I'm trying to put these thread updates into context. We know there is a *account* performance curve that bottoms out at around 15 mo, based on the weighted average age of the holdings within the account. We know that an account with continuous re-investment of note payments (and little contribution of new funds) should eventually stabilize at a weighted age of around 15 mo, if heavily skewed towards 36 mo notes. The curves that LC presents are not weighted by account *size*, however... one hypothesis is that the performance distribution of accounts with a weighted age out 20-30 months are getting lifted by accounts skewed towards 60 mo notes that are still in re-investment, while masking the lower returns of smaller accounts that are winding down.
Since re-investment has been stopped, it seems like this thread is essentially presenting the play-by-play that feeds "performance by vintage" charts like what @Fred93 had posted in a few threads, for example:
https://forum.lendacademy.com/index.php/topic,4113.msg40832.html#msg40832.
Has anyone with a more agile feel for these numbers gotten a sense of whether these results are basically consistent with what we'd expect for an account that is winding down (perhaps adjusted for the now-known poor quality of the last vintage purchased in this account)? It may not drive my decision-making, but I'd like to refine my expectations of what the eventual wind-down period will look like, and how long the account needs to exist in the re-investment state to cover the wind down costs and still meet my goals.