Print

[xraider]

Thanks, TJ, for the laugh.

[brianguy]

Remind me, NA, why I (and most on this board) now have an anti-Prosper agenda?

Oh yeah, blatant violations of the TOS, returns much, much poorer than advertised, non-existent collections, utter disregard of legitimate lender concerns and so on. 

I can't see any reason ANYONE would invest in this company in light of its history, and of its efforts to stifle dissent. 

Please tell me where "in the middle" you believe the truth lies.... and why you're not "investing" in Prosper 3.0.  Waiting for 4.0?

I've never been outlandishly anti-Prosper previously...  I've just been kinda neutral, or agnostic "meh, wasn't for me, most people lost money.  go ahead, at your own risk, but you'll probably lose your shirt".

now... not so much.  this is outrageously awful.

[xraider]

brianguy, it's like a 12-step program.  I started lending in January, 2007 and thought that Prosper was the best thing ever.  I was sure I would make 10%+, and told everyone I knew about Prosper and what a great idea it was.

The first time Prosper did something horrible after I started investing was in March, when it suspended a bunch of unhappy lenders.  I couldn't understand it, but still thought that Prosper was still great.  I continued to lend through seven more months of Prosper horribles, then my outrageously awful button was pushed.  It's continued to go downhill since there.

Now, as NA says, I do have an anti-Prosper agenda...but it was Prosper who put me there.  I would have been happy at "meh" until Prosper started pulling crap in violation of the terms of service and started hiding information from its lenders.  What particularly irked me was the New Agency Test loans, where Prosper pulled in about 40 loans and sued on them.    Even though this occurred after I had stopped lending, I still thought it was a great idea -- particularly in light of Doug Fuller's bragging about his track record and stellar collection attorneys.  So, I recommended participation in the NAT lawsuits.  BAD recommendation on my part, since Prosper did not prosecute these loans, and has ended up dismissing most of them.  That is just one of many examples showing that Prosper is incompetent, or worse. 

Prosper's platform now is not just unsecured loans to strangers over the internet, but you give Prosper your money to make these unsecured loans.  In light of Prosper's track record of failing to protect lenders' interests, anyone who entrusts their money to Prosper should not expect repayment. 

[ira01]

What particularly irked me was the New Agency Test loans, where Prosper pulled in about 40 loans and sued on them.    Even though this occurred after I had stopped lending, I still thought it was a great idea -- particularly in light of Doug Fuller's bragging about his track record and stellar collection attorneys.  So, I recommended participation in the NAT lawsuits.  BAD recommendation on my part, since Prosper did not prosecute these loans, and has ended up dismissing most of them.  That is just one of many examples showing that Prosper is incompetent, or worse. 

Yep -- but it's even worse than that.  There were 60+ NAT loans in the lawsuit test project.  Prosper offered lenders on those loans a choice -- have their interest bought back by Prosper for the amount it would get based on the last JDB sale, or give their interest back to Prosper for free, and the promise of a pro rata share in the eventual recoveries of the whole test project.  Based on Prosper's (mis)representations that the lawsuits would be pursued vigorously and competently, both xraider and myself opined that participation would be better than taking the JDB payoff, and many lenders chose to participate in the NAT.  Prosper promised to provide monthly accountings to the lenders, considering that the participating lenders were the beneficial (though no longer legal) owners of the NAT loans. 

It has now been about 2 years since the NAT started - and Prosper has not provided a single accounting.     Instead, only recently did Prosper even provide any useful information about the NAT at all -- and that was a false and misleading blog post trying to spin the unbelievably terrible performance of Prosper and its chosen NAT collections law firm.  If I recall that blog post correctly, out of some 67 NAT loans, Prosper won ONE (although it won't say what, if anything, it collected) and dismissed most, if not all, of the rest.  For reasons explained at length in the NAT thread here, that is a shockingly bad result. 

[mothandrust]

When Prosper takes some action that's supposed to benefit lenders, when has it actually done so?

Automated portfolio plans select loans rife with red flags.
Holding onto 4++++++ late loans instead of selling them results in less recovery of capital.
Elimination of GL fees shut down any third-party verification that was being done.
Default selection of Penncro/AmSher underperformed compared to FirstSource.
Relaunch of site where Notes are unsecured borrowers adds new risk of Prosper.Com defaulting.
NAT loans show no results, no accounting, no integrity.

...and the list goes on and on.

I don't have an anti-Prosper agenda.  Prosper has an anti-lender agenda.

[112233]

I'd also like to point out a fundamental difference between Prosper and TheBigMoney...

When Prosper questions something TheBigMoney published, TheBigMoney reproduced the criticism and provided a response from the responsible person.

When anyone questions Prosper, the item is rarely (if ever) published, a comment is quickly deleted and the questioners are routinely suspended or banned from the platform.

also, the TheBigMoney author has the balls to publish his real name. The cowards at prosper hide behind people with names like "Prosper Blog" etc, not willing to put their name to their words.

[112233]

Remind me, NA, why I (and most on this board) now have an anti-Prosper agenda?

Oh yeah, blatant violations of the TOS, returns much, much poorer than advertised, non-existent collections, utter disregard of legitimate lender concerns and so on. 

I can't see any reason ANYONE would invest in this company in light of its history, and of its efforts to stifle dissent. 

Please tell me where "in the middle" you believe the truth lies.... and why you're not "investing" in Prosper 3.0.  Waiting for 4.0?

I have an anti-prosper agenda for you know .. just the hell of it 

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

I don't have an anti-Prosper agenda.  Prosper has an anti-lender agenda.

I think that's a good way to frame the discussion in response to the tired accusations that Org is somehow an anti-Prosper platform.

[112233]

I don't have an anti-Prosper agenda.  Prosper has an anti-lender agenda.

I think that's a good way to frame the discussion in response to the tired accusations that Org is somehow an anti-Prosper platform.

+1

there is a reason why org lenders invested their hard-earned money in prosper's platform, and it wasnt because they were anti-prosper 

[xraider]

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/peer_to_peer_lending-1006303-1.html

Org gets a tip of the hat here:  http://www.transcapitalist.com/transcapitalist/2010/1/21/continued-criticisms-of-p2p-lending.html

I just read the American Banker article.  I love how Prosper sent them an email in an effort to preempt any further critical discussion:

In an email to BankThink, Prosper disputes Gimein's characterization of its reclassification of loans. . . .

The email is discussed in the article, making clear that Prosper tried to spin this.  Didn't work.  Probably called more attention to Mark Gimein's article.

Best part of the American Banker article:

Peer-to-peer lending may yet fulfill its promise. But those venturesome enough to lend through sites like Prosper would do well to look gift horses in the mouth. Salmon cites an email from Gimein, who wrote: “I’ve cut up Prosper numbers in a bunch of ways, and one thing I’ve noticed is that some of the worst returns come from folks with okay credit who are willing to pay very high interest rate: they’re willing to pay a lot because their finances are in worse shape than they seem.”

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Yet another person willing to scratch beneath the surface of the P2P lending hype:

http://divestor.com/2010/01/21/peer-to-peer-lending-prosper-lending-club-explaining-the-risk/

[bamalucky]

My comment is awaiting moderation.

[Xenon481]

My comment is awaiting moderation.

Your fireman comment passed and Tiffany already responded to it in true PR fashion.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Say what you will about Tiffany Fox, but she IS doing her job - and she's doing a pretty good job at it.

It does appear, however, that she was absent from class on the days when the following issues were discussed:

- Don't draw additional attention to negative issues (this was likely on the very first day of class, so this may have been the day when she was busy with the fireman test)

- PR does not equal spinning/lying.  Prosper's staff could benefit from committing themselves to the PRSA Code of Ethics for practitioners.
http://media.prsa.org/article_display.cfm?article_id=1205

To subscribe to the principles and spirit of the PRSA Code of Ethics in the practice of professional communications, individually and collectively on behalf of the organizations, clients and publics served. In that context, I pledge:

To conduct professional responsibilities in line with code values of  responsible advocacy, accuracy, truth, responsible use of specialized knowledge and experience, objectivity, accountability, loyalty and fairness;

To advance ethical communications practices and the free flow of accurate and truthful information, supporting fundamental rights of free speech and the public good, and adhering to the highest standards of accuracy and truth in communicating with the public;

To investigate the truthfulness and accuracy of information released, avoid deceptive practices, act promptly to correct erroneous communications, and reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented;

To preserve and propel ethical communications principles that contribute to informed decision making in a democratic society and provide a voice in the marketplace of ideas, facts and viewpoints to aid informed public debate; and

To incorporate these values and principles of the PRSA Code of Ethics in the official communications policies of the organization or client served, adopting them as fundamental beliefs to guide individual and collective professional practice, behaviors and decision-making in support of ethical communications and the public good.

The title of a public relations officer is not a "wink-wink" license to spread deceptive information.

[bamalucky]

Can you see my latest post. It appears it made it without waiting?

Tiffany I didn't realize I could get direct PMI employee feedback here. I tried to get Cameron & the recently departed Andrew to call me back regarding this loan I bid $1000 on that never made a payment.It's been months now.I'm beginning to worry they aren't calling back. I was assured that ALL loans that were large were automatically verified against fraud. How can a loan for $24,000 that never makes a payment be anything but fraud? Can you tell me what is being done to collect on this loan or refund me my money via you guys "supposed" 100% fraud guarantee?

http://www.prosper.com/invest/listing.aspx?listingID=208191