There also needs to be an EU-wide regulatory framework for non-bank providers of microcredit (banks are already covered by existing rules), defining them as non-deposit takers, with the ability to conduct credit only activities and to on-lend. There should be harmonised, risk-based rules on authorisation and supervision.
This would help p2p lending services.
Thank you to Peter Petrovics of Noba.hu for supplying the link.
More competition and entering more national markets (probability 100%) In many markets multiple p2p lending services will compete for the attention of lenders and borrowers, especially in the largest market: In the United States Globefunder.com and Loanio.com will launch. In other markets, where there is no national p2p lending service established yet (e.g. Canada, New Zealand, Spain), p2p lending will be introduced by the launch of a service.
Loanio did launch, but went into quiet period shortly afterwards. As did Prosper. Zopa US closed. Fynanz launched. Competition in the US is in fact lower than at the End of last year.Internationally several p2p lending services launched.
Insurance against defaults (probability 75%) Not totally new, since Boober.nl and Smava.de already offer some protection of the loan principal. Insurance can be implemented as a classical insurance product (supplied by an insurance company) or as a market mechanism, spreading the risk over multiple loans.
Secondary market (probability 25%) One of the disadvantages for lenders currently is that on all p2p lending platforms, the invested money i locked in for the duration of the loan term. Prosper.com has already announced that it plans a secondary market, enabling lenders to sell and buy loans any time. Depending on the market there are huge regulatory hurdles to allow trading of loans. For example German executives told P2P-Banking.com that on the German market a secondary market is unlikely for years to come.
Zopa Italy and Lending Club introduced secondary markets.
Cross-market lending (probability <25%) Aside form the social lending approaches (Kiva, MyC4, Microplace) so far all service are open only for lenders and borrowers that live in the same market. If lenders could lend to borrowers in markets with higher key interest rate than the market the lender lives in, the advantages could outweight the risks. In the European Union due to the Euro zone there would be no currency exchange risk. Again there are steep regulatory hurdles to be taken.
Has not happened.
Variable interest loans (probability ?) So far all loans are for fixed terms (prepayment allowed) with fixed interest rates. Variable interest loans could add flexibility. The interest rate could rise or decline following an indicator (e.g. market prime rate). Another possibility would be a mechanism where the variable interest rate would rise or fall as a result of the level of defaults of the credit grade. This could protect lenders, if the actual default ratio is higher then the forecasted default ratio.
Fynanz loans have variable rates. But this is the only example so far.
Third party bidding management (probability?) Just a thought. Lenders could allow a third party to manage their portfolio. Like an investment funds the lender would invest an amount of money, while the funds manager does the actual selection of loans. This could possibly be done by a sophisticated software (would you trust this?) selecting loans by statistical analysis of performance of loans with similiar parameters or by a fonds manager. The later is unlikely because the amount of time needed for each loan is too high to be covered by fees.
A day after the start of the secondary market (see: “Lending Club allows lenders to trade their investments“) of Lendingclub.com, today 3 loans are offered for sale. I doubt that these Lendingclub loans will find a buyer, since they are all more then 60 days late and the discounts of the asking price versus the outstanding interest and accrued interest are rather small (13.64% to 23.13%). But maybe someone will purchase the first note (it’s only 20 US$) just to experience and test the process.
There have also been reports by lenders, that do not fit the new requirements, but were able to sign up at FolioFn, raising the question if these lenders can buy notes even if they are prohibited from lending themselves.
German p2p lending service Smava has sent its lenders an email asking them to produce short videos telling their personal experiences using Smava. Smava offers 50 Euro (approx. 75 US$) for each user generated video that is sent to Smava and published.
Three (older) videos by Smava lenders can be viewed here.
Consultancy Gartner predicts that: "By 2010, social-banking platforms will have captured 10% of the available market for retail lending and financial planning". Not surprisingly Zopa is happy about that forecast. I think this is an over-optimistic outlook but James Gardner of BankerVision (working at Lloyds TSB bank) who also thinks it is aggressive points to the example of Paypal, which has been underestimated years ago. A more supportive view comes from Antony Mayfield while taking Zopa as example.
