← AFRM forward model

AFRM · Forward model · Servicing income · Levchin case

What has to happen in Servicing income

Model as of

This page changes Servicing income inside the complete AFRM model. Every other vertical, corporate programme and valuation assumption stays in the selected portfolio case.

AFRM forward model
Horizon
Consolidated fair value $155.36 all other verticals held in this portfolio case
Final-quarter revenue $136M 4% of company revenue
Explicit segment contribution $743M EBITDA less segment capex, before corporate items

Affirm's own medium-term framework taken at face value: 25%+ GMV growth to $100B a year, revenue at 7.5-8.5% of it, RLTC at 3.75-4.0%, and a 30-35% adjusted operating margin. This case reaches the framework early rather than differently - $100B of annual GMV lands around 2029 instead of 2030, and margins settle at the top of the published band. What it does NOT reach is the version of the story where the Card and the adjacent verticals make Affirm something other than a lender: even here, interest income plus gain on sale is still more than half of terminal revenue, and the merchant fee rate still erodes. The framework is a bigger Affirm, not a different one - and that gap, not the growth rate, is what the multiple is arguing about. Which is why this case carries a 6x exit rather than the bull case's 6.5x: the company's own numbers, delivered in full, still describe a lender.

Servicing income

Basis quarter$46M
Final quarter$136M
Implied CAGR+24%
Final revenue mix4%

The fee Affirm earns for collecting on loans other people own. It is the annuity attached to the sold book - small, boringly consistent, and the one line that keeps paying after Affirm has stopped taking the credit risk.

Last four quarters
2026 Q1 $40M Reported
2026 Q2 $43M Reported
2026 Q3 $45M Reported
2026 Q4 $46M Reported
Servicing fees on third-party owned loansServicing on securitisation trusts
Sequential growth +5.0%/qtr decaying toward +4.0% 5.0% a quarter, down from 6.5%. The last three sequential moves were 7.7%, 4.4% and 3.2%, so the published rate was above every recent print.
Servicing income

Latest: $136M (2031Q4E)

Period Value
2025Q2 $29M
2025Q3 $32M
2025Q4 $34M
2026Q1 $40M
2026Q2 $43M
2026Q3 $45M
2026Q4 $46M
2027Q1E $49M
2027Q2E $52M
2027Q3E $55M
2027Q4E $58M
2028Q1E $61M
2028Q2E $65M
2028Q3E $69M
2028Q4E $72M
2029Q1E $76M
2029Q2E $81M
2029Q3E $85M
2029Q4E $90M
2030Q1E $94M
2030Q2E $100M
2030Q3E $105M
2030Q4E $111M
2031Q1E $116M
2031Q2E $123M
2031Q3E $129M
2031Q4E $136M

Assumptions & reasoning

  • This is the one line in the model with no driver behind it, and that is the honest answer rather than a lazy one: the thing that decides servicing income is the balance of third-party-owned loans Affirm services, and Affirm does not publish that balance quarterly. It does now disclose the platform portfolio - $20.2B against $15.1B a year ago - and says servicing income stayed at approximately 2% of the average off-balance-sheet portfolio, which is the closest thing to a rate this line has ever had.
  • The growth rate is cut from 6.5% to 5.0% a quarter, decaying toward 4%. It is the only growth rate in this roll-forward that moved. The last three sequential prints were 7.7%, 4.4% and 3.2%; 5.0% is roughly their average and still above the two most recent. Year over year the line grew 36%, so this is a deceleration the quarters themselves are already showing rather than a call on the future.
  • At 4.0% of revenue this is the smallest line in the model, and a wrong growth rate here changes the fair value by cents. It earns its place because leaving it out would break the reconciliation to reported total revenue.
  • The margin near 55% is a guess constrained by arithmetic. It was set so the five lines together summed to the $498M of RLTC Affirm reported for FQ3'26; against the $589M reported for FQ4'26 the five now sum to $569M, and this line's share of that gap has not been re-cut. See the model note.
  • The direction of risk is upward. Every quarter Affirm sells more paper than it holds, the serviced book that pays this fee gets larger - which is why a bear case for gain on sale is not automatically a bear case here.
AFRM model map

Explore another vertical