Print

[xraider]

With all respect to both NA and MHS, I'd have to go with MHS on this one because of the grammatical choices and sentence structure.

[nonattender]

With all respect to both NA and MHS, I'd have to go with MHS on this one because of the grammatical choices and sentence structure.

With all due respect to you, your time could better be spent elsewhere - and I certainly feel that mine could be, as well.

Have fun storming the castle - look out for boiling... ink.

-t

[christoofar215]

1. Prosper lies to BK court in a pleading response

2. Fred 93 blogs about Prosper's lie

3. Fool picks it up

4. ...?...

5. NA tells everybody, again, how you shouldn't be angry and again, does nothing but wax idiotic.


What a shrill.

With all respect to both NA and MHS, I'd have to go with MHS on this one because of the grammatical choices and sentence structure.

With all due respect to you, your time could better be spent elsewhere - and I certainly feel that mine could be, as well.

Have fun storming the castle - look out for boiling... ink.

-t

[christoofar215]

Is fool.com a good enough source for a wikipedia entry?

I doubt with SuperYenta over there editing.

Look around & see if any other entries on wiki are citing fool

Yenta isn't touching Prosper's wiki page anymore.   She didn't remove the link to .ORG on it, and it's still there now.

[ira01]

The author of the article weighed in:

All,

As the author of this piece, I very much appreciate the passionate discussion that it has generated. I would like to make a few things clear.

First and foremost, I apologize to xraider for failing to attribute that person as the one who originally uncovered the court document I referenced when writing the article.

Second, this article was not a blog entry. It was a personal finance/investing commentary -- a mix of data and analysis and referencing others' opinions. It went through an extensive editing process by at least two people other than me before being published. Standard practice at the Fool (and this article was no exception) is for a financial editor to verify the financial data and a copy editor to make sure the wording is appropriate.

Third, while the article as published did not reference its sources, my initial submission was one of the most heavily footnoted pieces I have ever submitted for publication. I mostly pulled from three different sources: Prosper's own web site, LendingStats, and Prospers.org. Much of what I pulled from Prospers.org was the content that its members had archived from elsewhere, like old lending agreements and the documentation on the bankruptcy court case, though I did reference ira01's and Fred93's comments from that site, as well.

Fourth, Prosper is a very difficult company for me to write about, so I'm not quite sure what any follow-up articles would look like. Since it is not public, it has no ticker and there is very little public financial data about it. Since it is relatively small, it's tough to come up with articles that are compelling to the general investing / personal finance community. Additionally, in many of the other controversies regarding the company, there seem to be a fair amount of interpretation and perception mixed in with the actual data. I'm really not interested in getting in the middle of a "he said / she said" battle.

I certainly empathize with the former Prosper loan buyers who may be stuck for the next few years in an investment they no longer wish to have.

[xraider]

Very interesting!  I didn't care about the attribution, and certainly appreciate the sympathy about not being able to bail.  I feel sorry for myself on that too.   

[bamalucky]

I think the article needs clarification.

What type of plague isn't even mentioned 

[bamalucky]

FraudMan  05:43:19 PM Viewing the board Lenders - General.

Looking for this thread?

[pioneer11]

I think the article needs clarification.

What type of plague isn't even mentioned 

Don't these guys do any research to confirm the story before they write it?

[Xenon481]

Wow!  Read Reply #27 from "PeerLend". 

[xraider]

Another person hiding behind anonymity.  No PeerLend on lendingstats.com.

I think it's funny, though.  The more people post, the more chance there is that people will SEE the posts.  Go for it, Opinion1956 and Peerlend.

ETA: Apologies for prior bad language and any personal attack.    My self-edit feature stopped working.

[Tokyo Joe]

A lot of people will see it...

Yahoo Finance's Washington Mutual page has the article listed under "Headlines", as presumably do the other banks mentioned in the article.

ETA: a lot will see the headline and think it's about their bank...

[God-Father]

Another pussy.  No PeerLend on lendingstats.com.

I think it's funny, though.  The more people post, the more chance there is that people will SEE the posts.  Go for it, Opinion1956 and Peerlend.

Yeah I have noticed a trend of pussies posting in other forums using fake names.  Imagine that.

[Tokyo Joe]

Another pussy.  No PeerLend on lendingstats.com.

I think it's funny, though.  The more people post, the more chance there is that people will SEE the posts.  Go for it, Opinion1956 and Peerlend.

Yeah I have noticed a trend of pussies posting in other forums using fake names.  Imagine that.

Care to out a few?

[DakotahFury]

Another pussy.  No PeerLend on lendingstats.com.

I think it's funny, though.  The more people post, the more chance there is that people will SEE the posts.  Go for it, Opinion1956 and Peerlend.

The owner of www.peerlend.com perhaps? The downfall of one of the various cash-cows probably wouldn't be in his/her best interest.

ETA: on a related note...

I'm building an industry comparison site at:

http://www.PeerLend.com

The main for-profit US p2p/microlending players are (sort of) covered, so far...

-t