New stats on dashboard (CP)

In my view they ought to be differentiated by colour at least from loans which are not overdue.

This certainly hasn't happened on my account. Are you sure that you haven't misunderstood the new loan breakdown? 

The Realised Return is the return you've received on your loans that have actually completed. I.e. the weighted average of the return on your completed loans. Mine looks to be about right at 8.18%. It won't include any cash drag and won't include any live loans you're in. My current return including these factors is 5.08%, according to my own calculations. 

I'd agree that they could make it clearer as to what the figures actually represent. I've written to them to ask them to do this and to make all figures on the page relate to the selected portfolio, in line with all other info on the page. 

I think this might be the base of your misunderstanding of the statistics. The loans listed under "Due" relate to active loans that have not yet reached their repayment dates. Within that section are subsections of times until the loans are due to finish.  E.g. under "Due -> 12+ Months" you will only see those loans that have more than 12 months to go before their repayment date. So, since you've been drawing down for some time, this will be zero for you. 

The loans that are late are listed in the lower section under "Overdue".

I see now that I have made a few misinterpretations (thanks for pointing that out). For me, after 3+ years though, my other accounts (Kuflink, Loanpad, easyMoney etc.) are all showing returns based on expected percentages. CP is not, that's all I can tell. 

As far as late loans go, you're correct there as well. I should have paid more attention (I don't pay a lot to CP anyway as I really want out). I was looking at the "Due" section and totally missed that everything had moved down (DOH). Back to not looking so good when over half of your loans are late:

What really concerns me, apart from the volume of overdue, is just how late some of these loans are.

I understand what you're saying and CP should do a better job of explaining instead of trying to pull the wool (my opinion). Still doesn't change the fact that my XIRR over the past 3.5 years with CP is 5.29%. Kuflink is 7.55% return over the same period using the same calculation. No way to get around the numbers.

I have already exited this platform. My XIRR could be as high 8.04% for two successful projects if I withdrew money automatically as soon as the borrowers repaid. Dashboard showing 8.47% Realised AR,

However, my XIRR is only 5.94% due to idle cash left on the platform for months.

Firstly I'd like to repeat that I'm happy to invest in both CP and K. I think that they both provide decent returns for investors for the level of risk, and have proven themselves for many years.  Neither are anywhere near perfect. They both have faults and annoyances which could and should have been addressed by now. 

Right now I believe that CP give a higher return for a lower risk than K do (I'll explain further down). I believe that K currently offer a better investor platform interaction experience.  Whilst I'm very frustrated by  CP's lack of effort on fixing their investor-side issues, for me the better risk/reward level sways me towards CP. I have 6 times more funds invested with CP than I do with K. CP is a core part of my portfolio. K is a very welcome minor addition for diversification. 

To address your points directly: 

I don't think CP are "trying to pull the wool". The recent addition of the platform stats to the dashboard, once they fix them so that they all relate to the selected portfolio, is very welcome. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be well understood. This wasn't helped by them being incorrect when first released. It would be great if they could also provide an XIRR measure that would show something close to your own calculated XIRR. I say close because I'm presuming that your measure includes platform cash drag, and no platforms include this in their stats because they all want to show themselves in the best light. You could consider this to be "pulling wool", but if so, it would equally apply to all platforms. One of the valid reasons for this is that part of that drag will be the investor's fault for not transferring every penny off and on the platform to absolutely minimise the drag (as benaj has eloquently illustrated in his post above). I suspect that one reason they don't provide XIRRs is that these are very computationally expensive compared to the stats provided (because the XIRR algorithm is iterative, unlike the deterministic ones provided).

IMO, the "pulling wool" accusation would be more accurately aimed at K for the rates they advertise for their fixed term accounts. I regularly see adverts on P2PFN where they state "up to 9.73% gross per annum" where the true AER is up to 8.25%, which isn't even mentioned. I'm awaiting an FCA investigation into whether this actually breaks any regulation,  but it's at best misleading IMO. 

Your comment: "Still doesn't change the fact that my XIRR over the past 3.5 years with CP is 5.29%. Kuflink is 7.55% return over the same period using the same calculation". The reason that K looks better in this respect is due to the way that interest is paid on the two platforms. I'm guessing that your K XIRR of 7.55 is because you've selected monthly interest payments (or you've chosen to be paid at maturity but have included the accrued interest in your calculation, or you've included referral bonuses). The CP XIRR is currently lower because you will have many loans which don't pay any interest until maturity. So, you will have substantial accrued interest on CP that isn't currently included in your XIRR. 

Assuming no losses on either platform (both are bound to eventually suffer some losses, but these should be minor compared to profits in a well diversified portfolio) and assuming equivalent loans are selected, the final XIRR on CP will end up higher than the final XIRR on K. That's because the same loans (1st charge, no tiers higher than 1, and similar LTVs) have consistently higher rates on CP.

Finally, why I believe that CP give a higher return for a lower risk than K. I'm ignoring K's fixed term products here because CP don't have equivalents. CP generally pay investors higher rates and charge borrowers lower rates for equivalent loans.  CP only do first charge loans, so you have to discount all K loans in tiers higher than 1 because these are effectively higher charges, which are a far higher risk. And you obviously need to discount all second charge loans on K. So, K loans with similar rates to CP have to be excluded as they are not equivalent. 

For balance, there are other factors that need to be taken into account, such as the fact that K offers an SM, which makes them more attractive for investors that don't want to invest through to maturity (or for those that use the practise of trying to sell all of their loans a month or so before completion to avoid potential overruns). And K is more suitable for those that prefer to invest for fixed(ish) terms and be totally hands-off with rates up to 8.25%. Or, like me, for investors that want a diversification play.