Peer-to-Peer lending: Let it Be

If I want to lend my friend $5,000, governmental regulations don’t seem terribly necessary.  But what if I want to lend $5,000 to the small entrepreneur who I met on the internet?  How should that agreement be regulated?

This is the question currently facing the peer-to-peer (P2P) lending industry.  State law has governed the industry since its popular inception, but from 2008 onward, the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken control of the reins—a development that has rightfully upset many P2P lending companies.

P2P lending is not much more complex than the story related above.  Through websites such as Prosper, Lending Club, Kiva, Loanio, VirginMoney, and Zopa, borrowers interact with lenders and swap information before determining a flexible lending rate.  Owing to the low transaction costs, both lenders and borrowers usually walk away with better deals than could have been secured at a bank or with a credit card.  To date, Prosper has loaned $211 million.

But such innovative dynamism in the lending industry eventually fell under the regulatory eye of the federal government.  As chronicled by American Enterprise Institute fellow Alex Brill in this Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder, the SEC recently claimed that P2P loans can be classified as securities and therefore fall under the organization’s regulatory authority.  The stultifying effects of SEC regulation have been far-reaching and have even deterred some European P2P companies from entering the U.S. market.

It’s a well established fact that excessive regulation can cripple businesses.  But by restricting P2P lending, the SEC’s negative effects span beyond economics.  P2P lending has played a major role in allowing small entrepreneurs to form their dreams during a time of economic downturn, and the internet is replete with P2P lending stories enabling people to get money for weddings, diapers, or college degrees.  P2P sites like Kiva and GlobeFunder are already playing an important role in getting cash to developing countries.

The Coalition for New Credit Models—a consortium of P2P groups—is trying to avoid “suffocat[ion] by rigid regulations.” If federal regulation is necessary, the group claims, the industry should be regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a bureau that deals with banks and other lending institutions.  The Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill has commissioned a study to be completed in July, 2011 that will address the regulatory concerns.  We can only hope that this growing dynamic industry is left at least partially free to flourish.

4 thoughts on “Peer-to-Peer lending: Let it Be

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Peer-to-Peer lending: Let it Be « The Legal Pulse -- Topsy.com

  2. Mike

    I vehemently disagree with your post, which seems to assume we live in a perfect world where people always pay back their loans.

    I, along with many others, have lost money on P2P lending web sites, Prosper.com in my case.

    Imagine being promised 10-20% returns just for lending out money you have sitting in the bank? And being able to diversify those loans across multiple people (who have disclosed their credit histories) to lower risk? It sounds great, and had a lot of people, including me, excited.

    Near the end of 2006 (before the recession), as a test, I lent out $150 in the form of 2 $75 loans. I vetted these people using the credit histories Prosper provided- They both had good credit scores (A and B, respectively) and were willing to pay annualized interest of 14% and 20.5%, respectively. Both borrowers eventually stopped paying their loans. How much out of the original $150 was I left with? About $50.

    Sure caveat emptor but if Prosper had informed others and me that > 50% of people on their site lose money (see wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosper_Marketplace#Loan_performance) , a lot of people wouldn’t use the site. Even now their site promises an estimated(asterisk) 10.4% return. This is simply misleading.

    Slate did a story about it http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/money-trail/2010/01/18/you-are-unlikely-prosper Prosper “refuted” the story and Slate responded http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/sausage/2010/01/22/exchange-prospercom See also, other responses http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/money-trail/2010/01/18/you-are-unlikely-prosper#comment-2835

    You, like me, simply cannot imagine not paying back a loan. However, there are many that don’t, especially in this economy. I think if you read for yourself, you’ll find that there is rampant fraud throughout Prosper, and likely the entire P2P lending industry. This cries out for regulation, starting at prominently telling how many lenders lose money on the site.

  3. Thanks for all the links Mike. But I did not advocate for “no regulation.” Rather, I would prefer that the SEC not regulate peer to peer lending because I don’t think it is the appropriate division. I would also caution against over-regulation because I think that would effectively throw the baby (the well-documented benefits of P2P lending) out with the bath water (the mishaps such as the one you experienced).

    To paraphrase a scene from Trading Places with Eddie Murphy, “Regulation is like alcohol — best in moderation.”

  4. Pingback: Last Week At WLF « The Legal Pulse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s