Print

[The_Cat]

Well did the response satisfy the points made?

[xraider]

No.  The response was not substantive. 

[pioneer11]

Well did the response satisfy the points made?

Nope

[ira01]

I suspect there will be a further update here tomorrow.

[Cushie]

Cushie.... I thought you were talking about the response our lawyer got today, which was not substantive.

Sorry!

Any and all SUBSTANTIVE information will be shared.

Urbi, ROFL.

Oooh, okay.  Sorry for getting all up in arms but I really feel transparency is key, even if we're the only ones being transparent.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Let's keep our eyes on the ball.  Results are more important than having an entertaining forum circus.

We can show some respect and courtesy during the process, even though it appears to be a unilateral thing.

[The_Cat]

Maybe it's me but it raises my gall that as I'm reading this my DVR of today's CNBC has a Prosper commercial running. Yes low rates, wow great returns! He has money to loan she, needs a loan....

Run Forrest RUN!!

[bookwyrm]

Let's keep our eyes on the ball.  Results are more important than having an entertaining forum circus.

We can show some respect and courtesy during the process, even though it appears to be a unilateral thing.

I was enjoying the forum circus.   :'(

[xraider]

Fraudman, I know you're reading this as I write this.  Can you please let us know:

1.  Can the aggrieved lenders post Prosper's responses to counsel?

2.  Are the aggrieved lenders going to receive a substantive response to the questions asked in the June 3 letter to Mr. Giedgowd?

Please feel free to PM me if you don't want to post here.

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

Personally, I would be more interested in hearing from Prosper's General Counsel, rather than the musings of FraudMan.

FraudMan is not a credible source in this context.

[msava]

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

I thought the borrowers were the real customers.   

Prosper thinks the borrowers are their real customers too. Lenders are just chop liver, unfortunately.

[beerbud1]

poof

[Cushie]

Any word from Prosper?

[bamalucky]

I.    Failure to Provide Accurate Information About Risks Presented By Certain Locations or Types of Loans

http://www.prosper.com/help/topics/lender-default_sale_history.aspx

(iirc, this link has been there for quite a while)



II.    Poor Collections Results

At the moment we are told whether a late loan is in collections or not, and see a collection payment applied if one (hopefully) comes. I’m not sure what the group of lenders is looking for here. How many times the borrower was called? How many “promises to pay” were made? I don’t see how that improves lender performance. I see this only satisfying curiosity.

As pointed out here: ( http://www.prospers.org/forum/informed_response_to_my_blog_post-t6383.0.html;msg96555#msg96555 – limited access) I would guess Prosper believes they cannot themselves pursue collections after receiving a CnD.

Sure, the blender offset would be nice to have.



III.    Failure to Sell Defaulted Loans

As I’ve already stated, I don’t know how Prosper could have won either way with the last debt sale attempt. There seems to be an even split of lenders that are glad the loans weren’t sold hoping for another payment, and those who are disappointed that the debt sale didn’t happen.

Perhaps if the loans were sold at the time for pennies on the dollar, this 3rd point would have been “Prosper didn’t sell my bad loans for enough”.



IV.    Failure to Prosecute “New Agency Test” Lawsuits

Lenders participating in the test sold (gave) these loans back to Prosper. Lenders no longer have ownership of the notes; I don’t see how lenders can demand much of anything on these.

(I opted out of the New Agency Test, but am still curious about the results myself.)


 
V.    Failure to Protect Lenders’ Interests After A Borrower Claims to Have Declared Bankruptcy

Much of this appears to be resolved with the recent update. I would hazard a guess that junk buyers wouldn’t buy any loans where Prosper was notified of BK, and the BK tag was used to keep these out. All is moot now.



VI.    Failure to Honor Repurchase Guarantee

I fail to see the problem with this 102017? How do lenders know this is identity theft?

The rest is not unreasonable. There should be some sort of third party oversight if Prosper wishes to continue with the ID theft guarantee.



VII.   Failure to Protect Lenders From Other Instances of Borrower Fraud

The funny part about this section is that there are two cases where known lenders still bid on a listing despite what was known based on the forums. Incredible.

But, like VI, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to have third party oversight regarding reports of fraud.



VIII.   Failure to Provide Accurate Performance Information

I have never heard the first 3 paragraphs brought up before the letter was sent. I’m not even sure why this is on in the letter.

The rest of the section was corrected since the letter was sent.   

   

X.    Retroactive Changes to Terms of Service, to the Detriment of Lenders

The whole second loan thing has been discussed in depth on this forum by both sides. I for one am not bothered by second loans.

I think it’s reasonable to expect the overcharge from AmSher to be fixed. I think it’s unreasonable to expect this to be fixed immediately. The dollar amount here has to be extremely small.



meh...

This was loanchimps last post.He hasn't been back. I guess he couldn't stand that the overwhelming majority of people here feel that he was wrong.

LoanChimp
Posts:    2706 (4.876 per day)
Position:    Hero Member
Date Registered:    January 03, 2007, 01:44:49 AM
Last Active:    June 27, 2008, 12:35:27 AM

[xraider]

RatLadder was last here on June 25.