I think the detail that is missing is that I can't fit exact definitions of what our formula generates into the header column. The column headers "Loss" and "ROI" are the best descriptions that fit in the small space we have for the header, and they are pretty good descriptions for what those fields are.
The numbers that show up there do not always equate to the text book definition of the one word header. I tried to explain what they mean in some weird scenarios, such as when a number over 100% shows up in the Loss column. It seems like you are ignoring the explanation of the data and saying that the one word header must exactly describe the data, even after I post a message saying it doesn't in all scenarios.
It is a real loss estimate for most usage scenarios, so I am ok leaving the word Loss there. But in some scenarios it is over 100% because the loss occurs extremely quickly and skews the calculation at which point the number means there is large loss in a very short time frame (with the larger the number being the faster the loss occurred), and that needs to be captured in order to balance out other young loans that are performing well. Extrapolating to yearly returns from young loans causes stuff like this to happen.
But again, I have to reiterate, the formula is not meant to be used on extremely small set of loans. The number for any single loan is not meant to be used by itself, that is not what our tool is designed for. Any estimated numbers that are generated can have weird results if there is not enough meaningful data to normalize the results.