Talk:GoodLeap

Request edits to introduction and company structure sections

Hi, my name is Jesse and I work for GoodLeap. I would like to request the following edits to the GoodLeap page.

• In the Introduction, please add the word "energy" after "solar" in the first sentence. This is simply to clarify that the sentence is referring to the "solar energy" industry.

Done. EMsmile (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please move the following two paragraph's out of the 'History' section and into the 'Ownership structure' section. These paragraphs are out of place in history and are a better match in 'Ownership structure'. Please place them directly after the first paragraph of 'Ownership structure', right after the sentence that begins: "80% of the top 50 solar operations use the company's platform...":

Loanpal offers homeowners the option of bundling their solar loans into conventional mortgages. This allows customers to spread payments out over decades and lowers costs. Bundled loans are written in two steps: first, solar panel installers present Loanpal as a financing option. Then, once the solar project finance deal is complete, homeowners are given the option to tuck the loan into an overall refinancing of their mortgage. The solar loans are funded through warehouse lines with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Western Alliance Bancorp, and mortgages are sold to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. and others.

Through Loanpal’s direct pay program, the company contributes $20 to GivePower for each loan sold. Each $20 contribution is enough to provide clean water for one person for 20 years.

• Create a new section called 'Funding' directly after the above two paragraphs, right before "In January 2021, Loanpal raised $800 million in a funding round..." The content there is more about funding than about "Ownership structure."
• In the sentence just mentioned above, (the first sentence of the new 'Funding' section), please change 'Loanpal' to 'GoodLeap'. This maintains consistency of the name of the company in the article.
• Directly after the above sentence "In January 2021, GoodLeap raised $800 million in a funding round..." please add the following sentence and sources which adds more and updated information to the 'Funding' section: The company received an additional $800 million in funding from MSD Partners, BDT Capital Partners and Davidson Kempner in October 2021. Between January and October 2021 the company had raised a total of over $1 billion in funding.

References

Thanks so much for all your help. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made one of the requested edits now. Hoping that someone else will have time/interest to do the rest. However, I am wondering if this is really the best way to go about it. I understand that you have a COI but I am wondering if you would be allowed to make non-controversial edits to this article anyhow. Apart from that I would recommend that you make improvements to other Wikipedia articles as well to help build up your reputation and experience a bit on Wikipedia. This would help you later on. Just a suggestion. I am pinging Clayoquot because I see that they have helped you in the past. Perhaps they have a better suggestion than I do. EMsmile (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi EMsmile. Thanks for implementing the edit. If you would specify which of my edit requests above you believe are appropriate for me to make myself, I would be happy to make them with your permission. I have thought about contributing to other Wikipedia articles that I do not have a COI with. I will certainly take your advice under consideration. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Totally go for contributing to other Wikipedia articles! You'd probably be able to improve lots of things. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked for you in the Facebook group Wikipedia Weekly (you can join that group as well). One of the replies there was: "Things which are ‘minor’ edits (like fixing spelling mistakes) or updating ‘Mere’ facts (like the new CEO’s name in the infobox) are also uncontroversial and can be done - best also to add a self-declaration in the edit summary nonetheless. But once you start adjusting the prose…: take it to the talkpage." - I would also encourage you to add information about controversies, problems, court cases (with references), if they exist. This would show that you have an interest in showing a balanced, objective account of this company - not some sort of "second website" about your company. Please also note that pageviews for such small company cases usually remain rather low. In this case it's 60 pageviews per month at present. So there won't be much impact. You might achieve more impact if you help improve related content articles, such as the one on solar power, renewable energy and so on. Good luck! P.S. it might be better to not have "GoodLeap" in your user name, as it's meant to be a personal account, not a company account. EMsmile (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

closing as it appears that all the changes were already implemented Ptrnext (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Update company numbers and add two awards

Hi. I have a few simple updates to some numbers, plus two awards to add to the Awards and honors section.

• In the first paragraph of the 'Ownership structure' section, please change the entire sentence that begins "The company has loaned more than $27 billion..." to the following:

The company has loaned more than $13 billion to over 380,000 households upgrading to sustainable power across 50 states.

 Done Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Please change the very next sentence that begins "The company is an approved seller-service..." to the following:

The company is an approved seller-service of both government sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has raised over $1.6 billion in funding for its consumer finance loans.

 Done Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Please add the following two sentences to the end of the Awards and honors section:

In 2022, GoodLeap was named #2 on Fast Company’s list of the Most Innovative Finance Companies, and ranked #30 on Fast Company's list of the Most Innovative Companies in the World.

In 2022, GoodLeap ranked #10 on the Forbe's Fintech top 50 list.

References

The two above are already  Done Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ptrnext, I saw you recently made some helpful changes to this page. Would you mind looking over my above edit request? Thanks so much. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a quick look and it seems OK to me. I'd say go ahead. However, could you also add something about what competitors/opponents/critics say about GoodLeap? Anything controversial that has happened? It would would emphasise your neutrality if you also added content to the article that you'd perhaps not add to your company's website if you know what I mean (i.e. something critical; with references)... EMsmile (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

All  Done @JesseGoodLeap Cheers. Duke Gilmore (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Duke Gilmore. Thanks for helping out with my edit request. Since I had the green light from EMsmile to make the edits myself, I had done that, so you were correct that the edits had already been made, including the edits in the first bullet point. However, when I made that edit, I used a different, more up-to-date source, which states that the company "has loaned more than $18 billion…" I would appreciate if you can change that number back from $13 billion to $18 billion, based on this source: https://www.forbes.com/profile/hayes-barnard/?sh=2429fe672b28

Also, the number of households who have received loans from GoodLeap is now beyond 600,000. Thank you, JesseGoodLeap (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Addition to the History section

Hi, I am requesting to have the following sentence added to the end of History:

In December 2022, GoodLeap formed an advisory council made up of celebrities and business veterans, including Tony Gonzalez, Edward Norton, Shailene Woodley, and Jeff Immelt.

I would appreciate assistance from the community in implementing this addition. Thanks, JesseGoodLeap (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

JesseGoodLeap (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi again EMsmile. I would like to add the above sentence to the end of the History section, and want to run it by you first before I make the edit, unless you want to make the edit yourself. Thanks again for your assistance. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine, go ahead. I think you can in future make edits of a similar nature yourself without waiting for permissions. I would say you have "established your credentials" by now. Again, I urge you to also improve other Wikipedia articles if you can, not just this one. EMsmile (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and understood about basic future edits. I also appreciate the guidance on helping improve Wikipedia as a whole. I see there are hundreds of articles which need copy editing, a task I enjoy. I'll start on those to help the broader community. Thanks again. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi JesseGoodLeap, despite what EMsmile says above, per Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, you should continue making talk page edit requests for proposed changes as you have done here for articles with which you have a conflict of interest. The Plain and simple conflict of interest guide has a helpful guide as you consider future changes to articles with which you have a connection. Best, Spencer^T•C 04:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, just to say that in future I won't make those edits anymore that you request on the talk page of GoodLeap just because I don't have the time & interest and personally think that you can make those yourself, although Spence has pointed out that you cannot, as per the guidance. So hopefully someone else will make them for you in future. I will take this page of my watchlist now. Good luck with everything! EMsmile (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ownership structure and GivePower section

Hello. I would like to request a few updates to the page to keep the article current. The first three bullet points concern the first paragraph of the "Ownership structure" section. The fourth bullet point is a request to add a new section.

• Please change the third sentence in the first paragraph to the following:

As of 2023, the company has loaned more than $23 billion in solar equipment, batteries and other sustainable fixtures to over 380,000 households upgrading to sustainable power across 50 states.

• Please add the following new sentence directly after the above third sentence:

The default rate on their loans is less than 1%.

• At the end of the same paragraph, please change the number $1.6 billion to $2.25 billion.
• Directly after the "Ownership structure" section, please create a new section called "GivePower". Please add the following content to the section:

The company's non-profit arm is called GivePower, which builds solar-powered water and energy systems around the world. GoodLeap covers GivePower's overhead, but most of the non-profit's funding comes from donations by companies, which gives the companies a social responsibility program and a chance to send employees on team-building trips to install GoodLeap solar systems.

References

Thanks so much. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply 10-JUL-2023

  Unable to review  

1. The provided source exists behind a paywall. Please provide the relevant text from the source which confirms the claims.
2. Please note, if the source is an interview with Barnard, please provide sources for the information which originate from neutral third parties, rather than the subject themself.

Regards,  Spintendo  18:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Spintendo. Here is the request again, but this time I am including relevant quotes from the paywalled article, which is not an interview, and putting them in the citations. Also, please note that none of the quoted text posted here in the references come from the few times in the article Barnard is quoted. The first three bullet points concern the first paragraph of the "Ownership structure" section. The fourth bullet point is a request to add a new section.

• Please change the third sentence in the first paragraph of the "Ownership structure" section to the following. Please note that the only new information I am adding to the pre-existing sentence is the date "As of 2023," which is the date of the source article, and changing "$13 billion" to "$23 billion". The other numbers are substantiated by the pre-existing sources:

As of 2023, the company has loaned more than $23 billion in solar equipment, batteries and other sustainable fixtures to over 380,000 households upgrading to sustainable power across 50 states.

• Please add the following new sentence directly after the above third sentence:

The default rate on their loans is less than 1%.

• Please change the last sentence of the same paragraph (the first paragraph) of the "Ownership structure" section to the following. Please note that the only new information is the change from "$1.6 billion" to "$2.25 billion". Please note that the sources already supporting the other information in the sentence should remain as they are.

The company is an approved seller-servicer of both government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has raised over $2.25 billion in funding for its consumer finance loans.

• Directly after the "Ownership structure" section, please create a new section called "GivePower". Please add the following content to the section:

The company's non-profit arm is called GivePower, which builds and delivers solar-powered water and energy systems around the world. GoodLeap covers GivePower's overhead, but most of the non-profit's funding comes from donations by companies, which gives the companies a social responsibility program and a chance to send employees on team-building trips to install GoodLeap solar systems.

References

Thanks again for your quick and helpful responses. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and for messaging me about it I had a question about the Financial Times article, you said that it wasn't an interview with anyone from the company, but I'm curious how the author came about obtaining their information. It is quite a lot of information that the author provides about the company and its charity, and it's rare that an author goes out of their way on their own accord to investigate all of this information. So I'm curious what the genesis of the article was. You're saying it wasn't any kind of discussion with company leaders? Please advise. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  19:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo. I hope you’re well and thanks for the clarifying questions. I want to reassure you that as far as I know, the author created his article using accepted and reliable journalistic methods which are expected of a journalist working for a highly regarded news outlet like the Financial Times. The fact changes I’m requesting are not from quotes by GoodLeap or Hayes Barnard, but so must be third-party sources. Since Wikipedia considers the Financial Times a reliable source, I think we can be certain that any numbers or other statements of fact have been corroborated by the journalist as true—that is the job of the author, and can be relied upon for use on Wikipedia. Thanks so much for all your help. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

 Reviewing request. Reply pending  Spintendo  17:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 14-AUG-2023

Below you will see where proposals from your request have been quoted with reviewer decisions and feedback inserted underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please read the enclosed notes within the proposal review section below for information on each request. Additional changes were made to the article to improve upon the article's tone.  Spintendo  23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Spintendo. Thanks for implementing 3 of the 4 requests above. I also noticed that you changed much of the language so that the article's overall tone was improved. I would like to take exception to some of those changes you made, which I believe were overly severe. Please consider re-adding the following sentences, which are highly edited from their original versions:

• In the History section you left the first part of a much longer sentence: "In 2020, the team launched its online platform." I think the extreme brevity leaves the reader wondering exactly what this "online platform" does. Adding just a few more words adds clarity and useful information:

In 2020, the team launched its online platform for financing energy efficient home improvement products.

• Also in the History section, it is appropriate to state what else changed for Loanpal when it rebranded to GoodLeap. Please consider adding to the sentence that is there now the following:

In June 2021, Loanpal rebranded to GoodLeap and began financing other sustainable home improvement products.

• In the "Ownership structure" section, please add back this abbreviated version of the original, which is factual and useful information.

GoodLeap offers homeowners the option of bundling their solar loans into conventional mortgages. The solar loans are funded through Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Western Alliance Bancorp, and mortgages are sold to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others.

References

Thanks again, JesseGoodLeap (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request review 14-AUG-2023

As of 2023, the company has loaned more than $23 billion in solar equipment, batteries and other sustainable fixtures to over 380,000 households upgrading to sustainable power across 50 states  Approved. The default rate on their loans is less than 1%.  Approved. The company is an approved seller-servicer of both government-sponsored entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and has raised over $2.25 billion in funding for its consumer finance loans  Approved. The company's non-profit arm is called GivePower, which builds and delivers solar-powered water and energy systems around the world. GoodLeap covers GivePower's overhead, but most of the non-profit's funding comes from donations by companies, which gives the companies a social responsibility program and a chance to send employees on team-building trips to install GoodLeap solar systems  Partly-approved. ___________

Is so bed to have solar panel goodleap is ripoff

bed idea to have solar panel goodleap is ripoff 2603:8000:EF01:8246:E183:9BC7:B62D:746F (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversy / History

Hi. I'd like to propose that the new sentence added under "Controversy" be rewritten and moved to History as per WP:CSECTION. The following is a more accurate description/summation of Time's coverage of GoodLeap in their article:

In January 2024, a Time report mentioned GoodLeap as one of several solar power financial technology companies allegedly involved in questionable practices towards consumers of their products.

References

Thank you. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done, "questionable practices" is vague and euphemistic. Rephrased sentence according to cited source. (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not object to clarifying "questionable practices." However, Wikipedia guidelines recommend that sections called "Controversies" be avoided, as stated in WP:CSECTION. In this article, in which the newly created "Controversy" section only has one sentence about one event, it is clear it should be included in the "History" section and the "Controversy" section should be removed. I would appreciate if more editors participated in this discussion, so I am also pinging Lightoil, Clayoquot and Chidgk1. Thanks. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION is an essay, not a guideline. The Controversy section currently summarizes important facts well in my opinion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This controversy is not limited to one event. In fact it is not merely limited to dozens.

According to the Time article GoodLeap is currently defending 95 lawsuits related to this controversy, despite the fact "Few of these solar cases have yet made it to court, in part because of the binding arbitration requirements in many of the loans and leases."

Also according to the article, GoodLeap "did not provide TIME with how many arbitration proceedings it is in with customers." But it cites one lawyer who "represents 46 clients currently in arbitration with GoodLeap."

The Time article also references another case brought to court by a former GoodLeap client, Jesus Hernandez: "last November, after just two days of testimony, a jury awarded Jesus Hernandez half a million dollars."

More information about that case is available here.

All told, the article identifies 143 instances where GoodLeap clients have taken GoodLeap to court or arbitration, and it leaves no doubt there are many more.

If, as you suggest, the Controversy section is too short to merit its own section, it would be easy to supply additional information and make it longer. Elettricompagna (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, it's been a while but came across this discussion and felt the need to chime in. I agree that the Controversy section should be on the page. However, two paragraphs for one instance is absolutely WP:UNDUE and after reviewing sourcing, there are only three- one of which is a press release and is unreliable. I would recommend it read: "On March 8, 2024 the Minnesota Attorney General filed suit against GoodLeap and three other lending companies (Sunlight Financial, Solar Mosaic, and Dividend Solar Finance—a subsidiary of Fifth Third Bank), the lawsuit alleges the lenders violated Minnesota state laws against deceptive trade practices, deceptive lending, and illegally high rates of interest." I attempted to remove this massive addition last week during a layover and was apparently not logged in to my account, I see it was reverted due to the size of the content removal StumptownPDX (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback, I agree with your suggestion. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% on this. I will be making your suggested revision to this section. Too much content for one event. PubHobbyst (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@PubHobbyst thank you for your input, much appreciated. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The content that was removed consisely explained the mechanics of the alleged fraud and the magnitude of the deception. It provided important context and, moreover, specified what potential customers should look out for to avoid falling victim.

It was taken directly from the complaint the AG filed in Minnesota District Court, which fortunately remains cited, but will assist an infinitesimally smaller readership.

I disagree with this removal, which I regret occurred so quickly before a proper discussion could occur, and hope other editors will weigh in.

Pinging Lightoil, Clayoquot, Chidgk1, Buidhe and Hexifi in case you have an opinion.

I am less concerned about the removal of the reference to the AG's press release announcing the lawsuit because it's less important. But sincere question: is there a better source to confirm the crimes he alleges were committed? There's the legal complaint, but that's long and not intended for general consumption. Elettricompagna (talk) 05:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)