Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mrwhizzard

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Any idea under what circumstances these two fields would be different?

Deferral_Term - Amount of months that the borrower is expected to pay less than the contractual monthly payment amount due to a hardship plan
Hardship_Length - The number of months the borrower will make smaller payments than normally obligated due to a hardship plan

I was under the impression that there was going to be 15 new fields (or something like that) added with hardship plans.

I downloaded the csv, and found that there are indeed 15 hardship-related fields. In case anyone is interested, this is what they say for this note:


The number of payments will not change, as it is the principle that is getting moved down the road.
The dates you are seeing are correct the way I understand it. The missed payment is not a big deal it just also gets moved down the road. So for the next three months, they will only be paying interest, and not principle. Then their payments will return back to normal and the 3-4 payments will be tacked onto the end.

I guess I would have, by definition, counted the interest-only payments as payments. But perhaps not. In either case, shouldn't the final payment date be extended? That makes me wonder though, because the prospectus clearly states for 5 year loans, that the final maturity date will not be extended:

We do not extend the maturity date of any five year term member loan and corresponding notes based upon a potential tax issue that could result from an extension to greater than five years. If the maturity date was extended beyond five years, a portion of the interest paid on the Notes would likely not be deductible by Lending Club.

I was under the belief that there would be a bunch more new fields involved. If you click on the payment plan, does it show more fields?

I don't see anything on the web page, anyway. I haven't downloaded the csv file to check there, however. This is what I see when I click "On Hardship Plan":

So one of my IGP notes is on a "Hardship Plan" now.

Based on the dates in the collection log, it looks like the note was already IGP before going on the Hardship Plan. Also, some of the data in the "Upcoming Payments" section seems inconsistent, now: the "Expected Final Payment" date didn't get adjusted out, and the "Remaining Payments" count (and probably amount, but I didn't do the math) has not been updated. Also interesting is that the 4/30 payment was missed, and the Hardship Plan payments don't start until 5/30 (followed by 6/29 and 7/28). The Hardship Plan payments look like they are supposed to be equivalent to one month's interest, but because of the missed payment, they don't cover the accrued interest.

If your Prosper account is bigger, it's normal it's less volatile.

I definitely agree (which is why I mentioned it), but given the timing of when I started growing the Prosper account, I don't think that fully explains the difference in this case.

My chart shows almost the opposite of yours: my Lending Club returns have been much more volatile month to month. My accounts were the same size until around mid-2016, and since then I've been adding cash only to Prosper, such that it's now about 2x LC.

Investors - LC / Re: a view of LC's deteriorating investor returns
« on: April 27, 2017, 02:52:02 PM »
Portfolio chargeoff rate is my new favorite thing to track.

I liked this so much, that I made my own. I graphed my LC and Prosper accounts separately:

Investors - P / sold notes
« on: April 12, 2017, 02:34:03 PM »
For some reason, I have trouble interpreting the note details for notes which have been sold after charge-off. Here's a recent one in my account:

Which number is the amount of the recovery? I think it must be the $5.74? It seems confusing that under the "borrower payments", it shows a "recovery" payment of the full amount ($26.35).

Investors - LC / Re: Automated Investing Issues
« on: March 06, 2017, 08:26:45 PM »
Some investments were made after that but investments in less risky loans was still below the target and investments in higher risk loans was over the target. I contacted support and was told to just invest more so it would "rebalance".

Were the loans invested in after you changed your allocation of the "less risky" variety? That should answer the question. Changing your target allocation doesn't affect any already-purchased notes.

Is anyone else suspicious that automated investing is not working correctly?

I haven't seen any issues with it in my account.

Investors - LC / Re: NAR doesn't make sense
« on: March 06, 2017, 05:17:14 PM »
Interestingly, I now see the exact opposite: adjusted account value shows a (slight) gain, but ANAR now shows a (slight) loss:

Investors - LC / Re: NAR doesn't make sense
« on: March 06, 2017, 02:44:27 PM »
The ANAR and adjusted account value are kind of just projections, but they have some validity because it uses historical 9-month loss assumptions. But it is still fairly uncertain, and your exact loss rates will not match the LC platform as a whole. Mathematically, the fact that you had an initial deposit of $5k and an adjusted account value of roughly $5k doesn't mean that ANAR should be 0%.

The adjustment that turns your account value into an adjusted account value, and your NAR into an ANAR, should be the exact same adjustment. If it's possible for these two calculations to get out of sync, I think they're doing it wrong.

Investors - LC / Re: NAR doesn't make sense
« on: March 03, 2017, 02:28:54 PM »
You could theoretically go back and look up every little payment one by one, pull them into a spreadsheet, and calculate ANAR yourself, and figure out which one they left out or whatever, but it would be a horrible pain in the ass.

Yes, I briefly considered that, and then decided that posting here was a better use of my time. :D But you did encourage me to send a note to LC support and ask them to explain the discrepancy. I'm sure that will be even less productive, but I figure that's kind of their job.

Investors - LC / Re: NAR doesn't make sense
« on: March 03, 2017, 10:40:10 AM »
Thanks for the links and example, they were informative.

Investors - LC / Re: NAR doesn't make sense
« on: March 03, 2017, 01:34:30 AM »
$4,999.47 + $14.52 available cash

I'm pretty sure the available cash is already included in the account value, based on the detailed breakdown.

Investors - LC / NAR doesn't make sense
« on: March 02, 2017, 05:18:05 PM »
So, I thought I at least had a rough understanding of how LC was computing NAR. However, today I see that even though my "Adjusted Account Value" is slightly below the value of the single ($5000) deposit I made about 18 months ago, the Adjusted NAR is (slightly) greater than 0:

What explains this? Is it taking into account some pending payment that hasn't shown up in the cash balance yet?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4