product development

P2P Lending Trends to Watch in 2010

wiseclerk 5 Comments

I always enjoy speculating what p2p lending developments might happen in the year to come and then look back in December to see how I did. I don’t dare call it forecast, because these are just my personal guesses, though in some cases it’s an educated guess based on what I know individual p2p lending services are working on at the moment.

More competition and entering more national markets (probability 100%)
This is a fairly easy bet. There are many, especially European markets, where no p2p lending service is operating yet. Even accounting for the fact that laws and regulation in some national markets make it hard or impossible to establish a service, there is still plenty of room. Looking at an individual country, it is much harder to tell. I still wonder that there are no competitors to Zopa in the British market (yet).

More products (probability 100%)
Currently nearly all p2p lending platforms only offer one product: unsecured, fixed term loans. The differences are more in the details of loan funding (bidding, no bidding, markets, listings) but not in the offered product. In 2010 we will see additional products (e.g. secured loans).

A bank will acquire an existing p2p lending service (probability <25%)
While last year’s prediction was that there is the first bank experimenting with p2p lending (and there was), 2010 might see a bank (or other financial institution) buying a running p2p lending service.
Buying will be much faster, cheaper and risk-less than if the bank tries to build a new service.

Continue reading →

Which P2P Lending Developments Happened in 2009 as Forecasted?

wiseclerk

In January I published my predictions for p2p lending trends in 2009. Now let’s see how good my crystal ball was. The black text is my original prediction, with the review added in green and yellow.

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 -  Zopa. I wonder if we’ll see the launch of a competitor there.

Multiple new services launched in 2009, e.g. Aqush in Japan, Sobralaen in Estonia, Uppspretta in Iceland as well as ill-fated Pertuity Direct in the US. Prosper reopened. The mentioned Communitylend and Nexx did not make it so far, though it looks like  Communitylend missed a launch in 2009 only by weeks. No competition in Britain for Zopa yet.

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.

Kiva continued it’s enormous growth and popularity. Vittana and United Prosperity launched. For MYC4 it was a hard year with decreasing loan volumes. Continue reading →

Should P2P Lending Services Actively Offer Refinancing?

wiseclerk

A p2p lending loan is one year into the 3 years loan term, the payments are current and the credit score of this borrower has improved a bit. Of the original amount of 10,000 US$ the remaining balance is 7,241 US$. Average interest rates on the p2p marketplace have dropped considerably since origination of that loan. Let’s also assume that from it’s data, the p2p lending service can gauge the probability and interest rate of a new loan with that credit score funding.

If the p2p lending service constantly monitors all running loans for their refinancing chances and then actively promotes a refinancing offer to those borrowers that have chances to lower their rates, there is a lot to gain:

  1. The borrower will be pleased that the p2p lending company offers a solution that could lower his rates
  2. The p2p lending company can earn origination fees again. This measure costs nearly nothing and therefore is much more cost-effective in generating revenue then market to attract new borrowers
  3. P2P lending services that are short on borrowers (surplus of lender demand) can generate new loans for lenders to bid on
  4. New lenders will find this loan attractive as the past performance record of this borrower shows that he pays on time.

The only disadvantaged party are lenders on the old loan. They lose the high interest rates for the remainder of the term.

Process

Continue reading →

Moneyauction – Booming P2P Lending Service in Korea

wiseclerk

Moneyauction, a Korean p2p lending company, says it is “the No. 2 [website] in Korea’s non-bank area, but the number 1 website in the finance area”. And it has impressive figures to prove it. Between June 01th, 2007 and Sep. 15th the loan amount applied was 56.6 million US$.

Moneyauction partnered with telecommunication carrier Korea Telecom and offers a mobile service allowing borrowers to apply for and lenders to bid on loans via their cell phone.

In 3 months Moneyauction plans to launch a secondary market (called ‘Divided bond trading’). A spokesman told P2P-Banking.com that he expects this new feature to boost the transaction volume.

(Source: company management)

P2P Lending Technology – Make or Buy

wiseclerk 32 Comments

The core ingredient a new P2P Lending company needs is a platform to operate on. The importance of the quality of the software used for the success of the business is high. Not only does interaction with the customer nearly exclusively take place via the interface the website offers, but ideally most processes that are to be conducted are built into the software.

Examples for these are interfaces to external suppliers of credit ratings, accounting functionalities and interaction with necessary bank accounts, possibly document input and handling functions (e.g. income verification).

Unlike other web 2.0 startups p2p lending companies cannot launch on a rudimentally developed platform and eliminate bugs and improve functions on the fly in beta. Customer expectations regarding security, correctness and reporting functionalities are rightly high when it comes to handling their money. The expectations of the users are set by the trustworthiness of online banking services.
Another factor is – depending on market – the regulation authority that might require proof for the reliability of the platform/processes

The management team has the choice between:

  • Developing the software inhouse
  • Hiring an external contractor to program the platform according to specifications made
  • Buying a tested and proven source code and use that as start for future development
  • Outsource the task to a whitelabel provider who provides the technical platform and future release improvements

Developing the software inhouse

The advantage is that the software can very specifically reflect the ideas and needs of the company’s founders. The disadvantage is the high risk to miscalculate time or budget needed.

Costs when starting from scratch are high. It has taken the p2p lending companies on average a year to develop their platforms. The SEC filings of US p2p lending companies reveal figures on software development costs.

Furthermore quality and performance issues might be underestimated requiring rework. Continue reading →

MYC4 Moves Software Development from Uganda to Copenhagen

wiseclerk

MYC4 has announced that the software development department of MYC4 will move form Kampala, Uganda to Copenhagen, Denmark where the MYC4 headquarter is located.

Quote from the announcement by CEO Mads Kjaer:

Dear Community,

After long and careful consideration, MYC4 has decided to move the software development department from Kampala, Uganda, to the Copenhagen office. The decision is made in close connection with MYC4’s strategic focus on streamlining the organization by focusing all efforts on (a) building a solid and scalable IT platform, (b) creating a strong basis for growth in Africa, and (c) improving the capacity and quality with MYC4’s current Partners.

There are two crucial reasons behind this decision:

Creating an effective cooperation between Copenhagen and Kampala has proven too complex. The Development Team in Kampala is strong and hardworking, but the current setup does not allow us the close dialog, sharing of ideas, productivity and flexibility that we require. To give an example of the challenges – the internet connection to the Kampala office, which we share with another company, is one of the best available, yet it is only 750 Kbits/second and is expensive (30,000 DKK/month).

The overhead costs are too high. Especially “hidden costs” for travel, slower development, waiting time and rework due to difficulties in communication.

Initially we saw a lot of benefits from having the software development team located in Africa. However, after having kept trying to improve to set up and make development run flexibly, we must face the fact that the setup is too complex to meet the demands and goals for MYC4’s development. Therefore, over a transition period of 2 months, the Kampala Office will be closed and a software development department established in Copenhagen.

…

Despite the fact that this is a difficult situation with personal as well as practical consequences, we are confident that it is the only thing to do in order to meet MYC4’s mission and vision and ensure the long term quality and scalability of the platform. …

(Source)