Print

[LoanChimp]

It always seems you want substantive dialogue to devolve.  Why?  Trying to open communication seems like a perfectly reasonable thing.     

Have you ever actually been a party to one of the sessions where Prosper promised substantive dialogue?

Were any of the points addressed by the letter from the OP brought up during one of these sessions?

[bamalucky]

Come on.You guys know any dialog (conference calls) turned out to be smoke up asses.

[mofo]

mofo, it's in the letter, last section:

Prosper unilaterally decided to move collections away from Penncro to AmSher, which charges lenders a higher fee.  At the time of this switch, Prosper promised that lenders would not be charged more than they would have been had the loans remained at Penncro.  After it was pointed out to Prosper that notwithstanding its promise, lenders were actually being charged the higher AmSher fees, Prosper stated that this was due to a "coding error," and that Prosper would reimburse lenders the over charges.  Apparently, no such reimbursement has yet occurred, despite months having passed.  Demand is hereby made that Prosper immediately provide that reimbursement to lenders.

Thanks xraider. I missed that.

[Staneslav]

a

[Senator]

Prosper’s failure to hold quarterly debt sales has resulted in clear harm to lenders.  Prosper last sold defaulted loans in December, 2008, and the sales price was substantially less than at the prior sale.  Prosper apparently attempted another debt sale in late April, 2008 (a month later than it should have), where the bids were substantially lower than in December.  Instead of selling the loans for the best price Prosper could get (as its fiduciary duty and the LRA obligated it to do), Prosper permitted the loans to age even longer, devaluing the older debt even more, and in late May, 2008 was apparently offered less than half of what it had been offered a month earlier. 

That should read 2007

[cubbiesnextyr]

Prosper’s failure to hold quarterly debt sales has resulted in clear harm to lenders.  Prosper last sold defaulted loans in December, 2008, and the sales price was substantially less than at the prior sale.  Prosper apparently attempted another debt sale in late April, 2008 (a month later than it should have), where the bids were substantially lower than in December.  Instead of selling the loans for the best price Prosper could get (as its fiduciary duty and the LRA obligated it to do), Prosper permitted the loans to age even longer, devaluing the older debt even more, and in late May, 2008 was apparently offered less than half of what it had been offered a month earlier. 

That should read 2007

You should have proofread it BEFORE we sent it...

[xraider]

The link in the first post has the version that was actually sent.  IIRC (too lazy to check) that typo was corrected before the letter went out.

[Senator]

False alarm, the .pdf has the correct date.

[cubbiesnextyr]

False alarm, the .pdf has the correct date.

Yay!

[Chamatrain]

So, some lenders sent a "demand" letter to PMI, which was apparently ignored(surprise!)  Is there a firm plan to proceed with a suit?  If so, when might that be?  I would like to not duplicate efforts, but I have already asked an acquaintance (an attorney) to look into hiring somebody in San Francisco.

Comments from anybody will be welcome, including from others who like myself, are not lawyers.

[bamalucky]

So, some lenders sent a "demand" letter to PMI, which was apparently ignored(surprise!)  Is there a firm plan to proceed with a suit?  If so, when might that be?  I would like to not duplicate efforts, but I have already asked an acquaintance (an attorney) to look into hiring somebody in San Francisco.

Comments from anybody will be welcome, including from others who like myself, are not lawyers.

From what I gather they plan to follow up.Maybe even talk to a class action lawyer.I  doubt Prosper has enough money for a class action lawyer to go after though.

[beerbud1]

So, some lenders sent a "demand" letter to PMI, which was apparently ignored(surprise!)  Is there a firm plan to proceed with a suit?  If so, when might that be?  I would like to not duplicate efforts, but I have already asked an acquaintance (an attorney) to look into hiring somebody in San Francisco.

Comments from anybody will be welcome, including from others who like myself, are not lawyers.

Yes there will be followup. This is not an idle threat.

[112233]

I assume the letter is part of a larger plan. Prosper's non-response was not exactly hard to predict and I hope that was taken into consideration and a next step was planned out at the same time.

[bamalucky]

I think the greatest good of all coming out of this letter is that it was also sent to the Venture Capital firms who fund Prosper.

This will let them know that the real "customers" aren't very happy.

[NewHorizon]

This will let them know that the real "customers" aren't very happy.

I thought the borrowers were the real customers.