Steadfast FinancesShutting Down My Lending Club Investments

Shutting Down My Lending Club Investments

Filed in Banking , Investing 101 , Peer to Peer Lending 182 comments

In a decision I consider nearly as bad as the “New Coke” experience, Lending Club has decided to limit the questions an investor can ask potential borrowers. The resulting policy only allows investors to ask a limited series of pre-approved questions.

For me, this is unacceptable.

The primary reason for the change in transparency was to protect the borrower’s identity. Via Lending Club’s blog

Lending Club investors have the ability to ask questions of potential borrowers before committing investments into their loans. This ability has raised concerns in terms of protecting the privacy and identity of both borrowers and investors. These concerns led us to adjust our Q&A mechanism for the benefit of both borrowers and investors.

Starting tomorrow, investors will only be able to ask questions from a predefined set that was created based on the most frequently asked questions logs over the last 2 years and reviewed and edited by our compliance team. As an investor, feel free to submit additional questions that you would like to see added to list to

I agree 110% that a borrower’s identity needs to be protected. No problem. I’ll bend over backwards to comply.

The Problem

What I vehemently disagree with is that Lending Club has positioned themselves so that my questions have to be pre-approved even though I’m investing my money. Moreover, I only get to select from a series of pre-approved frequently asked questions that were filtered through Lending Club’s compliance department.

Bottom line: if Lending Club doesn’t “approve” of my question, sucks to be me.

This isn’t a quarterly earnings analyst call with Goldman Sachs or General Motors, nor is it a politician’s press conference, where softball questions are predefined and the deck is stacked to make the party of interest look their best. It is a — it was a — place where a borrower could apply for a loan, investors could review the borrower’s personal finances, and ask any question they wanted (without compromising either party’s identity) to make a decision on the borrower’s creditworthiness as well as make a decision on the probability the borrower would repay the loan plus interest.

If that meant asking the borrower a few tough questions, calling BS on the the borrower’s cream puff answer(s), or he/she decided to tap dance around the question without answering it, we investors apparently no longer have a say in the matter. We just take what we’re given, and told to take it or leave it.

In my opinion, this greatly compromises an investor’s ability to outperform the benchmark index and raises the rate of default.

I’m Out

I had high hopes for Lending Club as they were the most progressive thing that happened in finance for many, many years. I’ve also been one of their most outspoken supporters over the last 2 years by posting my returns and assisting more new investors find their way than any other blogger I know by organizing a 100+ person investment club.

However, based on the new policy of reduced investor transparency, I will not be investing new funds, nor will I be reinvesting funds that are repaid.

I will also be closing down the Lending Club investment club of 100+ members, and the new P2P Lending Investor blog & forum is dead in the water. Apologies to those that found value in the club, but I don’t like anyone telling me what I can or can’t ask when it comes to my money and my investments.

In hopes of remaining neutral, I will not advise anyone to follow along with my decision, but instead of writing a dozen blog posts trying to persuade Lending Club to reverse their decision, it’s far more simple to vote with your money.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Posted by CJ   @   22 April 2011 182 comments
Tags : , , , , ,


Oct 24, 2011
11:33 am

I’m updating my progress and adding new notes along the way. Still getting similar returns:

Oct 31, 2011
8:25 am
#2 John DAWSON :

October 2011 completed 3rd year; notes exceed 500, total $ exceeds $18K. Last $10K invested is monthly interest. Never withdrawn account $. After 300 notes threshold, Returns remain within 12.25 to 12.50 percent, Grades D (26), E (38), F (16) loans comprise 80 percent of investments; Debt Consol, CC Refi are 75 percent of investments. 19 defaults (3.83 pct); 8 Bankruptcies, 2 Deceased. Returns would be higher except 1st year’s mistakes. Reviewed 1st year’s defaults; pattern detected. Corrected mistakes. I eliminated: 1. $25 plus invested in loan; 2. Specific Categories, and 3. Certain Borrower Profiles. After July 2009 I limited investment to maximum $25. I eliminated Business, Move-Relocation Category loans. I eliminated Borrowers: A. Self-employed (except legal and health care professionals who own their law or medical practices) B. Employed less than 5-years same employer C. Intend to borrow significantly more $ than Credit Report indicates owed on RCB debts, D. Borrow $ to “improve” Credit Score or fund “Emergency” account and E. Credit Report indicates Delinquency or Public Record. Public Record on Credit Report after 85th month is Chapter 7 kruptcy Filing. Bankruptcy Court appointed Trustee sold debtor’s assets to partially liquidate debts. Requires many income producing loans to offset few defaulted loans. Difficult to improve returns to higher level, e.g. 13 percent plus return range.

Oct 31, 2011
8:30 am
#3 Mike :

John, thanks for your update. With 80% of your portfolio in lower grade loans, I think your default rate is pretty good. What percentage of your loans are in the 5 year term category?

Oct 31, 2011
1:47 pm
#4 Xin He :

Mr. Dawson, thank you for your update. Will you be pulling out your money, reinvesting more conservatively, or something else perhaps? I feel that as the power shifts from lender to borrower, it would be prudent to switch to more conservative loans (my own portfolio is mostly D-E loans at the moment). Inaccuracies within LC will have a much bigger impact on the ROI on higher-default rate loans.

Oct 31, 2011
9:18 pm
#5 John DAWSON :

In addition to L C Investor Notes data, I maintain spreadsheet: Note No., MM/DD/YY Issued, $ invested, Category, Borrower Occupation, Charged Off (Income Verified? (Y or N), Bankruptcy? (Y or N), Years Employed, etc. From 07.28.2009 to present, 507 Notes invested: 330 @ $25, 164 @ $50, 4 @ $75, 6 @ $100, 1 @ $150, 1 @ $175, 1 $ 225. Rolling Years invested: 1st- 07.28.09 to 07.27.10: 224 Notes; 2nd- 07.28.10 to 07.27.11: 219 Notes; 3rd- 07.28.11 to present: 64 Notes. Rolling Year Charged Offs: 1st: 16; 2nd 2; 3rd 1. Charged Off $‘s: 1 @ $100; 14 @ $50, 4 @ $25. On 04.23.2009 I reviewed 1st partial year’s non-satisfactory results; received loud and clear “wake up“ call. Implemented plan to immediately eliminate proven losers; e.g., NO more Business, Move-Relocate Category; Self Employed, Employed < 5-years investments. Future investments maximum $25 each. After 07.28.2010 total 283 Notes invested; 4 Charge Offs @ $25. (1.41 pct Charge Off rate). 507 Notes status: Paid-in-Full 51; Defaults 19; Modified Pay Plan (Interest only an extended period): 11; Current 426. Note Terms: 36-months: 255; 60-Months: 252. I learned from early poor choices that resulted in rash of NAR crippling Charge Offs. 19 Charge Offs reduced 16.54 percent Weighted Average Return by 4.12 percent to current NAR 12.42 percent. 1 Note Charged Off reduces WAR by .20 percent (1/5 of 1 pct). Imprecise percentage because Charge Offs were varying $ amounts. Long term goal is minimum 12 percent ROI before LC deducts service charges. Must continue revised investing plan; primarily invest D, E, F- occasionally G- Grade Notes that meet specific criteria. Majority of Notes are eliminated in selection process; only Notes qualified for investment remain. Over and Out. Semper Fidelis.

Oct 31, 2011
9:34 pm
#6 Xin He :

John, I’ve read through all your posts thoroughly. You’ve done me and many other investors a great service. Thank you very much.

I am a bit confused though, in previous posts you seemed quite cynical about LC’s collection process and its note data. Am I correct in saying you still feel confident enough in LC as well as your own ability to continue reinvesting in high-risk loans at 25$/each?

Nov 1, 2011
11:40 am
#7 John DAWSON :

Subject: 510 Notes invested; Categories, 19 Charged Off, Percentages. Business 25/5 (20%), Debt Con 318/11 (3.46%), Education 5/0, Home Purchase 12/0, Improvement 44/1 (2.27%), Major Purchase 3/0, Medical 6/0, Move 4/1 (25%), Other 5/1 (20%), Refinance 47/0, Renewable 3/0, Vacation 4/0, Vehicles 15/0, Wedding 19/0. Employer Charge Offs: Fed Gov’t 1, Muni Gov’t 1, State Gov’t 2; Retired 1 (deceased), USPS 1, Various: 13. Income Verified but Charged Off: 11. Income NOT Verified but Charged Off: 8. Years employed, Charged Off, Percentage: < 3 yrs: 11 (58%), 4 to 9 yrs: 4 (21%), 10 yrs: 3 (16%), Retired (deceased): 1(5.0%).

Definite correlation exists between high number Charge Offs involving Business, Move-Relocation, Other, Categories and borrowers being < 3 years employed same employer. Negligible difference exists if L C verified borrower’s income, or if L C NOT verified borrower’s income.

LC provides lots of “Lip Service” to Investors that Management actively attempting to collect, Past Due, Non-Performing, Defaulted, and Charged Off Notes. But reality is Management enters voluminous contact notations concerning their attempts to contact borrower, and pending legal actions, for Investors to read, but does little, if anything, to effectively collect defaulted $ due Investors.

Investors still can achieve respectable ROI, e.g., 12%+ before L C S/C deducted, investing in Grades D, E, F, G Notes. Key: Select well qualified civil service, active duty/retired military, academia, legal, health care categories employees, and freight/mail deliverers, e.g., Fed EX, Rail Roads, UPS, USPS, employees who primarily requested Debt Consolidation, Home Purchase, Home Improvement, CC Refinance, Vehicle Financing, and Wedding Category loans.

Renewable Energy, Vacation loans are few. If you find well qualified Borrower consider investing ASAP. immediately.

Nov 1, 2011
12:41 pm
#8 John DAWSON :

Xin He,
You’re correct; L C recently tipped scales from Borrower-Lender even playing field to favoring Borrower. Extremely irritating is Lenders CANNOT ask same question TWICE because Borrower NEVER asnwered initial question. Borrowers often provide generic B/S answers that are NOT in any way whatsoever relevant to question(s) Lender asked. During L C’s first year, often maximum 150 loans listed daily for Lenders consideration; thus Lenders confronted with limited selection from which to choose. L C simultaneously now lists 500, 700, up to 950 loans daily. When Lender encounters uncooperative Borrower then automatically eliminate that Borrower from investment consideration and replace Borrower with another Borrower who is cooperative and provides answers that answer the questiona nd that make logical sense.

There are multiple methods to skin cats (Borrowers). Those multiple methods are VARIETY in selection process.
That way

Nov 3, 2011
8:05 am
#9 John DAWSON :

ALL C 2.40% 4.45%
BUSINESS D 3.95% 9.18%
CAR FINANCE F 0.43% 2.38%
CONSOL DEBT D 2.72% 4.10%
EDUCATION C 2.25% 6.76%
HOME PUR B/E 1.53% 2.99%
HOME IMPROVE C/E 2.47% 3.87%
MAJOR PUR C 0.30% 3.84%
MEDICAL B 2.53% 2.23%
MOVE-RELOCATE C 1.85% 8.23%
OTHER B 2.41% 5.53%
REFINANCE CC D 1.60% 2.44%
VACATION C 0.00% 1.10%
WEDDING D 0.87% 1.36%

Interesting to compare 1st 2-yrs Default and
Charged Off Notes perentage(s) to Statistics
Table L C provides to current Invesors?

Semper Fidelis

Nov 14, 2011
3:51 pm
#10 Evan from MN :

So, if not P2P, what will you be investing your money in, in the future?

Nov 14, 2011
5:03 pm
#11 Matt SF :

High dividend REITs & MLPs, usually in the “things we can’t live without” variety. Things like housing, gas pipeline companies, etc. Also looking at real estate deals.

The money I had in P2P was only in the pilot scale experiment range, so glad I didn’t go all in.

Nov 16, 2011
9:49 am
#12 Evan from MN :

Well, I’m glad I read this. I was just about to go big into LC. Where should I begin learning about high dividend REITs & MLPs? Do you have any you’d suggest? Thanks again Matt, this blog has been more than helpful.

Nov 16, 2011
10:06 am
#13 Matt SF :

No problem. The best place IMO is probably this website…

The site owner has devoted substantial time into listing individual companies, but also explaining what makes sectors unique, how to do some of the research, etc.

A word of caution though: if you’re just starting out and learning about them, I’d advise you study up and maybe seek some outside advice. I can’t give you individual names myself b/c that’s not what this blog is about, but if you want help narrow down your search, a stock screener set for high dividends, low debt, low P/E ratios, etc. is a good place to start.

Here’s a post how I do it…

Nov 15, 2011
12:35 pm
#14 Craig B :

This pissed me off as well, but they are somewhat ameliorating the problem by continually adding more preset questions and accepting suggestions from lenders. I’m still getting a better return from my LC investments than anywhere else, so why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

Nov 15, 2011
12:46 pm
#15 Matt SF :

First, the NAR% isn’t the same as a simple ROI% calculation. LC uses some funky math to overstate the return. Take a 20% NAR loan application, do a simple ROI calculation, and you’ll be surprised what you’re really getting.

Second, a lot of the guys that were at LC aren’t there anymore. Service is down, and my trust went with them.

Third, and most importantly, there are far better returns in REITs, MLPs, and other high dividend stocks available in the market, plus you get the option of equity appreciation if you hold long enough.

Last, I don’t trust any organization who can shift the rules in mid game away from the investor as Lending Club did here with removing an investor’s ability to ask uncensored questions. If they want to setup an automated investing (e.g. fee based cash cow for them), that’s all well and good, but it won’t be with my cash.

Nov 17, 2011
4:12 am
#16 Dan B :

So I understand you correctly, when you say that there are “far better” returns in REITs, MLPs & high dividend stocks……….what exactly are you using as a basis for the comparison? Are you comparing them to the 17% returns you were getting back in the day, or the returns you’re getting now? Or is it some “average” of what you think others are making that you’re comparing to?

You see, unbelievably as it may sound, I’m still spending 10 minutes a day investing & managing several accounts at Lending Club & I’m just trying to figure out if your advise/opinion could apply to me.

I mean so what if I’m on my 12th month in a row of 12-14%+ annualized real world returns. So what if I know that I can maintain those numbers with little effort. Just say the word & I’m ready to chuck it all & go buy some MLPs or preferably some REIT’s that’ll give me some eye popping returns :)

Nov 17, 2011
4:54 pm
#17 Matt SF :


Understood Dan. But as we’ve discussed before, 17% returns at Lending Club isn’t exactly 17% return on investment.

If memory serves, a 20% NAR note only yields about 10-12% ROI. But I think the highest NAR I ever got, on the whole portfolio, was ~15.7% NAR.

But in relation to those “far better returns” I mentioned, here are a few examples after using the Zack’s screener…

Cellcom – CEL – 14.2% yield
Annaly Capital Mgmt – NLY – 14.7% yield
ARMOUR Residential REIT – ARR – 19% yield

So you get these yields, and yes, management will occasionally screw you by lowering the dividend if they have a bad year or quarter, but if you do the due diligence, you’re looking at less work, higher yields… and… the chance for equity appreciation.

Nov 17, 2011
5:20 pm
#18 Dan B :

That’s a 10.4% yield on CEL, by the way. This is an interesting pick considering that you’re likely looking at some real wide swings every single time someone in Tehran wakes up on the wrong side of the bed & decides to threaten to wipe out the Jews……..or vice versa.

Jan 6, 2012
5:58 am
#19 Lendingclubdan :

Are the questions really that big of a deal? If you spread your money around wide in small increments, do a little dilligence on each loan and invest in only certain scenarios, how much risk am I really assuming?

I hand pick all of my loans, enjoy doing it and have only one that’s in default (80+ loans). It’s not even defaulted, on a payment plan. Maybe I have just been lucky?

My concern with LC has never really been about a loan going bad, more like the site going bad and my money disappearing. I no longer think that’s a real worry.

I have never asked a question, I read the questions asked, but I find it to be one of the most useless pieces of info given. It’s like a turn signal on a car, if it’s on all I can discern is it’s working. It doesn’t meant the driver really intends to turn. Just like with the questions.. ok so the borrower answered… how can I know the info is real anyway?

Jan 6, 2012
10:17 am
#20 Matt SF :


Your confidence probably has something to do with a short amount of time using Lending Club and the fact that you have no defaults as of yet. If you go back and read some of my old posts, you’ll see much the same in writing.

But yes, questions were a big part of my strategy. Years later, I’m still outperforming Lending Club’s index return by 4% NAR.

And while I like your optimism, 80 loans is a small portfolio. So enjoy your good fortune while it lasts, but it’s only a matter of time until you get a few notes that default in <6 months b/c they declared bankruptcy, skipped town, a scammer/identity thief gets through the system, etc., and Lending Club does next to nothing on the collections side... but charge it off.

I've actually had borrowers who declared bankruptcy contact me suggesting Lending Club didn't do all they could to collect our funds, so you can take it for what it's worth to you.

Jan 6, 2012
10:28 am
#21 Xin Tendo :

Matt, what do you think is the #1 reason behind defaults at LC? Do you think Identity theft is that big a problem or are most defaults a legit inability to pay up?

Jan 6, 2012
10:38 am
#22 Matt SF :


I honestly don’t know, so anything I say will be speculation, but if I had to guess… I’d say the economy. Job loss is probably the biggest risk, but other contributing factors would be poor personal finance decisions (which leads to bankruptcy or refusal to pay).

Scammers are always going to get through, which is why I mainly stuck with verified income/identity notes, but I’ve had both verified and non-verified notes default & be charged off.

Jan 7, 2012
3:11 pm
#23 chris :

Hello Everyone thanks for this blog

My ? is.

they suggest to allocate 25k over 800 different loans to reduce4 risk. You folks seem to be talking about vetting the borrower and funding the whole loan of people you have screened.

is that correct

so bottom line you feel their idea of super diversification is not best plan.
thanks thanks thanks

Jan 7, 2012
4:17 pm
#24 Matt SF :

25k over 800 loans would take some time to deploy if you hand pick them yourself, and honestly, you probably would either burn out reviewing that many loans in < 24 hours or begin picking lesser quality loans. If I were going to put that much money in Lending Club and want it deployed in less than 1 month, I'd probably do something like $50 per loan. Just remember that 10% NAR isn't the same as 10% ROI like in a savings account or stock dividend, and your money is tied up for 3-5 years.

Jan 6, 2012
10:58 am
#25 Mike :

I believe medical costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcies in this country. I’ve had my share of scammers, though. One payment wonders, I call them.

Jan 14, 2012
1:49 pm
#26 John DAWSON :

Hi Mike,

I’ve experienced them. Their redetermined mind set is to repeatedly lie on application, and answers, become funded ASAP and then conveniently opt for bankruptcy. Unfortunately Lenders send them with cash-in-hand happily to waiting bankruptcy lawyer where they pleade no $ assets and file bankruptcy. My last default was Michigan Pharmacist $144K per year income indicated on application two months after securing fully funded $35K loan applied for interest only Payment Plan. Three months ito PP defaulted.
If their intent is to scam nothing will stop them.
John Dawson

Jan 14, 2012
2:13 pm
#27 Mike :

Thanks, John. I was beginning to think I was the only one who was experiencing these…

Feb 20, 2012
2:10 am
#28 Ken H :

I’m still making 10.16% on my portfolio of about 236 loans, but I’ve had 19 defaults out of a total of about 320 loans. Still the defaults add up to about $1000 and I’ve received a bit over $3000 interest. I stopped investing with them when they stopped letting me ask questions.

Mar 1, 2012
9:52 pm
#29 Dan B :

Ken H……No one has stopped you from asking questions. You just can’t make up your own questions.

So the 19 defaults were from the group in which you were allowed to ask your own questions, correct? How does that compare to the average default rate nowadays when you can only ask pre-approved questions?

Mar 1, 2012
10:07 pm
#30 Mike :

Ken H. that’s almost a 6% default rate. I have a similar sized account with 312 notes with 6 defaults valued at $164. I have not added any new funds to LC since their policy change, but I have been reinvesting interest payments as they accumulate. According to LC, my return is just north of 10%, so in real life it is probably closer to 9%.

Mar 11, 2012
8:02 pm
#31 John DAWSON :

For What It’s Worth:
605 Notes Invested, $20,325 Total invested, $3,216.38 interest received. 26 Notes Charged Off, 4.30% C/O rate, $849.39 investment lost. Last Note issued that became Charged Off: 05.14.2011. Stated Investment Return: 12.31% before expenses deducted. More Notes invested/issued; similar C/O % rate, Investment Return % equal to previous posts.
Predetermined questions asked by Lenders commenced 04.15.2011. Cannot definitely state either Pro or Con IF predetermined questions asked produce better results (less defaults/charge offs) than Lender generated questions asked. Requires more Notes invested before I can make that decision.
After January 1st 2011 I “tightened up“ Borrower investment criteria, e.g., now primarily Medical (Physician, Dentist, Chiropractor, RN, etc), Med Tech (Chemo, CT, Lab, MRI, X-Ray, Ultrasound, etc.) Legal (Attorney, Paralegal, Legal Secretary/Assistant, etc.) Financial (CPA, Financial Planner, Registered Investment Advisor, Stock Broker at major brokerage, etc.) all Engineers w/5+ years service, Military (All active duty Officers; Junior Enlisted E-5 and below w/5+ years service; Senior Enlisted E-6 and above w/10+ years service) and Fed/State/Municipal Civil Service w/10+ years service, Charge Offs dropped significantly.
I normally “pair” Notes- $100 invested: $25 12% Physician/Attorney, $25 15% Engineer/Military, $25 17% Civil Service, $25 19% “Other” = 15.75 % average. To achieve 12%+ Net Return you must exceed 15%+ Weighted Average BEFORE Charge Offs.
700+ Loans listed daily is easier to “cherry pick” higher quality Borrowers. I pass on virtually all Borrowers at current employer for less than 5 years. Exception: Professionals (Attorney, Physician, specialized Engineers, Military Officers, etc.). Borrowers at current employer less than 3 years are highest actual Charge Offs so I avoid them. Period.
John Dawson

Mar 11, 2012
8:08 pm
#32 Xin Tendo :

John, Do you base your strategy on a stats site like NSR or Lendstats, or is that your personal strategy? I have not invested in new notes in quite a while but I remember seeing NSR and interpreting their data to find that Been Employed >=2 years was a conservative enough metric for me.

Mar 12, 2012
11:05 pm
#33 John DAWSON :

RE: Xin Tendo,
26 Charged Off Notes included 14 Borrowers who were at their current employer <5 years. Specifically, 10 Borrowers were at their current employer <2 years. At 1 year mark investing in Notes I evakuated Defaults and Charge Offs. I decided Borrowers who were at their current employers <5years were inheritantly too risky. Now I eliminate virtually all Borrowers who are at their current employer <5 years from consideration. I decline the investment opportunity. Instead I offer another Lender an opportunity to lose their money.
John Dawson

Mar 12, 2012
11:08 pm
#34 Xin Tendo :

Ah, gotcha. You really do your due diligence. I base my metrics by what Nickel Steam Roller reports. Your system makes me look the laziest guy in the world haha.

Mar 13, 2012
6:55 am
#35 John DAWSON :

Xin Tendo,
Year ago I explored LendStats; decided too cumbersome for me to be effective. Thanks for Nickel Steam Roller tip. I perused NSR data. NSR more useful data for me than LendStats; can selectively sort NSR data. I’ll definitely employ NSR as collateral Note selection reference.
Semper Fidelis
John Dawson 03.13.2012

Mar 14, 2012
7:43 am
#36 John DAWSON :

In latest instance of stupidity L C Developers today implemented their new improved (?) version of Borrower loans that are down loadable as spreedsheet. Glaring OMISSION is Borrowers JOB TITLE. Old version of down loadable spreedsheet displaying Borrowers JOB TITLE available only through 06.15.2012. After 06.15.2012, Lenders are force fed only spreedsheets new version. The new version is absolutely worhless. Forcing Lenders to guess in what capacity Borrower is employed is nail-in-the-coffin ensuring Lenders exit P2P lending platform.
John Dawson

Mar 20, 2012
4:05 am
#37 John DAWSON :

Used NSR to determine States where Borrower loan probably Defaults/Charged off lowest and highest.
L C Default/Chanrged off average: 4.58 PCT = 1.00 Norm
Read L-R: State ID, State PCT Default/Charge Off, State PCT vs. 4.58 PCT L C Norm
AK 4.59 – 1.00 AL 3.40 – 0.74 AR 3.92 – 0.86
AZ 4.75 – 1.04 CA 4.97 – 1.09 CO 5.20 – 1.14
CT 2.67 – 0.58 DC 3.23 – 0.71 DE 5.96 – 1.30
FL 6.24 – 1.36 GA 6.31 – 1.38 HI 3.72 – 0.81
IA N/A – 0.00 ID N/A – 0.00 IL 3.85 – 0.84
IN N/A – 0.00 KS 2.82 – 0.62 KY 4.80 – 1.05
LA 2.77 – 0.60 MA 3.77 – 0.82 MD 4.91 – 1.07
ME N/A – 0.00 MI 3.99 – 0.87 MN 5.04 – 1.10
MO 6.22 – 1.36 MS N/A – 0.00 MT 4.50 – 0.98
NC 2.30 – 0.50 NE N/A – 0.00 NH 4.67 – 1.02
NJ 4.59 – 1.00 NM 2.85 – 0.62 NV 8.12 – 1.77
NY 3.94 – 0.86 OH 3.40 – 0.74 OK 3.80 – 0.83
OR 4.53 – 0.99 PA 4.53 – 0.99 RI 2.60 – 0.57
SC 4.63 – 1.01 SD 3.66 – 0.80 TN N/A – 0.00
TX 4.14 – 0.90 UT 6.81 – 1.49 VA 3.33 – 0.73
VT 4.17 – 0.91 WA 4.71 – 1.03 WI 4.28 – 0.93
WV 4.15 – 0.91 WY 0.00 – 0.00 (No defaults)
NA = <50 Loans). SD 82 loans; VT 92 loans; WY 100 loans. DATA: 2,254 Defaults and Charged Off in 49,196 loans issued.

Trackbacks to this post.
Leave a Comment




Previous Post
Next Post