Will Block disclose vintage-level loan cohort data for Borrow in the FY2025 10-K or Q4 2025 earnings?

Block has NEVER disclosed vintage-level data. The pattern of selective transparency (goodwill impairment assumptions also not disclosed despite $29B Afterpay acquisition) suggests institutional resistance to granular disclosure. The FDIC charter creates potential regulatory pressure, but regulatory filings are not necessarily public. The base rate for a company that has never disclosed a specific data category suddenly doing so is low. The lending business is growing rapidly (+134% YoY) and the 'below 3% target' framing is deliberately vague. Companies typically increase disclosure when forced by regulation, shareholder pressure, or activist campaigns -- none of which are evidenced here. The information asymmetry is structural and management has maintained this opacity through multiple quarterly filings.

Consider what would drive disclosure: (a) FDIC regulatory requirement making it mandatory, (b) management proactively sharing favorable data, (c) competitive pressure from peers, (d) intolerable analyst/investor pressure. Block's FDIC banking charter was approved Q1 2025, and new banking charter compliance obligations take time to phase in. The 10-K is the most likely venue for enhanced credit disclosure, but the 'selective transparency' pattern and years of non-disclosure suggest a deliberate strategic choice, not an oversight. The committee finding that non-disclosure may be 'competitively motivated or concealment-motivated' is key -- either motivation results in continued non-disclosure. The ONE factor pushing probability up: the lending book at $22B+ may trigger auditor requirements for more granular credit quality disclosure in financial statement notes.

The FY2025 10-K and Q4 earnings are the resolution sources. Block's fiscal year ends December 31, so the 10-K would be filed by late February or March 2026. The lending business has changed materially (+134% YoY to $22B+). FASB's CECL accounting requirements could potentially require vintage-level disclosures for entities with FDIC-supervised bank subsidiaries. This is the strongest argument FOR disclosure. Additionally, companies occasionally enhance disclosure in annual filings when the underlying business has changed scale -- and at $22B+, the lending book may have crossed a materiality threshold that external auditors flag. However, Block's lending operations have been large for several quarters and they haven't disclosed this data despite its materiality. The probability is higher than base but still well below 50%.

Block has never disclosed vintage-level loan data. The selective transparency pattern is clear -- they also withhold Afterpay goodwill impairment testing assumptions despite a $29B acquisition. Management's 'below 3% target' framing is deliberately imprecise and has persisted through multiple filings. No analyst pressure, no regulatory mandate, and no peer pressure has prompted disclosure so far. The FDIC charter is interesting but regulatory filings do not equal public disclosure. The base rate for voluntary disclosure of competitively sensitive data that has been deliberately withheld is very low.

Companies do not suddenly start disclosing data they have been deliberately withholding for years unless something forces their hand. Nothing in the context suggests a forcing function has emerged. The FDIC charter is weak -- banking regulatory filings are often not public-facing investor disclosure. Block has managed to grow lending to $22B+ without disclosing vintages, and the market has not punished them for it. The asymmetric payoff for management strongly favors continued non-disclosure: if vintage data is favorable, the current 'below 3%' assertion already covers the narrative; if unfavorable, disclosure would be devastating. Management has no incentive to introduce a data point that creates new questions.

Several scenarios could lead to disclosure: FDIC/CECL requirements mandating it for the bank subsidiary, management proactively sharing favorable data to improve investor confidence, or external auditors requiring it given the $22B+ scale. These scenarios are plausible but not probable. The base rate of companies introducing new granular disclosure categories voluntarily is roughly 10-15% in any given annual filing cycle. Block's demonstrated preference for opacity on this specific metric -- maintained through rapid growth and multiple quarterly filings -- pushes the probability below that base rate. The committee's 6/6 consensus on the data gap being a structural limitation reinforces that this is a deliberate choice.

Block has never disclosed vintage-level loan data in any filing or earnings material. No visible forcing function -- no regulatory mandate, no activist campaign, no peer pressure. Pattern of selective transparency confirmed across multiple high-stakes items (lending AND goodwill). Very unlikely to change in the next filing cycle.

Strong institutional resistance to this disclosure evidenced by multi-year non-disclosure through rapid lending growth (+134% YoY). FDIC charter is the only potential catalyst but the regulatory vs public disclosure distinction is important. Management's target-based framing ('below 3%') is deliberately vague and serves their interests. The 10-K is the best venue for enhanced disclosure but Block has published multiple 10-Ks without this data.

Zero historical precedent for this disclosure from Block. Lending book growth makes the data more IMPORTANT but not more LIKELY to be disclosed -- if anything, management is more protective of competitively sensitive data as the business scales. The committee's classification of this as a 'structural limitation' rather than an oversight reinforces that continued non-disclosure is the base case.