Are you passionate about p2p lending or p2p microfinance? Would you like to contribute reports, news and experiences related to this topic from your country? Are you willing to research the details and look beyond the marketing messages of the p2p lending companies?
Become a guest author at the P2P-Banking blog. Your articles will be posted under your name. You will frequently share news, information and latest developments on p2p lending and how the established banking players in your country react on or embrace these trends.
P2P-Banking.com is especially seeking guest authors from Italy, Spain, Poland and Japan, which are fast growing p2p lending markets. But we do welcome writers sharing their knowledge and experience from other countries.
Today I have added the new ‘Peer to Peer Lending Jobs‘ section and started it with listing the current 4 positions startup Loanio wants to fill in Nanuet, NY.
As P2P Lending is a very new and emerging field there are very few experts who have gathered previous practical experience in this field and these are highly sought after. One example is Arkadiusz Hajduk, who founded Fairrates in Denmark, then worked for IOU Central in Canada and now works at Smava.pl in Poland. Continue reading →
Positive TV coverage (see video here) on nationwide German TV on Monday during primetime caused traffic spikes at the German p2p lending services Smava and Auxmoney. The websites were partially down during Monday and Tuesday or so slow they were practicably not useable. Auxmoney reacted by temporary deactivating non-vital functions like sorting. Meanwhile stability of the web applications has been restored.
The surge in user demand led to a 20% increase in active lenders at Auxmoney and most ever parallel open loan listings (currently 332). At Smava nearly all reasonable loan listings are funded within a few days or even hours at the moment.
To encourage more loan listings Smava has upped the bonus for inviting new borrowers to 150-200 EUR (approx 200 to 275 US$) for each referral of a borrower that is success fully funded (up from 100 Euro before).
Loanio has filed a S-1 registration with the SEC. P2P lending service Loanio had been briefly active in October and November last year before voluntarily closing to new users in order to seek SEC registration approval.
In the new SEC filing Loanio wants approval for offering 50 million US$ in notes based on peer to peer loans via their website Loanio.com. The filing includes the outlook for a secondary market (loan trading platform via a broker) and the plan that Loanio might partner with a “national financial institution”. Should that be achieved, borrower loans could be originated through this lending institution and then sold and assigned to Loanio. This would allow Loanio to offer loans to borrowers in more than the 22 states it has individual state lending licenses for now, and would eliminate (some) state interest caps.
The filing also gives insights into the company structure and expenses since foundation. Founder Michael Solomon hold 97% of the company shares.
Under the requirement to file with the SEC, starting a peer-to-peer lending company in the US market takes an unusual long pre-launch phase compared to other internet based business models.
Lending Club already completed the SEC approval process, while IOU Central and Prosper currently undergo this process. Pertuity Direct operates under a p2p lending model with a different setup.
P2P lending holds great promise: more transparency, purposeful direction of investments and economic advantages for borrowers and lenders. Some even talk of democratization of financial processes.
But are advantages and risks evenly balanced between borrowers and lenders?
For the borrower p2p lending fulfills most promises and the only risk is that the desired loan goes unfunded. Most services have a simple fee structure with no hidden fees and the borrower only pays fees when he does receive the wanted loan. And within a time frame of a few weeks after sign-up the borrower reaches his goal – once his loan is funded and the money is transferred to his account. Platforms with auction mechanisms can even benefit the borrower further in supplying the loan at a lower interest rate then the maximum he set.
The lender on the other side is promised an attractive return on investment but faces multiple risks:
borrower fails to repay the loan
(identity) fraud
p2p lending company fails and ceases to service loans (e.g. Boober Netherlands)
unreliable forecasts of ROI and default rates
on some services: open/undefined tax and legal issues
on some microfinance services: currency exchange risks
on some microfinance services: risk of MFI failure
There is also an information asymmetry. The borrower usually has most of the information he needs in advance and the information he has is accurate. Should the information be not accurate (e.g. wrong information on at what interest rates he can be funded) then he can retry at no additional costs only incurring a delay. The lender has information, which is partly based on estimates or forecasts that might prove unreliable and other parts of the information might be untrue (e.g. borrower reported income or borrower description of purpose of the loan). For privacy reasons it might also be a subset of the information the p2p lending service itself has on the borrower (e.g. town of residence omitted, or income or jobs listed only in categories instead of values).
The lending experience of the lender is further hindered by the timeline. The problems may impact him at any point in time of a several year loan term. And he either has no way to terminate his investment immediately or if there is a secondary market he might be only able to do so by accepting economic disadvantages in return for the option to selling off.
The situation of the lenders in this comparison to the borrowers is worsened by the alignment of interests of the p2p lending service company with the borrowers. This is due to several factors:
in most models borrowers pay the larger part of the fees and are thereby important for the revenues
in some markets attracting borrowers is the limiting factor for growth
for obvious image and marketing reasons the p2p lending company is not eager to share information on fraud and (in some cases) default details
for the same reasons companies are slow to react and change their lender information when real default levels are much higher then fore-casted (or even advertised) default levels (examples are Prosper, MYC4)
This imparity results in different levels of satisfaction with the p2p lending service for lenders and borrowers. While those p2p lending services that offer (unmoderated) discussion forums have only few unsatisfied borrowers voicing their opinion (and then mostly on technical issues) lender concern and critic rises over time on some of these services (to the extend that Prosper even deleted it’s forum at one point in time).
Spanish regional bank Caja Navarra is the first bank to offer it’s own customers a p2p lending service. Caja Navarra announced the p2p lending microsite. Caja Navarra markets this new peer to peer lending service as one investment option in a letter to its 400,000 customers.
The service allows any customer to place a loan request which can then be fulfilled by a relative, a friend, an acquaintance or a stranger. Caja Navarra says the borrower can benefit by receiving a lower interest rate than in a traditional bank loan. There are currently 3 loan requests listed (if I understand the site right). Continue reading →
