Prospers.ORG Prosper Forum

Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Prospers.ORG!   Login here

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Good read on the Prosper blog today: Debt Sales and Charge-off Collections  (Read 8604 times)

Investar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile

Debt Sales and Charge-off Collections – Status and Plans
"So what’s happened in the past 15 months?"
http://blog.prosper.com/2009/08/10/debt-sales-and-charge-off-collections-–-status-and-plans/

Doug Fuller runs down the debt auctions and reviews the alternative efforts they used (and will use) to get lenders the best recovery on our deadbeats.

"Perhaps most importantly, the new legal structure that Prosper adopted as part of the registration process gives us the flexibility to pursue a wider range of collections. Starting now, our plans relative to charged off accounts are as follows:
1. We continue to monitor the distressed debt market and to see if a sale is a possibility.
2. Until such time that the expected sale price exceeds the projected net recoveries for the first 12 months after charge-off, we are not going to sell.
3. We are going to place the accounts with a collection agency that specializes in charged-off accounts (the first agency has been identified and the contract is in the works).
4. The agency is going to employ a settlement strategy with settlement authority based on age, charge-off balance and current credit score. For post charge-off accounts, this is the best strategy to maximize total dollars recovered."

"In order to maximize dollars to lenders, Prosper is going to waive any Failed Payment Fees, Bank Draft Fees or Servicing Fees that would come to Prosper in our normal payment hierarchy."

Agreeing to the following clause is a bit more palatable now, I'd say. Gotta have it in there. Now when your borrower screws up, Prosper can now do whatever it takes to wring 'em completely dry and drop whatever falls out, into you lap....

"Prosper and any third-party servicer servicing a borrower loan shall have the right, without your consent, at any time and from time to time and subject to the servicing standard set forth in this Section, to change the payment date or reduce the principal amount or the rate of interest or the place and manner of making loan payments on a borrower loan, or amend or waive any other term of such borrower loan, or charge off any borrower loan that Prosper or any third-party servicer servicing the borrower loan deems uncollectible."
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 03:50:20 pm by Investar »
Logged

112233

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1657/-3565
  • Posts: 27460
    • View Profile
    • Prosper Report

I can't help but put this into context with our first introduction to DF by shira and how those strongly worded statements panned out. I will wait several months before getting excited.
Logged

cowdog

  • Guest

LIES!

Quote
The $695K in payments came from only 385 loans (14.3% of the 2,697 loans that could have been sold). Those 2,697 loans were funded by 26,401 lenders.  Of these lenders, 40% (10,588) received at least one payment and 24% received more than 1.5% of principal. If you look at lenders with at least 10 loans in the population, 85% received at least one payment and 41% made more than 1.5%. This is a clear example of why diversification across many loans is important.

Oh, come on.

This is like saying the odds of winning a lottery increase when you buy multiple tickets.


ETA to tone my post down, I wasn't nice the first time.  ;D
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 04:38:39 pm by cowdog »
Logged

Fred93

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 3915
    • View Profile

3. We are going to place the accounts with a collection agency that specializes in charged-off accounts (the first agency has been identified and the contract is in the works).

Oh my god.  Future tense!  He hasn't done this yet!  They've been sitting on their asses for how many months now?

cowdog

  • Guest

3. We are going to place the accounts with a collection agency that specializes in charged-off accounts (the first agency has been identified and the contract is in the works).

Oh my god.  Future tense!  He hasn't done this yet!  They've been sitting on their asses for how many months now?

Yes Fred, the entire post is just nonsense as usual. Just an appeasement for those who don't read closely.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 04:41:42 pm by cowdog »
Logged

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +110/-6877
  • Posts: 47391
    • View Profile

3. We are going to place the accounts with a collection agency that specializes in charged-off accounts (the first agency has been identified and the contract is in the works).

Oh my god.  Future tense!  He hasn't done this yet!  They've been sitting on their asses for how many months now?

It's been about 16 months since Prosper breached its contracts with us by unilaterally canceling the JDB sales because the best offers supposedly came with "unacceptable" (to Prosper) "conditions."  It's been over 19 months since Prosper's last JDB sale.  Good to know that DoFu is acting with a sense of urgency.   ::)
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Mtnchick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +1619/-1024
  • Posts: 35352
    • View Profile

Lobby worthy
Logged
Classic comment from Urbi to a poster who said they were leaving:

"Once again, we note that your threats are hollow and you come across like a sad, lonely blowhard.

I doubt anyone here gives a shit about you.  We pretty much all know that you are a vile and unethical parasite of a human being with an abnormal craving for attention."

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +110/-6877
  • Posts: 47391
    • View Profile

Agreeing to the following clause is a bit more palatable now, I'd say. Gotta have it in there. Now when your borrower screws up, Prosper can now do whatever it takes to wring 'em completely dry and drop whatever falls out, into you lap....

"Prosper and any third-party servicer servicing a borrower loan shall have the right, without your consent, at any time and from time to time and subject to the servicing standard set forth in this Section, to change the payment date or reduce the principal amount or the rate of interest or the place and manner of making loan payments on a borrower loan, or amend or waive any other term of such borrower loan, or charge off any borrower loan that Prosper or any third-party servicer servicing the borrower loan deems uncollectible."

IMHO, this is a huge load of crap.  Does anyone here trust Prosper to make the best decisions for lenders as to how to responsibly utilize this awesome new power?  I think it is much more likely that Prosper will do what it wants to in its OWN interest first, then in the borrowers' interest.  In any event, Prosper can certainly do this if it so chooses with loans made AFTER the LRA authorizes it to do so.  Prosper has NO authority whatsoever to do this with the existing loans -- indeed, the legal agreements between lenders and Prosper expressly PROHIBIT this conduct (although Prosper has admitted doing it anyway, in direct contravention to the LRA).  I really hope someone sues the hell out of Prosper over its many breaches of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, misrepresentations, etc.  Prosper makes me sick.   >:(

Nominate for the Lobby.
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

big-al

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 869
    • View Profile

3. We are going to place the accounts with a collection agency that specializes in charged-off accounts (the first agency has been identified and the contract is in the works).

Oh my god.  Future tense!  He hasn't done this yet!  They've been sitting on their asses for how many months now?

I realize that Prosper hasn't shown that it's interested in doing what's legal - but they can't legally pursue the strategies mentioned with P2 loans, can they?  So those would only apply to P3 loans, none of which is old enough to be 4+ months late.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +110/-6877
  • Posts: 47391
    • View Profile

LIES!

Quote
The $695K in payments came from only 385 loans (14.3% of the 2,697 loans that could have been sold). Those 2,697 loans were funded by 26,401 lenders.  Of these lenders, 40% (10,588) received at least one payment and 24% received more than 1.5% of principal. If you look at lenders with at least 10 loans in the population, 85% received at least one payment and 41% made more than 1.5%. This is a clear example of why diversification across many loans is important.

Oh, come on.

This is like saying the odds of winning a lottery increase when you buy multiple tickets.

Not only that, I wonder how many of these 14.3% of loans that made PCOCT payments really shouldn't have been charged off in the first place, because they were still making recent payments?  As we all know, Prosper charged off a bunch of loans that were still making payments (but which had fallen at least 4 months late).  Many of these promptly stopped paying altogether as a result of the charge-off (for example, I had a loan that was making pretty regular half-payments about every 6-8 weeks -- as soon as Prosper charged it off, I never received another penny).  But I have no doubt that there were a bunch of other loans that had been making regular late payments, and that continued to do so after the charge-off.  It is inaccurate to attribute these payments to Prosper's PCOCT program, because the borrowers had already been making payments anyway.  I wouldn't be surprised if a significant chunk of the 14.3% of loans supposedly making PCOCT payments would have made the same payments anyway had Prosper not charged them off.  Thus, those loans should be excluded from the comparison with the JDB sales.  Thus, contrary to DoFu's misleading spin, the PCOCT program is probably doing MUCH worse than JDB sales would have done if loans with recent significant payments were excluded from both programs.  
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

ira01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +110/-6877
  • Posts: 47391
    • View Profile

3. We are going to place the accounts with a collection agency that specializes in charged-off accounts (the first agency has been identified and the contract is in the works).

Oh my god.  Future tense!  He hasn't done this yet!  They've been sitting on their asses for how many months now?

I realize that Prosper hasn't shown that it's interested in doing what's legal - but they can't legally pursue the strategies mentioned with P2 loans, can they?  So those would only apply to P3 loans, none of which is old enough to be 4+ months late.

No they can't -- but Prosper has already admitted that it has made such modifications to pre-P3 loans notwithstanding the illegality of its so doing.  There's a thread about that here somewhere (in the Lobby, I believe).
Logged
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

Urbi_et_Orbi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • Posts: 9253
  • Suspended Since 9/3/2009
    • View Profile

Investar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 382
    • View Profile
Logged

Urbi_et_Orbi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • Posts: 9253
  • Suspended Since 9/3/2009
    • View Profile

Preserving a snap of the blog post as of this afternoon:

http://blog.prosper.com/2009/08/10/debt-sales-and-charge-off-collections-%e2%80%93-status-and-plans/
Quote
Today’s topic focuses on what in the industry is called “Recoveries”. A recovery is the amount of money that you can extract from a debtor once a loan has been charged off and the value of the asset has been written down to zero. Although effective collections on charged off loans can reduce the impact of credit losses, keep in mind that recoveries can be significantly less important to a lender’s success than loan selection, pricing for risk, and diversification.

Given the regulatory structure under which Prosper was launched, there were certain practices that Prosper could not use without the consent of a majority of lenders. Our terms of service stated that at day 31 past due we place the account with a collection agency engaged to “cure” the account. If they were not successful, when accounts reached 121 days past due, they were held in a pool (with the agency continuing collection activity) until that pool was of sufficient size to sell the accounts to an unaffiliated debt-buyer.

The debt sale portion of this process worked reasonably well through year-end 2007. Prosper had four debt sales and lenders received recoveries ranging from 2.4% (cents on the dollar of outstanding principal) to 30%. There was a different buyer for each of the four debts sales and each buyer used different criteria to segment their pricing. Factors included: credit grade at origination, home-ownership and state of resident.

Looking below the surface of these sales, there were signs of weakness in the demand for Prosper’s loans. In the cases of the early sales, although a number of debt buyers were interested in viewing the file, there were few bidders. No previous bidder ever bid on a subsequent sale. There was a downward trend in sale price from the first to the last sale. In general the feedback we received from debt buyers was that the file was too small and the collections performance of the loans was unknown.

In April 2008, we sent out a bid file for what would have been our fifth debt sale. At the time we sent out the file, we knew that the market was saturated and prices were falling rapidly. When the bidding closed, we had what it appeared to be a bid of 3%. However, as we went into contract discussions, the buyer added a number of provisions and other conditions that made the deal unworkable. The best unencumbered bid that we had was only 1.5 cents on the dollar – with no differentiation by account attributes. We concluded that taking this offer was not the best economic decision, and not in the best interest of lenders.

So what’s happened in the past 15 months? Were we right or wrong not to take the bid?

The inventory of debt for sale continues to grow. Michael Ginsberg of Kaulkin Ginberg estimates that prices have fallen by 35% or more in the past year. Moreover, in a market saturated with credit card debt, there is no appetite for a new asset class such as Prosper loans.

If you look at the population of loans that were slated to be sold plus all the loans that would have become eligible to be sold by November 30th, 2008 – this represents the universe of loans that would have been sold during Calendar Year 2008. It totals 2,697 loans with total principal balance as of DPD 121 of $30,561,042. Going from the cut-off date of the sale file – or from the date when a loan reached 121 day past due, whichever is later, and looking at the payments received net any agency commissions, we have collected $695,244.22 in “recovery payments” on these loans or 2.27% of the principal balance [note: I use quotes around "recovery payments" because we did not identify payments as such until we implemented the "Charge Off" status on 10/28].

This shows a value higher than what the loans can command in current marketplace. So that should be a good thing – still there is an issue. The $695K in payments came from only 385 loans (14.3% of the 2,697 loans that could have been sold). Those 2,697 loans were funded by 26,401 lenders.  Of these lenders, 40% (10,588) received at least one payment and 24% received more than 1.5% of principal. If you look at lenders with at least 10 loans in the population, 85% received at least one payment and 41% made more than 1.5%. This is a clear example of why diversification across many loans is important.

Why do we think not selling was the right decision? The overall dollars received are more.  The average of the individual lender recoveries was 1.94% — again better than what was possible from a debt sale. We understand that at the end of the day many lenders will fare worse than they would have with a debt sale price of 1.5 cents; however, lenders were compensated based on the payment behavior of the loans they chose to fund. Had we taken the debt sale price of 1.5%, not only would lenders as a whole be worse off, but the lenders with paying loans could argue that they were being forced to subsidize lenders who chose loans that didn’t pay.

Perhaps most importantly, the new legal structure that Prosper adopted as part of the registration process gives us the flexibility to pursue a wider range of collections.  Starting now, our plans relative to charged off accounts are as follows:

1. We continue to monitor the distressed debt market and to see if a sale is a possibility.
2. Until such time that the expected sale price exceeds the projected net recoveries for the first 12 months after charge-off, we are not going to sell.
3. We are going to place the accounts with a collection agency that specializes in charged-off accounts (the first agency has been identified and the contract is in the works).
4. The agency is going to employ a settlement strategy with settlement authority based on age, charge-off balance and current credit score. For post charge-off accounts, this is the best strategy to maximize total dollars recovered.

In order to maximize dollars to lenders, Prosper is going to waive any Failed Payment Fees, Bank Draft Fees or Servicing Fees that would come to Prosper in our normal payment hierarchy.

In general, the downside of employing a settlement strategy has been that it reduces the sale value of accounts that do not pay, but were offered a settlement. The lack of a market for Prosper loans means that this strategy really has no downside for lenders.

Although these steps are a departure from our original approach to severe delinquency, I am confident that they will result in both a larger amount of recovery dollars and a better per lender result for diversified lenders.

BrassKnuckles

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile

In my opinion...

They're just putting the lipstick back on the pig, ramping up to get more VC money and/or a buy out I guess.  They obviously could give to shi*ts about what lenders think.  

As long as enough VC money comes in to keep the interns running to get mgmt's daily Starbucks and setting up those early afternoon tee times, no worries!  
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up