Is Peer-to-Peer Investing a Smarter Bet on the Real Economy?

by Kent O. Bhupathi

For most Americans, the old wealth-building script is starting to look less like a plan and more like a dare…

Stocks still matter, of course. Over long periods, they have rewarded patience. But in the short and medium term, they can swing hard enough to make even disciplined investors feel as if they are being tested by a particularly cruel lab experiment.

And housing is also far from comforting. Home prices remain high, mortgage rates have turned monthly payments into minor acts of courage, and for many would-be buyers the starter home now feels like an elite institution with suspiciously low acceptance rates. It may sound hyperbolic; but, unless the vast majority are ready to live well below their standards, it’s really not.

That is why more people are looking beyond the usual menu. They are hungry for assets that go beyond market mood and feel tied to actual economic activity. And that is one reason peer-to-peer investing has returned to the conversation.

I have been interested in this market since my master’s theses, long before every digital lending platform acquired the tone of a lifestyle brand. What drew me in then still holds now. Peer-to-peer lending sits closer to the real economy than much of today’s portfolio discourse. It concerns households borrowing, consolidating debt, and managing uneven expenses, while increasingly data-driven systems assess creditworthiness and promise faster, more tailored credit decisions.

Still, this is the point where the marketing usually gets ahead of the facts. Peer-to-peer lending is not some safe haven or silver bullet. On major US platforms, investors typically buy notes tied to unsecured consumer loans. But those notes are not FDIC insured, and investors can lose some or all of their principal. Strip away the gloss and what remains is simply consumer credit risk packaged into investable form.

A Digital Market With Real-Economy Stakes

That may sound less romantic than the original peer-to-peer story, but it is the right place to start. The market began with a disintermediated ideal in which many small lenders used an online platform to evaluate and fund individual borrowers directly. In practice, the US model has evolved far beyond that. Research on Prosper, one of the best-studied American platforms, describes the market as “highly, but not fully, reintermediated.” Platforms now automatically do most of the underwriting, pricing, and allocation work, while capital increasingly comes from passive and institutional investors rather than a crowd of hands-on retail lenders carefully picking borrowers one by one.

Many have voiced to me that this shift has made this asset class more fintech-dependent, and therefore less relevant. I simply do not agree. If anything, I find it more economically interesting. Now, we can see how it performs under near-consistent action (akin to an index fund).

It is also a market with momentum. Some forecasts, including Statifacts in June 2025, projected growth of more than 700% over the next decade. The exact number matters less than the broader pattern. Across multiple market estimates, expectations for the sector are plainly positive.

Ultimately, borrowers increasingly want speed, convenience, and loan products that feel built around their circumstances rather than a bank’s internal paperwork traditions. Younger users are especially comfortable with digital interfaces and approvals that do not take a geological era. Investors, meanwhile, are showing more interest in crowdlending as they search for funding channels that look more tangible than a ticker.

To me, there is a real case for taking that interest seriously.

One of the strongest findings in the literature is that marketplace lenders sometimes capture useful information that traditional credit measures miss. Federal Reserve research comparing LendingClub data with bank credit data found that the correlation between LendingClub’s internal grades and FICO scores fell dramatically over time, between 2007 and 2016. Such suggests these platforms were increasingly relying on additional data, not simply recycling a conventional credit score under a shinier interface. And for those who have been following us for a while, you know well how much I distrust the FICO mathematics…

Earlier Prosper research also found that decentralized lenders could infer borrower quality beyond broad credit-score categories and captured a meaningful share of the predictive power available to a fully informed statistician. In plain English, there are cases where the model does appear to extract real signal. That’s pretty cool!

The borrower-side evidence is also more substantive than critics sometimes admit. A Federal Reserve paper matching Prosper applications to Equifax-linked credit data found that borrowers often looked better in the short run after origination. Relative to non-borrowers, their credit-card utilization fell by about 12 percentage points, their credit-card debt was roughly 26% lower, and their credit scores rose by around 13 points. Not only does that directionally align with conventional financial wisdom, it is lifechanging to a great many American households. This quickly becomes non-trivial.

Beyond all that, there are even spillovers into the traditional banking system.

A study of Prosper found that when people received a peer-to-peer loan, they often found it easier to access bank credit later on. On average, their revolving-credit limits rose by about $1,020, with the effect strongest among borrowers who were more likely to be short on credit to begin with. That matters because it suggests these lending platforms can also change how banks see borrowers and how willing they are to lend to them.

The Fine Print

So yes, there is a serious upside case here. Digital underwriting can improve speed, sharpen pricing, and broaden access at certain margins. But this is also where the hard part begins… since the same evidence base stands to remind investors that they should not confuse innovation with immunity.

The early market, in particular, was a lesson in how easily new credit products can be misunderstood. NBER research on Prosper’s 2006 to 2008 originations found that lenders initially failed to grasp the risk properly. Had they understood the true risk distribution, the average expected annualized internal rate of return would have been negative. Investors learned over time, and the market adjusted, especially by moving away from weaker borrowers.

But I believe that the broader mechanism remains important. After all, in new credit markets, return expectations can be way off until defaults, recoveries, and platform behavior reveal themselves over time. Par for the course, I dare say.

Moving on, the incentive structure matters just as much. Once platforms are paid for volume and fees, the question is whether underwriting standards hold as the market scales. In that respect, modern P2P lending revives a familiar originate-to-distribute logic, with platforms deciding which loans get screened and assembled while passive investors supply capital to credits they did not underwrite themselves.

The Prosper evidence is striking on this point. Retail “peer” lenders supplied less than 10% of total capital in the setting studied, and investors were overwhelmingly passive, agreeing to fund more than 98% of listed loan applications. While that may help consistency and scale, it also concentrates model and incentive risk inside the platform.

This matters because the asset class is then revealed to not simply be “real economy exposure.” It is exposure to households, yes, but filtered through servicing systems and trust in the platform’s standards. If that trust weakens, the whole structure can wobble.

Stress Reveals All

That is why the word “recession-proof” should be banned from this conversation. Marketplace lending may diversify some risks relative to equities, but it is still consumer credit. And consumer credit is tied to labor markets, household balance sheets, and financial conditions that tend to worsen together in a downturn.

Policymakers have said as much. A joint report by the Committee on the Global Financial System and the Financial Stability Board noted that fintech credit can improve efficiency and broaden funding channels, but it also warned of weaker lending standards and more procyclical credit provision. One vulnerability stood-out above the rest. In periods of stress, investor confidence can evaporate quickly, triggering abrupt pullbacks in funding and exposing a weakness at the core of the model. Take note!

Moreover, the microstructure evidence on Prosper points in the same direction. During periods of strain, the main shock may come less from realized defaults than from a collapse in investor trust, as passive investors stop funding once they no longer believe the platform’s underwriting merits confidence. In that setting, active and informed investors can help stabilize the market. But that is resilience with conditions attached rather than recession immunity.

Other evidence also leans against the sales pitch. A US Treasury white paper warned that marketplace lending had been built during favorable credit conditions and remained untested through a full credit cycle, with charge-off and delinquency patterns already raising concern in some newer vintages. Research published in the Review of Financial Studies found that fintech borrowers were significantly more likely to default than otherwise similar borrowers using traditional institutions, and that any initial savings in borrowing costs could prove temporary as indebtedness increased after origination. A Journal of Financial Stability article also found that both loan supply and demand on LendingClub fell after unexpected increases in the federal funds rate. That is exactly what you would expect from a macro-sensitive asset class… and not what you would expect from something wearing the label “recession-proof.” You would be surprised just how many times I hear it.

A Niche, Not a Haven

Compared with other asset classes, then, peer-to-peer investing occupies a narrow and specific place. It may feel more grounded than equities because the cash flows come from principal and interest payments rather than changing growth narratives and multiple expansion. It may offer some diversification in calmer periods because borrower-specific risk is not identical to stock-market risk. But it is less liquid than public bonds, far riskier than insured deposits or Treasuries, and structurally exposed to default, platform incentives, and shifts in investor confidence. That is the adult conclusion.

But peer-to-peer investing is far from nonsense. And it is certainly not a fad. In fact, it reflects a real shift in how credit is screened, priced, and distributed in a digital economy, while giving borrowers and investors a genuinely useful alternative. But it should be approached as a higher-risk consumer-credit allocation, not as a clever substitute for cash, a stand-in for housing, or a volatility-free shortcut to wealth.

For Americans frustrated with stock-market turbulence and locked out of property, that may sound less exhilarating than hoped. It is also more honest. And honesty matters in finance because the asset does not care how modern the interface looks.

If you want exposure to peer-to-peer lending, the right mindset is disciplined, selective, and skeptical. Assume defaults. Assume some illiquidity. Assume that yield is being offered for a reason. Then decide whether the spread is worth it.

That is not a glamorous answer. It is, however, an honest one.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be taken as financial or investment advice. Investing involves risk, and what may be appropriate for one person may not be appropriate for another. Before making any investment decision, readers should do their own due diligence and consult a financial advisor.

Sources:

Argudo, Esteban. "Monetary Policy Transmission via Nonbank Lending: Evidence from Peer-to-Peer Loans." Journal of Financial Stability 80 (September 2025): 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2025.101455.

Balyuk, Tetyana. "Financial Innovation and Borrowers: Evidence from Peer-to-Peer Lending." May 6, 2019. https://www.fdic.gov/system/files/2024-08/balyuk-paper.pdf.

Balyuk, Tetyana, and Sergei Davydenko. "Reintermediation in FinTech: Evidence from Online Lending." Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 59, no. 5 (August 2024): 1997-2037. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109023000789.

Cohen, Charles, Caio Ferreira, Fabio Natalucci, and Nobuyasu Sugimoto. "Fast-Growing $2 Trillion Private Credit Market Warrants Closer Watch." IMF Blog, April 8, 2024. https://www.imf.org/en/blogs/articles/2024/04/08/fast-growing-usd2-trillion-private-credit-market-warrants-closer-watch.

Committee on the Global Financial System and Financial Stability Board. FinTech Credit: Market Structure, Business Models and Financial Stability Implications. May 22, 2017. Basel: Bank for International Settlements, 2017. https://www.bis.org/publ/cgfs_fsb1.pdf.

Di Maggio, Marco, and Vincent Yao. "Fintech Borrowers: Lax Screening or Cream-Skimming?" Review of Financial Studies 34, no. 10 (October 2021): 4565-4618. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaa142.

Dore, Tim, and Traci Mach. "Marketplace Lending and Consumer Credit Outcomes: Evidence from Prosper." Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2019-022. Washington, DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2019. https://doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2019.022.

Freedman, Seth, and Ginger Zhe Jin. "Learning by Doing with Asymmetric Information: Evidence from Prosper.com." February 1, 2010. National Bureau of Economic Research conference paper. https://conference.nber.org/confer/2010/IOs10/Freedman_Jin.pdf.

Iyer, Rajkamal, Asim Ijaz Khwaja, Erzo F. P. Luttmer, and Kelly Shue. "Screening Peers Softly: Inferring the Quality of Small Borrowers." Management Science 62, no. 6 (June 2016): 1554-1577. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24740358.

Jagtiani, Julapa, and Catharine Lemieux. "Fintech Lending: Financial Inclusion, Risk Pricing, and Alternative Information." Preliminary draft, June 16, 2017. FDIC Bank Research Conference paper. https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/cfr/bank-research-conference/annual-17th/papers/14-jagtiani.pdf.

LendingClub. "Does LendingClub Still Issue New Notes?" Last updated June 8, 2023. https://www.lendingclub.com/help/investing-faq/does-lendingclub-still-issue-new-notes.

Prosper. "Latest SEC Filings." Prosper Investor. Accessed April 9, 2026. https://www.prosper.com/prospectus.

Tang, Huan. "Peer-to-Peer Lenders Versus Banks: Substitutes or Complements?" Review of Financial Studies 32, no. 5 (May 2019): 1900-1938. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhy137.

U.S. Department of the Treasury. Opportunities and Challenges in Online Marketplace Lending. May 10, 2016. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/231/Opportunities_and_Challenges_in_Online_Marketplace_Lending_white_paper.pdf.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, "LendingClub Closes Acquisition of Radius Bancorp," February 1, 2021, https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1409970/000140997021000005/exhibit991asfiledon2121.htm.