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)

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)

The incredible policies that have created such loose credit has the world so flooded with money searching for somewhere to go that 0% is seen as attractive. This excess cash is dangerous. It is a condition that makes bubbles inflate.

Low interest rates are good for businesses seeking capital to invest. These super low rates for so long are almost certainly creating much more debt for no good purpose. And likely even very bad purposes since cash is so cheap.

One thing I didn’t realize until last month was that while the USA Federal Reserve stopped pouring additional capital into the markets by buying billions of dollars in government every month they are not taking the interest and maturing securities and reducing the massive balance sheet they have. They are actually reinvesting the interest (so in fact increasing the debt load they carry) and buying more debt anytime debt instruments they hold come due.

The Fed should stop buying even more debt than they already hold. They should not reinvest income they receive. They should reduce their balance sheet by at least $1,500,000,000,000 before they consider buying new debt.

Unless the failure to address too-big-to-fail actions (and systems that allow such action) results in another great depression threat. And if that happens again they should not take action until people responsible are sitting in jail without the possibly of bail. The last bailout just resulted in transferring billions of dollars from retires and other savers to the pockets of those creating the crisis. Doing that again when we knew that was fairly likely without changing the practices of the too-big-to-fail banks. But I would guess we will just bail them out while they sit in one of the many castles their actions at the too-big-to-fail banks bought them and big showered with more cash in the bailout from the next crisis.

How to invest in these difficult times is not an easy question to answer. I would put more money in stocks for yield (real estate investment trusts, drug companies, dividend aristocrats), I would also keep cash even if it yields 0% and actually a new category for me – peer to peer lending (which I will write about soon). Recently many dividend stocks have been sold off quite a bit (and then on top of that drug stocks sold off) so they are a much better buy today than 4 months ago. Still nothing is easy in what I see as a market with much more risk than normal.

I am almost never a fan of long term debt. I would avoid it nearly completely today (if not completely). For people that are retired and living off their dividends and interest I may have some long term debt but I would have much more in cash and short term assets (even with the very low yields). Peer to peer lending has risks but given what the fed has done to savers I would take that risk to get the larger yields. The main risk I worry about is the underwriting risk – the economic risks are fairly well known, but it is very hard to tell if the lender starts doing a poor job of underwriting.

Related: The Fed Should Raise the Fed Funds Rate – Too-Big-to-Fail Bank Created Great Recession Cost Average USA Households $50,000 to $120,000 – Buffett Calls on Bank CEOs and Boards to be Held Responsible – Historical Stock Returns

The issue I see is that a .25% Fed Funds rate is adding gasoline to the economy via low interest rates. Many people are saying an increase is like taking away the gasoline and taking out a fire extinguisher. But it really isn’t. Raising the rate to .25% is slightly decrease the amount of gas you are adding to the fire. A .25% Federal Funds rate is pouring nearly as much gas on as you are able to but not quite the absolute most you are able to.

It is also true that the Fed bailing out the too-big-to-fail bankers and banks resulted in them not only opening up the gasoline as much as possible (taking rates to 0) they even went far beyond that with new methods of pouring on gasoline that hadn’t even been considered until the bankers’ risk-taking doomed the economy (and bankrupted their institutions – without government bailouts propping them up).

The Federal Reserve has finally turned off the massive extraordinary dumping of gasoline onto the economic fire (via quantitative easing). But they have kept not only dumping lots of gasoline on the economy but doing so to the absolute maximum possible via a 0% Fed Funds rate.

Arguing for slowing the amount of fuel you are dumping into the economy is not the same as saying you are constricting the economy. We have been put into a crazy global economic condition by the too-big-to-fail bankers and the massive amounts of government and personal debt taken out. So simple analogies are not effective in making policy.

The analogies can help explain what the intent and expectation of the policy is. It is true we have created a very tenuous economic foundation (and we haven’t in any way substantial way addressed the risk too-big-to-fail bankers can throw the global economy into and we still have massive debt problems). The main beneficiaries of the central banker’s policies the last nearly 10 years are too-big-to-fail bankers and those borrowing huge amounts of money.

Those suffering from the policy are savers and I fear those that have to cope with the aftermath of this massive intervention with likely bubbles (government debt, personal debt [including education debt in the USA, etc.]). The main reason I believe rates should be raised are to begin the path to stop transferring wealth from savers to too-big-to-fail bankers and those with massive debt problems.

It is true the massively in debt governments have been given a huge transfer of wealth by central bankers and we have largely (across the globe) avoided runaway inflation. Europe has experienced some issues from one of the areas the central bankers have attempted to cover up by injecting gasoline – massive government debt. But overall governments have been able to pay much less to bondholders and therefore make deficits seem much less than they would be with more sensible interest rates.

The global economy is in a very fragile state and luckily inflation has not been a problem. But it seems to me we can’t just keep hoping that putting our feet all the way on the excelerator for years on end is really going to work without consequences. Most likely the risks increase the longer you pour on as much gasoline as you can (asset bubbles, careless taking on of debt, increasingly risky behavior by bailed out too-big-to-fail institutions…).

The risk of deflation and a deflation mentality is one of the only decent arguments (well also that inflation isn’t a risk, right now) against slowing how much gasoline is being poured into the economy (with 0% Fed Funds). The other is that the global economy is about to have real trouble even after years of pouring on as much gas as we can. But I think the risks of keeping pouring as much gas as possible is too great. We need to keep pouring on gas, just not at the absolute maximum level – so we should raise the rate to .25% this month.

I would likely wait 3+ months to do raise it to .5% though obvious depending on what happens that may change. We should get to 1% as quickly as we can, which is still very “accommodative” (pouring on gasoline). Beyond the system risks of creating instability by pouring on as much gasoline as possible continuously it also is bad as you have no room for flexibility if you wan to increase the flow of gasoline. While it is true you can resort to extra-ordinary measures such as the too-big-to-fail quantitative easing bailouts those should be restricted to emergencies such as those created when our politicians allow the behavior that necessitated those unprecedented bailouts (especially since those too-big-to-fail institution still pose huge risks today).

Related: Is Adding More Banker and Politician Bailouts the Answer? – Fed Cuts Rate to 0-.25% (2008) – The Precipitous Fall of the Ringgit Shows the Economic Risk in the Malaysian Economy

So if you didn’t refinance when I suggested it (and refinance, myself), previously, you may want to look at doing so now. Or you may believe that listen to me about interest rates doesn’t seem very wise.

I have even read that banks are reducing fees in order to encourage refinancing. Seems crazy to me, but what do I know.

You do need to have a decent loan to value ratio (certainly no more than 90%, and probably 80% would be better). That can be difficult for those that have had large decreases in their homes value. Also you need a great credit rating and a stable job situation. But if you qualify refinancing at these rates should be a great financial move for many. I’m perfectly happen to have done so earlier, I didn’t quite pick the bottom but I still think over 30 years these rates (the current rates and earlier rates of 4 1/4% or 4 3/8%) will seem like a dream.

Related: Fixed Mortgage Rates Reach New Low (August 2010) – Lowest 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates in 37 Years (Dec 2008) – The Impact of Credit Scores and Jumbo Size on Mortgage Rates (Jan 2009)

Don’t be fooled by apologist for those causing the credit crisis that try and excuse their behavior and act as those paying back the bailout payments means they paid back the favors they were given. They have received much more from the policies of the federal reserve that has taken hundreds of billions of dollars from savers and given it to bankers. It has the same effect as a direct tax on savers being paid to bankers.

What is an investor/saver to do? James Jubak provides some excellent advice.

How to maximize what your cash pays even when nothing is paying much of anything now

Whether you agree with his suggestions in the article is up to you. But even if you don’t he provides a very good overview of the options and risks that you have to navigate now as an investor seeking investments that provide a decent yield. I agree with him that interest rates seem likely to rise, making bonds an investment I largely avoid now myself.

Related: posts on financial literacy – Jubak Picks 10 Stocks for Income Investors – S&P 500 Dividend Yield Tops Bond Yield: First Time Since 1958 – Bond Yields Show Dramatic Increase in Investor Confidence

I believe that the risks of inflation are so low that TIPS are not a good way to invest some of your investment portfolio. At these low rates I agree TIPS are hardly a wonderful investment but I think it is worth sacrificing some yield to gain if inflation does return in a few years. But the argument for not buying TIPS is also sensible I think.

Related: Bond Yields Show Dramatic Increase in Investor Confidence – Who Will Buy All the USA’s Debt? – Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – posts on bonds

They seem to believe they should make a significant profit while providing a horrible return (they are still taking over .5% of assets in fees – even though rates do not cover their fees). Those running funds have very little interest in providing value for 401(k) participants – they are mainly interested in raising fees (though supposedly they are suppose to be run by people with a fiduciary responsibility to the investors). Unfortunately most 401(k)s lock you away from the best options for an investor (such as Vanguard Funds).

My current allocation for future funds is 40% to USA stocks, 40% to Global stocks and 20% to inflation adjusted bonds. My current allocation in this retirement account is 10% real estate, 35% global stocks, 55% USA stocks. For all my retirement savings it is probably about 5% real estate, 35% global stocks, 5% money market, 55% USA stocks (which is a fairly aggressive mix).

As I have said many times I do not like bonds at this time. I don’t think the interest nearly justifies the risk of capital loss (due to inflation or interest rate risk). Inflation protected bonds are a much more acceptable option for someone that is worried about inflation (like I am over the next 10-20 years).

A number of the stock fund (even bond fund) options in my 401(k) have expense ratios above 1%. That is unacceptable. The average fees on the options I chose were .5%.

With my employee match I am adding over 10% of my income to my 401(k), which I think is a good aim for most everyone. Far too many people are unwilling to forgo luxuries to save appropriately for their retirement. This is a sign of financial illiteracy and an unwillingness to accept the responsibilities of modern life.

Related: Investing – My Thoughts at the End of 2009 – 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement – Saving for Retirement – Managing Retirement Investment Risks

Bond yields have remained low, with little change over the last 4 months. Earlier in the year, yield spreads decreased dramatically, and those reductions have remained over the last 4 months. The federal funds rate remains under .25%.

Data from the federal reserve: corporate Aaa – corporate Baa – ten year treasury – fed funds

Related: Continued Large Spreads Between Corporate and Government Bond Yields (April 2009) – Chart Shows Wild Swings in Bond Yields (Jan 2009) – investing and economic charts