Print

Yes - At the same or higher levels as before

10 (13.9%)

Yes - But more cautiously

6 (8.3%)

No - I am waiting to see new default rates

3 (4.2%)

No - I won't bid again, cashing out as notes mature

47 (65.3%)

No - I won't bid again, selling notes and bailing out!

6 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 69

[God-Father]

Another excellent set of data.  Was this format planned?   $-1.07057e+07 (+-$722,885)

Also, if I hit the enter key (using IE) - I get an error complaining about the end date must be after the start date.

[nonattender]

>> It wasn't the borrowers that made Prosper fuck up its litigation test project beyond all conceivable belief.  

This remains a mystery. But let me offer this: Occam's razor, a concept that is yielded to in favor of conspiracy theory on these forums, might suggest that credit card companies have abused the legal system to the point where statute and judiciary are unduly in favor of the borrower.

Somehow, I think the razor to reach for is not Occam's but Hanlon's - for both the forum and Prosper side of the face, in this specific case.

In hindsight, I think the Prosper sponsored forums while fun and camaraderie building were a mistake to ever offer.

They were great for the first six months.  For those who were there in the first six months, "shame" (which, really, is an aristocratic notion)
seemed somehow a workable concept, right alongside affinity.  And then "the American public arrived".  (And there went the neighborhood.)

Which is to say:  "I learned a lot, being a dummy."  The first crop had to be plowed under, but, what we learned may sustain us in future...
(I believe this is how God justified the Flood, as well, so, let's be careful not to extend the metaphor beyond its intended scope - shall we?)

Ah hah...  I kill me.

-t

[xraider]

loco, I'm sure you saw my comments on my recent experience with Prosper and bk loans.  In 2009, I emailed Prosper about two bks and was basically blown off.  A few weeks ago, I emailed Prosper again about one of the bks I asked about in 2009, and learned this time that Prosper didn't file a proof of claim in 2008.  That information was available to Prosper when I first asked in 2009, yet was not disclosed to me.   

Last week, I was told that Prosper would repay the loan as if a timely claim had been made, but Prosper couldn't tell me when that would happen.  Nothing has happened yet.

While I appreciate that Prosper 'fessed up, finally, I shouldn't have had to raise this at all, and shouldn't have had to raise it twice. 

This is just the latest example of problems I can document that *I* have had with Prosper.  While I hope, for the sake of current lenders, that Prosper coming clean on this concern is evidence that Prosper will take its fiduciary responsibility to lenders seriously, my history with Prosper is such that I won't ever lend again myself.  And yes, I can post more examples specific to me, although most are from Prosper 1.0.

[havastat]

I think Prosper was a typical dot-com bubble company -- you think up a great concept and set up a great web site and people come and use it and the money comes in. Like a lot of other companies that went bust in the dot-com bubble, its management was so caught up in the thinking of concepts and web sites that they didn't realize they were in a business that requires execution and hence didn't think about all the issues that companies that know that they're in the execution business know they have to think about. They just didn't occur to them. Many dot-com executives used to actively say they were above execution -- if you had a great concept and a great web site, you simply didn't have to worry about making things happen or overcoming obstacles, you were above all that, in the Internet Age nobody cared about all that old-fashioned stuff anymore.

I think Prosper is realizing that in the internet age some of the old-fashioned skills are still needed. But I think they're realizing that ten years behind the times. I think their problem has been in part that they've tried to solve their problems too much by tweaking the concept, rather than by rolling up their sleeves, getting their hands dirty, and getting things done.

[Beerbud1]

I think Prosper was a typical dot-com bubble company -- you think up a great concept and set up a great web site and people come and use it and the money comes in. Like a lot of other companies that went bust in the dot-com bubble, its management was so caught up in the thinking of concepts and web sites that they didn't realize they were in a business that requires execution and hence didn't think about all the issues that companies that know that they're in the execution business know they have to think about. They just didn't occur to them. Many dot-com executives used to actively say they were above execution -- if you had a great concept and a great web site, you simply didn't have to worry about making things happen or overcoming obstacles, you were above all that, in the Internet Age nobody cared about all that old-fashioned stuff anymore.

I think Prosper is realizing that in the internet age some of the old-fashioned skills are still needed. But I think they're realizing that ten years behind the times. I think their problem has been in part that they've tried to solve their problems too much by tweaking the concept, rather than by rolling up their sleeves, getting their hands dirty, and getting things done.

While I agree with most of what you have said here, you do know that Christian Larsen ran E-LoaN, RIGHT? Could he have been totally oblivious to all of the restrictions, regulations, loss factors, necessity of a good collections department, fraud, Etc. Etc.

I think Prosper 1.0 dropped the ball completely. Look what folks here have pointed out to them.

[JohnCalmus]

...Christian Larsen ran E-Loan, RIGHT? Could he have been totally oblivious to all of the restrictions, regulations, loss factors, necessity of a good collections department, fraud, Etc. Etc.

I think Prosper 1.0 dropped the ball completely.

Well, technically speaking, E-Loan didn't do all that well. According to Wikipedia (might not be accurate, but it usually is) E-Loan stopped giving out mortgages in 2009 a few years after a drastic restructuring in which over half their employees were let go. From the looks of it, all they do nowadays in terms of services is savings accounts and CDs (at apparently pretty uncompetitive rates), and other than that they just function as a portal / brand name.

What is seems to me (take note, I might be totally offbase here and just not understanding the situation) is that Larsen and his partner built up the E-Loan website and brand with some VC funding, got a large customer base, then pawned the company part and parcel to a larger financial institution at a hefty profit, letting the new owners then deal with whatever structural issues might exist within the company.

Perhaps Larsen's modus operandi with Prosper was similar: he wasn't initially concerned about making a long-lasting and viable company, but rather promoting the brand name and sucking up VC money until he could run across a good opportunity to sell off the company to a larger financial institution.

[Fred93]

While I agree with most of what you have said here, you do know that Christian Larsen ran E-LoaN, RIGHT? Could he have been totally oblivious to all of the restrictions, regulations, loss factors, necessity of a good collections department, fraud, Etc. Etc.

Yea, and that fooled a lot of us.  We thought he had background that meant he knew what he was doing.  Actually, around the time of E-loan, the loan business was changing.  The folks arranging loans were not the people with the money, or the people who had to do collections, or worry about losses.  They just bundled 'em up and sold em to a bank.  Larsen was part of the problem.

[quetranza]

I hate the recent changes... Now the only real way to bid is through an automated plan, and it forces bids on loans that I would never have bid on manually.  Lots more fraudulent listings, and the automated plans force bids on listings that I never would have bid on manually.  I would switch to Lending Club if it was possible in my state..

[kenL]

I hate the recent changes... Now the only real way to bid is through an automated plan, and it forces bids on loans that I would never have bid on manually.  Lots more fraudulent listings, and the automated plans force bids on listings that I never would have bid on manually.  I would switch to Lending Club if it was possible in my state..

I didn't know there are states (or is a state) that allowed Prosper and not LendingClub. Would you mind filling me in on what state that is?

[quetranza]

Would you mind filling me in on what state that is?

Oregon.

[kenL]

Would you mind filling me in on what state that is?

Oregon.

LC is lending in Oregon, they must have denied you from lending with them for another reason.

[quetranza]

LC is lending in Oregon, they must have denied you from lending with them for another reason.

Nope - they are not lending in Oregon.  Just checked.

[cowdog]

The Notes are presently being offered and sold solely to residents of the states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, and are not presently being offered or sold to residents of any other state, the District of Columbia, any other territory or possession of the United States, or any foreign country.

The Note Trading Platform operated by FOLIOfn is currently available to residents of all U.S. States except District of Columbia, Kansas, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont.

-- http://www.lendingclub.com/public/risk-of-investing.action

[kenL]

LC is lending in Oregon, they must have denied you from lending with them for another reason.

Nope - they are not lending in Oregon.  Just checked.

OK, I see where I'm mistaken. They are making loans in oregon, but I guess people from there can't lend.

[kenL]

Total lender assets right now are about $32 million.

Oops, forgot to add newly issued loans to that number. That would bring it up to 35 or 36 million.