Print

[havastat]

Prosper has filed its 10-Q for the last quarter with the SEC. It's on Edgar at


http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1416265/000141626511000777/0001416265-11-000777-index.htm

Highlights:
 
1. Cash on hand increased to $13M as of 30Sep11

2. Gross revenue nearly doubled, from $361K in 3Q10 to $605K.

3. Rebates and "cost of services" continued to make net revenue a fraction of gross revenue. Net revenue went from $94K in 3Q10 to $295K.

4. Net revenue continues to be a small fraction of expenses. Expenses went from $2.50M to $3.13M. Net revenue is now about 10% of expenses -- no longer a negligible fraction, but still a very small one.

5. Expenses continued to increase faster than revenue, increasing the burn rate.

6. At current burn rate, Prosper reported between a year's and 5 quarters'  cash on hand. This does not include the $9 cash infusion reported on November 3.

Note: corrected link 11/16/11

[ira01]

Prosper has filed its 10-Q for the last quarter with the SEC. It's on Edgar at

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1409970/000095012311098629/0000950123-11-098629-index.htm
Highlights:
 
1. Cash on hand increased to $13M as of 30Sep11

2. Gross revenue nearly doubled, from $361K in 3Q10 to $605K.

3. Rebates and "cost of services" continued to make net revenue a fraction of gross revenue. Net revenue went from $94K in 3Q10 to $295K.

4. Net revenue continues to be a small fraction of expenses. Expenses went from $2.50M to $3.13M. Net revenue is now more than 10% of expenses -- no longer a negligible fraction, but still a very small one.

5. Expenses continued to increase faster than revenue, increasing the burn rate.

6. At current burn rate, Prosper reported between a year's and 5 quarters'  cash on hand. This does not include the $9 cash infusion reported on November 3.

Re: #4, with net revenue of $295K and expenses of $3.13M, net revenue is LESS than 10% of expenses, NOT more -- 9.4% to be precise.  Regardless, as you note, covering 10% of your expenses with net revenue is "a very small fraction." 

Re: #5, Prosper is moving in the wrong direction, with the burn rate INCREASING.

And Prosper's expenses are going to go up -- with the insurance exhausted or nearly so, the cost of defending the class action is going to be coming out of Prosper's pocket.  As the case heats up, with more motion practice and discovery, Prosper could easily spend 6-figures a month on its lawyers.  And a settlement would likely cost Prosper substantially more than the recent $9M F round of funding. 

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1409970/000095012311098629/0000950123-11-098629-index.htm

That link takes me to a filing for LendingClub.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Hey, at least Witchel received some well-deserved money.

On November 2, 2011, Prosper and John Witchel, one of Prosper’s co-founders, entered into a stock repurchase agreement pursuant to which Prosper repurchased from Mr. Witchel 1,800,000 shares of the company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.16 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $288,000.  The repurchased shares will remain part of the Company’s common stock and be available for future issuance by the Company.

[God-Father]

Lobby

[Xenon481]

Lobby

2nd, but the link in the OP needs to be changed to the following:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1416265/000141626511000777/0001416265-11-000777-index.htm

[Staneslav]

a

[Xenon481]

Hey, at least Witchel received some well-deserved money.

On November 2, 2011, Prosper and John Witchel, one of Prosper’s co-founders, entered into a stock repurchase agreement pursuant to which Prosper repurchased from Mr. Witchel 1,800,000 shares of the company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.16 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $288,000.  The repurchased shares will remain part of the Company’s common stock and be available for future issuance by the Company.

Why do this?

Because it seems like Witchel doesn't believe in the company he co-founded anymore. Why else would he sell all of those shares for a pittance now when they were probably worth somewhere on the order of 10x as much several years back. If the company were truly on its way to profitability, then those shares could be a gold mine. But even this co-founder doesn't believe that and he is putting his money where his mouth is.

[Staneslav]

a

[Xenon481]

Hey, at least Witchel received some well-deserved money.

On November 2, 2011, Prosper and John Witchel, one of Prosper’s co-founders, entered into a stock repurchase agreement pursuant to which Prosper repurchased from Mr. Witchel 1,800,000 shares of the company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.16 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $288,000.  The repurchased shares will remain part of the Company’s common stock and be available for future issuance by the Company.

Why do this?

Because it seems like Witchel doesn't believe in the company he co-founded anymore. Why else would he sell all of those shares for a pittance now when they were probably worth somewhere on the order of 10x as much several years back. If the company were truly on its way to profitability, then those shares could be a gold mine. But even this co-founder doesn't believe that and he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Why would prosper buy them back? They aren't exactly swimming in cash.

Maybe they knew that Witchel could talk about all sorts of things and they didn't want to piss him off.

[Staneslav]

a

[cubbiesnextyr]

Hey, at least Witchel received some well-deserved money.

On November 2, 2011, Prosper and John Witchel, one of Prosper’s co-founders, entered into a stock repurchase agreement pursuant to which Prosper repurchased from Mr. Witchel 1,800,000 shares of the company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.16 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $288,000.  The repurchased shares will remain part of the Company’s common stock and be available for future issuance by the Company.

Why do this?

Because it seems like Witchel doesn't believe in the company he co-founded anymore. Why else would he sell all of those shares for a pittance now when they were probably worth somewhere on the order of 10x as much several years back. If the company were truly on its way to profitability, then those shares could be a gold mine. But even this co-founder doesn't believe that and he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Why would prosper buy them back? They aren't exactly swimming in cash.

Maybe they knew that Witchel could talk about all sorts of things and they didn't want to piss him off.

More likely it was part of a stock repurchase agreement that he signed when they started the company.  It's fairly common to sign agreements like this where the company will agree to repurchase the stock at some price if the shareholder dies or leaves the company etc. 

[Staneslav]

a

[yankeefan]

Hey, at least Witchel received some well-deserved money.

On November 2, 2011, Prosper and John Witchel, one of Prosper’s co-founders, entered into a stock repurchase agreement pursuant to which Prosper repurchased from Mr. Witchel 1,800,000 shares of the company’s common stock at a purchase price of $0.16 per share for an aggregate purchase price of $288,000.  The repurchased shares will remain part of the Company’s common stock and be available for future issuance by the Company.

Why do this?

Because it seems like Witchel doesn't believe in the company he co-founded anymore. Why else would he sell all of those shares for a pittance now when they were probably worth somewhere on the order of 10x as much several years back. If the company were truly on its way to profitability, then those shares could be a gold mine. But even this co-founder doesn't believe that and he is putting his money where his mouth is.

Why would prosper buy them back? They aren't exactly swimming in cash.

Maybe they knew that Witchel could talk about all sorts of things and they didn't want to piss him off.

More likely it was part of a stock repurchase agreement that he signed when they started the company.  It's fairly common to sign agreements like this where the company will agree to repurchase the stock at some price if the shareholder dies or leaves the company etc. 

I had not considered that either. This scenario seems more likely.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. Especially in Prosper's case.

Plus, Witchel may need a new couch..

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Plus, Witchel may need a new couch..

For some reason, that joke never gets old.  I still get a chuckle.