1
Peer-to-peer Lending and Investing Forum
News
The p2p/investor forum formerly at LendAcademy is being forensically restored by deBanked.
To restore access to your user account, email info@debanked.com. We apologize for errors you may experience during the recovery.
Skip this menu
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
[1]
3
Investors - LC / Occupation = gangboss
« on: November 05, 2014, 12:00:00 AM »4
Investors - LC / Lending Club bankruptcy remote vehicle
« on: October 22, 2014, 11:00:00 PM »
I'm not an owner. I just figure that the population of borrows in 26 states is less than the population of 50 states and as such, there would be a larger pool of borrows if operations are permitted in 50 states.
I haven't been reading the writings of people who have vested interests in the success of the company.
I have funded several hundred notes on the platform so I do have a vested interest in the success of the company. I don't really care about the IPO.
I am wondering if I should take exception to your tone, but I'm not going to make a decision on that for now.
The other side of that is that I'm wondering if I have anything to contribute to this thread, or this forum; maybe I should just return to read-only mode as my questions might be received as suspect.
If this is about lender participation, then I did lose the plot and I'm righted. If this is about borrower participation, than my question is answered.
-Jon
I haven't been reading the writings of people who have vested interests in the success of the company.
I have funded several hundred notes on the platform so I do have a vested interest in the success of the company. I don't really care about the IPO.
I am wondering if I should take exception to your tone, but I'm not going to make a decision on that for now.
The other side of that is that I'm wondering if I have anything to contribute to this thread, or this forum; maybe I should just return to read-only mode as my questions might be received as suspect.
If this is about lender participation, then I did lose the plot and I'm righted. If this is about borrower participation, than my question is answered.
-Jon
5
Investors - LC / Lending Club bankruptcy remote vehicle
« on: October 08, 2014, 11:00:00 PM »
I understand the concerns.
I voted for the option of least concern because I feel powerless to improve the situation.
If I can't take an action to address my concerns, I let it go; just invest an amount commensurate with my perception of the risk.
Is my assumption that I'm unable to improve the situation flawed?
-Jon
I voted for the option of least concern because I feel powerless to improve the situation.
If I can't take an action to address my concerns, I let it go; just invest an amount commensurate with my perception of the risk.
Is my assumption that I'm unable to improve the situation flawed?
-Jon
6
Investors - LC / Lending Club bankruptcy remote vehicle
« on: October 07, 2014, 11:00:00 PM »
I spent 12 years in IT for the US Courts, specifically serving the US Bankruptcy Court, 9th Circuit, Western District of Washington.
The Department of Justice's US Trustee Program represents "The State" or "The Prosecution" in a Bankruptcy case. It also oversees asset liquidation and distributes funds. This is the arm of the government which will seize and liquidate assets.
What I saw in my service, the order of priority for payouts in practice - if not law - is:
1) The US Federal Government - debts to the Feds are never discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. This means IRS debt, student loan debt etc. Money owed Uncle Sam never goes away until paid in full.
2) Secured Creditors - debts secured by assets like an inventory of goods, real estate or something else that can be sold off to pay debtors' obligations
3) Unsecured Creditors - these are employees (maybe their paychecks bounced), the unfortunate suppliers of inventory of goods (the stuff the debtor sells for profit), the office's janitorial service, the power company, the water company, the phone company, the insurance companies, the food vendor for yesterday's company meeting etc. Basically, this is anyone that sent a bill and hasn't been paid.
4) Shareholders - those that own a percentage of the debtor's organization... they never get anything.
So from my experience, absent LC signing a "reaffirmation agreement," or some other legal shielding, it'd be up to the Court to decide our status.
If I had to make a bet, I'd say LC's lawyers would zealously argue we're unsecured creditors. If there's an argument that we're a Secured Creditor, it's beyond my imagination, but not necessarily beyond possible. Maybe some other department in the Executive Branch would submit a motion on our behalf.
-Jon
PS: A "reaffirmation agreement" is a written promise to pay a debt, keeping it out of bankruptcy proceedings. There is one meeting that debtors must attend. It's called the 351 meeting, or the meeting of creditors.
Nordstrom, Bloomingdales and other unsecured debtors will send pretty people to lurk in the halls well before the 351 meeting, hoping to ambush the debtor, get the debtor to sign a reaffirmation agreement. Lawyers warn debtors about this, but some people have trouble heeding warnings. This tactic works better than I thought it would.
PPS: I see the 351 meeting is now called a 341 meeting. That happened after I left service in 1999.
The Department of Justice's US Trustee Program represents "The State" or "The Prosecution" in a Bankruptcy case. It also oversees asset liquidation and distributes funds. This is the arm of the government which will seize and liquidate assets.
What I saw in my service, the order of priority for payouts in practice - if not law - is:
1) The US Federal Government - debts to the Feds are never discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. This means IRS debt, student loan debt etc. Money owed Uncle Sam never goes away until paid in full.
2) Secured Creditors - debts secured by assets like an inventory of goods, real estate or something else that can be sold off to pay debtors' obligations
3) Unsecured Creditors - these are employees (maybe their paychecks bounced), the unfortunate suppliers of inventory of goods (the stuff the debtor sells for profit), the office's janitorial service, the power company, the water company, the phone company, the insurance companies, the food vendor for yesterday's company meeting etc. Basically, this is anyone that sent a bill and hasn't been paid.
4) Shareholders - those that own a percentage of the debtor's organization... they never get anything.
So from my experience, absent LC signing a "reaffirmation agreement," or some other legal shielding, it'd be up to the Court to decide our status.
If I had to make a bet, I'd say LC's lawyers would zealously argue we're unsecured creditors. If there's an argument that we're a Secured Creditor, it's beyond my imagination, but not necessarily beyond possible. Maybe some other department in the Executive Branch would submit a motion on our behalf.
-Jon
PS: A "reaffirmation agreement" is a written promise to pay a debt, keeping it out of bankruptcy proceedings. There is one meeting that debtors must attend. It's called the 351 meeting, or the meeting of creditors.
Nordstrom, Bloomingdales and other unsecured debtors will send pretty people to lurk in the halls well before the 351 meeting, hoping to ambush the debtor, get the debtor to sign a reaffirmation agreement. Lawyers warn debtors about this, but some people have trouble heeding warnings. This tactic works better than I thought it would.
PPS: I see the 351 meeting is now called a 341 meeting. That happened after I left service in 1999.
7
General P2P Lending Discussion /
« on: August 14, 2014, 11:00:00 PM »
Community Finance
Here's some advertising copy:
"Fire your bank. Community finance is more efficient. Also, we'll will never try to sell you an Annuity or an upgraded checking account."
-Jon
Here's some advertising copy:
"Fire your bank. Community finance is more efficient. Also, we'll will never try to sell you an Annuity or an upgraded checking account."
-Jon
8
Investing - General (not P2P) / Robinhood?
« on: August 06, 2014, 11:00:00 PM »
Interesting that they make use of Amazon's cloud service.
Here's a link to their fee structure
https://brokerage-static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Retail%20Commisions%20and%20Fees%20Schedule.pdf
I would definitely consider opening an account with them.
-Jon
Here's a link to their fee structure
https://brokerage-static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Retail%20Commisions%20and%20Fees%20Schedule.pdf
I would definitely consider opening an account with them.
-Jon
9
Investors - LC / Thoughts for retirement savings (case study)
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:00:00 PM »
This thread got me looking at Electronically Traded Funds (ETFs).
If you have a brokerage account, and do not wish to open an account with Vanguard or other mutual fund house, here is a list of cheap (low expense ratio) ETFs that trade like any stock. I was surprised how many of them may be cheaper to own than some Vanguard funds.
http://etfdb.com/compare/lowest-expense-ratio/
Why did I say "may be cheaper?" I haven't confirmed the info yet.
You'd have to do the math to see if it makes sense to pay your brokerage commission every time you invest in the ETF vs the lack of commission on new money into a Vanguard mutual fund.... and about 120 other aspects that I'm not qualified to imagine, let alone preach about.
I love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Bogle. He was a pioneer champion for the individual investor. Without him, I'm pretty sure I'd be flapping in the wind wake of high powered money moguls and high priced retail investing products, services and slick sales professionals.
-Jon
If you have a brokerage account, and do not wish to open an account with Vanguard or other mutual fund house, here is a list of cheap (low expense ratio) ETFs that trade like any stock. I was surprised how many of them may be cheaper to own than some Vanguard funds.
http://etfdb.com/compare/lowest-expense-ratio/
Why did I say "may be cheaper?" I haven't confirmed the info yet.
You'd have to do the math to see if it makes sense to pay your brokerage commission every time you invest in the ETF vs the lack of commission on new money into a Vanguard mutual fund.... and about 120 other aspects that I'm not qualified to imagine, let alone preach about.
I love http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Bogle. He was a pioneer champion for the individual investor. Without him, I'm pretty sure I'd be flapping in the wind wake of high powered money moguls and high priced retail investing products, services and slick sales professionals.
-Jon
10
Investors - LC / Thoughts for retirement savings (case study)
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:00:00 PM »
You're never too young to start funding retirement vehicles. I started at age 22 and honestly, I am concerned I will not have enough money to enjoy my golden years. My concerns are probably more like naked paranoia to onlookers, but I think it's a healthy vigilance.
I know a number of people that invest in Vanguard's Target Retirement funds.
The expense ratio for many of the funds is .18%, which sounds pretty competitive to me.
The people I know that use Target Retirement funds do so because it allows them to diversify a bit w/o doing hours of research they'd otherwise be disinclined to start.
Here is an example:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=1691&FundIntExt=INT
-Jon
I know a number of people that invest in Vanguard's Target Retirement funds.
The expense ratio for many of the funds is .18%, which sounds pretty competitive to me.
The people I know that use Target Retirement funds do so because it allows them to diversify a bit w/o doing hours of research they'd otherwise be disinclined to start.
Here is an example:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=1691&FundIntExt=INT
-Jon
[1]