Print

[Mtnchick]

Presumably, an "insider" loan going bad would be embarrassing for Prosper, so there is an incentive for Grimlock to help his sister out with a loan payment if she runs into financial difficulties.

Presumably (ie maybe sorta you hope), however, in this case, the information identifying the endorser as a Prosper insider was removed - right?

No. From her listing

Also, my older brother currently works at Prosper

from his endorsement

Yup this is my sister! She is taking a responsible step in consolidating her debt and I'm glad she's decided to use Prosper (who is my employer). I guess I'll be bidding 0%. -Grimlock, May-28-2008

[nonattender]

Never clicked through, thus the "right?".  Feel free to ignore that (one) point, then.

-t

[mothandrust]

A VBE does not remove red flags, it is merely one person attempting to hoist a small green flag onto the same pole with all the others.

For some of us, that "small green flag" is a rather important factor.  On my blog you can read how choosing a portfolio of borrowers with 0 DQ's and 2+ friends bidding $300+ would produce a portfolio with no lates.  (Since I wrote the blog, one of the loans has gone late).  That compares favorably with other lending strategies based on the extended data.

As much as you can attempt to predict the behavior of one person you do not know by that of another you also do not know, yes.

I look at past actions and extrapolate.  I see Grimlock's endorsement stipulates the amount bid and the rate.  Only about 2% of the BE's (this is not a VBE--no third-party verification) that I run across provide this. 

So I look at Grimlock's lending history, and he's on two listings since 2/08.  One is a from a fellow Prosper employee.

The other is the eandr123 loan.  So I surmise that Grimlock is hoping that the same VBE mojo will work for his sister.

Inconclusive, given a lack of information.  For all we know, the deleted listing was not only a test listing, but may also have had "test" credit details.

Ah, well if that's true, that would open up a different set of questions and problems. 

Grimlock's "test listing" showed someone with an AA credit:

http://www.lendingstats.com/listings/212879

So if in reality he is an HR with 5 current DQ's, his ability to help his sister stay afloat will be very limited.  If her car breaks down (she has nothing budgeted for car maintenance or repair), even if he wants to help her out and feels social pressure from his Prosper colleagues to keep the loan current, he can't do it.

[mothandrust]

Presumably (ie maybe sorta you hope), however, in this case, the information identifying the endorser as a Prosper insider was removed - right?

Deleting the endorsement and the employment information would just make the problem worse.  The best way to handle a cover-up isn't to do more covering up, it is to start acting with openness and transparency and to clear the air.

What Grimlock can do to fix this is (at the bare minimum):

(1) Make his original listing visible again.

(2) Put a note in his profile page and/or a notation on the listing itself like:

"Edited to add: On 10/8/08 I put up this test listing.  The credit data displayed on this listing is not mine.  It was only a test."

or some other honest and forthcoming explanation of what happened.

(3) Have his sister cancel her listing.

She can then do a clean relist without a tainted endorsement.  Prosper won't have to worry about a disgruntled bidder coming back and saying he bid under false pretenses.

[NewHorizon]

Prosper won't have to worry about a disgruntled bidder coming back and saying he bid under false pretenses.

As with the "abuse" accusation, the "false pretenses" accusation is also only conjecture given the lack of info.

... and I think Prosper has more important things on its plate than "worry" about conjecture.