Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 227

Has P2P marketplace lending become B2P?

Editor’s note: The peer-to-peer (sometimes called P2P or marketplace) lending market has many different operating models, and it continues to evolve as a competitor to banks. There is a question whether it has become more a source of loans for fund managers and large institutional investors rather than a genuine peer market. Here are two views on the local scene. An older article from Forbes magazine is linked here, entitled ‘The Disappearance of Peer-to-Peer Lending’.

Paul Wylie of Mason Stevens writes on P2P lending and John Cummins of SocietyOne responds.


Is peer-to-peer lending self-disrupting?

Paul Wylie

"The power of crowd sourcing always remains with the crowd, not the technological implementation." - Jay Samit

For businesses hyped as the great disruptors of the banking industry, peer-to-peer lenders have lately been doing a better job of disrupting themselves. In peer-to-peer lending (or debt crowdfunding), individuals lend money to other individuals or businesses at a fixed rate of interest. There is usually a formal structure to the debt repayment plan and a fixed return. On the peer-to-peer platform, investors can sometimes sell their debt to other investors prior to maturity and exit the investment.

Is P2P becoming B2P?

The peer-to-peer sector model is to provide a platform where borrowers and lenders can meet. An ‘eBay for loans’ so to speak that would benefit both borrowers and lenders by cutting out banks. Borrowers receive a lower rate and lenders a higher rate than at a bank. The peer-to-peer lender makes money by taking a cut on any loan.

The role of the peer-to-peer lender was to provide the platform or marketplace for loans. It was up to the lenders to decide who they lent to, i.e. who was creditworthy. But as they (and myself as an early seed investor in one of these) found out, most investors don't have the skills to work out what makes one client creditworthy and what makes another one not.

Due to this issue, the original incarnation of peer-to-peer lending has not lasted. The industry appears to agree that users' interests are best served by a ‘black box’ approach to arranging loans (which some call a 'big sausage machine'), rather than allowing individuals to pick and choose who they lend to. This provides simplicity and scale but means, for all their talk of disruption, peer-to-peer lenders are looking more and more like banks.

Australia's major peer-to-peer lender is SocietyOne. It currently has $350 million borrowed through its platform, and is growing rapidly. In fact, loan volumes in the first three quarters of this year have totalled $141 million so far, surpassing the $139 million in loans facilitated over the entire course of 2016, as shown below.

But whilst they have a strong and growing base of borrowers, they are struggling on the lender (investor) side. In October 2017, they announced they had a lender base of 320 individuals, with the remainder of funds being secured from ‘partner’ banks. In other words, they look a lot more like a consumer finance company as they borrow from banks to lend to individuals.

Maybe because they still rely heavily on banks for funding, banks do not see peer-to-peer lenders as a significant disruption risk. Or perhaps it is because the uptake has been so small (US peer-to-peer market is about US$4.5 billion). Either way, they are not the disruptor they originally thought or intended to be.

Paul Wylie is a Fixed Income Investment Strategist at Mason Stevens. This article is general information and does not consider the personal circumstances of any individual.


A response: Talkin’ about an evolution

John Cummins

The arrival of the digital peer-to-peer revolution on the global investment scene 10 years ago has been marked by one constant - rapid evolution.

Unlike other forms of fixed income investment, peer-to-peer lending, or as we should call it in Australia, marketplace lending, has had little, if no, time to stand still as the sector has swiftly moved from the margins into the mainstream of investor decision-making.

It’s a question of scale

I would certainly agree with Mason Stevens that the original concept of peer-to-peer, basically one-to-one lending or what you might describe as social lending, has changed, particularly when you consider that to be successful in financial services you need to have a degree of scale.

Few, if any, direct one-to-one lenders are going to achieve that rapidly, if at all, and certainly not in a timescale that will help borrowers, lenders, the intermediary and its backers achieve their separate albeit interlinked aims. These goals include obtaining a loan of a size that they want and can afford, returns that satisfy their investment requirements and revenue that generates cash flow to keep going and profits that produce worthwhile dividends.

To that end, most consumer and business-focused peer-to-peer lenders have accepted (and readily admit) the need to achieve balance in their respective funding mixes, either at the start of operations or someway down the track, to achieve that successful outcome.

In fact, one definition of success is to broaden your offering and appeal to as many investors as possible. This includes an individual looking to put in a small sum, a high-net worth person or SMSF investor searching for better yield or an institution, no matter their size. Most have a mandate to consider new forms of alternative and viable sources of fixed income.

Disruption in different forms

If that means we, as a rapidly-growing sector, are now disrupting ourselves, then we’ll plead guilty as charged!

However, I will on behalf of the industry take issue with a couple of Mason Steven’s more contentious claims. As our global peers in the US and the UK are showing after a decade or so of pretty decent business, they are doing a good job of disrupting the traditional banking sector.

And let’s be clear what disruption really means. Simply, it is to offer a real competitive alternative to those companies which currently dominate the financial and consumer markets to the detriment of the people that they are supposed to serve.

Here, companies like my own, SocietyOne, which launched the Australian version of the digital peer-to-peer revolution in 2012, are considered to be about five years behind in terms of growth and scale.

But based on what SocietyOne has seen since January 2016, where we have experienced a 400% increase in lending to take us past $350 million of total originations since inception, Australians are not only becoming more aware of marketplace lending but are beginning to embrace it.

That’s because we are providing that real alternative for both borrowers and investors alike, with lower interest rates on offer to consumers based on their individual credit histories and solid returns in the range of 7-8% to our funders given our technological and cost advantages in being able to connect the two. We also know that the big four banks are beginning to sit up and take note of the challenge we pose.

And talking of challenges, I think it’s only fair to contest Mason Steven’s claim that SocietyOne is supposedly ‘struggling’ on the lender side.

We can only have achieved the strong growth in providing more than $280 million of loans to borrowers since January 2016 - and now $150 million of that in 2017 alone - because of the support of our investor funders who match each dollar of demand with a dollar of investment.

We currently have $51 million of committed funding available to support further growth with more funders signing up by the week. The investor-funder mix includes fund managers, insurance companies, banks, wealth managers and of course individual wholesale-qualified investors.

And contrary to the assertion that we have moved away from funding by individuals, we started out five years ago with the deliberate intention of having such a broad mix. We can only run a marketplace efficiently if we have a diversified pool of lenders across the investment spectrum and any good funding manager will always look to diversify their funding risk where possible.

Witness our sourcing $100 million of the $350 million we have advanced in lending so far from 20 mutual banks and credit unions, who incidentally were the original peer-to-peer lenders. They see online businesses like SocietyOne as the digital inheritor of their proud history as pioneers in consumer finance.

So, Mason Stevens, nice try but wrong!

John Cummins is Chief Investment Officer of SocietyOne. This article is general information and does not consider the personal circumstances of any individual.


Daniel Foggo on why P2P lending is not what you think

How marketplace lending meets investor needs

A beginner’s guide to peer to peer lending


Most viewed in recent weeks

Is it better to rent or own a home under the age pension?

With 62% of Australians aged 65 and over relying at least partially on the age pension, are they better off owning their home or renting? There is an extra pension asset allowance for those not owning a home.

Too many retirees miss out on this valuable super fund benefit

With 700 Australians retiring every day, retirement income solutions are more important than ever. Why do millions of retirees eligible for a more tax-efficient pension account hold money in accumulation?

Is the fossil fuel narrative simply too convenient?

A fund manager argues it is immoral to deny poor countries access to relatively cheap energy from fossil fuels. Wealthy countries must recognise the transition is a multi-decade challenge and continue to invest.

Reece Birtles on selecting stocks for income in retirement

Equity investing comes with volatility that makes many retirees uncomfortable. A focus on income which is less volatile than share prices, and quality companies delivering robust earnings, offers more reassurance.

Comparing generations and the nine dimensions of our well-being

Using the nine dimensions of well-being used by the OECD, and dividing Australians into Baby Boomers, Generation Xers or Millennials, it is surprisingly easy to identify the winners and losers for most dimensions.

Anton in 2006 v 2022, it's deja vu (all over again)

What was bothering markets in 2006? Try the end of cheap money, bond yields rising, high energy prices and record high commodity prices feeding inflation. Who says these are 'unprecedented' times? It's 2006 v 2022.

Latest Updates


Superannuation: a 30+ year journey but now stop fiddling

Few people have been closer to superannuation policy over the years than Noel Whittaker, especially when he established his eponymous financial planning business. He takes us on a quick guided tour.

Survey: share your retirement experiences

All Baby Boomers are now over 55 and many are either in retirement or thinking about a transition from work. But what is retirement like? Is it the golden years or a drag? Do you have tips for making the most of it?


Time for value as ‘promise generators’ fail to deliver

A $28 billion global manager still sees far more potential in value than growth stocks, believes energy stocks are undervalued including an Australian company, and describes the need for resilience in investing.


Paul Keating's long-term plans for super and imputation

Paul Keating not only designed compulsory superannuation but in the 30 years since its introduction, he has maintained the rage. Here are highlights of three articles on SG's origins and two more recent interviews.

Fixed interest

On interest rates and credit, do you feel the need for speed?

Central bank support for credit and equity markets is reversing, which has led to wider spreads and higher rates. But what does that mean and is it time to jump at higher rates or do they have some way to go?

Investment strategies

Death notices for the 60/40 portfolio are premature

Pundits have once again declared the death of the 60% stock/40% bond portfolio amid sharp declines in both stock and bond prices. Based on history, balanced portfolios are apt to prove the naysayers wrong, again.

Exchange traded products

ETFs and the eight biggest worries in index investing

Both passive investing and ETFs have withstood criticism as their popularity has grown. They have been blamed for causing bubbles, distorting the market, and concentrating share ownership. Are any of these criticisms valid?



© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.