Print

[kenL]

Does anyone else think it is odd that an article full of so many links and references does not mention the source of the 4.95%? Isn't that important? Wouldn't a real reporter mention where that number came from?

[Cushie]

Second for lobby.

[snake]

fine by me

[rogerwaite]

The way it reads it implies the 4.95 comes from the Prosper Statistics link, but I can't devine any such ROI from it.  I think you should start a liebers.org web site so we can spew bile about his articles.

[kenL]

Good idea. lol

If indeed it reads that way what he's trying to convey is that it comes from a source that Prosper recognizes as valid, lendstats.com. LC RL knows this because Prosper quoted it in one of their posts. What pisses me off is that LC RL neglects to mention the source when he used statistics found at lendstats. Why? Because LC RL does not want people going to lendstats.com. Why? Because lendstats.com does not calculate 9.68% for LC's returns. Sorry guys, if you want some of it, you'll have to take all of it. At least Prosper has accepted that it made unrealistic claims of returns in the past and has moved on. It appears LC is still is stuck in the state of denial and is doing everything it can (including many good things; You're welcome!) to convince itself and others that it's claims of 9.68% are true.

That said. I love investing in LC. I think their returns are great and I plan to invest a lot more with them, but jeez guys, this is getting annoying.

edit: changed JL to RL, I was confusing Jon Lieber (baseball player) with Ron Lieber

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Good idea. lol

If indeed it reads that way what he's trying to convey is that it comes from a source that Prosper recognizes as valid, lendstats.com. LC RL knows this because Prosper quoted it in one of their posts. What pisses me off is that LC RL neglects to mention the source when he used statistics found at lendstats. Why? Because LC RL does not want people going to lendstats.com. Why? Because lendstats.com does not calculate 9.68% for LC's returns. Sorry guys, if you want some of it, you'll have to take all of it. At least Prosper has accepted that it made unrealistic claims of returns in the past and has moved on. It appears LC is still is stuck in the state of denial and is doing everything it can (including many good things; You're welcome!) to convince itself and others that it's claims of 9.68% are true.

That said. I love investing in LC. I think their returns are great and I plan to invest a lot more with them, but jeez guys, this is getting annoying.

edit: changed JL to RL, I was confusing Jon Lieber (baseball player) with Ron Lieber

This is all a little ironic, since Prosper, via Lendstats.com, is advertising returns higher than that which it has declared in SEC filings.  The following was captured today, February 7, 2011.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[kenL]

Good idea. lol

If indeed it reads that way what he's trying to convey is that it comes from a source that Prosper recognizes as valid, lendstats.com. LC RL knows this because Prosper quoted it in one of their posts. What pisses me off is that LC RL neglects to mention the source when he used statistics found at lendstats. Why? Because LC RL does not want people going to lendstats.com. Why? Because lendstats.com does not calculate 9.68% for LC's returns. Sorry guys, if you want some of it, you'll have to take all of it. At least Prosper has accepted that it made unrealistic claims of returns in the past and has moved on. It appears LC is still is stuck in the state of denial and is doing everything it can (including many good things; You're welcome!) to convince itself and others that it's claims of 9.68% are true.

That said. I love investing in LC. I think their returns are great and I plan to invest a lot more with them, but jeez guys, this is getting annoying.

edit: changed JL to RL, I was confusing Jon Lieber (baseball player) with Ron Lieber

This is all a little ironic, since Prosper, via Lendstats.com, is advertising returns higher than that which it has declared in SEC filings.  The following was captured today, February 7, 2011.

Yeah well, I do want to try and recoup something for the time and money I've put into this and the easiest way to do that is through referrals, but the referral biz has not been very successful so far. I guess if I am as independent and unbiased as I claim to be I should look for ads that don't display returns rates that I disagree with. Oh well, if I get the gumption one of these days I'll see if I can find any ads that I can agree with or maybe I should just do away with them completely.

[buffetrand]

Yeah well, I do want to try and recoup something for the time and money I've put into this and the easiest way to do that is through referrals, but the referral biz has not been very successful so far. I guess if I am as independent and unbiased as I claim to be I should look for ads that don't display returns rates that I disagree with. Oh well, if I get the gumption one of these days I'll see if I can find any ads that I can agree with or maybe I should just do away with them completely.

I think most visitors would think those are simply ads that help pay for the site. You might want to add something in the Why Donate page explaining that a visitor can help your site through clicking those ads and thereby earning you the referral bonus. That also keeps things nice and transparent .

[kenL]

Yeah well, I do want to try and recoup something for the time and money I've put into this and the easiest way to do that is through referrals, but the referral biz has not been very successful so far. I guess if I am as independent and unbiased as I claim to be I should look for ads that don't display returns rates that I disagree with. Oh well, if I get the gumption one of these days I'll see if I can find any ads that I can agree with or maybe I should just do away with them completely.

I think most visitors would think those are simply ads that help pay for the site. You might want to add something in the Why Donate page explaining that a visitor can help your site through clicking those ads and thereby earning you the referral bonus. That also keeps things nice and transparent .

Thanks for the advice. That's exactly what I am now thinking.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Interesting comments are piling up regarding the story linked by the OP:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/peer-to-peer-lending-what-the-future-holds/?ref=your-money

[kenL]

Interesting comments are piling up regarding the story linked by the OP:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/peer-to-peer-lending-what-the-future-holds/?ref=your-money

Thanks for pointing this out Urbi. I'm glad to see my comment get through, but it did take a few days. I had already given up.

Who knows, maybe Prosper did report 4.95% loss somewhere and my complaining is unwarranted, but then again probably not. I suppose I could ask Prosper if they published that number somewhere, although I doubt it. I'm sure their 1.0 return number would not have been as low as mine.

[kenL]

It looks like my paranoia was unwarranted, Prosper has informed me that that number did come from them. I guess I owe some apologies. I'm just gonna shut up now.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

It looks like my paranoia was unwarranted, Prosper has informed me that that number did come from them. I guess I owe some apologies. I'm just gonna shut up now.

Did they also take credit for the "spew bile" quote?

[Senator]

The way it reads it implies the 4.95 comes from the Prosper Statistics link, but I can't devine any such ROI from it.  I think you should start a liebers.org web site so we can spew bile about his articles.

For the record, that's -4.95%.

[rogerwaite]

Yes, thanks.  And further for the record that's an average -4.95%. Mine's about -9%, although Ken has me at -5.5ish. -$426 on $5200 loaned.