P2P lending companies by loan volume – Jan 09

P2P lending is spreading internationally. While the biggest loan volumes are generated in the US market, many p2p lending websites have been established in other international markets.

P2P-Banking.com has created the following overview table listing services that are in operation and ranked them by loan volume. The loan volumes are not directly comparable for they are cumulative since launch of each service and represent different time spans.

In total approx. 740 million US$ have been funded through peer to peer lending/social lending services so far worldwide.


This image may be reprinted on other internet sites, provided it is not altered or resized and the following text (including the direct link to this article) is given as source directly below the image:
Source: P2P-Banking.com

Since the previous version of this table especially Zopa (UK), Lending Club and Kiva thrived. With Prosper, Loanio and Fynanz halted, Lending Club profits from the situation.


This image may be reprinted under the same conditions as the first one.

MTN Uganda pledges 250,000 US$ to fund small businesses through MyC4

MTN Uganda, a telecommunication company with 3.5 million customers, will invest 250,000 US$ to fund loans to small and medium scale enterprises via MyC4.

“This is a great opportunity for us to champion the notion of an African Company helping fellow Africans instead of the common perception that Aid should always come from “Abroad”” said Mr. Van Veen during the announcement and launch of the partnership at the Sheraton Kampala Hotel. The capital investment guidelines require that MTN’s loan contribution must constitute a minimum of 33 percent of the total loan required.
Under the agreement, $50,000 would be invested immediately in a six months pilot phase which is expected to shed light on how best to administer the funding. “The learning after the pilot phase will guide us on how to manage the capital repayments and their re-investment over the three year period”.

Are Kiva and MyC4 p2p lending services?

In this post Netbanker questions, if MyC4 and Kiva are offering p2p lending. He argues they are “not really peer-to-peer”.

Let’s have a look, if these microfinance models can fit under the definition of peer to peer lending. One aspect of p2p lending is, that the lender can select individual borrowers, which he wants to lend money to. Kiva and MyC4 offer this choice. A p2p lending platform usually allows search parameters to narrow the search for matching borrowers (e.g. by credit grade). Both have this function allowing to search by country, gender, industry and more.

A possible argument against classifying MyC4 and Kiva as p2p lending companies is the fact that they use local microfinance institutions as intermediaries acting between lender and borrower and charging fees. That is true, but several other p2p lending services (e.g. Prosper, Lending Club and Smava) use banks as intermediaries (for legal reasons).

So where exactly is the divide seperating MyC4 and Kiva from other p2p lending services. They differ especially on the factor that:

  1. Borrowers can not sign up themselves (so one side is really offline); borrowers are selected and screened by the MFIs
  2. Business model
  3. Lenders receive no interest at Kiva
  4. Lenders and borrowers do not reside in the same country.

I still think that MyC4 and Kiva can be defined as p2p lending services. With Microplace the case is different, because no individual borrowers can be identified; therefore Microplace could be excluded form p2p lending (Microplace states that it is not a p2p lending site).

(Photo credit: Stig Nygaard)

Plausibility check?

MyC4.com has a great concept with an ambitious goal: ‘Let’s end poverty by 2015’. Lenders can invest in African businesses of small entrepreneurs. MyC4 gained a lot of positive media coverage and received awards.

The realization of this concept is an enormous task, facing many hurdles. Since MyC4 is transparent and lenders earn interest problems do impact the user experience. Current user discussions deal with issues like defaults, currency risks, transaction costs, pending time, information accuracy and communication.

While I am sure that Kiva has to overcome similar problems, the difference is that on Kiva these issues are more dealt with in the background and the average user is not or less aware of them.

Like Kiva, MyC4 partners with local microfinance institutions (called ‘providers’ on MyC4 – see overview of provider results) that screen loan applicants. These partners are trying hard to validate the business of the applicant as good as possible, but conditions and environment complicate the task.

Furthermore the partners are on a learning curve – a process that MyC4 supports. Data accuracy of the loan details listed by the provider sometimes is questionable – this was one of the causes MyC4 cancelled some Ivory Coast loans earlier.

Example: an active listing that raises questions

Alima Thiam, retail shopkeeper in Senegal, seeks a 13,873 Euro loan.

: About :
Married and a mother of 2 children, Alima has been trading items for 8 years. Her business grew so fast that in April 2007, she was able to open her first store. Her business is still growing at a fast pace and she needs additional working capital to increase her inventory of goods and add new items.

Objective of the opportunity:
With a loan of €13873, Alima seeks to increase her stock provided that it would guarantee more interesting sales. She wants to buy her goods early to avoid paying higher prices, hence keeping her costs down. She will use the increased margin to introduce new items.

The information provided in the listing raises the following plausibility questions:

  1. The relation of the loan amount to the yearly income seems very high
  2. The listed collateral – an Audi 80 – is given with a value of  9,711 Euro. This seems a very high value for a very old car model. (independent of issues whether the collateral could really be secured in case of default)
  3. The location pictured does not look like it is in proportion to the amount of goods that could be bought for the loan value.

What reasons could have caused possible inaccuracy of information in this loan listing?

Githa Kurdahl, doing an internship with Ivoire Credit has described her findings regarding inaccurate descriptions in an excellent post on Oct. 21st. In summary she pointed out the following causes:

  1. mistakes due to manual calculations
  2. mistakes in translation
  3. lack of business records
  4. exaggerated projections
  5. optimistic borrowers
  6. mismatch between European and African business context.