Skip to main content

Bypassing the Banks

In my Money and Banking class, I spend two lectures explaining why banks exist and how banks reduce the costs of getting money from savers to borrowers. The two principal costs which I stress are those associated with reducing adverse selection and moral hazard. However, since the 2008 financial crisis, there has been a surge of interest in crowd-funding or peer-to-peer lending. This is where borrowers pitch for loans on a designated website and savers decide whether or not to lend to them.  One example of this is Funding Circle, which has already lent £223m to businesses and has over 60,000 savers lending funds. To date, the average saver is earning an attractive 5.8% per annum. However, Funding Circle stresses that by joining it, you will be helping the economy by lending to British businesses.

So is finance going to regress back to direct finance by bypassing the banks? Are banks going to disappear? I foresee several problems with peer-to-peer lending. First, there is a liquidity problem for savers. If you want to withdraw your money, you have to find someone willing to buy your loans. This could prove difficult during economic downturns or when many savers are hit simultaneously by a consumption shock. Second, although Funding Circle do a credit assessment of borrowers, it may not be as rigorous as that performed by a bank. Third, once bank balance sheets recover, they will be able to offer better rates and terms to businesses. Fourth, I'm not sure how the moral hazard problem is addressed in this system.  What prevents borrowers from misusing funds?


Popular posts from this blog

Bitcoin Bubble?

According to Robert Shiller , speaking at Davos, Bitcoin is a perfect example of a bubble - story here . Shiller sees Bitcoin as a backwards step in the evolution of money.   George Selgin , a free banker, takes an opposing view - click here .  Although he doesn't believe that Bitcoin is money, he sees its development as a fascinating turn in the evolution of money. In particular, he lauds the fact that Bitcoin production is constrained and cannot be infinite. There is a short video below where Bitcoin explain how it works.

How Valuable Are Connections?

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles, co-authored with my colleague Will Quinn , is forthcoming in August. It is published by Cambridge University Press and is available for pre-order at Amazon , Barnes and Noble , Waterstones and Cambridge University Press .