Prospers.ORG Prosper Forum

Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Prospers.ORG!   Login here

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Prosper officially files with the SEC  (Read 54999 times)

Capital_Finance_Group

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 1586
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2008, 08:37:10 pm »

nominate for The Lobby
Logged

Fred93

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 3914
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2008, 09:35:14 pm »

I wonder which pal owned that domain?

According to domaintools.com, the domain "prosper.com" was owned by A Emmet Stephenson from 2001 thru early 2006.  Well, he listed the owner as "prosper.com, Inc", which means nothing, and he he was the administrative contact.  I doubt that there was a business by that name.  This is a common dodge to keep a low profile.

In February of 2006, the name servers were changed from lmi.net to name-services.com .  This likely corresponds to the "purchase" described in the S1.  However, Emmet's name remained as the administrative contact until January of 2008 at which time it was changed to Ron Pugh.  The late name change may mean something, or it may have been an oversight.  Domaintools says Emmet owns 136 domains, but it wants money to let me see their names, and I declined.

Looks like Emmet has done well with his domain name investments.  I have not done so well.  I have a dozen or so names.  Once a guy offered me $25 for one of 'em.

Fred93

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 3914
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2008, 09:41:34 pm »

Ok i'm done pasting..This is a huge document & i'm sure i missed more nuggets than i found.

Did you read all the documents, or just the S1?  You gotta read the indenture. 

I suggest reading it at bed time. 

bamalucky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +408/-408
  • Posts: 42736
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2008, 09:44:17 pm »

Ok i'm done pasting..This is a huge document & i'm sure i missed more nuggets than i found.

Did you read all the documents, or just the S1?  You gotta read the indenture. 

I suggest reading it at bed time. 

My eyes are ran together now..

Speaking of domains..I have 2 for sale..

prizehide.com
hideprize.com

Anyone want to pay me what you want & send the proceeds to ferrix as a donation?
Logged
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

onthefence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-3
  • Posts: 5736
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2008, 10:19:04 pm »

You gotta read the indenture. 

Where is the Indenture?

Unrelated but interesting:
Quote
Prepayments are subject to our 1.0% servicing fee, even if the prepayment occurs immediately after issuance of your Note.  See “About the Platform—Description of the Notes—Prepayments” for more information.

So if someone takes out a loan & then immediate pays it back (which has been done before) the lender will be out 1% of his/her original amount.
Logged
Lobby permission granted

onthefence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-3
  • Posts: 5736
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2008, 10:32:18 pm »

Quote
a holder of a Note will be required to include OID in income as ordinary interest income for U.S.  federal income tax purposes as it accrues (which may be in advance of interest payments on the Note)

So we are required to pay "accrued interest" on late/defaulting loans until it is charged off?  Bleh.  A pox on both our portfolios.

BTW:  There are at least 2 nominations for lobby in this thread now.
Logged
Lobby permission granted

Fred93

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 3914
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #66 on: December 05, 2008, 10:41:22 pm »

You gotta read the indenture. 

Where is the Indenture?

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1416265/000110465908074769/a08-29602_1ex4d2.htm

Disclaimer: I have never understood whether those long SEC URLs are static or not.  So if it doesn't work for you, just look up "prosper marketplace", which you can do with this...
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=prosper+marketplace&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&owner=include&NOaction=getcompany
If you survive that, then click on the december 2008 S1/A filing.  That takes you to a page that lists several URLs, each for a piece of the document.  The first is the S1 itself, and the rest are the attachments.  The first attachment (ie 2nd URL) is the indenture.


Edited (yet again) to add ... Strangely, the SEC web site seems to work even tho this forum inserts that "NO" in the middle of the URL.  Amazing. 
« Last Edit: December 06, 2008, 12:36:25 am by Fred93 »
Logged

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10185
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #67 on: December 06, 2008, 01:27:42 am »

Quote
Our platform is designed and structured in a manner such that the activities performed by lender members on our platform do not trigger state lending or finance company licensing requirements.

Thats bullshit because 25 loans in Alabama means you gotta be licensed

Probably not under Prosper 2.0, since the "lenders" no longer will own the notes.
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10185
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #68 on: December 06, 2008, 01:31:59 am »

While the SEC is reviewing Prosper's registration, it might be worth while to send a letter to the regulators outlining some of the more troubling issues with Prosper.

Yeah, someone should send them a copy of the Lawyer Letter, which lays out most of Prosper's breaches.  Furthermore, I wonder if Prosper's failure to mention that threatened litigation in its S-1 was unlawful -- seems it would be material that lenders had retained counsel and threatened suit over a variety of Prosper's failures.
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10185
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #69 on: December 06, 2008, 01:37:48 am »

My favorite part

Quote
As a result of our prior operations, our lender members who hold these loans may be entitled to rescind their purchase and be paid their unpaid principal amount of the borrower loans plus statutory interest.  In addition, As of September 30, 2008, the aggregate principal balance of loans purchased through our platform by purchasers not affiliated with Prosper was $178.6 million.

This also is ambiguous.  I wonder if the "unpaid principal amount of the borrower loans" means the "unpaid principal" as shown on our lender pages (i.e., the original principal amount reduced by the portion of payments representing principal repayment), or if it means the original principal amount less ALL payments received.  The difference is whether lenders get to keep the high-rate interest already paid (for example, on 35% loans), or if Prosper essentially gets the benefit of high-rates, by only giving lenders back their original principal plus the legal rate of interest (probably 10%).
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10185
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #70 on: December 06, 2008, 01:41:25 am »

Quote
The Notes will be special, limited obligations of Prosper only and not obligations of any borrower.  The Notes are unsecured and holders of the Notes do not have a security interest in the corresponding borrower loans or the proceeds of those corresponding borrower loans

It sounds like Prosper 2.0 is clearly stating that 'Lenders' won't own the notes.  If Prosper tanks, lenders would have to stand in line with all the other creditors.

Even without the class action lawsuit, IMHO this makes Prosper (like LC) wholly unsuitable as an investment.  But if Prosper 2.0 manages to debut before the class action concludes, one would have to be the dumbest person on the face of the planet to participate as a lender -- the class action will probably bankrupt Prosper, so all of the money 2.0 borrowers repay monthly on their loans would get sucked up by the 1.0 lenders and their counsel.  :ninja:
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10185
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2008, 01:49:41 am »

Quote
For example between September 1, 2007 and August 31, 2008, we verified employment and income for only approximately 22.6% of borrowers.

Quote
Of the borrowers undergoing income verification for the period from September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008:
  • approximately 56.7% provided us with satisfactory responses and received a borrower loan;
  • approximately 37.7% did not provide satisfactory responses, or did not respond, and their listings were cancelled; and
  • approximately 5.9% either withdrew their listings, or failed to receive bids totaling the amount of their requested loan.

OMG!  Just over half were able to withstand income verification.  That means almost half of the borrowers lie about income. 

That doesn't follow.  All that we know is that almost half of the borrowers were unable to provide "satisfactory [to Prosper] responses."  Some portion of those may have been like Big Gulp's brother, who sent a fax that Prosper supposedly couldn't read and a .pdf that Prosper supposedly couldn't open.  Others may have been self-employed or otherwise atypical such that Prosper's "crack verification squad" couldn't figure out whether they were telling the truth about their income. 

Moreover, Prosper didn't randomly select listings for verification.  It utilized a system intended to ferret out the higher risk listings.  Of course, given Prosper's general ineptitude, its system probably wasn't very good.  Nevertheless, it probably did result in those listings selected for verification having a greater than average likelihood of failing verification.  Thus, the 45% failure rate in the group of loans selected for verification tells us little about what the failure rate would have been in the remaining group of listings. 

Quote
Egad.  If that's true, then we need income verification on 100% of loans. 

Well, it certainly suggests that we need more verification than we got (as do the dismal results of Prosper loans), that's for sure.
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10185
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2008, 01:54:53 am »

Prosper had $23,243,341 on hand on Jan 1 2008.

It's pretty fair to assume they have spent over 10m this year

Considering that it lost $13.5 million in 2007, I would guess it lost at least that much this year as well.  While Prosper did raise its fees, and its aggregate loan balance was higher (thus resulting in greater servicing fees), it also entered into the venture with WebBank, which surely wasn't free.  I also imagine that its legal fees were considerably higher this year than last.   :ninja:  And then there's the $1 million NASAA fine.  All told, it looks like Prosper will begin 2009 with less than $9 million in the bank (and no originations bringing in any money).  It will probably be flat broke by the summer or fall of 2009.
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10185
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2008, 01:55:38 am »

Quote
The Company granted 2,500 immediately vested common shares at $2.17 per share to nonemployees for services during the year ended December 31, 2007 and 12,294 immediately vested shares at $0.50 per share in 2006.  Expense of approximately $5,400 and $6,100 was recognized in 2007 and 2006, respectively

Who are you?

Rateladder?  Islandmele??
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

misssalaska2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 5626
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper officially files with the SEC
« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2008, 02:04:12 am »

Prosper had $23,243,341 on hand on Jan 1 2008.

It's pretty fair to assume they have spent over 10m this year
   

 


I'm not done reading, but I work for a non-profit (a graduate school specializing in theology), and we operate on a budget WAYYYYYYYYYYY less than that.  Like, less than $3mil.  We employ 60 people at all levels of skill.

Wow.  That's a lot in terms of operating expenses.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up