Prospers.ORG Prosper Forum

Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Prospers.ORG!   Login here

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: Prosper's Response to Fool Article  (Read 38093 times)

moremoneymarc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +2/-1
  • Posts: 6099
  • Posts for Pro$pers.ORG use only +subject to recall
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2008, 02:57:35 pm »

poof
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 07:44:52 am by moremoneymarc »
Logged

jmathree

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 641
  • Donate to St. Jude's at http://www.tg.stjude.org/
    • View Profile
    • Prosperlinks
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2008, 03:57:16 pm »

From Prosper Blog's response to zcommodore's comment...

Quote
Regardless, we agree that we should have corrected this mistake and cleared up the confusion in a much more timely fashion. We sincerely apologize.
Logged
Due to Prosper's change in policy to allow links to 3rd party discussion forums in user profiles noted in this thread, I have updated  my profile to help Prosper members find discussion forums, blogs, and stats and analysis sites to help them succeed on Prosper.com.

bamalucky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +408/-408
  • Posts: 42734
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2008, 04:11:56 pm »

Is anyone disputing the fact that had this not been made public,that Prosper would have continued to lie to the court?
Logged
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

bamalucky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +408/-408
  • Posts: 42734
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2008, 04:13:09 pm »

Holy shit.Who let those comments pass on he blog?

Someone better pack their personal items.
Logged
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

bamalucky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +408/-408
  • Posts: 42734
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2008, 04:16:10 pm »

Quote
In response to mothandrust and cardinalflyer’s comments:

There is a “rule of thumb” in debt buying that you know you didn’t pay too much for a portfolio if you receive back you purchase price in the first year. In the case of the accounts that comprised the “cancelled” debt sale bid file, they have already collected more than 2/3 of the total amount of the best bid. We remain confident that NOT selling the file was/is in the best interests of the lenders.

Having said that, one of the challenges in working with Prosper collections is the fact that while there is interest in how the whole portfolio is performing, lenders quite rightfully only really care about what is happening on their loans. A lender that is on one of the loans that came current is probably very happy with the decision — a lender on a loan that declared bankruptcy or does not pay anything, would obviously rather had the debt sale price.

This is one of the key reasons for diversification in the loans you own.


This is a complete cop-out bullshit statement.

I bid on loans thinking even if they went 4+ late,they would be sold to a JDB.I also have a loan that has filed BK in this time.I'd rather have my 1% than noting.

I got cheated.!!
Logged
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

112233

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +4309/-5064
  • Posts: 28166
    • View Profile
    • Prosper Report
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #35 on: September 03, 2008, 04:16:53 pm »

I would characterize the statements in the filing as mistakes/lies/untruths but definitely not confusion. The statements were pretty clear.

In any event, Im glad they finally addressed the issue even though it looks like they were forced to .. as usual
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

you're

Mtnchick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1969/-1062
  • Posts: 34374
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2008, 04:19:00 pm »

Quote
In the case of the accounts that comprised the “cancelled” debt sale bid file, they have already collected more than 2/3 of the total amount of the best bid. We remain confident that NOT selling the file was/is in the best interests of the lenders.

Those 2/3 must have been none of the loans in my 50+ 4+ month lates.......sounds like total fabrication of numbers to me - which we all know P-----r is quite fond of doing.
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."

bamalucky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +408/-408
  • Posts: 42734
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #37 on: September 03, 2008, 04:19:48 pm »

I submitted a comment

Quote
Your comment is awaiting moderation. bamalucky | September 3rd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Back when I was lending,i read that loans 4+ late would be sold.I didn’t agree to what is happening now.I have a $1000 bid that has since filed Bankruptcy due to Prosper trying to time the JDS.I want my 1% or whatever was offered.Prosper is breaking the lender agreement I lent by.


The only comment i ever got passed was as Jerry Mundis.
Logged
There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

Nora_Lenderbee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-4
  • Posts: 7069
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #38 on: September 03, 2008, 04:23:33 pm »

Is anyone disputing the fact that had this not been made public,that Prosper would have continued to lie to the court?

that isn't a fact
Logged

Caladia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 1433
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2008, 04:23:59 pm »

From Prosper Blog's response to zcommodore's comment...

Quote
Regardless, we agree that we should have corrected this mistake and cleared up the confusion in a much more timely fashion. We sincerely apologize.

That whole response is surprisingly well-written.  (Although I do think the line thanking "those who took the time to find and point out..." sounds like they really wanted to say "Do you people have nothing better to do!?")

The tone is kind of Andrew-esque... clear, reasonable, and willing to admit that Prosper could have handled the issue better.  Wonder who wrote it?
Logged
Accept the ease with which it can be done.

Mtnchick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1969/-1062
  • Posts: 34374
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2008, 04:28:31 pm »

Quote
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

MtnChick | September 3rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm

“In the case of the accounts that comprised the “cancelled” debt sale bid file, they have already collected more than 2/3 of the total amount of the best bid. We remain confident that NOT selling the file was/is in the best interests of the lenders.”

You seriously think that getting 2/3 of the best bid is better than getting 3/3 of the best bid?! Sorry, but the “best interesting of the lenders” would have been to get ALL of the best bid several months ago - not 2/3 of it being dragged out in bits and pieces over the last several months. Not to mention I haven’t gotten any collections on my 4++++++++ month lates so the full amount of the best bid would be MUCH more satisfactory to me.

I will probably never be given borrower status now ;)
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."

Mtnchick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1969/-1062
  • Posts: 34374
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2008, 04:30:52 pm »

Is anyone disputing the fact that had this not been made public,that Prosper would have continued to lie to the court?

that isn't a fact

Sounds like they are admitting that as a fact right here:

Quote
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.

Now, I guess you could argue that they would have changed this w/o the "understandable confusion" but I think you'd be kidding yourself ;)
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."

moremoneymarc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +2/-1
  • Posts: 6099
  • Posts for Pro$pers.ORG use only +subject to recall
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2008, 04:55:12 pm »

poof
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 07:44:30 am by moremoneymarc »
Logged

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +143/-10184
  • Posts: 48100
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2008, 04:57:09 pm »

Quote
In response to mothandrust and cardinalflyer’s comments:

There is a “rule of thumb” in debt buying that you know you didn’t pay too much for a portfolio if you receive back you purchase price in the first year. In the case of the accounts that comprised the “cancelled” debt sale bid file, they have already collected more than 2/3 of the total amount of the best bid. We remain confident that NOT selling the file was/is in the best interests of the lenders.

I am having a very hard time believeing that this is anything but a complete fabrication.  IIRC, the JDB offer was for about $200K.  Two thirds of that would be $167K.  Have we seen ANY indication at all that Prosper has collected anywhere even remotely close to $167K from 4+month lates in the last 4.5 months?  Fred93, you keep an eye on collections -- do you have any data on this?  Annecdotally speaking, Mtnchick has posted several times that she hasn't seen a penny on any of her 50 4+month lates, which seems to be the general consensus.  Of course there have been some payments, but $167K worth?  Call me highly skeptical.

And of course we still haven't heard from Prosper regarding those supposedly "unacceptable conditions" that were apparently placed on higher bids.  Thus, lenders may have received more than the $200K if Prosper improperly rejected higher bids do to conditions that it deemed "unacceptable," but that weren't really.

ETC:  It appears that the actual JDB offer in mid-April was for $232K, so if Prosper is telling the truth about collecting more than 2/3 of this amount, that would be about $155K. 
« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 05:27:55 pm by ira01 »
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Fred93

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1/-1
  • Posts: 3914
    • View Profile
Re: Prosper's Response to Fool Article
« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2008, 05:04:06 pm »

Quote
In response to mothandrust and cardinalflyer’s comments:
There is a “rule of thumb” in debt buying that you know you didn’t pay too much for a portfolio if you receive back you purchase price in the first year. In the case of the accounts that comprised the “cancelled” debt sale bid file, they have already collected more than 2/3 of the total amount of the best bid. We remain confident that NOT selling the file was/is in the best interests of the lenders.

I am having a very hard time believeing that this is anything but a complete fabrication.  IIRC, the JDB offer was for about $200K.  Two thirds of that would be $167K.  Have we seen ANY indication at all that Prosper has collected anywhere even remotely close to $167K from 4+month lates in the last 4.5 months?  Fred93, you keep an eye on collections -- do you have any data on this?

I have only 1 source, which is the Prosper collection agency web page.  What I have accomplished so far is to get Doug Fuller to say that the data shown there is wrong since the switch to Amsher.  If the data is wrong, then I don't know that there's anything I can do with it!  I look forward to correct data.

Even if we had correct numbers on that page, I don't see how we could come up with an estimate on the set of 4+ loans that should have been sold in the JDB sale that didn't happen.  They don't break those out for us!  I will apply some more thought to this question.

Where do you get the $200k number?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7   Go Up