Print

[beerbud1]

Gee i thought some folks here were genuine about helping me get my money back versus, let them get away with a bankruptcy and paying me pennies on the dollar.

[ira01]

There are so many better ID theft cases out there, as Ira so ably describes. Why do you focus on this bad one?!?

Because the clear-cut ID-theft cases that we know about (such as Leporello's Id-theft loan, and the Victoria Crawford loans), lenders already forced Prosper to repurchase.  So there are no damages (except interest for the delay).  The Gaerke loan hasn't (yet) been repurchased.  But we'll soon find out exactly what Prosper knows about this loan, including exactly what verification steps it took, and exactly what evidence (if any) it has that Mr. Gaerke was the actual borrower.  I'm sure that will prove highly interesting.

[xraider]

When I started this thread, it was with the intent of following the ID theft claim.

There are now 2 issues.  People can feel free to split an issue off, if they want.  I remain interested in both issues.

Nora, Ira's whole point is that lenders don't know the universe of ID theft claims because Prosper keeps that information hidden from us.  If you know of any way to get info about possible ID theft loans short of discovery, I'd appreciate your letting me know.

[ira01]

Nora, Ira's whole point is that lenders don't know the universe of ID theft claims because Prosper keeps that information hidden from us.  If you know of any way to get info about possible ID theft loans short of discovery, I'd appreciate your letting me know.

Exactly.  Especially since if not by design, certainly by effect, Prosper's vigorous efforts to prevent lenders from having access to any information that can be used to ferret out ID-theft loans has been a significant impediment to lenders finding these loans and forcing Prosper to repurchase them pursuant to its now largely worthless "100% ID-theft guarantee."

[cubbiesnextyr]

forcing Prosper to repurchase them pursuant to its now largely worthless "100% ID-theft guarantee."

Perhaps this is all our misinterpretation of the guarantee.  It says 100% ID-theft guarantee.  Maybe they mean they'll only buy it back if it's 100% ID-theft.  This case is at most 50% ID-theft, perhaps even less.  I mean, the last name is the same, so that's 50% right there.

[Gogmagog]

forcing Prosper to repurchase them pursuant to its now largely worthless "100% ID-theft guarantee."

Perhaps this is all our misinterpretation of the guarantee.  It says 100% ID-theft guarantee.  Maybe they mean they'll only buy it back if it's 100% ID-theft.  This case is at most 50% ID-theft, perhaps even less.  I mean, the last name is the same, so that's 50% right there.

truth

[mothandrust]

Prosper just made a little typo, cut them some slack!

The last just debt sale offered lenders 1.5 cents on the dollar for the 4+ month lates, let's round that up to 2 cents on the dollar.

This is not a "100% ID theft" case, it is roughly 50% ID theft.

50% of 2 cents is 1 cent on the dollar.

So Prosper has a 1.00% Identity Theft Guarantee.

[christoofar215]

I don't think requiring notarization will contribute enough to the safety of the process to compensate for the extra burdens it places on honest Borrowers, and the additional cost to Prosper.  Cheap and effective is what you need, Notarization is neither.

Then it would be fraud/ID theft and P-----r would have to honor their guarantee. Probably why they don't required notarized statements.

Yes, this must be the real reason. mtnchick has won.

Actually, the real reason is obvious -- Prosper doesn't do more to prevent ID-theft (and to make it easier to prove it when it does occur), because doing so is not in its financial interest.  Prosper just wants to originate as many loans as it possibly can, because it makes money off each one, regardless of whether the loan if fraudulent, and regardless of whether the borrower ever pays it back.  Lenders take all the risk of fraud and ID-theft, except in those circumstances where lenders can prove ID-theft to Prosper's satisfaction, something that used to occur with some frequency before Prosper methodically eliminated lenders' ability to do so, by scrubbing every trace of PII it can from the listings.  That's why Prosper has only repurchased one loan that originated in the last almost 13 months.  Without the city information and borrower-supplied PII, we can no longer find the Victoria Crawfords who take out 10 loans in other people's names (discovered by forum detectives, not Prosper), the infamous Leporello discovered NY ID-theft loan, (which Prosper had studiously ignored, including being given the freaking name and phone number of the NYPD detective handling the ID-theft investigation, until there was such a shitstorm on the forum that Prosper had no choice but to repurchase it), etc. 

And let's not forget all the fraudulent listings discovered by forum detectives thanks to PII (and no thanks to Prosper), including StylumCEO (who was caught by forum detectives offering to trade his camera for being added as an authorized user to a person with good credit's account so as to fraudulently raise his credit score, Indictment-Man (who was outed as being under indictment for LOAN FRAUD; did Prosper thank the forum detectives who found this?  No, it suspended one for posting a link to an FBI PRESS-RELEASE announcing the indictment), Conviction-Man (who was discovered to have been convicted of federal crimes and was soon to report to a federal prison for 24+months -- "coincidentally" his Prosper loan listing was in the amount of the criminal fine/restitution order he had to pay), etc.  So does Prosper learn from all of this that they need to tighten their review of listings, and provide more information to lenders so we could find more of these miscreants?  Of course not -- instead it cut lenders off at the knees in being able to protect themselves (can't interfere with the number one goal of increasing originations, after all).

+100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.01

[xraider]

Prosper has filed a motion to amend its answer.  The motion states:

As is more fully set forth in the affidavit of Mr. Fuller, Defendant, consistent with its
usual practice, did in fact directly make a $25,000 loan to Plaintiff and disbursed the loan
proceeds into the account of Plaintiff and Ashley Gaerke. Also consistent with its usual practice,
the promissory notes evidencing the loan were thereafter sold by Prosper to the persons who
were the winning bidders (“Lenders”) on the loan in Prosper’s online credit marketplace, with
servicing rights retained by Prosper. Prosper acts as loan servicer on behalf of the Lenders who
own the loan. Thereafter, Defendant has serviced the loans for the Lenders, i.e., collected
payments from Plaintiff and distributed them to the Lenders. Defendant, has been, and remains,
the proper party defendant in this matter.

[beerbud1]

Xraider, thank you for all of your detective work. The lenders on this loan (which I am one) appreciate your efforts and the effort to keep Propser and it's management honest with the courts.

[ira01]

Prosper has filed a motion to amend its answer.  The motion states:

As is more fully set forth in the affidavit of Mr. Fuller, Defendant, consistent with its
usual practice, did in fact directly make a $25,000 loan to Plaintiff and disbursed the loan
proceeds into the account of Plaintiff and Ashley Gaerke. Also consistent with its usual practice,
the promissory notes evidencing the loan were thereafter sold by Prosper to the persons who
were the winning bidders (“Lenders”) on the loan in Prosper’s online credit marketplace, with
servicing rights retained by Prosper. Prosper acts as loan servicer on behalf of the Lenders who
own the loan. Thereafter, Defendant has serviced the loans for the Lenders, i.e., collected
payments from Plaintiff and distributed them to the Lenders. Defendant, has been, and remains,
the proper party defendant in this matter.

Xraider, do you have (and can you post) Fuller's affidavit?  I can't wait to see how he explains the "error" (or if he even tries to).

[lenderguy]

Xraider, thank you for all of your detective work. The lenders on this loan (which I am one) appreciate your efforts and the effort to keep Propser and it's management honest with the courts.

We can't lose sight of the fact that Prosper's relationship with the borrower and lenders is not a central issue to this case

[Urbi_et_Orbi]

I wonder how the court can look at the original and the amended document - and not wonder what the hell is going on here?

[xraider]

The affidavit attaches the answer.  No explanation.  If there was one, I'd have posted it.

What IS intriguing, though, is appears that Edward Giedgowd was going to submit his own affidavit.  See page 3 of attached.  I wonder if that would have contained the explanation?  Conspiracy theory here: Maybe it was just too lame, and Prosper decided the best way to address this is just to bury it and say it's really an immaterial change?

Paragraph 29 of the answer now reads:

Admitted. The promissory notes evidencing the loan were thereafter sold by Prosper to the persons who were the winning bidders ("Lenders") on the loan in Prosper's online credit marketplace, with servicing rights retained by Prosper.  Prosper acts as loan servicer on behalf of the Lenders who own the loan.

[onthefence]

Admitted. The promissory notes evidencing the loan were thereafter sold by Prosper to the persons who were the winning bidders ("Lenders") on the loan in Prosper's online credit marketplace, with servicing rights retained by Prosper.  Prosper acts as loan servicer on behalf of the Lenders who own the loan.

The bright side of this is that if Prosper folds, at least lenders retain ownership of the loans.