Print

[ks6328]

What do you think?  Should I pause the reports (or resume giving Prosper a "heads-up"), or should I continue posting MNH Reports as I have been doing?  Would you want to see an additional show of good faith on Prosper's part before I change course?  If so, what?

IMO Prosper is simply scared of some possible legal action and is trying to clean up the most actionable publicly known issues.  I don't think this one thing (or these three things if you want to count them separately) is sufficient evidence of Prosper's good intentions.  Necessary, yes; sufficient, no; particularly in light of other actions against individual lenders and third-party websites.

I think you should continue to publicly post your MNH reports as you have been doing.

Edit: Minor grammer correction.
 

[traveler505]

trav, did prosper ever let you report these items in the new forums?

Nope.  I made two unsuccessful attempts to post MNH #1 and #2 when the new fauxrums first opened.  Since then, I've made no attempts to post there, and only occasionally read what is posted there.  (So if there's something important over there, please re-post it here.)

[BigGulp]

Keep posting them.

...Gulp

[ira01]

What do you think?  Should I pause the reports (or resume giving Prosper a "heads-up"), or should I continue posting MNH Reports as I have been doing?  Would you want to see an additional show of good faith on Prosper's part before I change course?  If so, what?

IMO Prosper is simply scared of some possible legal action and is trying to clean up the most actionable publicly known issues. 

I think this is probably correct.  Didn't Bama or someone post a screenshot showing Wichtel or Andrew printing the Misappropriation thread about a week ago?  And I think I had posts in there opining that Prosper was obligated to pay interest on that money.  Maybe Prosper agreed. 

[Mercurio]

do you think this is an example of a paradigm shift in attitude by prosper?

I don't.

I think it's just more games.

If they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, they can apologize and put the cookies back.   If they don't get caught, so much the better for them.

[res2]

On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that it really takes two months or more for Prosper to write the code required to generate the refunds.  (Of course, IANAProgrammer.)

Not only am I programmer, but I play one on TV, and 8 weeks sounds about right to code, test, fix, re-test and release. 

[Xenon481]

On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that it really takes two months or more for Prosper to write the code required to generate the refunds.  (Of course, IANAProgrammer.)

Not only am I programmer, but I play one on TV, and 8 weeks sounds about right to code, test, fix, re-test and release. 

I too am a software developer (of software for large financial institutions no less!) and given the type of bureaucracy that Prosper has, I would have quoted a time line similar to the following:

5 days:  Research problem and extent of effects.
5 days:  Internal discussions about what to do, how to do it, waiting for advice from legal team, other general screwing around.
5 days:  Implement fix.
5 days:  Unit Testing (and re-fixing) fix by developers.
10 days:  QA Testing (and re-fixing) fix.
10 days:  Internal discussions about public relations, scheduling of installation, and waiting for said scheduled release time.

That adds up to 8 weeks, and so I agree with Res2 on about 8 weeks for this from Prosper.

My development group would be shot if we took this long to correct this kind of an error because our customers would be ultra-mad, but Prosper probably feels that they can get away with it since they think lenders are replaceable.

[Mark12547]

I'm in IT, but as a "software support specialist" (an "administrator" over some of our third-party software). From my perspective, it is a matter of resources (programmer time) and priorities.

This is a task that one wants to get right, and not only does it affect a fungible set of customers, the set which tend to be very picky about their money, but it also affects numbers that are reported to the IRS (both as fees that customers pay and losses that Prosper claims), and the IRS is also very picky and carries a very big stick. So this is something that, if you do it, you want to do it right, i.e., spend more time testing than you would spend coding--you aren't going to do it in just a day or in just a few days.

A conflicting priority is that there are some federally mandated and state-mandated changes that one may have to make, such as making sure 1099-INT and 1099-B forms, or their equivalents, meet the latest requirements, and they have to be completed, tested, and the real forms generated and distributed¹ by the end of January. I don't know how it is with Prosper Marketplace, Inc., but, where I work, last month we have received updates from our administrative software vendor for 1098-T, 1099-MISC and W-2 forms specifically for Tax Year 2007, which means, if we were doing this in-house, our programmer/analysts would be working on those changes instead of waiting for the vendor to ship us updates. As it is, these updates get priority over almost everything (except System Down), so a non-trivial refund process would be pushed out to after tax-related issues are taken care of.

Note¹: Year-end tax forms (1099-INT, 1099-B, W-2) generally have to be "distributed" by January 31. In this context, "distributed" means in the mail (postmarked January 31 or earlier; interoffice mail doesn't count) or  electronic notification sent out if the forms will be viewed on the web instead of paper copies mailed out.

So I can easily see four weeks taken up with IRS-related tasks, and, after that is taken care of, spend four intense weeks for refund-related tasks. That sounds like a good reason for the delivery date to be placed two months out.

[traveler505]

Thanks for your input.  I of course reserve the right to make the final decisions regarding future MNH Reports, but I do regard this community as an unofficial advisory board for the project. 

While this wasn't a formal poll (and didn't have a WGAF option), the general sense I get (and with which I agree) is that my MNH Reports should continue unless Prosper makes significant changes to the manner in which it interacts with the established lender community.

I received an email from Prosper's general counsel yesterday, confirming what had been posted on the official Prosper blog.  Since he expressed Prosper's appreciation for my research and encouraged me to bring additional compliance issues to Prosper's attention, I included this in my reply (cc to Larsen and Witchel):

On a larger note, I wanted to acknowledge your willingness to address additional compliance issues which are brought to your attention.  (I suspect it comes as no surprise that I do have a number of other issues under review.)  As such, I wanted to open the door for discussion of whether Prosper is willing to adopt a less adversarial approach toward the lending community, which, in turn, would encourage me to present these issues in a less dramatic and less adversarial manner. 

As you know, there was a time when I contacted Prosper directly regarding serious compliance issues before making public statements, giving Prosper the opportunity to pre-empt my announcement or filing of formal complaints by promptly resolving the problem.  I followed this procedure with the Financial Assistance Network issue a year ago, and with Prosper’s failure to apply community payments to lender accounts in June.

However, in recent months, Prosper has taken an increasingly hostile approach toward its established lender community.  Vibrant and informative forums have been replaced with a vapid shell; third-party discussion sites have been threatened; member profiles have been deleted; lenders have been suspended for expressing their opinions; and so on.  In the face of this hostile treatment, I am left with little faith in the sincerity of Prosper’s desire for “active involvement and input of committed Prosper members,” and little motivation to protect Prosper from public embarrassment or regulatory action by giving it a “heads-up” on compliance issues.

In my opinion, none of these recent developments -- neither Prosper’s attacks on the lending community nor the adversarial approach which I have taken as a result -- are irreversible.   Should Prosper opt to roll back its attacks on the established lender community, and demonstrate in concrete ways that it is indeed interested in their input and participation, I would be most willing to work with you to find ways in which the compliance issues can be addressed in a more amicable manner.

If nothing comes of this, at least I'm on record as being willing to be reasonable.

By the way, I also received a belated reply from Doug Fuller, formally rejecting my offer to purchase a defaulted loan (See MNH #4 -- Trav's Do-It-Yourself Secondary Markey & Panaderia).  My reply to him was, shall we say, less conciliatory than my note to the general counsel.

I'll try to post some overdue blog updates soon.

[112233]

Thanks for your input.  I of course reserve the right to make the final decisions regarding future MNH Reports, but I do regard this community as an unofficial advisory board for the project. 

While this wasn't a formal poll (and didn't have a WGAF option), the general sense I get (and with which I agree) is that my MNH Reports should continue unless Prosper makes significant changes to the manner in which it interacts with the established lender community.

I received an email from Prosper's general counsel yesterday, confirming what had been posted on the official Prosper blog.  Since he expressed Prosper's appreciation for my research and encouraged me to bring additional compliance issues to Prosper's attention, I included this in my reply (cc to Larsen and Witchel):

On a larger note, I wanted to acknowledge your willingness to address additional compliance issues which are brought to your attention.  (I suspect it comes as no surprise that I do have a number of other issues under review.)  As such, I wanted to open the door for discussion of whether Prosper is willing to adopt a less adversarial approach toward the lending community, which, in turn, would encourage me to present these issues in a less dramatic and less adversarial manner. 

As you know, there was a time when I contacted Prosper directly regarding serious compliance issues before making public statements, giving Prosper the opportunity to pre-empt my announcement or filing of formal complaints by promptly resolving the problem.  I followed this procedure with the Financial Assistance Network issue a year ago, and with Prosper’s failure to apply community payments to lender accounts in June.

However, in recent months, Prosper has taken an increasingly hostile approach toward its established lender community.  Vibrant and informative forums have been replaced with a vapid shell; third-party discussion sites have been threatened; member profiles have been deleted; lenders have been suspended for expressing their opinions; and so on.  In the face of this hostile treatment, I am left with little faith in the sincerity of Prosper’s desire for “active involvement and input of committed Prosper members,” and little motivation to protect Prosper from public embarrassment or regulatory action by giving it a “heads-up” on compliance issues.

In my opinion, none of these recent developments -- neither Prosper’s attacks on the lending community nor the adversarial approach which I have taken as a result -- are irreversible.   Should Prosper opt to roll back its attacks on the established lender community, and demonstrate in concrete ways that it is indeed interested in their input and participation, I would be most willing to work with you to find ways in which the compliance issues can be addressed in a more amicable manner.

If nothing comes of this, at least I'm on record as being willing to be reasonable.

By the way, I also received a belated reply from Doug Fuller, formally rejecting my offer to purchase a defaulted loan (See MNH #4 -- Trav's Do-It-Yourself Secondary Markey & Panaderia).  My reply to him was, shall we say, less conciliatory than my note to the general counsel.

I'll try to post some overdue blog updates soon.

I think you were very fair. This could have turned out to be a lot worse for them.

[NewHorizon]

...

As such, I wanted to open the door for discussion of whether Prosper is willing to adopt a less adversarial approach toward the lending community, which, in turn, would encourage me to present these issues in a less dramatic and less adversarial manner.

I dunno...

I suspect I stand in the minority, but to me, this comes across like some kinda ransom note - holding as hostage Prosper's "opportunity" to "pre-empt" your announcement. 

Or at the very least, Prosper has little incentive to meet your request.  I mean they'll take a look at whatever you come up with, but they'll do it regardless of the route you chose pass along the info.  Indeed, it seems to me they have little incentive to reply to the above.  (Well it'd be nice of them if they did.  But even then, I'll doubt they'll say anything which comes even close to satisfying the issue which you bring up (attacking the lending community)).

Well anyway, I think it was nice of Prosper's lawyer to send a note of appreciation.  They could have just begrudgingly made the corrections with the barest minimum of notice and correspondence - and saying nothing to you at all.

[traveler505]

...

As such, I wanted to open the door for discussion of whether Prosper is willing to adopt a less adversarial approach toward the lending community, which, in turn, would encourage me to present these issues in a less dramatic and less adversarial manner.

I dunno...

I suspect I stand in the minority, but to me, this comes across like some kinda ransom note - holding as hostage Prosper's "opportunity" to "pre-empt" your announcement. 

Or at the very least, Prosper has little incentive to meet your request.  I mean they'll take a look at whatever you come up with, but they'll do it regardless of the route you chose pass along the info.  Indeed, it seems to me they have little incentive to reply to the above.  (Well it'd be nice of them if they did.  But even then, I'll doubt they'll say anything which comes even close to satisfying the issue which you bring up (attacking the lending community)).

Well anyway, I think it was nice of Prosper's lawyer to send a note of appreciation.  They could have just begrudgingly made the corrections with the barest minimum of notice and correspondence - and saying nothing to you at all.

I'd call it an expression of human nature.  If someone treats me with respect most of the time, I'm likely to try to resolve things quietly on the occasions that they piss me off.  But it they've been a jerk all along, I might just call the cops the first time they give me reason to do so.

But I do share your pessimism regarding the likely impact of my note.

[Fred93]

By the way, I also received a belated reply from Doug Fuller, formally rejecting my offer to purchase a defaulted loan (See MNH #4 -- Trav's Do-It-Yourself Secondary Markey & Panaderia). 

Did it actually come from his email account?

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Now, THAT response is a note I'd like to see...   

[traveler505]

By the way, I also received a belated reply from Doug Fuller, formally rejecting my offer to purchase a defaulted loan (See MNH #4 -- Trav's Do-It-Yourself Secondary Markey & Panaderia). 

Did it actually come from his email account?

It appears that it did.  I haven't checked the headers (it's not as if I'd know what I was looking for), and he didn't attach a picture of his hand on the keyboard, so I can't be positive that he actually wrote it.