Print

[bamalucky]

As Fred says,the SEC bullet is better than the vague bullets we had before.

[ira01]

I think Fred is right (as usual).  Although I would have like to see Prosper have to account to lenders for the many ways it screwed us (which the other lawsuit was designed to do), it was already and was going to continue to be a lot of work.  Although I am not a securities expert (and TINLA in any event), my general understanding from things I read back when LendingClub first shut down over the securities issue was that the remedy for selling unregistered securities is that the buyers have the right to force recision -- i.e., Prosper may well have to repurchase all the loans (even -- and especially -- the defaulted/charged-off ones).  That is such a huge hammer -- too huge, perhaps, since it will probably force Prosper into BK -- that the other lawsuit may just be moot, except for the curiosity aspect (while many of us would like to learn more about Prosper's shoddy verification, its apparent mishandling of the NAT cases, its ignoring its so-called "100% ID-theft guarantee, etc., in terms of making lenders whole, the securities case will do that to the extent of Prosper's available cash, insurance, possible deep-pocketed officers and directors, etc.).

But something else worth keeping in mind, is that the registration requirement for securities is intended to protect the investors from undisclosed and misrepresented risk -- something that lenders have certainly been victims of.  Had Prosper complied with the law in the first place, it either would never have opened or it would have looked very different (perhaps like LC looks now -- only allowing sophisticated investors, no hyping of returns that "beat the S&P500," no instructions to lenders to bid their desired rate of return plus the Experian default rates, etc.)  So in a very real sense, lenders HAVE been damaged by Prosper's failure to comply with the securities law.  So it really isn't unfair to make Prosper and its officers and directors repurchase the loans that lenders may never have bought absent Prosper's unlawful conduct, even if that does rescue someone like Muleshoes who should have known better but apparently didn't. 

[onthefence]

I understand they several just want to see Prosper go poof.

I'd still like to see Prosper make a go of it.  I suspect they can fix their problems, maybe rethink how they work with their customers & how up front they are with their practices & the free flow of information.  But people here are long past holding their breath for an internal Prosper turn around.  It would be nice.  But it isn't expected.

Perhaps if they start following SEC regulations, that might be enough of a curb on their poor deceptive practices.

[Chamatrain]

I suspect they can fix their problems, maybe rethink how they work with their customers & how up front they are with their practices & the free flow of information.  But people here are long past holding their breath for an internal Prosper turn around.  It would be nice.  But it isn't expected.

Yes, we held our breath too long for too many times.  I cannot imagine that the present management of this company can themselves imagine an ethical way to function.  History is in fact, often a precursor of future behavior.

[God-Father]

Sorry for the long answer.  Maybe "yes" would have been better.

I like Fred (in a very masculine, straight sort of way of course).   

E.T.A straight

[onthefence]

Sorry for the long answer.  Maybe "yes" would have been better.

I like Fred (in a very masculine sort of way of course).   

I like Fred in a very masculine gay sort of way too.

[AmexFan]

It's called mancrush or bromance, and yes it's sexy in it's own way.

[Fred93]

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

I wondered same thing, so I filed a FOIA request asking for all correspondence between SEC and Prosper Marketplace.  I've never done one of these before, so I have no idea what to expect.

[mothandrust]

You and I may not feel comfortable with this situation.  When I was a kid it was common to refer to a certain kind of lawyer as "ambulance chasers".  Seems like whenever there's an SEC action such as this, or even when the stock price of a public company falls suddenly, a bunch of lawyers file boilerplate class action lawsuits the next day.  Without actually knowing anything about the facts of the case, they each hope to be first to scoop up some grieving victims, and parade them in front of a judge, to argue that the victims should be certified by the court as a class, and he ought to be the lawyer to lead the class action, and scoop up his 33% or whatever.  These are no less ambulance chasers than the lawyers who chase actual ambulances.

If this is the case here, then these lawyers are not my friends and do not represent my interests.

They are just out to make a quick buck off the back of PMI, and if that bankrupts the company and/or disrupts loan servicing, they don't care a whit about that.

Don't be so quick to make a deal with the devil.

[Mark12547]

was the lender's help gone since the beginning of this quiet period?
http://www.prosper.com/help/

Yes, my recollection is that the Lender part of the Help page, as well as the Lenders Forum on the molasses jokingly referred to as forums were removed at nor near the time the "Quiet Period" started.

With the removal of most of the Lender content, it feels like Prosper will finally try to make a go of it without us Note Purchasers ("Lenders") putting our money at risk, or would if they wanted to continue. The SEC C&D just deals with the selling of the Notes to us Note Purchasers, not the part dealing with originating loans.

[Loan_shark_74]

Then I am joining the case started by Fred93, shark, carrey79, pensioner, and aberdeen.

Just to keep the facts straight -- I am not involved in any lawsuit.

I knew that. I stated that because it would only be worth joining a class action if you are involved. At this point, I do think some here are jumping the gun with this class action suit. I think they should wait and see how this SEC thing plays out.

[bamalucky]

Jumping the gun? Prosper opened 3 years ago & we have been in quiet period the whole time.

I have a loan for $1000 that the guy never made a payment on.I can't get any answers for 12 months now.Did i mention i'm banned so they won't return my emails or calls?

[112233]

was the lender's help gone since the beginning of this quiet period?
http://www.prosper.com/help/

Yes, my recollection is that the Lender part of the Help page, as well as the Lenders Forum on the molasses jokingly referred to as forums were removed at nor near the time the "Quiet Period" started.

With the removal of most of the Lender content, it feels like Prosper will finally try to make a go of it without us Note Purchasers ("Lenders") putting our money at risk, or would if they wanted to continue. The SEC C&D just deals with the selling of the Notes to us Note Purchasers, not the part dealing with originating loans.

so what does that make prosper, the ebay of lending aka p2p lending platform, then? just another boring place for a borrower to apply for a loan with a financial institution?

[Mark12547]

was the lender's help gone since the beginning of this quiet period?
http://www.prosper.com/help/

Yes, my recollection is that the Lender part of the Help page, as well as the Lenders Forum on the molasses jokingly referred to as forums were removed at nor near the time the "Quiet Period" started.

With the removal of most of the Lender content, it feels like Prosper will finally try to make a go of it without us Note Purchasers ("Lenders") putting our money at risk, or would if they wanted to continue. The SEC C&D just deals with the selling of the Notes to us Note Purchasers, not the part dealing with originating loans.

so what does that make prosper, the ebay of lending aka p2p lending platform, then? just another boring place for a borrower to apply for a loan with a financial institution?

Yes.

Prosper has been moving more and more towards isolating Lenders from Borrowers, then pushing more automation (most recently, Portfolio Plans), so the social aspect of Person-to-Person lending has become more Stranger-to-Stranger lending, and the borrower interaction has become almost exclusively with Prosper. As far as a typical borrower is concerned, the loan is from the faceless entity known as Prosper.

The only significant difference between Prosper and other lenders to date was that Prosper didn't have its own money at risk, whereas most lending institutions have at least some of their money at risk, even if it is the obligation to buy back the loans if they stop performing within x payments.

So that leaves Prosper as just another boring lending institution, as far as borrowers are concerned.

[ira01]

With the removal of most of the Lender content, it feels like Prosper will finally try to make a go of it without us Note Purchasers ("Lenders") putting our money at risk, or would if they wanted to continue. The SEC C&D just deals with the selling of the Notes to us Note Purchasers, not the part dealing with originating loans.

Where is Prosper going to get the money to lend?