Print

[beerbud1]

This was a clean c promoted by my then group leader. Vetted, proclaimed income at $100k a year or more.

I hadn't realized this was a supposedly vetted group loan -- I wonder if the GL claimed to have spoken with the borrower.

ETA:  Sheesh, I see it was thisguy's group.  That's a shame.  I wonder what he would have to say about all this.  Even though he posted incessently, I liked thisguy, and am on a few of his group's loans.

ETA2:  I just PM'd thisguy with a link to this thread and a request for any info he can shed on this loan.  Who knows if he'll get it, but can't hurt to try.

I don't beleive he ever talked to anyone over the phone. He vetted via the internet, Scanned  DL's, Phone bill scanned and e-mail etc..

[ToySoldier]

I can't think of too many methods of verification, within the cost parameters of small-scale Internet lending, that can verify the difference between spouses in an Internet financial transaction. . . .  I don't condone the Borrower doing an end run around Prosper's one loan per person, but I also can't see a whole lot that Prosper could ever do to prevent it. 

Then you haven't been paying attention here.  The answer is simple -- require borrowers to print out a form (like they already do to fax documents to Prosper) and get it notarized and send it in.  Many people have access to free notaries through their bank, employer, or elsewhere, and for anyone else, it costs about $10.  

Hey Gog, for about the fifth time you have ignored this -- care to comment finally?

I was surprised that Prosper didnt ask for a signed Notarization when I went through the verification process for my listing. It would have taken me a whole 10 minutes and my bank would have done it for free.

[bamalucky]

I pitched the notary idea to Prosper many months ago.There are even threads on here about it.

[ToySoldier]

I pitched the notary idea to Prosper many months ago.There are even threads on here about it.

It's just a no-brainer. Prosper was begging from minute one for ID Theft w/o that layer of verification. What would they have to lose? I dont get it.

[Mtnchick]

I pitched the notary idea to Prosper many months ago.There are even threads on here about it.

It's just a no-brainer. Prosper was begging from minute one for ID Theft w/o that layer of verification. What would they have to lose? I dont get it.

They have nothing to lose even if they DON'T get a notary. This is OUR money, not theirs. They have no reason to produce a good business model.

[Gogmagog]

Hey Gog, for about the fifth time you have ignored this -- care to comment finally?

Sorry, lots of posts, little time. 

Regarding the notary, it might help a bit.  However you do realize that the powers of a notary aren't the same in all states?  In some states, notaries can't verify documents, they can only be an impartial witness to oaths. Also, the standards of getting authorized as a notary are pathetic.  These aren't crack legal scholars, waiting to verify your identities and documents.  If you get a fake ID that can get you past a bouncer, you can fool a notary.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/11/notary_fraud.html
Requiring a notary is false security. Notary fraud is commonplace.

It is also an expense for Prosper to handle yet ANOTHER piece of paperwork to process a simple loan. Notarization only matters if Prosper checks with the Notary for every one.  Otherwise, it is worthless as a pre-loan verification.  The only thing requiring a notarization gets you, is another person to sue if things go belly up. 

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.

[bamalucky]

Gog,this thread,this court case would not be happening id Prosper required a notary signed contract.It costs Prosper nothing on their end,so why not do it?

Reading faxes is minimal time compared to buying back even 1 loan.

[xraider]

At least In Cal notaries have bonds.  Many have insurance, too.  For me, this is all about finding a way to protect lenders.  It's not expensive, and may make bad borrowers think twice.

[Gogmagog]

I pitched the notary idea to Prosper many months ago.There are even threads on here about it.

It's just a no-brainer. Prosper was begging from minute one for ID Theft w/o that layer of verification. What would they have to lose? I dont get it.

Placing barriers to people getting loans is only useful if it prevents enough fraud to offset the loss of business due to the hassle.  Their other procedures are good enough to prevent most fraud.  Spousal fraud is not such a large problem that adding ANOTHER hurdle to prevent it is worthwhile. 

[Gogmagog]

At least In Cal notaries have bonds.  Many have insurance, too.  For me, this is all about finding a way to protect lenders.  It's not expensive, and may make bad borrowers think twice.

All notaries have bonds.  However the size of the bond is small, like $10K.  If it is through an employer(like a bank) the Notary doesn't put up a dime of their own money. 

Again, it only matters if there is a lawsuit after the fact.  Hey... check it out... Thats where we are now. 

[bamalucky]

Notaries aren't gonna fake it for anyone.

I don't think 1 legitimate borrower would balk at securing a notarized document.Why would they?

[Gogmagog]

Notaries aren't gonna fake it for anyone.

I don't think 1 legitimate borrower would balk at securing a notarized document.Why would they?

I was able to get several credit cards without a notary.
I was able to get a margin account at E-Trade without notary.
I was able to get an Unsecured LOC from my bank(over the internet) without a notary.

Why for an Internet loan?

I tried to open a Sharebuilder account.  I stopped when they required that I get my Rollover IRA paperwork notarized.  Fucking hassle.  I went with E-Trade, no worries.

[nonattender]

I don't mind them making a confusing argument, or kicking up dust in front of the plaintiff, to make his life more difficult.  I draw the line when they lie.  I don't care WHY they lied.  Ends don't justify the means.

Like you used to point out, it is counter-productive to try to apply black and white moral distinctions to analysis of a "business decision".

Is it possible that "confusing arguments" can appear as "lies" to the confused - in the same way that confusing arguments can appear as
"truth" to the unconfused?  With all due respect, the moral line you are attempting to draw seems to be one of "length without breadth".

I have a somewhat fanatical devotion to the notion of "honesty", also - but I will not tell a man with a knife which way his wife ran past,
any more than I will tell a guy in a suit, whose job is to attempt to pick my pocket, how much money I have and where I keep my wallet.

If this makes me a "bad" person, in the eyes of others - so be it.

-t

[bamalucky]

I have a somewhat fanatical devotion to the notion of "honesty"

BULLSHIT!!

[xraider]

Gog, a $10k bond would go a long way to reimbursing Prosper when it makes its ID theft guarantee good.  If the cost goes to the borrower, it's very cheap insurance to Prosper.