@OrcaJord thanks for sharing.
I would like to highlight the part of the Provision Fund which is used in case of defaults. Below is the excerpt from your analysis. The main takeaway is that in the case of Zopa and Funding Circle, each investor is subject to the default risk of their individual holdings. Whereas, RateSetter pools loans in a central pot and would pay on a pro-rata basis in case of default and after the provision fund is depleted. RateSetter IMHO offers more protection in case of an industry wide credit crunch.
"Investors are exposed to the same level of risk irrespective of the loan market they choose. In the event of default, the RateSetter provision fund covers losses across all markets until the provision fund is fully depleted. If the provision fund runs out of funds to cover losses, RateSetter will activate a ‘Resolution Event’ where all outstanding loan contracts are pulled together into a central pot and investors are paid back on a pro-rata basis. Ultimately, this means investors are exposed to every outstanding loan on the loan book and not to their specific P2P loan contracts.
This is different to both Funding Circle and Zopa, where investors are exposed directly to their P2P loan contracts."