[ccat]

Don't you kids go hog wild and spend it all in one place now 

Seriously, glad you got something back 

[msava]

Poof!

[DCS]

MsAva,

I was on your friend's loan. Many thanks to her for paying it off so long later after it had been charged off. However, I notice that it had been "settled in full" in 2012, but strangely recovery payments kept coming in from it after that for some reason. (One as recently as July 18.) Perhaps her check was to pay her back for the payments made after it had settled in full? EDIT: Just reread, see you said she got the same letter as the lenders - weird!

I have two friends who were borrowers who did not receive checks. However, they also did not get charged off, so they did not make any recovery payments.

[msava]

Poof!

[DCS]

MsAva, agree completely. Specifically, I think they screwed up a bunch of things on your friend's loan, hence recovery payments after it was "settled in full." Very strange.

[cubbiesnextyr]

So, this is what I've figured out.  The agreement says "paid more consideration than he or she received in principal and interest with regard to any one or more notes" during the period 1/1/06 - 10/14/08.  They list the formula as:

Proportionate payment = 1st annual dist times A divided by B
where A = (amount you paid for your eligible notes less amount of int and prin rec'd on those notes)
B =  (amount everyone paid for eligible notes less amount of int and prin rec'd on those notes).
D = 1st annual distribution
P = Proportionate payment

Let's write the formula as such P = D*A/B

We know P and we can compute A and those amounts are different for everyone.  D and B are the same for everyone, so we should be able to easily move formula around to put all of the "variables" on one side and "constants" on the other.  I get it to be

P/A = D/B

I calculate that to be in the area of 3.4337% or 3.4954% or so.

My calculation:

My wife and her 2 loans received a total of $19.607125 net back in prin and interest (and this is reduced for prosper's fees, which I'm not sure is correct) meaning she had a loss of 88.242875.  Therefore, the $3.03 received is 3.4337%.

I had 14 loans that are eligible and received a total of 525.411715 in prin and int on my original purchases of 904.20.  My 13.24 check equals 3.4954%.

So I think that is what people should be getting back.  This is how I got my totals:

On prosper.com, go to Notes.
Filter by purchase date of 1/1/06 to 10/14/08.
Note status set to Charge-off.

Hover your cursor over net rec'd for the 6 decimals.  Add up your total net received.
Each note lists the purchase price of the note, those s/b only 2 decimals.  Add those.

Total purch price less amount received gives you your loss amount (or A in our formula)
Check rec'd (or P in the formula) divided by loss amount should be in that 3.4% - 3.5% range.

Can anyone confirm?

[Xenon481]

For my loans in Charged-Off status, I had:

- Purchase Price: $1,781.64
- Net Received: $646.023306
-----------------------------
- Total loss: $1,135.616694
- 1st Settlement Payment: $39.47

That makes for ~3.4756%

Edit: Of note, on some of my notes in Charge-Off state, I had more net received than the purchase price of the note. To fit in with your 3.4-3.5%, the extra net received on those notes are counting against me when I don't think they should. I don't want to have those notes included in my calculations, but they are.

Edit2: If I use gross received (before I paid prosper and collection fees) instead of net received, the settlement percentage comes out to almost exactly 3.5%

[mothandrust]

But why oh why are borrowers getting class action money?

[msava]

Poof!

[Fred93]

I am positive my friend is not the only borrower that got money. How do we find the others?

Ask.  But where to do the asking, that's the question.  Somewhere borrowers hang out and talk about their exploits, the free money they've extracted from folks...

Answer: Creditboards!

[faithful_steward2]

The calculations should be public knowledge since this is a settlement and a pool of money that is distributed to "the class". If the pool overpays people or pays those that shouldn't receive anything (borrowers), we all lose money in our piece of the pie. Why is this clouded in secrecy.

Whom can I speak to about my settlement amount? Of course the letter doesn't include the contact information of the "administrator".

[faithful_steward2]

I'm a bit confused as to how the amount was calculated.

It looks like the trustee used the number that Prosper calls "Principal charge-offs" and multiplies by 2.53%.

I have thirteen loans which are listed as "charged-off". However 4 of those I received back more than the amount lent. One of which was "settled in full". The "Principal charge off" number includes the profits on those loans just because they're listed in the "charged off" bucket.

However, my reading of the class action settlement was that is was supposed to be the aggregate of loans which suffered a loss. Thus in my case would only include the 9 loans I lost money on. It doesn't make any sense for a loan that let's say was for $100 and paid back $149 and then defaulted on the last $1 to be included with the losses.

What am I missing?

You lost principle if the loan was charged off. The interest you earned was for use of money not available to you, because it was loaned out. It doesn't matter that your earnings from the interest exceeded the original amount.

If I got back more principal thna I lent out, how is the money not available to me? And what of my loan that is in the "charged off" bucket yet is marked "paid in full" within that bucket?

[rogerwaite]

I'm a bit confused as to how the amount was calculated.

It looks like the trustee used the number that Prosper calls "Principal charge-offs" and multiplies by 2.53%.

I have thirteen loans which are listed as "charged-off". However 4 of those I received back more than the amount lent. One of which was "settled in full". The "Principal charge off" number includes the profits on those loans just because they're listed in the "charged off" bucket.

However, my reading of the class action settlement was that is was supposed to be the aggregate of loans which suffered a loss. Thus in my case would only include the 9 loans I lost money on. It doesn't make any sense for a loan that let's say was for $100 and paid back $149 and then defaulted on the last $1 to be included with the losses.

What am I missing?

You lost principle if the loan was charged off. The interest you earned was for use of money not available to you, because it was loaned out. It doesn't matter that your earnings from the interest exceeded the original amount.

If I got back more principal thna I lent out, how is the money not available to me? And what of my loan that is in the "charged off" bucket yet is marked "paid in full" within that bucket?

Hopefully, others with more financial savvy will chime in.

First, how did you get more principal back than you loaned?

Second, your "paid in full" loan was marked that way because Prosper negotiated a "pennies on the dollar" scheme with that borrower. You didn't get you all your principal back from it. Look in the detailed history of that loan and you'll see some minuscule payment associated with the "paid in full". That's what mine show. Just more Prospers shenanigans.