As usual, great work Fred -- thanks!
The whole NAT situation (the test litigation) was a fiasco even by Prosper's standards. It would sure be highly interesting to learn more details about that (which is no doubt why Prosper has refused to make any details available to lenders). Considering that Prosper cherry-picked the 68 loans for this test, it should have been a no-brainer to win nearly all of them, and to collect substantial revenue for the lenders who opted in to the NAT. Unfortunately, since Prosper apparently has no brains, it managed to completely screw this up.
As most people here know, I have heard hundreds of collections cases in small claims court, brought by a variety of institutional creditors -- auto finance companies, retail finance companies, payday lenders, check cashing places, etc. In virtually every case the defendant fails to appear, and in the vast majority of those cases the creditor wins a default judgment (and that's in small claims, where defendants do not file answers or other pleadings, no lawyers are allowed, and all a defendant has to do is show up at the hearing and tell his/her story). It is mind-boggling that Prosper's results have apparently been so different (and since Prosper's cases were not filed in small claims court, answers ARE required from defendants, and most of the rules of civil procedure and evidence apply, so it is much more difficult for a defendant to represent him/herself). I suppose the different results may be explained by the fact that in the cases I hear, it is the plaintiff/creditor's own money at stake. In Prosper's case, any money it recovers (after paying its lawyers and various costs of the litigation project) goes to the lenders who owned the loans sued on. So (as with pretty much everything else Prosper does), it really doesn't give a shit, since it isn't Prosper's money at stake (and we all know how "much" Prosper cares about us lenders).