Print

[mothandrust]

I posted about this listing on 5/29 in the Lenders-Verified/Listings section, but I don't know if everyone reads that.

http://www.prosper.com/lend/listing.aspx?listingID=340725

It was curious since Grimlock, a Prosper employee, was an endorser who bid $300 on it.

I clicked on Grimlock's profile page and saw that he had a previous listing up, which looked like a test listing.  Under "My financial situation" he wrote:

"I'm broke that why I work here."

If I see that a family member who endorses a listing says he's broke, I naturally think that he's not going to be able to help the borrower out if she runs into financial trouble down the road.

Then on 5/30, a couple of lenders noticed that Grimlock's listing had vanished!  If you go to his profile page you would never know that he ever had a previous listing.

Shouldn't Prosper employees have to play by the same rules as everyone else? 

What other information pertaining to this listing has been altered or deleted so as to give it a better chance of funding?

HO: Move this to the Lobby?

[evisha]

Interesting too is that "Grimlock" has changed his screen name 4 times now.  Another good way to hide info.

[HollowOak]

I will move this, as you requested. I must point out that I think the loan listing (which I saw) was really a test. I did not, when I read it, get the sense that the person who created it intended for it to fund. Also there were no bids on it. I think the listing description was something similar to what I and many others might write in a test listing.

However, there is a big  issue of security/accountability when a) one tests on a live database with a user id that can also initiate real transactions and b) such tests can subsequently be reversed. It is irresponsible to say the least.


ETA: To make it clear. I don't think the employee deleted his listing to aid his sister in defrauding Prosper, or because he really is broke. I think what he did was wrong, but it was not intended to harm lenders.

[Xenon481]

When was the listing from?  Was it from before February 2006?

[NewHorizon]

When was the listing from?  Was it from before February 2006?

It was listing #212879 created 2007-10-08.
Grimlock originally registered on Jan-08-2007.

FWIW, I don't see the intentional harm on the part of Grimlock either.
And let the guy change his screen name some more, if he wants.  Whatever.

ETA: LS still shows the listing info - at least for now.
http://www.lendingstats.com/listings/212879

[Zaun]

I work with bank data all the time. They often have test data in there that makes my eyes pop out for a second until I realize what it is and can automatically weed it out next time. Though this sort of thing is magnified because of the distrust many people here already have for Prosper, unless the endorsement of a live listing was also a "test", I see nothing wrong with this. At worst maybe they should have made that listing invisible, but I find it hard to care about this. *shrug*

[Tokyo Joe]

Hmmm...

If I were to make a "test" listing, it would forver remain attached to my ID.

So I'm not sure I like it if a Prosper employee can delete his prior listings, test or not...

It's one thing if he's an IT guy testing code or something...

But if it was just a "test" to see what happens, then I think it shouldn't be deleteable...

[NewHorizon]

But if it was just a "test" to see what happens, then I think it shouldn't be deleteable...

Doesn't Prosper have a history of deleting reported "test" or "non-serious" listings?
Then I guess I'm not seeing why an employee should be an exception.

[Mtnchick]

It looked like a test listing to me too. Though it's pretty funny he took it down as soon as someone here pointed it out 

[Xenon481]

But if it was just a "test" to see what happens, then I think it shouldn't be deleteable...

Doesn't Prosper have a history of deleting reported "test" or "non-serious" listings?
Then I guess I'm not seeing why an employee should be an exception.

They don't delete those listings, they just cancel them.

[Mark12547]

However, there is a big  issue of security/accountability when a) one tests on a live database with a user id that can also initiate real transactions and b) such tests can subsequently be reversed. It is irresponsible to say the least.

From time to time at work we have to test on the live database because we have to test security, links, etc., that live in the real database so we know what works in test is also working in production. (As much as one tries to have a test system parallel the production system, there are always differences, even if it is limited to host name and IP address.) As much as possible, we try to use certain "dummy" accounts, not accounts of live people, but sometimes we do use ourselves to enroll in classes to test parts of that system out. In any case, we will delete records we add or create reversal transactions.

IT creating a dummy listing and then deleting it doesn't strike me as that big of a deal as long as it doesn't adversely affect potential bidders' money.

However, if it is a real listing by an employee (IT or not), then that should play by the rules (expired listings don't go *poof*).

[Mtnchick]

However, if it is a real listing by an employee (IT or not), then that should play by the rules (expired listings don't go *poof*).

    This is a company that changes legal agreements on a whim. Playing by the rules isn't exactly their forte! 

[mothandrust]

I thought the "I'm broke" comment was in jest, but as you probably have gleaned from my lending contests and bidding $1300+ on single listings with VBE's, I and other lenders place a high valuation on Bidding Endorsements.

Sapo15, the borrower in this case is a single mom with newborn, has $300 for "Misc.: food, gas, personal" as one of her 6 budget items, and has a negative cash flow on her rental property among other red flags.

Hers is one of only 4 A listings featuring 2 DQ's in 7 years and an 80%+ utilization, and the others are not anywhere close to funding.

So this loan hinges very much on the quality and integrity of Grimlock's endorsement.

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.

But if Grimlock's own finances are a wreck, then the loan goes bad.  What's his credit rating?  What's his utilization?  Income range?  Apparently, this information is worth taking the time and effort to cover up.

Grimlock has abused his position of employment to tamper with Prosper's systems in order to expedite his sister's loan getting funded.

What other information has been changed or manipulated? 

Is this her first listing, or have her prior listings also been deleted or hidden?

How is it that she's 7 years out of college but has a credit record dating back to 1982?

Is she really an A credit rating?  (There are 4 listings on Prosper that are "A" showing 2+ DQ's in 7 years and 80%+ utilization, compared with 528 in the B-HR categories.)

As Grimlock says in his profile description: "More than meets the eye!"

[NewHorizon]

I thought that was a nice post, mothandrust, until I got to, "Grimlock has abused his position of employment...".

We can agree to disagree, I suppose.  But I'm unconvinced that there's anything to support an accusation of abuse.  Grimlocks actions may have been ill-advised.  But abusing the system?  I'm thinkin' no.

Anyway, yeah, for an A rating, this hasta be near the bottom.

[nonattender]

Sapo15, the borrower in this case is a single mom with newborn, has $300 for "Misc.: food, gas, personal" as one of her 6 budget items, and has a negative cash flow on her rental property among other red flags.

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.

So this loan hinges very much on the quality and integrity of Grimlock's endorsement.

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.

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?

But if Grimlock's own finances are a wreck, then the loan goes bad.  What's his credit rating?  What's his utilization?  Income range?  Apparently, this information is worth taking the time and effort to cover up.

That, or he wished to avoid the presumption you describe above.  If you're counting on the endorser, insider or otherwise, to pay the loan of the person who's taking out the loan, is that, in itself, a red flag?

Grimlock has abused his position of employment to tamper with Prosper's systems in order to expedite his sister's loan getting funded.

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.

What other information has been changed or manipulated?
Is this her first listing, or have her prior listings also been deleted or hidden?

Quite a stretch.  If you're this skeptical, you shouldn't be bidding - case closed for you.

How is it that she's 7 years out of college but has a credit record dating back to 1982?

The same way that 30 million other americans have credit histories that do not correlate with their actual ages.  They are authorized users on someone else's account, usually a parent or guardian, and have inherited the inception date of a tradeline from that person.

Is she really an A credit rating?  (There are 4 listings on Prosper that are "A" showing 2+ DQ's in 7 years and 80%+ utilization, compared with 528 in the B-HR categories.)

I think the better question is:  Are those other 4 really "A"s?

-t