Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Investors / Re: Debt Sales
« Last post by DiligentiaLLC on Today at 02:33:11 PM »
Then get that guy (USMC Retired) that used to invest in Lending Club & who asked endless questions (when it was allowed), to do the collections. No one is more meticulous, patient, persistent, repetitive.

hahahah I used to love that guy.  I always felt like investing with him was a social investment stamp of approval.   ;D

It's a shame Lendstats can't report on how well he did.
"Better platform for returns," perhaps.  But any thought given to what happens to the borrower's payments should Prosper close down?  Those borrower payments go to Prosper and if Prosper's creditors need to be made whole... 
Investors / Re: Debt Sales
« Last post by NoGoodDeed on Today at 01:28:01 PM »
Hmmm. That is interesting. I am working on a post on debt collection practices and I hope to get to the bottom of this. Stay tuned to the blog.

Did that post go up?  Can somebody direct me to it?
In the agreement with Prosper that early Lenders signed, didn't Prosper obligate themselves to Debt Sales?
Investors / Re: Class action lawsuit
« Last post by NoGoodDeed on Today at 01:22:40 PM »
I have never covered this lawsuit simply because I have been told by several people that it has very little merit and will not succeed. I am not a lawyer but on the advice of others I have never covered this lawsuit on my blog.

Who told you that .....

Hi.  I just now registered and hit the "Notify" button because I'm interested in the answer to ira01's question.
Investors / CSV file of available notes
« Last post by Erin K on Today at 12:35:12 PM »
Hello, I find your idea of downloading the CSV file of available notes very smart and plan to filter my notes this way. I was hoping you could help explain to me one of their column titles not listed on

exp_default_rate  I assume this means expected default rate, but what does it *mean*. Where do the number come from and how can I use it in my filtering process?

Investors / Re: IRA Minimum
« Last post by Erin K on Today at 12:02:50 PM »
I had this clarified for me when the requirement was $10,000 by year 2 for a no-fee IRA. As long as nothing has changed I'll relay what I understood: You have a year to the date your money was deposited into your account to have a $5000 balance in order to avoid the fee. This amount does not have to be invested in notes, just in your account. Any interest made on the notes also counts towards the $5000 "goal" (which obviously would require one to invest into notes as idle money doesn't accrue any interest). So, someone could deposit $4,500 on Jan 1 and as long as they've accrued $500 in interest by Dec 31 they will not be charged a fee as their account would be at $5000. However, as with most financial institutions, real people work at Lending Club so you could probably ask your account manager to waive the fee if you really didn't feel like paying it.
Investors / Re: Borrower deceased
« Last post by Erin K on Today at 11:23:31 AM »
I keep track of my defaults/charge offs to help me determine a better investment strategy. I can tell you that of the 1000-some notes I have held, only one has been charged off because the member has deceased.
Investors / Re: Class action lawsuit
« Last post by ira01 on June 07, 2012, 08:48:07 PM »
I have never covered this lawsuit simply because I have been told by several people that it has very little merit and will not succeed. I am not a lawyer but on the advice of others I have never covered this lawsuit on my blog.

Who told you that -- Chris Larsen?  I am a lawyer, and I think the class action has a whole lot of merit.  And there is at least one other California lawyer who posts regularly at, and she also thinks the class action has a lot of merit. 

Are you aware that several of the individual defendants in the class action sought to have themselves dismissed from the lawsuit for a variety of legal reasons that generally amounted to "the lawsuit has no merit (at least as to some of the individual defendants)" -- and that the California Court of Appeal ruled that they could NOT be dismissed on those grounds, and that they had to remain as defendants in the case?  You can read the Court of Appeal's decision at

In the unlikely event it will succeed I really don't think it will have much material impact on Prosper.

Are you kidding?  If the class action goes to trial and the class wins, the judgment may well be around $50,000,000, perhaps more.  That is easily large enough to most likely bankrupt Prosper.  You don't consider that "material"?
Investors / Re: Mobile Web
« Last post by pioneer11 on June 07, 2012, 08:36:18 PM »
It is a nice, compact way to view cooked data.
General Prosper Discussion / Re: How can Prosper improve for investors
« Last post by ira01 on June 07, 2012, 08:29:39 PM »
Prosper stopped performing debt sales after December 2007 in direct violation of their legal agreements with lenders.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.  The Lender Registration Agreement then in effect obligated Prosper to hold regular sales of loans that were 4+months late to Junk Debt Buyers.  The LRA gave Prosper no discretion with that, and no legal authority to choose to hold these seriously delinquent loans.  Then around March 2008, Prosper decided that a JDB offer to purchase the portfolio of 4+month late loans would not be honored, because of supposedly "unacceptable conditions" that the JDB attached to its offer.  Prosper refused to tell its lenders (who were the legal owners of the loans in question, and for whose sole benefit Prosper had a legal obligation to act) what those supposedly "unacceptable conditions" were, and simply refused to sell the loans, thereby breaching its legal obligations to its lenders. 

Many lenders believed that the "unacceptable condition" was a provision that would have required Prosper to repurchase any loans from the JDB that turned out to have been procured through identity-fraud.  Prosper (though not its lenders) would have been dead-set against such a pushback provision, because under the terms of Prosper's so-called "100% identity-theft guarantee" (which Prosper also generally ignored), it would have been obligated to then repurchase all those loans from its lenders, at 100% of principal -- which could have been quite costly to it.  So, it appeared, that Prosper put its own self-interest ahead of the interests of (and Prosper's duties to) its lenders.

For some historical perspective, see:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10