|
Navy-slush-fund
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: June 02, 2009, 10:08:04 pm » |
|
Well so much for regular people helping regular people...
Now it's supposed to be fat cats who do the lending.
And this is peer-to-peer how??
more of the Govt dictating to people what they can and can't do.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ira01
|
|
« Reply #31 on: June 03, 2009, 12:33:11 am » |
|
Well so much for regular people helping regular people...
Now it's supposed to be fat cats who do the lending.
And this is peer-to-peer how?? more of the Govt dictating to people what they can and can't do.... Yeah, better that companies can rip-off financially unsophisticated people who can't afford it at will -- go free market!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Navy-slush-fund
|
|
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2009, 06:51:15 am » |
|
Well so much for regular people helping regular people...
Now it's supposed to be fat cats who do the lending.
And this is peer-to-peer how?? more of the Govt dictating to people what they can and can't do.... Yeah, better that companies can rip-off financially unsophisticated people who can't afford it at will -- go free market! Our govt. must have concluded that the citizens of this country must be pretty stupid then given all the F'n rules put in place over the years....I think the govt. likes ignorance, it gives them thier reason for existance... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
yankeefan
|
|
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2009, 07:38:35 am » |
|
Well so much for regular people helping regular people...
Now it's supposed to be fat cats who do the lending.
And this is peer-to-peer how?? more of the Govt dictating to people what they can and can't do.... Yeah, better that companies can rip-off financially unsophisticated people who can't afford it at will -- go free market! Our govt. must have concluded that the citizens of this country must be pretty stupid then given all the F'n rules put in place over the years....I think the govt. likes ignorance, it gives them thier reason for existance... Well, the fact that we voted for them would seem to prove that we're pretty stupid.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 XIRR results= (6.52%) |
|
|
|
Staneslav
|
|
« Reply #34 on: June 03, 2009, 11:20:35 am » |
|
Well so much for regular people helping regular people...
Now it's supposed to be fat cats who do the lending.
And this is peer-to-peer how?? more of the Govt dictating to people what they can and can't do.... Yeah, better that companies can rip-off financially unsophisticated people who can't afford it at will -- go free market! Our govt. must have concluded that the citizens of this country must be pretty stupid then given all the F'n rules put in place over the years....I think the govt. likes ignorance, it gives them thier reason for existance... Well, the fact that we voted for them would seem to prove that we're pretty stupid. Hey! I just closed my eyes and spun the wheel. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I apologize for nothing and I'm sorry for less.
|
|
|
|
NewHorizon
|
|
« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2009, 11:56:09 am » |
|
From the launch of our platform in February of 2006 until October 16, 2008, the operation of our platform differed from the structure described in this prospectus and we did not offer Notes. Instead, our platform allowed lender members to purchase, and take assignment of, borrower loans directly. There you have it. Prosper never offered Notes (much less unregistered ones). I suspect this'll be their defense in the class action lawsuit? (IANAL) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bamalucky
|
|
« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2009, 11:58:55 am » |
|
Instead, our platform allowed lender members to purchase, and take assignment of, borrower loans directly. I want names & contacts then! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
|
|
|
|
Fred93
|
|
« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2009, 12:20:53 pm » |
|
From the launch of our platform in February of 2006 until October 16, 2008, the operation of our platform differed from the structure described in this prospectus and we did not offer Notes. Instead, our platform allowed lender members to purchase, and take assignment of, borrower loans directly. There you have it. Prosper never offered Notes (much less unregistered ones). I suspect this'll be their defense in the class action lawsuit? (IANAL) Well, I think its true, except for one little thing they left out. If you look at my account now, via the web or the monthly statements, they show that it is full of "notes". I didn't start callin' them "notes". Prosper did. They went to great trouble to start calling them "notes". I used to track the loans by the "loan #", which no longer works on the prosper web site. They took every loan and assigned it a new and distinct "note #", so that I have to look up the mapping from one to the other. These loans or notes or whatever they are are only lookupable by "Note #" now. Seems like prosper is trying to present the view that they are notes. I can't imagine what else but a "note" would appear when you enter a "note #". |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 12:22:57 pm by Fred93 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NewHorizon
|
|
« Reply #38 on: June 03, 2009, 12:27:42 pm » |
|
From the signatures page. *By:
/s/ Christian A. Larson
Christian A. Larson
Attorney-in-Fact Mr. Larsen is the CEO, but who's Mr. Larson? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tokyo Joe
|
|
« Reply #39 on: June 03, 2009, 12:31:09 pm » |
|
From the signatures page. *By:
/s/ Christian A. Larson
Christian A. Larson
Attorney-in-Fact Mr. Larsen is the CEO, but who's Mr. Larson? Are you kidding me? What does the signature look like? Is he purposely misspelling his own name? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NewHorizon
|
|
« Reply #40 on: June 03, 2009, 12:39:33 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Xenon481
|
|
« Reply #41 on: June 03, 2009, 12:51:47 pm » |
|
From the signatures page. *By:
/s/ Christian A. Larson
Christian A. Larson
Attorney-in-Fact Mr. Larsen is the CEO, but who's Mr. Larson? They can never get anything right, can they? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
NewHorizon
|
|
« Reply #42 on: June 03, 2009, 01:29:24 pm » |
|
| Aggregate Amount
of Loans Purchased | | Income Earned on Loans
for the 3 months ended | | | March 31, 2009 | March 31, 2008 | March 31, 2009 | March 31, 2008 |
| | | | | | Executive officers & management | $441,554 | $397,505 | $2,256 | $4,926 | | Directors | 412,076 | 372,558 | 4,120 | 6,823 | | Affiliate | 167,259 | 167,259 | 862 | 2,424 | |
|
|
|
| | Total | $1,020,889 | $937,322 | $7,238 | $14,173 |
... and goes on to mention that of the total aggregate loans purchased, 10% were charged off. Compared to other lenders, they did pretty ok. But otoh, I don't see how these are numbers to be proud of. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
onthefence
|
|
« Reply #43 on: June 03, 2009, 02:59:14 pm » |
|
Our govt. must have concluded that the citizens of this country must be pretty stupid then given all the F'n rules put in place over the years....I think the govt. likes ignorance, it gives them thier reason for existance...
Yup. No doubt about that. Just look at the rush of new lenders. I'll tell you what. If laws about false or misleading advertising in place were enforced and your average Joe citizen could afford to use the court system address these poor marketing efforts, I might be willing to forgo all the regulation. But what does this regulation give us? Prosper is more on their toes & accountable about false & misleading advertising of their products. We get statements of the companies financial health which is critical given that they will own any future loans created. It also makes the investing world easier to navigate by having at least some standards to go by & knowing that the outright hucksters & frauds will avoid SEC regulation. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Lobby permission granted |
|
|
|
Investar
|
|
« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2009, 08:55:42 am » |
|
Friday, June 26, 2009 Prosper filed Proposal Number 5 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.This comes within 30 days of the last one. Based on LendingClub, this is exactly the rapid response interval that says the end of 'Quiet' is near. Also for the first time, the package includes direct testaments from Prosper's legal counsel, Morrison & Foerster. Since lawyers rarely bind their reputation to these sorts of things unless there can be no argument against their blessing, it sure seems like the SEC and Prosper have finally come to terms. That's the main gist of things as I see 'em. So, might we see a big announcement from Prosper pretty shortly? (file of all Prosper documents at the SEC here) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
