Seems what you're all dancing around is thus:
The ability for Folio-only investors to signal to investors in approved states their willingness to purchase X note for y% markup, and then
have the approved-state investors "do your bidding", after which they'll put that particular note up on Folio for the non-approved to buy.
You put a note up for sale and either it gets bought or it doesn't get bought. That IS the signal to go find some similar notes and put them up for sale. It doesn't have to be explicit.
No, it doesn't have to be explicit, but the dance of "what kind of notes should I buy in order to sell to people in unapproved states via Folio" is - you'll have to forgive me if we disagree - rather tiresome, and if a mechanism existed to make this information as explicit as possible, then there wouldn't be all this implicit guesswork... Ergo - voila - a mechanism (albeit explicit and nearly reductio ad absurdum).
It would be nice if Foliofn published some of the details of transactions, like a ticker. As it is one only has one's own sale history to try and eke out that information.
Yes - but my way's optimal - cuts through all the bullshit - and accomplishes the same objective, but better.
Granted, it probably wakes up the SEC and/or state securities regulators, but, in the long term, will reduce uncertainty (I think that's a long term good).
Personally, I think LC is on shaky legal ground allowing the sale of notes on its secondary market to users in states where the notes are not approved (and I think anyone who systematically did such as a venture would likely be treading further onto shaky ground), but with that said, I think that's really where what you're all talking about ultimately winds up. So, if someone's gonna do it - let's get on with it...
That is beyond the scope of the current discussion.
"Yes, sir, officer." On a less snarky note, I think you dislike the fact that I'm right - that this is rather a gray area. What you likely don't realize is that I, too, dislike that it's a gray area. If I had my druthers, all loans (not "notes") would be available to both borrowers and lenders, regardless of state. As is, that's not the case, and there's some uncertainty around the legality of these notes trading outside of the states where they're approved. Which is why you don't like the "explicitness" of the model I suggest - since you know it is "iffy".
Am I reading this wrong or is that the model that you're all hoping appears? This thread feels a bit like being back in high school:
"Yeah, I'd, uh, like to buy an ounce of... baseball tickets. Something pretty high - I mean... up near.. the owner's box, you know?"
That is also beyond the scope of the current discussion.
I have a medical condition for which I am allowed to discuss peer to peer lending out of compassion. What's your excuse?
