Peer to peer lending is innovative and new. New users usually have lots of questions when grasping the marketplace mechanisms. Beyond the FAQ of the p2p lending service, a great place to learn is usually a forum, where users (mostly lenders) exchange experiences and post and answer questions.
There are “official” forums provided by the lending services and independent ones. One of the first ones, the official Prosper forum, became one of the most notorious ones. After Prosper “moderated” negative and critical posts it later deleted the initial forum in total. When a copied version of the forum’s archive was made available on seperate internet site Prosper tried to shut the site down, but failed.
But this is an extreme example. I found that on nearly all other forums a very helpful and supportive attitude rules.
German p2p lending service Smava.de launched two year ago. Since the launch of Smava 1350 loans were funded for a total loan volume of about 7.9 million Euro (approx. 10.7 million US$).
Lender’s viewpoint
So far lenders on Smava did well. There are approx. 2500 lenders active on Smava. Despite the credit crisis, 99% of the lenders earned a profit in 2008 (total 210,861 Euro), while the 1% who did incur a loss, lost only 60 Euro.
So far ROI in the range from 5-10% have been realistic. As of today 75 loans have defaulted, which is (in percent) more then was originally predicted. The Anleger-Poolmechanism spreads the losses of a default across all loans of a credit grade, which prevents total losses of investments. Therefore when 3 in 100 loans in credit grade X default, the lenders invested in the defaulted loans still receive 97% of the principal, while for lenders in the current loans returns are lowered by 3%.
Technically and on the process level Smava functions as promised.
Borrower’s viewpoint
Provided the borrower has a credit grade of at least ‘H’ (95% of the German population have credit grades between ‘A’ and ‘H’ so about 5% are excluded) and he has a sufficient income, chances for obtaining a loan through Smava are good. About 60 percent of the listings were funded. In February 2009 Smava raised the fees for borrowers from 1% to 2-2.5%.
Marketplace development
Smava shows continuous growth, with the volume of new loans per month approaching 1 million Euro (see chart)
Despite extensive and positive press coverage Smava is still a niche market with less than 5000 active users. Looking at the distribution of lenders by amount invested, the top 50 Smava lenders funded about 1,690,000 Euro (or about 21% of total loan volume). Currently lenders are limited to a maximum of 100,000 Euro investment.
(Development of Smava average nominal interest rates for new loans; Source: smava loan statistic, Wiseclerk.com, 03-21-08)
I would estimate that the increased fees allow Smava to cover the variable costs. But to cover fixed operating expenses Smava needs to multiple its volume. First priority of Smava must be to accelerate growth.
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
Initially while browsing the PertuityDirect.com and the related NationalRetailFund.com site I was a bit puzzled where the peer to peer lending aspect is to be found? I learned:
Lenders buy shares
Borrowers credit information details are never shared. Only Pertuity Direct knows them
There is no auction
Interest rates are set by Pertuity Direct
Then I read the National Retail Fund II prospectus and learned that the Fund is allowed to do other investments then funding loans of Pertuity Direct borrowers. It may:
buy T-Bills, money market funds and other cash equivalents
buy bundled consumer note securities, even if part of them is deliquent
The NationalRetailFund website explains:
How is this related to Pertuity Direct?
Pertuity Direct is a separate entity and is one of the fund’s service providers and acts in an administrative role. They underwrite and originate borrower loans. Those loans are an investment option for this fund.
On the same FAQ page I then found what this all has to do with p2p lending:
Where is the ‘Social’ aspect in all of this?
If you choose, you have the option to engage in the social lending network associated with the borrowers within the funds. By selecting the option, you will be able to see the various borrowers in the funds, get to read their stories and track their progress over time. You will also have the ability to engage directly with any borrower or group of borrowers that you find compelling and help them accomplish their goals with a rewards program.
Lenders can use so called Pertuity Bucks, which they receive free upon sign up, to reward borrowers whose stories they find compelling. The balance of the borrower is reduced by the amount of Pertuity Bucks the borrower receives.
My review summary of the p2p lending aspect of Pertuity Direct
While it may be a smart construct in respect to overcoming regulation hurdles it offers much less direct peer to peer interaction between lender and borrower.
Pertuity Direct decides which loans get approved
Pertuity Direct sets the interest rates
The fund decides on the investment strategy in detail
Interaction takes place only through the Pertuity Bucks community feature
But let’s see how the concept develops and what borrowers and lenders think about it.
As last year I’ll again attempt some predictions on what trends and developments can be expected in peer-to-peer lending 2009.
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. In other markets, where there is no national p2p lending service active yet (e.g. Canada, New Zealand), p2p lending will be introduced by the launch of a service. Possible candidates include Communitylend and Nexx. It is hard to predict when the dormant US players (e.g. Prosper, Loanio) will overcome the regulatory hurdles and if that step is lasting. The British market which has (compared to other markets) rather low regulatory barriers so far is dominated by a single player -Â Zopa. I wonder if we’ll see the launch of a competitor there.
Boom of social lending services/p2p microfinance (probability 100%) 2008 saw the launch of Babyloan, Veecus and Wokai. Kiva funded more the 1 million US$ new loans in a single week in the end of December. The steep growth of Kiva, MyC4 and other services will continue and new p2p microfinance platforms will launch.
First Banks experiment with own p2p lending applications (probability 50%) While p2p lending volumes are far from being a business threat to banks – banks do watch the developments. Possibly in 2009 a bank will launch its own p2p lending application. The principal aim will not be to generate revenue, but rather to collect experience and to gauge acceptance by the bank’s customers. It will be interesting to see banks testing the water on their path to implement a p2p lending concept that supplements their core business.
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.
