If you’re not familiar with direct person-to-person (P2P) lending over of the internet now, you likely will be soon.
P2P is poised to make gains in popularity over the next few years. Books and the news media are teaching us about it, new businesses are seeking out niche borrowers who are being turned down for loans elsewhere, and existing P2P companies are seeking to raise our awareness through search engine and other marketing.
The prospect of lending or borrowing directly with another person is also likely to sound more attractive to many in the future. Individuals and businesses are having a hard time accessing personal loans from traditional sources. Rates for borrowing are up.
Meanwhile, savers want higher returns and income than they are getting on bonds, and many are noticing even their fixed income investments can lose value.
Enter a service that allows you, the saver/lender, to become the bank and banker, and earn a yield higher than you may have earned on your portfolio over the past few years. In fact, the marketing materials from P2P companies are quick to point out that your portfolio may be down in recent years, making the returns you could earn by lending your savings via their website very attractive.
The idea itself is actually a pretty innovative one. Lower the costs of financial intermediation – or the internal costs of connecting a lender with a borrower – and thereby lower the interest rate to the borrower, and increase the returns for the lender.
Here’s how it works in a nutshell:
So, what are the drawbacks? There are plenty.
Finding loans worth funding is difficult. Doing my own search, I found the time spent researching borrowers versus the potential profit and loss just wasn’t worth it. I rarely found many borrowers I felt good about lending to, and for the few dollars extra in potential interest, I was better keeping my money at the bank.
A very common loan request was the borrower who wanted to invest their loan proceeds into higher risk investments; such as high-yield mutual funds, or, in many cases, into other P2P loans. Basically, your loan was invested in a higher risk loan, and someone else was making the profit for risking your money. I was dumbfounded by all the lenders willing to take 5% from someone who only wanted to purchase junk bond mutual funds, their reasoning went something along the lines of the loan being a sure investment since the junk bond fund was “yielding 9%.”
As P2P lending gains in popularity, other bad ideas to make it more accessible to the average saver are sure to spread. One such idea has already come in the way of ‘portfolio plans.’ These are automatic investment plans where you send in your money, and it is lent for you automatically into a portfolio of loans. You don’t have to do the research to find out you are loaning money to the entrepreneur who would like to establish Cigarette Stands outside the local schools, all of that work is all done for you. You just take on the risk of losing your savings.
Even if you are sold on trying out P2P lending for a profit, keep in mind the companies motivations here are often in conflict with yours. Their goal is to make loans, as they are paid fees only when loans are made. Sure, if a loan is bad and charged-off they lose some fee-income… but you lose your principal.
And it only makes sense that their marketing ignores that point. I’m viewing the site of Prosper.com at the moment. The message on the information pages is basically the same, no matter which of the 13 tabs you click: P2P lending can be a part of your retirement savings, and is a great substitute to stocks, CDs, money markets, etc.
All information or numbers seems to be making one of two points: 1) there are risks to investing in traditional investments, 2) there are benefits to P2P lending.
In fact, I had to do plenty of digging to find the default history of Prosper loans. Once Yahoo pointed me to where Prosper’s site index failed to, it was obvious why Prosper doesn’t advertise the risks of P2P lending as an investment.
As of June 8, 2009, company default experience for Prosper’s top credit grade was over 8.75%, and loan defaults over all credit tiers approached 20%.
Putting the potential returns and risk together, to lend to the top tier borrowers, you may earn 6-7% in interest before taxes, but be prepared to lose almost 9% of the time. Clearly when having all information on the risks, P2P loans are not an investment substitute for investors seeking stable cash flow.
My conclusion on P2P investing - for a speculative gamble, there are better places to lose your money; for an income generating investment, stay with investments that will guarantee to pay you an income.
Robert Schmansky, CFP(r), works at Northern Financial Advisors, Inc in Franklin, Michigan. He has been an adjunct instructor of CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER(tm) courses and speaker to military families on personal finance matters. Rob writes on financial literacy and investments for his blog Sound Advice.
If you think this infringes on your copyright, contact us.
| Type | Today | Week Ago |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Year Fixed | 4.62% ![]() |
4.67% |
| 30 Year Fixed | 5.15% | 5.15% |
| 1 Year ARM | 3.48% ![]() |
3.51% |
| 5/1 Year ARM | 3.62% ![]() |
3.68% |
| Type | Today | Week Ago |
|---|---|---|
| Line of Credit | 4.89% ![]() |
4.88% |
| 10 Year Loan | 7.47% | 7.47% |
| 15 Year Loan | 7.61% ![]() |
7.60% |
| Type | Today | Week Ago |
|---|---|---|
| Interest Checking | 0.28% | 0.28% |
| Money Market/Savings | 0.38% | 0.38% |
| 12 Month CD | 1.13% ![]() |
1.15% |
| 60 Month IRA CD | 2.40% ![]() |
2.41% |
| Type | Today | Week Ago |
|---|---|---|
| Cash Back Cards | 12.66% ![]() |
12.68% |
| No Annual Fee Cards | 12.08% ![]() |
11.97% |
| Reward Cards | 12.75% ![]() |
12.61% |
| Small Business Cards | 11.01% ![]() |
10.94% |
| Student Cards | 13.77% ![]() |
13.49% |
| Platinum Cards | 12.26% ![]() |
12.11% |
Comments
Sort by:
A really fine piece Robert. A couple of reactions:
-I agree with you that p2p lending is an innovative concept. I do fear that your excellent indictment of proper.com's specific implementation will be read as reason to dismiss other more viable p2p models.
-As of today, Prosper.com's performance as per the link you provided is notably worse than when you wrote the piece. As unemployment continues to rise and middle- and working-class citizens keep struggling, I expect this trend to continue.
-At the same time, the "spread" between what banks pay savers and what they charge typical borrowers has never been greater. Small business loan and credit card rates keep soaring, when they're still available at all...yet the deposits used to help fund these loans costs banks less than one percent in interest. These provides a greater than usual opportunity for those who would act as intermediaries between borrowers and savers without needing such a massive spread to stay afloat. I'm thinking of models like the Grameen Foundation at http://www.grameenfoundation.org/ , or community based credit unions that focus on local "meat and potatoes" lending, complete with careful underwriting. If models like these received even a fraction of the government support currently given to the largest banks, they could do a great deal to revive the economy on a much more sustainable basis than would programs like cash for clunkers, homebuyers tax credits, and bailouts for megabanks.
In any case, thanks for giving FiLife readers good reason to pause and think before giving their hard-earned money to flawed models like prosper.com's .
Was this useful?
Yes(0)
No(0)
Post Comment