Subscribe
Logo
Logo
  • Topics Icon Topics
    • AI Icon AI
    • Banking Icon Banking
    • Blockchain/DeFi Icon Blockchain/DeFi
    • Embedded Finance Icon Embedded Finance
    • Fraud/Identity Icon Fraud/Identity
    • Investing Icon Investing
    • Lending Icon Lending
    • Payments Icon Payments
    • Regulation Icon Regulation
    • Startups Icon Startups
  • Podcasts Icon Podcasts
  • Products Icon Products
    • Webinars Icon Webinars
    • White Papers Icon White Papers
  • TechWire Icon TechWire
  • Search
  • Subscribe
Reading
Are SoFi Borrowers Really Defaulting More?
ShareTweet
Home
Peer to Peer Lending
Are SoFi Borrowers Really Defaulting More?

Are SoFi Borrowers Really Defaulting More?

Peter Renton·
Peer to Peer Lending
·Mar. 15, 2017·2 min read

There was an article in Bloomberg earlier this week that called into question the performance of a 2015 SoFi securitization. Given that I have always held SoFi out as the gold standard in industry performance I was surprised to read about these issues. So, I did some digging and discovered that Matt Scully (the author) did not provide the complete story.

Now, before I go any further I should point out that I am fully aware that many securitization deals closed in recent years have performed below expectations and that some platforms have breached triggers significantly. But that is not what happened here.

We are talking about the very first securitization of SoFi’s unsecured consumer loans that closed in August 2015 and was issued by SoFi Consumer Loan Program 2015-1 LLC or SCLP 2015-1 for short. It was a private unrated securitization. Sources familiar with this deal said it was a one-off deal organized between the debt buyer and the equity holder. It had unusually tight triggers but this was part of the negotiation of the deal and SoFi did not actually set these triggers.

The Cumulative Net Loss (CNL) trigger for this deal in February was very low, reportedly below 3% and the actual CNL for February barely went above these low trigger points. But what is more important is that it is misleading to use this case as another example of underperformance. As I said this was a one-off deal between a motivated buyer and seller and was much tighter than subsequent deals.

Look at this chart below from the latest PeerIQ newsletter (reproduced here with permission). In this newsletter PeerIQ was examining a new securitization of Lending Club loans but they included a fascinating chart that demonstrates what a one-off SCLP 2015-1 was.

 

The gray line shows the CNL triggers for SCLP 2015-1 and the orange line shows the latest SoFi deal SCLP 2017-2. As you can see for the deal age (around 18 months) the triggers for new deals are almost double what they were in SCLP 2015-1.

Now, I should point out that while this deal was unrated, Kroll Bond Rating Agency did assign a rating to SCLP 2015-1 in November last year. At the request of the senior bondholder (who owned the entire senior tranche) Kroll assigned a single A rating to the senior bonds. Apparently that rating is not in jeopardy.

One final point. Because the triggers were barely breached it is quite possible that in coming months future triggers will not be breached and the deal will cure. The reality is that triggers were not set at the appropriate level for this deal. SoFi did not set these triggers and likely did not agree with them as they were negotiated directly between the buyer and the seller. So to read anything into this particular breach is misleading.

  • Peter Renton
    Peter Renton

    Peter Renton cofounded Fintech Nexus as the world’s largest digital media company focused on fintech before it was acquired by Command. Peter has been writing about fintech since 2010 and he is the author and creator of the Fintech One-on-One Podcast, the first and longest-running fintech interview series.

    View all posts
Tags
securitizationSoFitriggers
Related

SoFi reports strong Q1 revenue and profits

SoFi reported Q4 2023 earnings, announces growth and profitability

SoFi reports a solid quarter as student loan repayments return

Podcast 428: Gunes Kulaligil of Stout

Popular Posts

Today:

  • Newsletter-graphicBig Tech’s Billion-Dollar Binge Aug. 13, 2025
  • Stylizedhouse-with-EKGFintech x the One Big Beautiful Bill Jun. 26, 2025
  • FN articleVisa’s Director of Product Management on BNPL’s Future Jul. 22, 2025
  • 122Hire, Fire, and Acquire: The AI Race is Heating Up Aug. 13, 2025

This month:

  • Penny LeeThe Battle for Open Banking’s Future Jul. 10, 2025
  • Fintech ForecastWhy Every Lender Should Be Using Cash Flow Underwriting Today Jul. 29, 2025
  • Pat UtzAbstract CEO on RegTech in the era of Trump 2.0 Jul. 17, 2025
  • Jeff Radke AccelerantAs Accelerant IPOs on NYSE, CEO Jeff Radke Hopes to Usher In Insurtech 3.0 Jul. 24, 2025
  • Eric GlymanHow Ramp’s CEO Eric Glyman is betting big on AI agents Jul. 15, 2025
  • Chris Taylor Fractional AIFractional AI’s CEO Chris Taylor on Scaling the Unscalable Jul. 23, 2025
  • Dr Luke BarrWhen the Copilot Becomes the Pilot (and You Stop Flying) Jul. 16, 2025
  • Fintech Forecast (2)Consulting the crystal ball— which 2025 fintech predictions came true, and what’s in store for the rest of the year? Aug. 7, 2025
  • Nova Credit Nikki CrossNova Credit Sees BNPL Flashing Consumer Warning Signs Aug. 5, 2025
  • FN articleVisa’s Director of Product Management on BNPL’s Future Jul. 22, 2025

  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
Subscribe
Copyright © 2025 Fintech Nexus
  • Topics
    • AI
    • Banking
    • Blockchain/DeFi
    • Embedded Finance
    • Fraud/Identity
    • Investing
    • Lending
    • Payments
    • Regulation
    • Startups
  • Podcasts
  • Products
    • Webinars
    • White Papers
  • TechWire
  • Contact Us
Start typing to see results or hit ESC to close
lis digital banking USA Lending Club UK
See all results