Dude.
The NYT piece was about shaking the tree at CFPB, wrt secrecy. There are hugely entrenched interests
who want to know, immediately, who's going to be regulating consumer financial services, in the future...
The uncertainty created by CFPB not disclosing most of their new hires, as they try to ramp up (which, I
think, is maybe a good idea, since it would only increase the opportunity for that agency to be co-opted)
scared someone, or some someones, who then reached out to a hack willing to write a hit piece for them.
Prosper was merely the very thin buckshot employed by a hired gun, who took the best shot he could, at
one of the CFPB's disclosed hires, hoping to flush out more information. The story was not about Prosper.
More hilariously, it wasn't even a "story". It was more of a "disappointingly ominous preface", lacking any
sense of form, which anyone who actually took the time to realize they were being "stirred up" would see.
Give it an honest re-read and instead of Prosper, insert, let's say, "Zopa" - is that story not just garbage?
I remember reading the piece that day and doing a serious eye-roll when I flipped past the page break, to
see the writer's buried admission that no conflict existed, despite the yellow journalism, on the front page.
It reminded me of certain posters here - though, no one here is getting paid to be silly --- OR ARE THEY?!
*Dum, dum, duh!* (cut to commercial)
Carry on with the mishigas, if you wish. I enjoyed your piece on Prosper's 10-Q, and how using WebBank
as the originator for P2P loans is a "conspiracy" because it's a... (hold your breath)... bank. Both Prosper
and LendingClub use WebBank to originate any P2P loans. Is it a conspiracy - or do they simply have to?
Think about it for a second. If any of the P2P companies could NOT PAY SOMEONE ELSE to originate the
loans for them, do you think they might - and I'm just speculating here - originate their own loans freely?
Dude - where've you been?
-t