Prospers.ORG Prosper Forum
October 24, 2014, 08:39:44 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Prospers.ORG
 
  Wiki   Forum home   Help Search Groups Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Prosper's Response to Fool Article  (Read 17998 times)
Flying Missle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1982


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2008, 11:43:03 pm »

hmmm... if only someone here knew a person who worked for a large traditional publication that might be interested in writing a more in depth article.
Logged
Urbi_et_Orbi
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8934


Suspended Since 9/3/2009


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: September 02, 2008, 11:44:38 pm »

hmmm... if only someone here knew a person who worked for a large traditional publication that might be interested in writing a more in depth article.

I think we already have this person, although I have not seen her around these parts for a long time.
Logged

mothandrust
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9427



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2008, 12:32:34 am »

Quote
The assertion of identity theft has been made despite the fact that the loan was funded into a joint bank account belonging to both the husband (debtor) and the wife, meaning the borrower had full access to the funds. Also, the borrower has claimed that his wife stole his identity, but he did not name her in a police report claiming identity theft. Also noteworthy is that fact that prior to loan funding, Prosper reviewed copies of the borrower’s driver’s license, pay stub and W-2, and a male at the phone number provided on this loan successfully answered all of the screening questions in Prosper’s phone verification process. These facts distinguish this case from the true identity theft scenario. 

ID theft by family members is very common and many times the victim is reluctant to want to have criminal charges brought against the family member.  60 Minutes in 2004 cited a Federal Trade Commission study showing that a family member is the culpit in about 9% of the cases, so this is not an uncommon occurrance.

In this case, the wife had access to these documents and could have answered the phone in a deep voice and answered the screening questions. 

I would expect that a "100% Guarantee" would apply regardless of whether the perpetrator is known or unknown; a family member or not a family member.

It's not a 91% Guarantee, covering only ID thefts by unrelated strangers, it's a 100% Guarantee.  Prosper needs to honor it.

Going forward, Prosper should decide whether it is more comfortable issuing new loans with inadequate verification procedures (and remunerating lenders when ID thefts like this occur on future loans) or beef up these verification procedures (such as requiring notarization from borrowers prior to funding).
Logged

"If you don't trust gold, do you trust the logic of taking a beautiful pine tree, worth about $4,000 - $5,000, cutting it up, turning it into pulp and then paper, putting some ink on it and then calling it one billion dollars?"  --Kenneth J. Gerbino
God-Father
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3211


Pay up!


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2008, 01:06:11 am »

I never thought I would say it. 

I think you are going to need more hot air to keep your ragged old balloon inflated.

Logged

lenderguy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1251


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2008, 01:11:01 am »

Quote
The assertion of identity theft has been made despite the fact that the loan was funded into a joint bank account belonging to both the husband (debtor) and the wife, meaning the borrower had full access to the funds. Also, the borrower has claimed that his wife stole his identity, but he did not name her in a police report claiming identity theft. Also noteworthy is that fact that prior to loan funding, Prosper reviewed copies of the borrower’s driver’s license, pay stub and W-2, and a male at the phone number provided on this loan successfully answered all of the screening questions in Prosper’s phone verification process. These facts distinguish this case from the true identity theft scenario. 

ID theft by family members is very common and many times the victim is reluctant to want to have criminal charges brought against the family member.  60 Minutes in 2004 cited a Federal Trade Commission study showing that a family member is the culpit in about 9% of the cases, so this is not an uncommon occurrance.

In this case, the wife had access to these documents and could have answered the phone in a deep voice and answered the screening questions. 

I would expect that a "100% Guarantee" would apply regardless of whether the perpetrator is known or unknown; a family member or not a family member.

It's not a 91% Guarantee, covering only ID thefts by unrelated strangers, it's a 100% Guarantee.  Prosper needs to honor it.

Going forward, Prosper should decide whether it is more comfortable issuing new loans with inadequate verification procedures (and remunerating lenders when ID thefts like this occur on future loans) or beef up these verification procedures (such as requiring notarization from borrowers prior to funding).

Prosper said, "We'll believe it's ID theft when we see the police report."  In this instance, I can't fault them.
Logged
ira01
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25835

Banned from Prosper since 11/5/2007.


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2008, 01:22:36 am »

There is so much bullshit here that I need waders just to get through it:

Quote
The Facts of the Matter

09/2/08 posted by Prosper Blog

A highly unusual Prosper borrower bankruptcy case, which is of course a matter of public record, has raised questions among some members of the Prosper lender community. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate and necessary to provide factual clarity to set the record straight.

Of course Prosper only felt it appropriate and necessary to provide factual clarity after a widely read financial site wrote a highly negative article about it.  For the almost TWO MONTHS since xraider first discovered this and posted about it here (which Prosper reads regularly), it apparently couldn't have cared less.

Quote
Specifically, the discussion centers on three main questions:
1) Is this a case of identity theft subject to Prosper’s Identity Theft Guarantee?
2) What is the status of debt sales and collection activities on Prosper?
3) What are the net returns on Prosper?

How about the most important issue, which is Prosper's attempted misleading of a federal bankruptcy court?

Quote
In the relatively small number of identity theft cases that have occurred on Prosper, the cases typically involve a perpetrator stealing a borrower’s identity and then using it to transfer money into a bank account solely controlled by the perpetrator of which the victim is wholly unaware. In these cases, it’s fairly straightforward for the borrower to show that money was not transferred into an account they own and therefore they did not benefit from or receive the proceeds of the loan. In these cases, Prosper repurchases the loans and works with law enforcement and the courts to find and prosecute the perpetrators. It’s important to underscore that since inception Prosper’s position has always been that in legitimate cases of verifiable identity theft, we will repurchase the loan and return the unpaid principal balance to impacted Prosper lenders.

Uh huh -- care to explain why you didn't repurchase the infamous Leporello ID-theft loan for close to a YEAR (and only after a major shitstorm errupted on the forums), despite the fact that lep provided you with the NYPD detectives name and phone number who was handling the well-documented case of ID-theft (involving other loans too)?  And why that NYPD detective told Lep that no one from Prosper had ever called him, long after Lep gave you the information?

Quote
However, in more rare cases of identity theft claims, someone who knows the borrower has access to both the borrower’s Prosper ID information and bank accounts. These “friends and family” cases are more complex because it is often difficult to show that the borrower did not benefit from the money if it went into their account. Thus, Prosper follows the guidelines of the Federal Trade Commission in their “Fighting Back Against Identity Theft” program, and industry practice, by requiring borrowers to file a police report and name anyone they know of that may have been the perpetrator of the crime. This is a critical step because it prevents the clear moral hazard of someone taking out a loan, having the money sent to an account they have access to, and then immediately claiming the loan does not belong to them.

OK, fine.  Mr. Gaerke apparently gave you a sworn affidavit attesting to the ID-theft (do you contest that?), AND he definitely so stated in a federal BK court pleading, which identified his wife as the perpetrator.  That was many months ago.  So why didn't you live up to your so-called guarantee then?  

And while we're speaking of your so-called "100% ID-theft guarantee," would you like to tell us if it is really your position that only ONE SINGLE LOAN originated in the last THIRTEEN months has been ID-theft meriting your repurchase?  Because you've only repurchased ONE loan originated in the last 13 months (originated 11/13/07), compared to SEVENTEEN originated from 1/1/07 through 8/1/07 -- a mere SEVEN months.

Quote
Turning to the particular facts at issue, the borrower in this case took out a $25,000 loan in August 2007. After making two payments, the loan became delinquent and went to collections. In January 2008, the borrower filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13, and further claimed that the loan should be excluded from the bankruptcy (i.e. the debtor’s Chapter 13 repayment plan) because it was allegedly made by the borrower’s wife using his identity. The borrower has also claimed identity theft on a number of other debts included in his filing. Two additional payments on the Prosper loan have been made recently.

And isn't it the case that all of the other creditors have accepted Mr. Gaerke's assertion of ID-theft?  So it is only Prosper that refuses to do so (because that would mean that you would have to repay the lenders almost $25K)?  Is Prosper the only financial institution that follows the "Federal Trade Commission in their 'Fighting Back Against Identity Theft' program, and industry practice"?

Quote
The assertion of identity theft has been made despite the fact that the loan was funded into a joint bank account belonging to both the husband (debtor) and the wife, meaning the borrower had full access to the funds.

So?  That is not inconsistent with the borrower's claim of ID-theft.  Moreover, "friends and family" ID-theft is hardly rare.  I don't recall you ever saying that your "100% ID-theft guarantee" only applied in stranger cases.  Is that now your position?  Have you changed your FAQ and lender help pages to reflect that?

Quote
Also, the borrower has claimed that his wife stole his identity, but he did not name her in a police report claiming identity theft.

This is a weasely statement -- do you mean that he filed a police report but named someone else?  Named no one?  Didn't file a police report at all?  Did he not provide you with a fraud affidavit?  Did he not identify his wife in his filings in the BK court?  Did you ever tell him that if he would only file a police report naming his wife, you would accept his ID-theft claim?  Did you ever tell him at all to file a police report naming his wife?  And if so, what was his response?

Quote
Also noteworthy is that fact that prior to loan funding, Prosper reviewed copies of the borrower’s driver’s license, pay stub and W-2, and a male at the phone number provided on this loan successfully answered all of the screening questions in Prosper’s phone verification process. These facts distinguish this case from the true identity theft scenario. 

Bullshit.  They may distinguish this case from more common ID-thefts, but that doesn't make it not "true identity theft."  Furthermore, nothing here is inconsistent with the borrower's story.  I always leave my wallet in the kitchen drawer, my paystubs and W-2's in a stack on my file cabinet, and we have a copy machine here.  It would take my wife 5 minutes to make copies of that stuff and send it to you.  I'm sure that's true for most, if not all, married couples.  As to the screening call, "a male" (that's only about 150 million people in the United States "at the phone number provided" (you mean the phone number allegedly provided by the wife -- i.e., her cell phone, her home phone, or her work phone) successfully answered the screening questions.  First of all, do you have a recording of this call?  I bet you don't (but you should).  Second, many borrowers have reported that the "screening questions" are a joke.  Third, presumably you take your screening questions from the purported borrower's credit report.  Which the wife would undoubtedly have access to.  So how does any of this support your contention that Mr. Gaerke lied to the BK Court (especially considering that it was Prosper that filed the false court document, as you belatedly admit after having little choice but to admit the obvious)?

Quote
Based on these principles and the evidence developed in this case at this point in time, Prosper believes that the case is not one of verifiable identity theft and intends to treat the case and defend the matter on that basis.

We'll be eagerly following your "defense."  I predict you'll soon give in to Mr. Gaerke, perhaps for a token payment that will be less than his legal fees.  Otherwise, I don't think the BK judge is going to be too happy with you over your misleading filing.

Quote
However, in the event that new substantiated evidence was to come to light proving that this was a legitimate case of identity theft, Prosper would naturally change its position with respect to the litigation, while also honoring its Identity Theft Guarantee.

Of course it would.   Roll Eyes  In other words, you'll get Mr. Gaerke to sign a new, slightly different affidavit or file a new police report (i.e., a "face-saving maneuver), and then you will repurchase the loan.  That saves you from having to "'splain" things to the BK judge.

Quote
We would also like to address questions raised about statements made in Prosper’s pleadings as to who made the loan to the borrower in this case. Specifically, there was understandable confusion about a statement in one of Prosper’s court documents that incorrectly described the legal relationship among Prosper, the borrower and the lenders. Although the incorrect statement is not germane to the central issue in the case, we are currently in the process of correcting this in an amended filing with the court. We want to apologize for any confusion this mistake on our part may have caused for Prosper lenders.

Aha -- the "mistakes were made" defense.  Xraider found and described this "incorrect statement" in a public post here almost two months ago (and Prosper management reads here often, so you undoubtedly knew about it within days of her post) -- why didn't you correct it before The Motley Fool write about it this weekend?  Moreover, instead of your weasily "understandable confusion" statement, why don't you explain to us exactly how this "error" was made.  After all, it certainly wasn't a clerical error, or a calculation error.  It was a blatent, 100% diametrically opposed statement to numerous statements in many of your fundamental legal documents (the Lender Registration Agreement, the Prommissory Notes, your FAQ, your help pages, your SEC filing) -- statements that go to the very underpinning of your entire business.  How, exactly, could anyone at Prosper write or approve the statement filed on your behalf in the Ohio BK court?  Did Ed review that pleading before it was filed?  Did anyone at Prosper?  

Quote
Regarding the second question about debt sales and collections, Doug Fuller has communicated that the current economic environment has significantly lowered the value of bids from debt buyers, meaning bids have been insufficient from a net return perspective in comparison to continuing to work to collect on 4+ months late loans.

The "economic environment" was substantially better in March (when the debt sale should have taken place) and in April (when you first tried to hold a debt sale) than it is now.  Is Prosper going to make up that difference to lenders?  Furthermore, Doug's post on this issue stated that there were no high enough bids "without unacceptable conditions" (or something close to that).  What does that mean?  Lenders have repeatedly asked you that question, and you've refused to answer.  Was one of the "unacceptable conditions" from a JDB bidder that Prosper would have to repurchase any ID-theft loans from the JDB (and thus from the lenders)?  Because that sure doesn't sound like an "unacceptable condition" to the lenders.

Moreover, another question that lenders have repeatedly asked Prosper, to no avail, is what, exactly, is meant by the alleged "post-charge off collections techniques" that Prosper is supposedly applying to OUR 4+++++++++++ month late loans?  We have a RIGHT to know -- they are our property; you are just our servicing agent.

Quote
Finally, it is important to reiterate that the best estimate of net returns from the entire portfolio of Prosper loans are roughly 6% as demonstrated by an independent University of Maryland study conducted using Prosper’s data, which is fully transparent and publicly available via Prosper’s API and data downloads.

Would that be the same study that Fred93 has already found numerous methodology errors in, which he has communicated with the study authors about?  The one that says loans don't go delinquent after 10 months?  And in any event, no lender invests in the entire Prosper portfolio.  How about looking at typical lender performance, such as the median LendingStats estimated ROI for ALL lenders with >20 loans and >6 month average loan age -- a dismal 2.57%.  Moreover, if you are asserting that the "best estimate of net returns" is 6%, why are you advertising lender rates double that (9.49%-12.81%)?

Quote
We hope this discussion helps clarify the facts of the case in question and related matters to interested members of Prosper’s lender community.

As you should have gathered from the above, not even close.  What you really "hope" is that this quiets down the uproar over the Motley Fool article before the bad PR tanks your originations even further.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 01:34:42 am by ira01 » Logged

Run From Prosper Loans Marketplace Facebook Page

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=232732735668&ref=nf
God-Father
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3211


Pay up!


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2008, 01:47:39 am »



And he huffed and he puffed, but he couldn't blow the brick house down.  Be careful of going down the chimney.  Good night.   Wink
Logged

Urbi_et_Orbi
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8934


Suspended Since 9/3/2009


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2008, 02:51:16 am »

"understandable confusion"

Either you have incompetent counsel, you corporate counsel doesn't review documents filed in court on Prosper's behalf - or you are lying.

So, which of these confidence inspiring options do you claim.

Also, if you are informed that you have filed a court document containing an inaccurate statement of monumental significance, why do you wait months before you amend your filing with the court?

You explanation reeks.
Logged

GLeaderAccountantsChoice
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 787


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2008, 07:52:50 am »

+1 to ira01

My thoughts exactly as I read PMI's response.

A quick +1 to Urbi as well.

I really hope the SEC steps in now that any 'understandable confusion' has been cleared up.   Ninja!

Actually, has anyone ever acted as a whistle-blower in order to alert the SEC about what is going on?
Logged



*Warning - Lending stats subject to change
xraider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6835


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2008, 07:57:50 am »

I'm simply speechless.  I guess it was OK to lie to the court until people other than the .org irrelevant ones learned of it.  What a crock.

As far as the debtor goes, I hope this whole mess doesn't prevent his satisfactory resolution of his bk case.  I also hope he gets some psychic pleasure from this.  No matter what, he's caused FAR more than $25,000 worth of damage to Prosper.
Logged

Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.
loanauctions
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 341



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: September 03, 2008, 10:17:26 am »

Dear PMI I am sorry to hear that times are tough for you all. Not much we can do about it bad economy and all.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 11:37:57 am by loanauctions » Logged

Packin' it in and loading the evil black rifles getting ready for the coming failed State of USA
onthefence
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5728



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: September 03, 2008, 10:20:16 am »

HEY PMI, you know what you are, you are a slithering ripoff that is trying to sell pig shit as apple pie. Why don't you pack your bag of lies and get the fu*k out of town.
I wouldn't go so far as to call them a ripoff.  A poorly managed company that doesn't abide by their lender agreement & promises & can't live up to the over inflated promises of their marketing department, yes.
Logged

Lobby permission granted
Fred93
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3758



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: September 03, 2008, 12:57:58 pm »

Quote
Also, the borrower has claimed that his wife stole his identity, but he did not name her in a police report claiming identity theft.

This is a weasely statement -- do you mean that he filed a police report but named someone else?  Named no one?  Didn't file a police report at all?  Did he not provide you with a fraud affidavit?  

Can you get a copy of the police report?  Is that public?  We know Gaerke's name & location.


Quote
Did he not identify his wife in his filings in the BK court?

Yea, he did.  The claim of identity theft by wife is in the BK court filings by Gaerke.


Quote
Did you ever tell him that if he would only file a police report naming his wife, you would accept his ID-theft claim?  Did you ever tell him at all to file a police report naming his wife?  And if so, what was his response?

These piece of info we will never be able to get from public documents.  Only Gaerke or Prosper could answer.
Logged

Mtnchick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25058



View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: September 03, 2008, 02:12:48 pm »

Quote
has raised questions among some members of the Prosper lender community

Nominated for understatement of the year.
Logged

Classic comment from Urbi to a poster who said they were leaving:

"Once again, we note that your threats are hollow and you come across like a sad, lonely blowhard.

I doubt anyone here gives a shit about you.  We pretty much all know that you are a vile and unethical parasite of a human being with an abnormal craving for attention."
xraider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6835


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2008, 02:19:15 pm »

Two very, very pointed comments passed moderation on the blog comments.
Logged

Prosper missed me.  They lifted my suspension a day early.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines PR Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!