Print

[FANAFI]

I'm withholding all loan payments for the next 30 days to see what happens here.   

...Gulp

poof

I'm not going to back off my original obligation to lenders regardless of the legality of the original loan itself. Both loans (mine and the Mrs.) may be repaid earlier than anticipated however as I'm sure lenders are a little nervous about solvency within the marketplace at this point. I know I am! To walk away from your debt to lenders is complete cowardice!

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

I'm withholding all loan payments for the next 30 days to see what happens here.   

...Gulp

As someone once said, it's all about character. 

[bamalucky]

As someone once said, it's all about character.

you read my mind

[kimmie]

I'm withholding all loan payments for the next 30 days to see what happens here.   

...Gulp

What difference does it make if Prosper screwed up? You borrowed from people that believed in BIGGULP, not Prosper. It is your word, not Prosper's that's on the line. I sure hope I'm not one of the many that trusted you.

[Mtnchick]

My pull at the end of the month will go through

[beerbud1]

The word must be getting out. I have several new lates over the last three days.

[zcommodore]

I'm withholding all loan payments for the next 30 days to see what happens here.   

...Gulp

How convenient, your last payment was made yesterday. 

[cubbiesnextyr]

I'm withholding all loan payments for the next 30 days to see what happens here.   

...Gulp

Man, all you people need to lighten up.  Gulp's loan payment was due yesterday, so if he withholds all payments for 30 days and then pays, he's paying on his due date.  I swear, you guys don't get a joke...

[ira01]

I'm not going to back off my original obligation to lenders regardless of the legality of the original loan itself.

FYI, the "original loan" (which was made from Prosper to the borrower, or from WebBank to the borrower, depending on when it was made) was 100% legal, and is a fully binding legal obligation of the borrower.  The subsequent assignments of the loan (from Prosper to the lenders, or from WebBank to Prosper to the lenders) is legally irrelevant as far as the borrowers are concerned.  While some deadbeats will no doubt use the SEC situation as an excuse or justification for their failure to pay, that doesn't mean that it would be legal for them to do so.

[BigGulp]

I'm withholding all loan payments for the next 30 days to see what happens here.   

...Gulp

Man, all you people need to lighten up.  Gulp's loan payment was due yesterday, so if he withholds all payments for 30 days and then pays, he's paying on his due date.  I swear, you guys don't get a joke...

I was thinking the same thing.   

...Gulp

[Fred93]

Prosper consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order.

...does this line indicate the SEC is not going to pursue any further action against Prosper?

Precisely.  The order that the SEC published represents the END of their action.  They investigated, carried out an extensive discussion and negotiation, got prosper to agree to stop doing what they were doing (and possibly some other sanctions that are secret, but probably not), and that's the end of it from the SEC's point of view.

Can Prosper still attempt to now become "legal" by registering and reopening at some point down the road?

Prosper can draft a prospectus for notes it intends to offer in the future, crafted so that they will be approved by the SEC, get it approved, and then operate under that registration.  yes.  Just as Lendingclub has done.

it appears to me Prosper considers this whole situation just a part of doing business and getting registered.

Well Prosper is putting a face on it.  Spin city.  You know.

I guess I'm a bit confused by all the noise, trying to figure out where the signal is here.

The SEC has declared that Prosper can not do what it was doing.  Prosper has agreed to stop.  The S1 that Prosper filed a year ago is toast.  Funny toast.  Really a weak effort.  Prosper will now probably hire new lawyers and try again to write an S1 that will pass muster, and reopen under a new modified scheme.  Either that or they will close.

Why are you confused?

[onthefence]

They better hire the lending club lawyers if they want this done fast and right.

[zcommodore]

Why are you confused?

Well, I'm not really anymore.  My confusion was related to the fact that based on the filing, I thought there might be more sanctions from the SEC's perspective relating to this whole thing against Prosper.  I didn't realize this was basically the end of it, pending a new filing by Prosper, for the SEC.

[Fred93]

My confusion was related to the fact that based on the filing, I thought there might be more sanctions from the SEC's perspective relating to this whole thing against Prosper.

We don't know, and may never know, what exactly the SEC and Prosper have agreed to.  There may be parts of the agreement that were not made public.  So, yes, there may be more. 

I'm speculating that there is not anything significant.

[Flying Missle]

My confusion was related to the fact that based on the filing, I thought there might be more sanctions from the SEC's perspective relating to this whole thing against Prosper.

We don't know, and may never know, what exactly the SEC and Prosper have agreed to.  There may be parts of the agreement that were not made public.  So, yes, there may be more. 

I'm speculating that there is not anything significant.

I wonder if FOIA filing would allow the lenders to see what transpired in the negotiations.