Nikolina Mareva


The publication focuses on P2P lending with two main objectives. First to provide a literature review on P2P lending, explaining what it is and comparing it to traditional forms of bank lending. The second main objective is to evaluate the business model of P2P lending in terms of its advantages and disadvantages and to analyze the opportunities and risks for lenders and borrowers. P2P platforms offer competitive advantages compared to traditional bank lending for both lenders and borrowers. These advantages include: low interest rates for borrowers; the opportunity to apply for loans to some customers who maybe turned down for loans by banks; the use of innovative technologies provides much greater transparency, flexibility and fast and convenient customer service. Despite the advantages of online P2P lending, the high degree of information asymmetry in the market is considered to be a significant problem to market efficiency. The amounts of lending on P2P platforms are still very small compared to bank lending, even in countries such as the USA and the United Kingdom, where P2P lending is fastest developing. The analysis of P2P lending business models shows that instead of appearing as a threat to traditional banking, P2P lending is a complementary model to banking business models. For this reason, the best alternative for banks is to work closely with P2P platforms (this has already happened in the USA).


fintech, peer-to-peer lending, business models

Full Text:



Georgiev, G. Prakticheski bankov menidzhmant, Tsentar za evrointegratsiya i kultura pri Visshe uchilishte po agrobiznes, 2013, Plovdiv, ISBN 978-619-7048-19-3.

Dimitrova, P. 2015. Osnovni bankovi operatsii. Varna: Ongal, 2015, ISBN 978-619-7079-64-7.

ACCA. (2015). The rise of peer- to-peer lending in China: An overview and survey case study. Retrieved 21 July, 2016, from

Ashta, A., & Assadi, D. (2009). Does social lending incorporate social technologies? The use of web 2.0 technologies in online p2p lending. Working papers CEB, 9.

Barasinska & Schäfer, 2010, Does Gender Affect Funding Success at the Peer-to-Peer Credit Markets? Evidence from the Largest German Lending Platform, December 2010, SSRN Electronic Journal, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1738837.

Emekter, R., Tu, Y., Jirasakuldech, B., Lu, M. (2015). Evaluating credit risk and loan performance in online peer-to-peer (P2P) lending. Applied Economics, 47(1), 54-70. doi:10.1080/00036846.2014.962222.

Freedman & Jin 2008, Do Social Networks Solve Information Problems for Peer-to-Peer Lending? Evidence from,

Klafft 2008, Online Peer-to-Peer Lending: A Lenders' Perspective January 2008, SSRN Electronic Journal, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1352352.

Klafft M (2008) Peer to peer lending: auctioning microcredits over the internet. In: Agarwal A, Khurana R (eds) Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Technology and Management. IMT, Dubai, pp. 1–8.

Lenz, R., Peer-to-Peer lending – opportunities and risks, European Journal of Risk Regulation 7(4):688-700, 2016.

Milne A, Parboteeah P. The business models and economics of peer-to-peerlending. Euro Credit Res Inst. 2016.

Nowak, A., Ross, A., Yencha, C. (2017). Small business borrowing and peer-to-peer lending: evidence from Lending Club. Contemporary Economic Policy. DOI: 10.1111/coep.12252,

Omarini A. Peer-to-Peer Lending: Business Model Analysis and the Platform Dilemma. Int J Financ Econ Trade. 2018;2(3):31-41.

Pope, Devin G. and Sydnor, Justin R., What's in a Picture? Evidence of Discrimination from (August 12, 2008). Available at SSRN:

Verstein, A. (2008). Peer-to-Peer Lending Update and Regulatory Considerations. Madison: Filene Research Institute, Incorporated, 2008.

Wang et al. A process model on P2P lending, Financial Innovation (2015) 1:3 DOI 10.1186/s40854-015-0002-9.

Yin, H. (2017). P2P lending’s business models, risks and regulation, IJIBM, 2017; 1:2.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

New knowledge Journal of science Jubilee edition is financed by the National Science Fund of the Republic of Bulgaria – contract № ДНП 05/52 от 22.12.2016 in the competition of Bulgarian scientific periodicals – 2016

The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the National Science Fund of the Republic of Bulgaria. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the National Science Fund’s official position.

National Science Fund of Bulgaria