Print

[xraider]

Ira, that's actually a very interesting idea.  Wall of Sham, move over!

As you pointed out, the lawsuits are public records.  A NAT page would show borrowers that (1) Prosper IS serious (OK, semi-serious) about collections; (2) public records do have a consequence.

[ira01]

Ira, that's actually a very interesting idea. 

Hey, you say that with such surprise! 

[eat-more-bran]

I'm I understanding this correctly?  With defaults on secured loans, the lender can take the asset back without a lawsuit.  With non-secured loans, the lender has to sue and win the case to get any assets back.

When judges rule on cases, what factors do they review?

[ira01]

I'm I understanding this correctly?  With defaults on secured loans, the lender can take the asset back without a lawsuit.  With non-secured loans, the lender has to sue and win the case to get any assets back.

Yes, that's right.

When judges rule on cases, what factors do they review?

Not really sure what you're asking here.  The short answer is the law and the facts.  In the context of a lawsuit brought against a Prosper deadbeat borrower, winning should be pretty certain IMO (notwithstanding a few complications with P2P lending).  The tougher part is collecting.  Many deadbeat borrowers aren't paying on their Prosper loans because they have no money.  Of course there are no doubt many others who could pay, but simply don't for whatever reason.  Those are the ones Prosper needs to aggressively go after. 

[eat-more-bran]

ira, yes, you have indirectly answered my question.  if you are pretty certain that PMI will win, then it must be a straight forward review.  i'll assume the judge will review the agreement and check if the loan is valid.  sounds like they will spend little or no time reading credit profiles, listing descriptions, or Q&A sections.  if they do, it won't affect the outcome.  thanks!

[cowdog]

There may be a higher-than-average default judgment rate from borrowers not appearing for the cases as well.

The real problem is that one is then left with a piece of paper, a judgment.

At that point it takes money to investigate where the borrower may have assets, not really an easy task if they change jobs, bank accounts, etc. and of course they might not have any assets in a financial institution or other.

I would think it is easier to sell a judgment than a bad debt, however.

[traveler505]

ira, yes, you have indirectly answered my question.  if you are pretty certain that PMI will win, then it must be a straight forward review.  i'll assume the judge will review the agreement and check if the loan is valid.  sounds like they will spend little or no time reading credit profiles, listing descriptions, or Q&A sections.  if they do, it won't affect the outcome.  thanks!

Ordinarily, the only reason a judge would look at listings is if Prosper alleges fraud, rather than just breach of contract, or if there is some question as to whether the borrower actually requested a loan.  (The legal agreements would generally be sufficient for that, IMO.)

In general, collection cases (particularly for loans, as opposed to payment for goods or services) are pretty simple  (Was there a valid contract between the borrower and the lender?  Did the borrower get the money?  Did the borrower fail to repay?  How much is owed?), though there is some risk that complications might arise with regard to each of these points.

[traveler505]

There may be a higher-than-average default judgment rate from borrowers not appearing for the cases as well.

The real problem is that one is then left with a piece of paper, a judgment.

At that point it takes money to investigate where the borrower may have assets, not really an easy task if they change jobs, bank accounts, etc. and of course they might not have any assets in a financial institution or other.

I would think it is easier to sell a judgment than a bad debt, however.

There is also the risk that aggressive collection on a judgment may push a borrower who is considering bankruptcy over the edge, in which case the judgment is likely to be worthless.

[ira01]

At that point it takes money to investigate where the borrower may have assets, not really an easy task if they change jobs, bank accounts, etc. and of course they might not have any assets in a financial institution or other.

I would start by sending the borrower a check (not mentioning Prosper) for $1, with a bogus letter, like "thanks for filling out the survey."  Then when the borrower deposits the check into a bank account, the borrower's bank and bank account information will be right on the back of the check!  Obviously this doesn't work if the borrower cashes the check at a check cashing place, or signs it over to a relative, but I bet it works in a fair number of cases. 

[misssalaska2000]

Smart idea!  Although, I can never remember my bank account number, so I never put them on the back of checks.  There's only one of my name in the entire world, so I'm pretty sure it will always land in the right account.  Kinda risky, but it's always worked. 

Good idea, though.  Clever!

[big-al]

Smart idea!  Although, I can never remember my bank account number, so I never put them on the back of checks.  There's only one of my name in the entire world, so I'm pretty sure it will always land in the right account.  Kinda risky, but it's always worked. 

Good idea, though.  Clever!

You don't have to write your account number on the back of your check.  The bank does it for you when they process it.

[misssalaska2000]

Duh, that makes sense. 

I would totally cash a $5 check, too. 

[Mtnchick]

At that point it takes money to investigate where the borrower may have assets, not really an easy task if they change jobs, bank accounts, etc. and of course they might not have any assets in a financial institution or other.

I would start by sending the borrower a check (not mentioning Prosper) for $1, with a bogus letter, like "thanks for filling out the survey."  Then when the borrower deposits the check into a bank account, the borrower's bank and bank account information will be right on the back of the check!  Obviously this doesn't work if the borrower cashes the check at a check cashing place, or signs it over to a relative, but I bet it works in a fair number of cases. 

But see, you're thinking like a legitimate business would. We don't get that kind of thinking from P-----r.

[ira01]

At that point it takes money to investigate where the borrower may have assets, not really an easy task if they change jobs, bank accounts, etc. and of course they might not have any assets in a financial institution or other.

I would start by sending the borrower a check (not mentioning Prosper) for $1, with a bogus letter, like "thanks for filling out the survey."  Then when the borrower deposits the check into a bank account, the borrower's bank and bank account information will be right on the back of the check!  Obviously this doesn't work if the borrower cashes the check at a check cashing place, or signs it over to a relative, but I bet it works in a fair number of cases. 

But see, you're thinking like a legitimate business would. We don't get that kind of thinking from P-----r.

Unfortunately, that is too true.  Lawyers that specialize in collections have a boatload of such tricks, I imagine, for tracking down deadbeats' assets.  Let's hope that Prosper's NAT lawyers are better than the lawyers who drafted their legal agreements (IIRC, xraider said that Prosper's collections firm is a good one).

[Mtnchick]

Unfortunately, that is too true.  Lawyers that specialize in collections have a boatload of such tricks, I imagine, for tracking down deadbeats' assets.  Let's hope that Prosper's NAT lawyers are better than the lawyers who drafted their legal agreements (IIRC, xraider said that Prosper's collections firm is a good one).

AmSher?