Yes, who doesn't want to see these notes annotated to reflect their true state(s)?
LC attacking this on a case-by-case or user-by-user basis - especially when they have a clear, legal obligation to notify when such is the case - strikes me as someone thinking small and trying to save workload, when, in fact, they ought to just update their database to properly reflect all loans which have been bought back due to the ID theft guarantee. This may also have some positive implication vis a vis the prepayment rates (which all investors monitor, closely - or should) and would likely reduce that number (and thereby some of the concerns which arise around the prepayment rate, if the ID-thefy reimbursements show up merely as "fully paid", in the data, shortly after origination) - not mentioning some other benefits which may accrue, regarding backtesting for investors and credibility for the platform.
There's no good reason not to do it for the entire dataset. If they're going to do it, they may as well do it right.
Good catch, Fred. I had the same thoughts when I watched Scott's keynote (which otherwise I liked) --- my mind instantly went to the opposite of what he said re: "we have a strong incentive to catch ID theft since we're on the hook" (paraphrased), to which my mind immediately translated "no, you have a perverse/reverse incentive not to monitor for ID theft, since otherwise you're on the hook".
Transparency solves for most of that. Let's see it. Thanks.
Author