P2P-Banking.com

Demand at Boober.nl is slowing. When I checked today only two loan listings were open. The following curve showing unique loan requests definitly shapes in the wrong direction. Boober lenders discus this development in this forum thread.

(Source Booberwatch.nl)

Since the launch 15 months ago, about 2.4 million Euro (about 3.8M US$) loan volume has been funded through Boober.

German Smava.de has funded about the same volume (2.3 million Euro) but after a slower start 14 months ago, lately the volume growth accelerated moderately.

(Smava loan volume, Source: Smava loan stats at Wiseclerk.com).

On Smava as well as on Boober average borrower interest rates have risen considerably since the start. This reduces the attractiveness for borrowers.

German p2p lending service Smava.de made some changes:

• Borrowing for business purposes is now allowed. The borrower still is an individual person but is no longer limited on private purposes of the loan
• Borrowers may borrow up to 25,000 Euro (approx 39,200 US$), previously the maximum was 10,000 Euro
• Maximum amount any lender can invest in the marketplace is raised to 100,000 Euro (previously 25,000 Euro)
• Loan terms are now selectable 36 or 60 months (previously only 36 months); the insurance pools (Anleger-Pools) are seperated by credit grade and term. This complicated construct will influence lenders when deciding to bid on loans that are otherwise comparable but differ in loan term, since the level reached in the insurance pools directly impacts each payment rate.
• Bad debt sales rates have been lowered for lower credit grades (previously it was 22.5% to 25%, now it is 15% to 25% depending on credit grade)

(Source: P2P-Kredite.com)

Since it's launch in February 2007 Smava has funded 457 loans with 2 million Euro (approx 3.14 million US$) loan volume. 8 loans have defaulted and currently 9 loans are late.

German p2p lending service Smava.de launched one year ago. Since the launch of Smava 393 loans were funded for a total loan volume of about 1.7 million Euro (approx. 2.6 million US$).

Lender's viewpoint

In a february survey 33% of lenders answered to be very satisfied with Smava and 63% were satisfied. 48% said their ROI met expectations while 19% said it exceeded expectations.

So far a 7% ROI is realistic. Only 3 loans have defaulted and 11 are (less then 30 days) late. In the past Smava cured the majority of late loans. The Anleger-Pool mechanism spreads the losses of a default across all loans of a credit grade. Therefore when 1 in 100 loans in credit grade X defaults, the lenders invested in the defaulted loan still receive 99% of the principal, while for lenders in the current loans returns are lowered by 1%.

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 two third of the listings were funded. The fee of 1% of the loan amount that Smava charges borrowers is low.

Marketplace development

Smava's growth has picked up in the last month (see chart).

(Source: smava loan stats, Wiseclerk.com, 03-21-08)

So far Smava has not reached a broad appeal. While press release state 25,000 registered users, only 650 have invested money and roughly 450 wrote a loan listing. Looking at the distribution of lenders by amount invested, the top 50 Smava lenders funded about 700,000 Euro (or about 40% of total loan volume). Currently lenders are limited to a maximum of 25,000 Euro investment.

Attracting new borrowers has been the bottleneck for Smava's growth so far. An increase of money supply by lenders with no matching demacnd increase led to slightly falling average interest rates in the last weeks (see chart). Before rates increased, especially for credit grade 'F' caused by sharpened risk awareness following several late payments.

 
(Source: smava loan statistic, Wiseclerk.com, 03-21-08)

Smava charges borrowers a fee of 1% of the loan amount. There are no fees for lenders. Total revenue of Smava in the first year therefore was 17,000 Euro (1% von 1.7 million Euro). Prosper, Lendingclub and Zopa have much bigger p2p lending volumes per year. Boober's loan volume in the Netherlands is about the same size as Smava's but in a market with only one fifth the size (by inhabitants). First priority of Smava must be to accelerate growth.

German p2p lending service Smava.de yesterday introduced an optional insurance for borrowers. Borrowers can take out an insurance together with their loan. In the case of death, disability or unemployment (through no fault of one's own), the insurance will pay the repayments. To offer the residual debt insurance (see a definition of residual debt insurance), Smava partnered with an insurance company. The costs for the insurance paid by the borrower are:

• death hazard only: approx. 0.5% of loan amount
• death and disability: approx. 2.5% of loan amount
• all three: approx 4.7% of loan amount

It will be interesting to see how many borrowers are willing to opt in to the insurance.

Lenders profit because this lowers the default risk. Unfortunately at the moment lenders can not on a borrower's loan listing whether the borrower selected insurance or not.
11 months after launch defaults at Smava are still rare. Only 3 of 368 loans have defaulted and only 2 are currently late. A chart shows the development of the Smava interest rates since start.

2007 was a year of launch and growth for most players. What trends in peer to peer lending can be expected in 2008?

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.

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 allready 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.

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.

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.

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.

I'll check at the end of 2008 to see how these trends developed.

More and more p2p lending services are launching, each catering to different markets and different target audiences. Some derive more features from "ancestors" Prosper or Zopa, some less.

All follow the aim to allow lenders to directly lend money to borrowers without a bank acting as intermediary. This aim is sometimes not pursued strictly to the point. Smava actually partnered with a bank to comply with regulation, Zopa US partnered with credit unions, but nevertheless it serves as comprehensive definition.

Dividing p2p lending services in categories could follow several possible factors:

• price building mechanism (auction/non-auction; interest set by platform/by borrower/by lender)
• purpose of loan (private/business/both)
• social lending vs. lending for profit

I think the last factor is most useful for the definition of categories. It affects all parts of the service from marketing to operations. The differentiation is in the objective the majority of the lenders had when selecting the platform. Were they attracted by the motivation to help an individual through a loan or by the motivation to earn interest? (more…)

As P2P-Kredite.com reports the first 2 loans at German p2p lending service Smava.de have defaulted. Since the Start in March 2007 a loan volume of 1 million Euro (approx. 1.4 million US$) has been funded at Smava. The amounts of the two defaulted loans are 4,000 and 6,000 Euro resulting in a default rate of about 1%. At Smava loans default 40 days after they are late and are sold in a debt sale for a fixed rate of 25% (22% on lowest credit grades) to a collection agency.
2007 has been a very good year for Smava lenders as defaults (and late payments) have been significantly below expected rates.

2007 was an exciting and eventful year in the development of peer to peer lending. Looking back these were the highlights:

• February: Boober.nl launches the first p2p lending service in the Netherlands.
  Prosper.com raises required borrower credit score to 520 and introduces other major changes
• March: Smava.de launches German p2p lending service
• April: Fairrates.dk offers person to person lending in Denmark
• May: Lendingclub.com launch in the US, initially limited to Facebook members
• June: Prosper raises another 20M US$ VC. PPdai p2p lending launch in China
• July: Globefunder raises 1.5M US$ VC 
• August: Boober is temporarily forced to stop lending by financial authorities. MyC4, which allows lenders to fund microloans to African entrepreneurs, grows steadily while still in private beta 
• September: Kiva sold out after extensive media coverage.
• October: Microplace launches with microlending. Microplace is an Ebay company. Australia gets peer to peer lending through iGrin. Zopa UK launches 'Zopa Listings'. Prosper portfolio plans introduced. A Prosper SEC filing is the first step towards a secondary market for Prosper loans
• November: Boober and Zopa launch in Italy. Prosper reaches 100 million US$ loan volume.
• December: Zopa US launch. Lendingclub goes nationwide. Canadian Communitylend receives 2.5M VC. In Sweden Loanland is the first p2p lending service.

I will write another article on which trends to expect in p2p lending in 2008.

Part I: Platform & lender view

Occasionaly, when I talk to analysts or journalists, their perception is that p2p lending is very similar to bank loans. They argue:

1. The platform does check, if the borrower is eligible to receive a loan by validating credit history, income and other documents just like a bank would do (note: this argument applies more to Zopa and Smava, less to Prosper)
2. The listings descriptions and photos just give the lender the illusion that they know where their money is going and for what purpose. In reality nobody checks the information in the listings and the listings could be all false.
3. The p2p lending platform is just taking the role of the bank. The platform earns fees on each loans which is comparable to the spread the banks live on.

My opinion is that p2p lending is very different from banks giving loans.
One main difference is that the platform does not have the loans in their own books. The risk is carried by the lender. The platform must aim to provide as much information as possible to allow the lender to gauge the risk and it must prevent the lenders from fraud. It is then the decision of the lender, if - based on the information - he wants to bid or refrains.

For the lender the ability to decide who gets the money is a major motivation compared to depositing the money in a banking product. The p2p lending services are aware that the listings are a central point to their marketing. Zopa, which currently does not have individual borrower listings, will introduce 'Zopa listings' in the future.
Regarding argument 2: It is true that listings are not checked on any of the platforms and a borrower could use the loan for a totally different purpose then stated in the listing. My opinion is that this is not a problem, as long as lenders are aware of this and as long as the protection from fraud (identity theft; no intention of borrower to repay in the first place) is high. I don't care if 2, 3 or even 20% of the borrowers lie in their listings. I believe that the majority is telling the truth and what I really care about is that my money is repaid. The borrower said he wanted to use the money for the college education of his daughter and actually used the money to buy a new car? I personally would not care as long as he repays the loan.

P2P lending services achieve a level of constant interaction with the lenders few banking products reach. In the Prosper forums many lenders express that they spend a lot of time on Prosper browsing and selecting listings and that they find this process somewhat addictive.
Conversely that means that p2p lending is not for lenders that to large amounts of money without spending time.

Conclusion: P2P lending IS different from the way banks loan money. It offers a different marketing angle, the risk is taken by the individual lender rather then the bank, and gives the lender has more control over what his money is used for.

On most peer to peer lending services (Prosper, Lendingclub, Smava, Boober) the identity of the borrower is hidden to the lender. Only the service itself knows the identity of the borrower. Therefore the lender has no means to check if information given is accurate and has to trust the platform.

The service has to

• ensure that it takes adequate measures to verify the identity the borrower has stated at registration is correct
• instill trust to the lender that the fraud risk of borrowers impersonating under a false identity is minimal, non-existant or while existant not covered by the lender.

Prosper gives a "100% Identity Theft Guarantee" and in case of identity theft repurchases the fraudulent loan:

Prosper reserves the right to buy back loans at any time. If Prosper buys back a loan, the outstanding principal balance will be returned to lenders and the loan will be marked as "repurchased".

Prosper typically repurchases loans in accordance with Prosper's 100% Identity Theft Guarantee, under which Prosper has agreed to repurchase loans from lenders if the loan is found to involve identity theft of the named borrower's identity.

Prosper is committed to providing a safe and secure marketplace, and works with law enforcement authorities to prosecute to the fullest extent perpetrators of identity theft.

Rateladder had one of his loans repurchased today. But how often does this occur?

Looking at the Wiseclerk Prosper loan stats by status, the column Repurchased shows a value of 400000 US$. Out of the total loan value of 96 million US$ that is about 0.4%. Not all of the repurchased loans are due to identity fraud.

Prosper checks identity by several measures like checking documentaion supplied by the borrower, calling him, verifying bank adresses, sending postcards to his adress… There have been several discussions on this topic with details on the Prosper forum.

Other services use other measures. German Smava.de uses the PostIdent-process a service that requires the registering service to produce a government id (passport) in person. The Postident process is used by nearly all German online banks and is considered quite safe.

P2p lending services can tolerate only a low level of identity theft cases. The innovative approach of p2p lending requires that lenders trust the concept and the service. Fraud cases endanger that trust.