Early on I was a bit worried by how often the loan defaulted with only 0, 1 or 2 payments made. Sure, there are going to be some defaults and sometimes in extremely unlucky situation it might happen right away. But the amount of them seems to me to indicate LendingClub fails to do an adequate job of screening loan candidates.

Over time the rates LendingClub quoted for returns declined. The charges to investors for collecting on late loans were very high. It was common to see charges 9 to 10 times higher as the investor than were charged to the person that took out the loan and made the late payment.

For the last 6 months my account balance has essentially stayed the same (bouncing within the same range of value). I stopped reinvesting the payments received from LendingClub loans several months ago and have begun withdrawing the funds back to my account. I will likely just leave the funds in cash to increase my reserves given the lack of appealing investment options (and also a desire to increase my cash position in given my personal finances now and looking forward for the next year). I may invest the funds in dividend stocks depending on what happens.

This chart shows lending club returns for portfolios similar to mine. As you can see a return of about 5% is common (which is about where I am). Quite a few more than before actually have negative returns. When I started, my recollection is that their results showed no losses for well diversified portfolios.

The two problems I see are poor underwriting quality and high costs that eat into returns. I do believe the peer to peer lending model has potential as a way to diversify investments. I think it can offer decent rates and provide some balance that would normally be in the bond portion of a portfolio allocation. I am just not sold on LendingClub’s execution for delivering on that potential good investment option. At this time I don’t see another peer to peer lending options worth exploring. I will be willing to reconsider these types of investments at a later time.

I plan to just withdraw money as payments on made on the loans I participated in through LendingClub.

Related: Peer to Peer Portfolio Returns and The Decline in Returns as Loans Age (2015) – Investing in Peer to Peer Loans – Looking for Yields in Stocks and Real Estate (2012) – Where to Invest for Yield Today (2010)

There are resources online to help you understand the past results of various investing strategies (returns based on various filters). Some filter are just a trade-off of risk for return. You can invest in grade A (a LendingClub defined category) loans that have the lowest risk, and the lowest interest rates and historical returns. Or you can increase your risk and get loans with higher interest rates and also higher historical returns (after factoring in defaults).

Description of chart: This chart shows the historical performance by grade for all issued loans.

This chart includes all loans that were issued 18 months or more before the last day of the most recently completed quarter. The historical returns data in the chart is updated monthly.

Adjusted Net Annualized Return (“Adjusted NAR”) is a cumulative, annualized measure of the return on all of the money invested in loans over the life of those loans, with an adjustment for estimated future losses.

LendingClub lets you set filters to use to automatically invest in new loans as funds are available to invest (either you adding in new money or receiving payments on existing loans). This is a nice feature, there are items you can’t filter on however, such as job title. And also you can’t make trade-offs, say given x, y and z strong points and a nice interest rate in this loan I will accept a bit lower value on another factor.

So I find I have to be a bit less forgiving on the filter criteria and then manually make some judgements on other loans. For me I add a bit higher risk on my manual selections. I would imagine most people don’t bother with this, just using filters to do all the investing for them. And I think that is fine.

Practically what I do so that I can make some selections manually is to set the criteria to only be 98% invested. This will cause it to automatically invest any amount over 2% that is not invested. You can set this to whatever level you want and also is how you can make payments to yourself. I will say I think one of the lamest “features” of LendingClub is that is has no ability to send you regular monthly checks. So you have to manually deal with it.

It should be simple for them to let you set a value like send me $200 on the 15th of each month. And then it manages the re-investments knowing that and your outstanding loans. But they still don’t offer that feature.

As I said one of the factors in setting filters is managing risk v. reward but the other is really about weaknesses in the algorithm setting rates. You can just see it as risk-reward trade-off but I think it is more sensible to see 2 different things. The algorithm weaknesses are factors that will fluctuate over time as the algorithm and underwriting standards are improved. For example, loans in California had worse returns (according to every site I found accessing past results). There is no reason for this to be true. If a person with the exactly same profile is riskier in California that should be reflected in higher rates and thus bring the return into balance. My guess is this type of factor will be eliminated over time. But if not, or until it is, fixed filtering out loans to California makes sense.

Once you set your filter criteria then you select what balance you want between A, B, C, D, E and FG loans. I set mine to

A 2%
B 16%
C 50%
D 20%
E 10%

I actually have a bit over 1% in FG (but I select those myself). In 2015 the makeup of the loans given by LendingClub was A 17%, B 26%, C 28%, D 15%, E 10%, F and G 4%.

Related: Where to Invest for Yield Today (2010) – Default Rates on Loans by Credit Score – Investing in Stocks That Have Raised Dividends Consistently – Investment Risk Matters Most as Part of a Portfolio, Rather than in Isolation

Sadly Lending Club uses fragile coding practices that result in sections of the site not working sometimes. Using existing filters often fails for me – the code just does nothing (it doesn’t even bother to provide feedback to the user on what it is failing to do). Using fragile coding practices sadly is common for web sites with large budgets. Instead of using reliable code they seems to get infatuated with cute design ideas and don’t bother much making the code reliable. You can code the cute design ideas reliably but often they obviously are not concerned with the robustness of the code.

LendingClub suggest a minimum of 100 loans (of equal size) to escape the risk of your luck with individual loans causing very bad results. Based on this diversity the odds of avoiding a loss have been very good (though that obviously isn’t a guarantee of future performance), quote from their website (Nov 2015):

This chart, from LendingClub, shows a theoretical (not based on past performance) result. The basic idea is that as the portfolio ages, more loans will default and thus the portfolio return will decline. This contrasts with other investments (such as stocks) that will show fluctuating returns going up and down (over somewhat dramatically) over time.

For portfolios of personal loans diversity is very important to avoid the risk of getting a few loans that default destroying your portfolio return. For portfolios with fewer than 100 notes the negative returns are expected in 12.8% of the cases (obviously this is a factor of the total loans – with 99 loans it would be much less likely to be negative, with 5 it would be much more likely). I would say targeting at least 250 loans with none over .5% would be better than aiming at just 100 loans with none over 1% of portfolio.

There are several very useful sites that examine the past results of Lending Club loans and provide some suggestions for good filters to use in selecting loans. Good filters really amount to finding cases where Lending Club doesn’t do the greatest job of underwriting. So for example many say exclude loans from California to increase your portfolio return. While this may well be due to California loans being riskier really underwriting should take care of that by balancing out the risk v. return (so charging higher rates and/or being more stringent about taking such loans.

So I would expect Lending Club to adjust underwriting to take these results into account and thus make the filters go out of date. Of course this over simplifies things quite a bit. But the basic idea is that much of the value of filters is to take advantage of underwriting weaknesses.

This chart (for 36 month loans) is an extremely important one for investors in peer to peer loans. It shows the returns over the life of portfolios as the portfolio ages. And this chart (for LendingClub) shows the results for portfolios of loans issued each year. This is a critical tool to help keep track to see if underwriting quality is slipping.

In a very good result for LendingClub the worst performances are the first 2 years (2008 and 2009). Investing is challenging and trying to examine historical data and draw conclusions is not simple. The conclusion that LendingClub learned from their initial efforts in 2008 and 2009 and improved seems reasonable to me.

2010, 2011 and 2012 all have the loans completed (or nearly so, fro 2012) and the truth about peer to peer lending (or really any lending) can be seen from the chart. The return of the portfolio declines as it ages (as loans default).

What you should keep an eye on if you invest in peer to peer loans is if the lines for new years started to look much worse over time than previous years (for example if they started to look like 2008 or 2009). If that happened, ask why. If the economy entered a deep recession that may well explain it. But if there is not a macroeconomic explanation then you need to worry about underwriting quality.

If I decided the risk was real that underwriting quality had declined what I would likely do it stop reinvesting my payments in new loans (or reduce the amount of that I was doing). It is possible with LendingClub to sell your fractions of loans to other investors. I doubt I would bother with this but it is another option. Of course, unless you correctly determine underwriting quality declined faster than the other investors do their bids for those loans are going to be low (you will likely lose money on the sales).

In 2010 and 2011 returns started in the 11% to 12% range and by the time the loans closed the return was a bit above 6%. This is the type of decline you can expect (and it will be worse if there are bad macroeconomic conditions).

2012 started above 12% and is on track (with 2 months left) to slightly exceed the final returns for 2010 and 2011. The chart (and these comments) are based on all 36 month loans of all grades made in those years. LendingClub lets you show view the chart of 36 or 60 month loans and for all loans or looking at a specific grade. Remember in looking at all loans the returns are going to be impacted by the makeup of the loans (how many are A, B, C, D etc.). But you can also look at it directly for each grade to see if issues are cropping up in more specific areas.

An example of a site that examine past loan results to guess about future: How Will P2P Lending Perform During a National Recession?

it’s amazing to note that banks still did not lose money on credit cards during the 2008 recession. The stock market fell 57% in six months, yet major banks kept earning and earning.

What we see is the average return of 8.8% steadily dropping after each recession:

After the 2000 recession, avg. credit card returns fell 20% to an ROI of 7%
After the 2008 recession, avg. credit card returns fell 40% to an ROI of 5.2%
…
If this is equally felt in peer to peer lending, it could mean:

A more typical recession may also drop a peer lending return by 20% – say from 6% to 4-5%.
A more serious recession may also drop a peer lending return by 40% – say from 6% to 3-4%.
Of course, these losses will be easier if investors hold more A-grade loans, and more ugly if investors hold more E-grade loans.

100m deep is another useful resource. It provides an interactive tool to let you look at the past results based on characteristics (employment length, purpose of loan, home ownership, income, loan term, etc.) you chose.

My investigation so far makes me think peer to peer lending is a sensible place for a sophisticated investor to put a portion of their fixed income investments. I would go slowly and not commit a large amount to such investments but taking a small stake with a couple percent of a portfolio may well be wise for investors that know what they are doing. I will have more posts looking at peer to peer loans, including more on filters and automated investing with LendingClub.

Related: Investment Risk Matters Most as Part of a Portfolio, Rather than in Isolation
– Corporate and Government Bond Yields (2008) – All-weather Portfolio

With each loan you may lend as little as $25. Lending Club (and Prosper) deal with all the underwriting, collecting payments etc.. Lending Club takes 1% of payments as a fee charged to the lenders (they also take fees from the borrowers).

Borrowers can make prepayments without penalty. Lending Club waives the 1% fee on prepayments made in the first year. This may seem a minor point, and it is really, but a bit less minor than I would have guessed. I have had 2% of loans prepaid with only an average of 3 months holding time so far – much higher than I would have guessed.

On each loan you receive the payments (less a 1% fee to Lending Club) as they are made each month. Those payments include principle and interest.

This chart shows the historical performance by grade for all issued loans that were issued 18 months or more before the last day of the most recently completed quarter. Adjusted Net Annualized Return (“Adjusted NAR”) is a cumulative, annualized measure of the return on all of the money invested in loans over the life of those loans, with an adjustment for estimated future losses. From LendingClub web site Nov 2015, see their site for updated data.

Lending Club provides you a calculated interest rate based on your actual portfolio. This is nice but it is a bit overstated in that they calculate the rate based only on invested funds. So funds that are not allocated to a loan (while they earn no interest) are not factored in to your return (though they actually reduce your return). And even once funds are allocated the actual loan can take quite some time to be issued. Some are issued within a day but also I have had many take weeks to issue (and some will fail to issue after weeks of sitting idle). I wouldn’t be surprised if Lending Club doesn’t start considering funds invested until the loan is issued (which again would inflate your reported return compared to a real return), but I am not sure how Lending Club factors it in.

Return shown for my portfolio. My portfolio is currently 3% A, 25% B, 44% C, 19% D and 9% E loans. The terms of my loans are 81% 36 months and 19% 60 months.

They also don’t credit the money to you until what seems like about 5 days after the payment has been received. This also reduces your achieved rate of return, from the nominal rate charged to the borrower. I would like to assume they factor this into their calculated returns, but given the other decisions they make when calculating the return I am not certain they do.

In any case the real return is still very good compared to my other options and so if they inflate the results by 40 basis points (I don’t know what the actual discrepancy is and the uncertainty looking forward is much larger than that anyway). The expected rate is likely around 5-8% compared to about 0-.25% for me, so the slight exaggeration doesn’t matter to me.

For my portfolio (shown in the graphic above) Lending Club shows a current return of 12% with an expected return through the completion of the outstanding loans of 5.7% to 8.5%. The current return is very inflated when your portfolio is very new as you have experienced no, or very few, defaults. I will explore historical returns, returns as the portfolio ages and the expected returns in a future posts. My portfolio is currently 3% A, 25% B, 44% C, 19% D and 9% E loans. The terms of my loans are 81% 36 months and 19% 60 months.

You can read details on the loans (and filter loans on those details) for things such as: loan type, state of borrower, debt to income ratio, months since a delinquency, months since a default, monthly income, credit score, own/mortgage/rent. Lending club scores the loan quality and determines the loan interest rate depending on that (and 36 month versus 60 month term).

The more risk taken by borrowers the higher the expected returns. So if you take riskier loans you get a higher interest rate on the loan and historically even after losses from defaults the returns are greater. This brings up my biggest concern with these loans: underwriting risk. As long as Lending Club does a good job evaluating underwriting risk and properly assigning interest rates commensurate with that risk this should work very well as an investment.

As long as you have a well diversified portfolio of personal loans there is a long track record of the risk. And while plenty of risky personal loans will default, and more will default if the economy has a downturn the interest rates on the loans provides good income even after such losses. And even if things go poorly the actually losses of capital should be small (over the whole portfolio).

The discussion of investing in peer to peer loans using LendingClub will be continued in next post (next week, updated to add link to the post: Peer to Peer Portfolio Returns and The Decline in Returns as Loans Age).

Related: Looking for Yields in Stocks and Real Estate (2012) – Taking a Look at Some Dividend Aristocrat Stocks – Looking for Dividend Stocks in the Current Extremely Low Interest Rate Environment (2011) – Where to Invest for Yield Today (2010)

This is another interesting portfolio choice. I have discussed my thoughts on portfolio choices several times. This one is again a bit bond heavy for my tastes. I like the global nature of this one. I like real estate focus – though as mentioned in previous articles how people factor in their personal real estate (home and investments) needs to be considered.

Related: Cockroach Portfolio – Lazy Golfer Portfolio – Investment Risk Matters Most as Part of a Portfolio, Rather than in Isolation – Looking for Dividend Stocks in the Current Extremely Low Interest Rate Environment

I don’t really agree with this but I think it is an interesting read. And I do agree the standard stock/bond/cash portfolio model is not good enough.

I would rather own real estate than gold. I doubt I would ever have more than 5% gold and only would suggest that if someone was really rich (so had money to put everywhere). Even then I imagine I would balance it with investments in other commodities.

One of the many problems with “stock” allocations is that doesn’t tell you enough. I think global exposure is wise (to some extent S&P 500 does this as many of those companies have huge international exposure – still I would go beyond that). Also I would be willing to take some stock in commodities type companies (oil and gas, mining, real estate, forests…) as a different bucket than “stocks” even though they are stocks.

And given the super low interest rates I see dividend paying stocks as an alternative to bonds.

The Cockroach Portfolio does suggest only government bonds (and is meant for the USA where those bonds are fairly sensible I think) but in the age of the internet many of my readers are global. It may well not make sense to have a huge portion of your portfolio in many countries bonds. And outside the USA I wouldn’t have such a large portion in USA bonds. And they don’t address the average maturity (at least in this article) – I would avoid longer maturities given the super low rates now. If rates were higher I would get some long term bonds.

View of Glacier National Park, from Bears Hump Trail in Waterton International Peace Park in Canada, by John Hunter

These adjustments mean I don’t have as simple a suggestion as the cockroach portfolio. But I think that is sensible. There is no one portfolio that makes sense. What portfolio is wise depends on many things.

I think something along the lines of this would make sense today for someone living in the USA (but I would vary it a fair bit depending on the person’s situation and it would change in different market conditions)

• 35% Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX)
• 15% Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX)
• 10% Vanguard emerging markets fund (VWO), or something similar
• 20% high quality “dividend aristocrat” type stocks
• 10% REIT Index Fund (VGSIX) or direct real estate ownership
• 5% bonds
• 5% cash

I would likely go a bit higher for real estate with direct ownership. As the portfolio was approaching the time withdrawals would be made (retirement) I would want real estate investments to be substantially cash flow positive (and leverage to be limited – hopefully under 50%). I would like primary residence to be without a mortgage or with a very small mortgage.

If I was drawing substantial income from the portfolio I would likely increase cash to at least 3 years of projected need (though even this gets a bit fuzzy as adjusting for expected interest and dividends makes sense to me).

I’m willing to include dividend stocks that don’t meet the dividend aristocrat rules but are similar: (ABBV, INTC even AAPL). I would consider including a bit in pipeline MLPs such as OKS (higher current yields but likely less growth).

Related: Lazy Golfer Portfolio Allocation – Sleep Well Fund Results – Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – How to Protect Your Financial Health

I ran across this suggested allocation in Eyewitness to a Wall Street mugging which I think has several good values.

• It focuses on low fee, market index funds. Fees are incredibly important in determining long term investment success
• It has lower bond allocation than normal
• It has more international exposure than many – which I think is wise (this suggested portfolio is for those in the USA, USA portion should be lowered for others)
• It includes real estate (some suggested allocations miss this entirely)

In my opinion this allocation should be adjusted as you get closer to retirement (put a bit more into more stable, income producing investments).

My personal preference is to use high quality dividend stocks in the current interest rate environment. I would buy them myself which does require a bit more work than once a year rebalancing that the lazy golfer portfolio allows.

I would also include 10% for Vanguard emerging markets fund (VWO) (for sake of a rule of thumb reduce Inflation Protected Securities Fund to 10% if you are more than 10 years from retirement, when between 10 and 1 year from retirement put Inflation Protected Securities Fund at 15% and Total Stock Market Index Fund at 35%, when 1 year from retirement or retired lower emerging market to 5% and put 5% in money market.

Depending on your other assets this portfolio should be adjusted (large real estate holdings [large net value on personal home, investment real estate…] can mean less real estate in this portfolio, 401k holdings may mean you want to tweak this [TIAA CREF has a very good real estate fund, if you have access to it you might make real estate a high value in your 401k and then adjust your lazy portfolio], large pension means you can lower income producing assets, how close you are to retirement, etc.).

The Lazy Golfer Portfolio (Annually rebalance the fund on your birthday and ignore Wall Street for the remaining 364 days of the year) contains 5 Vanguard index funds

• 40% Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX)
• 20% Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX)
• 20% Inflation Protected Securities Fund (VIPSX)
• 10% Total Bond Market Index Fund (VBMFX)
• 10% REIT Index Fund (VGSIX)

Related: Retirement Planning, Looking at Asset Allocation – Lazy Portfolio Results – Investment Risk Matters Most as Part of a Portfolio, Rather than in Isolation – Starting Retirement Account Allocations for Someone Under 40 – Taking a Look at Some Dividend Aristocrats

The site provides full prospectives on each project. The yields have been between 4.5% and 5% for 8 to 10 year projects. The funds pay for solar installation and then the locations that take the loans pay them back with the saving on their electricity bill (sometimes selling power to the utility based on the organizations electricity needs and amount generated at any specific time).

The bonds have risks, of course. And I am pretty sure they are very illiquid. But for those looking for some decent yield alternatives they may offer a good choice. They also provide the benefit of supporting green energy

The current bond being offered, 657 kW on Pinnacle Charter School in Federal Heights, Colorado offers a yield of 5.4%. The public offerings have only been available for a few months and they have sold out quickly so far.

Mosaic has done a good job creating a simple process to invest online. You create your account and if you chose to invest and are allocated a portion of an offering it is funded from your bank account. You can invest as little as $25.

Related: Looking for Yields in Stocks and Real Estate – Taking a Look at Some Dividend Aristocrats – Pay as You Go Solar in India – posts on solar energy on Curious Cat Science and Engineering blog

This extremely low rate environment is crippling to many retirees. The small percentage that actually did what they were told to have been blindsided by years of artificially low rates (and it is likely to continue for years). This has pushed some that would have been comfortable in retirement into an uncomfortable one an has pushed some from a challenging balancing act to essentially having to eliminate every possible expense (and even that may not be enough).

I can’t believe long term bonds are a sensible investment now. Of course I haven’t thought they were for 10 years, but they are even worse now. Bonds of “strong” governments (USA, Germany, Japan) are paying less than inflation (sometimes even less than 0 nominally – I think this has just been for short term issues so far).

I cannot see putting more than token amounts into long term bonds at these rates. Corporate bonds are not much better. The economic damaged caused by out of control too-big-too-fail institution is huge and continuing. And the politicians that have been paid lots of cash by those too-big-too-fail institutions continue to treat the too-big-too-fail players are favored friends. The yields are corporate bonds are not good for companies that are strong.

The alternatives are not great. But real assets, strong dividend stocks, strong company stocks, and short term bonds seem like better options to me in many cases. And hope we elect people that will put the economic interest of the country ahead of a few well paid friends at too-big-too-fail institution. They also need to eliminate the captured “regulators” that have facilitated the continued wrecking of the global economy. I don’t hold out much hope for this though. We keep re-electing those given lots of cash by the too-big-too-fail crowd and they continue giving them favors. We are getting what we deserve given this poor performance on our part but it is pretty annoying having to watch us vote ourselves into economic calamity.

Related: Buffett Cautions Against Buying Long Term USD Bonds – Is Adding More Banker and Politician Bailouts the Answer? – Bill Gross Warns Bond Investors – Congress Eases Bank Laws (1999)

Of course the details are much much more complicated. But without understanding any of the details you can do what is the minimum you need to do – save 10% for retirement of all your income. See my retirement investing related posts for more details. Only if you actually understand all the details and have a good explanation for exactly why your financial situation allows less than 10% of income to be saved for retirement every year after age 25 should feel comfortable doing so.

There is value in the simple rules, when you know they are vast oversimplifications. I am amazed how many professionals don’t understand how oversimplified the rules of thumb are.

Here is one thing I see ignored nearly universally. I am sure some professions don’t but most do. If you have retirement assest such as a pension or social security (something that functions as an annuity, or an actually annuity) that is often a hugely important part of your retirement portfolio. Yet many don’t consider this when setting asset allocations in retirement. That is a mistake, in my opinion.

A reliable annuity is most like a bond (for asset allocation purposes). Lets look at an example for if you have $1,500 a month from a pension or social security and $500,000 in other financial assets. $1,500 * 12 gives $18,000 in annual income.

To get $18,000 in income from an bond/CD… yielding 3% you need $600,000. That means, at 3%, $600,000 yields $18,000 a year.

Ignoring this financial asset worth the equivalent of $600,000 when considering how to invest you $500,000 is a big mistake. Granted, I believe the advice is often too biased toward bonds in the first place (so reducing that allocation sounds good to me). To me it doesn’t make sense to invest that $500,000 the same way as someone else that didn’t have that $18,000 annuity is a mistake.

I also don’t think it makes sense to just say well I have $1,100,000 and I want to be %50 in bonds and 50% in stocks so I have “$600,000 in bonds now” (not really after all…) so the $500,000 should all be in stocks. Ignoring the annuity value is a mistake but I don’t think it is as simple as just treating it as though it were the equivalent amount actually invested.

Related: Immediate Annuities – Managing Retirement Investment Risks – How to Protect Your Financial Health – Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings

There are many other factors that need to be considered to determine the right allocation. But I would be much happier saying ok we have $600,000 of equivalent assets to start with now we have $500,000 – lets go to $350,000 in stocks, $50,000 in cash and $100,000 in dividend stocks (in todays market – as a alternative to bonds). I wouldn’t mind having the $100,000 in bonds in another market.

I could also see having less in stocks for other reason (based on the many other aspects of the portfolio and personal financial situation). But don’t just ignore what level of annuity income is part of the financial portfolio.

Those paying attention will note that interest rates have a great affect on the equivalent bond amount. If rates were 5% the equivalent amount would be $360,000. This huge difference in “bond value” is one reason why bonds are so risky as an investment now. Rates increasing from incredibly low level lik 2 or 3% will drastically reduce the value of those assets. Owning assets that drastically decrease is not wise.

This view is oversimplified too. If you owned bonds with a short duration (say 3 years) you would not experience a loss of $240,000. That is a topic for another post. Basically the example is only looking at income replacement not capital – which doesn’t give a complete picture at all. The basic point to remember here, about bonds, is that long term bonds are very dangerous when interest rates are low. The idea that bonds are safe is misleading. As part of a portfolio that view can make sense. Calling them safe, in isolation, is misleading.