Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Ethics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 2/2021

05.11.2019 | Original Paper

From Credit Risk to Social Impact: On the Funding Determinants in Interest-Free Peer-to-Peer Lending

verfasst von: Gregor Dorfleitner, Eva-Maria Oswald, Rongxin Zhang

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Based on a unique data set on US direct microloans, we study the funding determinants of interest-free peer-to-peer crowdlending aimed at borrowers in the US. By performing logistic regressions on funding success and Tobit regressions on the reversed funding time, the existence of a social underwriting by a third-party trustee and information in the description texts fostering the investors’ trust are shown to be the main predictors of successful funding. Regarding social impact, the possibility to empower women and groups of borrowers appeals to the investors, whereas empowerment of the family or community beyond the borrowers themselves appears to remain unappreciated. When examining the vulnerability of the borrowers as a predictor, the results manifest differences amongst the attitudes of the investors towards social impact. In the subsample of non-endorsed loans, the investors appear to prefer to support borrowers with an immigration background. In contrast, this is not the case with endorsed loans.
Vorheriger Artikel Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach
Nächster Artikel Adam Smith and Catholic Social Teaching

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
The internal due diligence process includes a review of the financial history, a verification of the identity and a validation of the business. Also, all applicants are screened through the Office of Foreign Assets Control terrorism database due to national security reasons.
 
2
Note that for our analysis the private fundraising does not play a significant role because every loan application fulfills this requirement (typically approximately 10% to 15% of the loan amount is pre-funded).
 
3
See Kiva (2019b). It’s even lower than that of usual P2P lending. As an example, the average repayment rates for the German P2P lending platforms, Auxmoney and Smava, are 88% and 86.2% (Dorfleitner et al. 2016).
 
4
See descriptive statistics in Section “Data and methodology”.
 
5
In Kiva’s intermediary-based model, the investors can see credit profiles of the MFIs, including default rate, delinquency rate, loans at risk rate, etc. Moreover, they can also see whether a special social performance badge is assigned to the MFI (Kiva 2019c).
 
6
The interest rate a potential borrower is willing to accept can signal the creditworthiness of the borrower in the sense that high interest rates are only accepted by borrowers with low creditworthiness, which corresponds to the idea of lemon markets (Akerlof 1970).
 
7
If not otherwise specified, the coeff. and st.err. in parentheses are from model III.
 
8
As 7 loan applications are funded within one day, the survival time is multiplied by 100 to avoid negative logarithmic values.
 
Literatur
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.
Aldén, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2016). Discrimination in the credit market? Access to financial capital among self-employed immigrants. Kyklos, 69(1), 3–31.
Allet, M. (2014). Why do microfinance institutions go green? An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(3), 405–424.
Allet, M. et al. (2011). Measuring the environmental performance of microfinance. CEB Working Paper.
Allison, T. H., Davis, B. C., Short, J. C., & Webb, J. W. (2015). Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 53–73.
Allison, T. H., McKenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 690–707.
Alsos, G. A., & Ljunggren, E. (2017). The role of gender in entrepreneur–investor relationships: A signaling theory approach. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(4), 567–590.
Barasinska, N., & Schäfer, D. (2014). Is crowdfunding different? Evidence on the relation between gender and funding success from a German peer-to-peer lending platform. German Economic Review, 15(4), 436–452.
Barinaga, E. (2014). Microfinance in a developed welfare state: A hybrid technology for the government of the outcast. Geoforum, 51, 27–36.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
Beatriz, A., & Marc, L. (2011). The handbook of microfinance. Singapore: World Scientific.
Bendig, M., Unterberg, M., & Sarpong, B. (2012). Overview of the microcredit sector in the European Union 2010–2011. European Microfinance Network.
Bendig, M., Unterberg, M., & Sarpong, B. (2014). Overview of the microcredit sector in the European Union 2012–2013. European Microfinance Network.
Berger, S. C., & Gleisner, F. (2009). Emergence of financial intermediaries in electronic markets: The case of online p2p lending. BuR-Business Research, 2, 39–65.
Bourlès, R., & Cozarenco, A. (2018). Entrepreneurial motivation and business performance: Evidence from a french microfinance institution. Small Business Economics, 51, 943–963.
Bruhn-Leon, B., Eriksson, P.-E., & Kraemer-Eis, H. (2012). Progress for microfinance in Europe. EIF Working Paper.
Bruton, G. D., Khavul, S., & Chavez, H. (2011). Microlending in emerging economies: Building a new line of inquiry from the ground up. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5), 718–739.
Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2014). Cultural differences and geography as determinants of online pro-social lending. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 773–794.
Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: How a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 738–767.
Carboni, B. J., Calderón, M. L., Garrido, S. R., Dayson, K., & Kickul, J. (2010). Handbook of Microcredit in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Cheston, S., & Kuhn, L. (2002). Empowering women through microfinance. Publication sponsored by UNIFEM.
Collier, B. C., & Hampshire, R. (2010). Sending mixed signals: Multilevel reputation effects in peer-to-peer lending markets. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, pp. 197–206.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
Cozarenco, A., & Szafarz, A. (2018). Gender biases in bank lending: Lessons from microcredit in France. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(3), 631–650.
Cozarenco, A., & Szafarz, A. et al., (2014). Microcredit in developed countries: Unexpected consequences of loan ceilings. CEB Working Paper.
Demirguc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., & Hess, J. (2018). The Global Findex Database 2017: Measuring financial inclusion and the fintech revolution. Singapore: The World Bank.
Dichter, T. W., & Harper, M. (2007). What’s wrong with microfinance?. Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.
Diriker, D., Landoni, P., & Benaglio, N. et al., (2018). Microfinance in Europe: Survery Report 2016-2017. European Microfinance Network.
Doms, M., Lewis, E., & Robb, A. (2010). Local labor force education, new business characteristics, and firm performance. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(1), 61–77.
Dorfleitner, G., & Oswald, E. (2016). Repayment behavior in peer-to-peer microfinancing: Empirical evidence from Kiva. Review of Financial Economics, 30, 45–59.
Dorfleitner, G., Priberny, C., Schuster, S., Stoiber, J., Weber, M., de Castro, I., et al. (2016). Description-text related softinformation in peer-to-peer lending: Evidence from two leadingEuropean platforms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 64, 169–187.
Duarte, J., Siegel, S., & Young, L. (2012). Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. The Review of Financial Studies, 25(8), 2455–2484.
Forcella, D., & Hudon, M. (2016). Green microfinance in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(3), 445–459.
Freedman, S., & Jin, G. (2017). The information value of online social networks: Lessons from peer-to-peer lending. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 51, 185–222.
Freedman, S., & Jin, G. Z. (2008). Do social networks solve information problems for peer-to-peer lending? Evidence from prosper. com. NET Institute Working Paper. Bloomington. Indiana University.
Gaiha, R., & Thapa, G. (2006). A methodology for assessment of the impact of microfinance on empowerment and vulnerability. Working Paper. International Fund for Agricultural Development.
Galema, R., Lensink, R., & Spierdijk, L. (2011). International diversification and microfinance. Journal of International Money and Finance, 30(3), 507–515.
Ghosh, S., & Van Tassel, E. (2013). Funding microfinance under asymmetric information. Journal of Development Economics, 101, 8–15.
Hammill, A., Matthew, R., & McCarter, E. (2008). Microfinance and climate change adaptation. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Heller, L. R., & Badding, K. D. (2012). For compassion or money? The factors influencing the funding of micro loans. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(6), 831–835.
Herzenstein, M., Sonenshein, S., & Dholakia, U. M. (2011). Tell me a good story and I may lend you money: The role of narratives in peer-to-peer lending decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 138–149.
Hudon, M., & Ashta, A. (2013). Fairness and microcredit interest rates: From Rawlsian principles of justice to the distribution of the bargaining range. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22, 277–291.
Hudon, M., & Traca, D. (2011). On the efficiency effect of subsidies in microfinance: An empirical inquiry. World Development, 39(6), 966–973.
Imai, K. S., Arun, T., & Annim, S. K. (2010). Microfinance and household poverty reduction: New evidence from India. World Development, 38(12), 1760–1774.
Jancenelle, V. E., Javalgi, R. R. G., & Cavusgil, E. (2018). The role of economic and normative signals in international prosocial crowdfunding: An illustration using market orientation and psychological capital. International Business Review, 27(1), 208–217.
Jayo, B., González, A., & Conzett, C. (2010). Overview of the microcredit sector in the European Union 2008-2009. European Microfinance Network.
Jenq, C., Pan, J., & Theseira, W. (2015). Beauty, weight, and skin color in charitable giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 119, 234–253.
Jiang, C., Wang, Z., Wang, R., & Ding, Y. (2018). Loan default prediction by combining soft information extracted from descriptive text in online peer-to-peer lending. Annals of Operations Research, 266(1–2), 511–529.
Johnson, S., Ashta, A., & Assadi, D. (2010). Online or offline: The rise of ‘peer-to-peer’ lending in microfinance. Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, 8(3), 26–37.
Kabeer, N. (2001). Conflicts over credit: Re-evaluating the empowerment potential of loans to women in rural bangladesh. World Development, 29, 63–84.
Kabeer, N. (2005). Is microfinance a ‘magic bullet’ for women’s empowerment? analysis of findings from South Asia. Economic and Political weekly, 40, 4709–4718.
Kennedy, P. (2008). A guide to econometrics (6th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Khandker, S. R. (2005). Microfinance and poverty: Evidence using panel data from Bangladesh. The World Bank Economic Review, 19(2), 263–286.
Khavul, S. (2010). Microfinance: Creating opportunities for the poor? Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 58–72.
Kraemer-Eis, H., & Conforti, A. (2009). Microfinance in Europe: A market overview. EIF Working Paper.
Krauss, N., & Walter, I. (2009). Can microfinance reduce portfolio volatility? Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(1), 85–110.
Larrimore, L., Jiang, L., Larrimore, J., Markowitz, D., & Gorski, S. (2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(1), 19–37.
Ledgerwood, J., Earne, J., & Nelson, C. (2013). The new microfinance handbook: A financial market system perspective. Singapore: The World Bank.
Lee, E., & Lee, B. (2012). Herding behavior in online p2p lending: An empirical investigation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(5), 495–503.
Lester, R. H., Certo, S. T., Dalton, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A, Jr. (2006). Initial public offering investor valuations: An examination of top management team prestige and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(1), 1–26.
Lin, M., Prabhala, N. R., & Viswanathan, S. (2013). Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Friendship networks and information asymmetry in online peer-to-peer lending. Management Science, 59(1), 17–35.
Liu, D., Brass, D., Lu, Y., & Chen, D. (2015). Friendships in online peer-to-peer lending: Pipes, prisms, and relational herding. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 729–742.
Ly, P., & Mason, G. (2012a). Competition between microfinance NGOs: Evidence from Kiva. World Development, 40(3), 643–655.
Ly, P., & Mason, G. (2012b). Individual preferences over development projects: Evidence from microlending on Kiva. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1036–1055.
Michels, J. (2012). Do unverifiable disclosures matter? Evidence from peer-to-peer lending. The Accounting Review, 87(4), 1385–1413.
Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(1), 1–16.
Moss, T. W., Neubaum, D. O., & Meyskens, M. (2015). The effect of virtuous and entrepreneurial orientations on microfinance lending and repayment: A signaling theory perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(1), 27–52.
Moss, T. W., Renko, M., Block, E., & Meyskens, M. (2017). Funding the story of hybrid ventures: Crowdfunder lending preferences and linguistic hybridity. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 643–659.
Parhankangas, A., & Renko, M. (2017). Linguistic style and crowdfunding success among social and commercial entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(2), 215–236.
Pedrini, M., Bramanti, V., Minciullo, M., & Ferri, L. M. (2016). Rethinking microfinance for developed countries. Journal of International Development, 28(2), 281–302.
Pietraszkiewicz, A., Soppe, B., & Formanowicz, M. (2017). Go pro bono: Prosocial language as a success factor in crowdfunding. Social Psychology, 48(5), 265–278.
Pope, D., & Sydnor, J. (2011). What’s in a picture? Evidence of discrimination from prosper.com. Journal of Human Resources, 46, 53–92.
Robinson, M. S. (2001). The microfinance revolution., Sustainable finance for the poor Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Robinson, P. B., & Sexton, E. A. (1994). The effect of education and experience on self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(2), 141–156.
Schicks, J. (2014). Over-indebtedness in microfinance—An empirical analysis of related factors on the borrower level. World Development, 54, 301–324.
Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Zimmerman, M. A., & Checkoway, B. N. (1995). Empowerment as a multi-level construct: Perceived control at the individual, organizational and community levels. Health Education Research, 10(3), 309–327.
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
Spence, M. (2002). Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. American Economic Review, 92(3), 434–459.
Stewart, F. (2005). Groups and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 185–204.
Swain, R. B., & Floro, M. (2012). Assessing the effect of microfinance on vulnerability and poverty among low income households. Journal of Development Studies, 48(5), 605–618.
Swain, R. B., & Wallentin, F. Y. (2009). Does microfinance empower women? Evidence from self-help groups in india. International Review of Applied Economics, 23(5), 541–556.
Tchouassi, G. (2011). Microfinance, inequality and vulnerability: Empirical analysis from central african countries. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 3(3), 150–156.
Thorp, R., Stewart, F., & Heyer, A. (2005). When and how far is group formation a route out of chronic poverty? World Development, 33(6), 907–920.
Underwood, T. (2006). Overview of the microcredit sector in Europe 2004-2005. European Microfinance Network.
Unger, J. M., Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Rosenbusch, N. (2011). Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(3), 341–358.
Yum, H., Lee, B., & Chae, M. (2012). From the wisdom of crowds to my own judgement in microfinance through online peer-to-peer lending platforms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(5), 469–483.
Zaman, H. (1999). Assessing the poverty and vulnerability impact of micro-credit in Bangladesh: A case study of BRAC. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Ziegler, T., Reedy, E., Le, A., Zhang, B., Kroszner, R. S., & Garvey, K., (2017). The Americas alternative finance industry report 2017. Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance, the Cambridge Judge Business School.
Metadaten
Titel
From Credit Risk to Social Impact: On the Funding Determinants in Interest-Free Peer-to-Peer Lending
verfasst von
Gregor Dorfleitner
Eva-Maria Oswald
Rongxin Zhang
Publikationsdatum
05.11.2019
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04311-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Journal of Business Ethics 2/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Harnessing Multidimensional Legitimacy for Codes of Ethics: A Staged Approach

Original Paper

Adam Smith and Catholic Social Teaching

Original Paper

From Black Pain to Rhodes Must Fall: A Rejectionist Perspective

Original Paper

Are Liberated Companies a Concrete Application of Sen’s Capability Approach?

Original Paper

Is the Market Perceived to be Civilizing or Destructive? Scientists’ Universalism Values and Their Attitudes Towards Patents

Original Paper

The Morality of “new” CEO Activism

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise