What are these Policy Code 2 Loans at Lending Club?

I first noticed these loans back in July when I did a download of the entire Lending Club loan history. There was a new column added to the download file called policy_code. And some recent loans had been added that had a policy_code value of 2, whereas previous loans had a value of 1.

I had been told some changes were coming where different kinds of loans were going to be made available and this looked like it. When you look at these Policy Code 2 loans in the downloadable CSV file you will notice they are different. In fact there are several differences between these loans and the regular loans. For Policy Code 2 loans:

  1. All of the credit data fields are blank.
  2. They are all F and G grade loans with interest rates ranging from 23.5% to 26.06%.
  3. They are all 36-month loans.
  4. Average loan size is around $8,500, well below the roughly $14,000 average of all loans.
  5. Maximum loan size is $15,000.

These Policy Code 2 loans have been growing rapidly in volume. The first one was issued on July 12, 2013 and each month has seen a significant increase:

MonthPolicy Code 2 Total Loan VolumePercent
July$2.7 million$173.5 million1.6%
August$10.3 million$190.3 million5.4%
September$15.4 million$203.4 million7.6%
October$18.3 million$223.1 million8.2%

When I chatted with Scott Sanborn, the Chief Operating Officer at Lending Club, about these new loans he was able to answer many of my questions and clarify exactly what is going on. So here is the rundown on Policy Code 2 loans:

  • These are loans made to borrowers that do not meet Lending Club’s current credit policy standards.
  • The FICO scores on these borrowers are typically 640-659, below the 660 threshold on Policy Code 1 loans.
  • These loans are made available to select institutional investors who have a great deal of experience with consumer loans in this credit spectrum and with Lending Club.
  • They are only available as whole loans at this time.
  • Lending Club believes that Policy 2 loans could grow to a total of 15% of the total volume over the next 12 months.

Basically, Sanborn said that these are loans to creditworthy borrowers that Lending Club believes should be made. But they want to be completely sure these loans will perform as expected before deciding whether to make them available to everyone. So, a small number of institutional investors are taking the leap by investing in these loans without a track record and knowing full well they do not meet Lending Club’s existing credit policy.

Given that these seem to be riskier loans I wondered why they were listed as grades F and G and not, say, grade H. When I asked Sanborn that question this is what he said:

These are grades F and G because our models tell us that they should perform in the same way.  However they are riskier in that we have not served this population before, and we need to be deliberate about making the jump from a spreadsheet to real life.

Given the appetite there is for the high yield segment of the market I imagine there will be large demand among retail investors if and when these loans are made available. I, for one, am hoping they perform as expected and are made available to everyone at some point.

Subscribe
Notify of
20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RawRaw
RawRaw
Nov. 21, 2013 9:43 am

Perform as expected? Are they going to wait for an economic shock to make that call or just the base line?

Simon Cunningham
Nov. 21, 2013 10:36 am

This explains why LC recently told me they lowered the FICO minimum to 640, even though 660 is still listed on the site.

writing2reality
Nov. 21, 2013 11:31 pm

This seems to me to be Lending Club looking to broaden the funnel in which they bring in potential borrowers (obviously) but the interesting part is how much of the month over month growth in August and September was attributable to these PC2 loans. I’ve done a modified month over month increase after stripping away the PC2 loans.

Adjusted August growth: (190.3-10.3) – (173.5-2.7) / (173.5-2.7) = 180-170.8/170.8 = 5.4% which compares to the 9.7% reflected in the gross numbers

Adjusted September growth: (203.4-15.4) – (190.3-10.3) / (190.3-10.3) = 188-180/180 = 4.4% which compares to the 6.7% reflected in the gross numbers

As can be seen above, the comparison in growth was showed it was significantly slower than the readily recognized figures for the end of this past summer. Short of you noticing the PC2 loans, one would have been under the presumption that their growth this summer was just a part of the normal controlled growth pattern they’ve been exhibiting all along, not expanding into additional markets.

As an investor, I like to look at comparisons year over year like the same-store sales at McDonald’s, as an example. Just something to ponder I suppose and perhaps something to add in the details of your monthly summaries, Peter.

writing2reality
Nov. 22, 2013 8:28 am
Reply to  Peter Renton

That is a fair statement Peter, and you’re correct, we shouldn’t read too much into things.

Chris
Chris
Nov. 22, 2013 5:02 pm

Good investigative blogging Peter. Very informative. Thank you sir!

Charlie
Charlie
Nov. 22, 2013 8:38 pm

This is interesting because this is essentially creating 2nd class of loans. Not sure how I feel about this.

Dan B
Dan B
Nov. 23, 2013 3:46 am

The only surprising thing about this move is that it is surprising to anyone. I said so 3 years ago that sooner or later they’d have to lower standards or lower rates…………..regardless of what LC said about never lowering standards. With the ever increasing demand for high yielding notes the decision was pretty much made for them

Besides, how long could it have been before that tight band between 660-720 or so could no longer provide enough borrowers interested in borrowing at the high interest rates offered? It was only a matter of time. Btw, I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing. It is what it is. My only question is whether LC will continue to insist that these are all “Prime” Consumer notes. Also, I wouldn’t be even a bit surprised if there is a policy code 3 in the works……………though I’d doubt they’d call it that, especially after they read this. 🙂

Dan B
Dan B
Nov. 23, 2013 3:54 pm
Reply to  Peter Renton

Sure, that would make sense……………& like I said, I’m not saying any of this is a bad thing.

Wendy
Wendy
Nov. 25, 2013 9:01 am

Very interesting Peter! Happy Thanksgiving to you and the family.

Simon Cunningham
Jan. 22, 2014 9:57 pm

Peter, I see NSR is listing both policy 2 and something called policy code 99s. Any idea what these might be?