Turns Out P2P Lending Might Run Afoul Of Securities Law As Well

from the oops dept

First off, a quick disclaimer. Lending Club has offices in the same building as Techdirt, and we're actually right across the hall from them. I'm also pretty good friends with some folks who work there (since even before they worked there), but I have no additional insight into what's going on at the company, other than that everyone I know there is very smart and capable. A few months back, we got into a discussion about attempts to take the peer-to-peer "lending" model and move it into venture funding. At the time, we pointed out that this would raise serious regulatory problems, as the public markets (regulated by the SEC) were already, effectively, a peer-to-peer venture capital system. However, at the time we didn't think too much about the regulatory implications of peer-to-peer lending itself -- and, unfortunately, it appears that Lending Club may not have either. Apparently, Lending Club has put all new lending activity on hold, as it needs to deal with certain regulatory matters.

The company won't provide any additional information on what's going on (even, I assume, to those of us across the hall), but the speculation is that its lending practices clearly fell on the wrong side of certain regulations, quite similar to the ones we discussed having to do with any attempt at a peer-to-peer venture offering. The Peer-Lend blog points to this analysis of the problem (though, that's for a competitor of Lending Club). Basically, the question is who owns the loan itself, and how is it transferred. Since the loan may be owned either by the company itself or by the lenders (the "peers") at some point the loan may be getting transferred around -- meaning that it's no longer a "loan" but a "security." And, as we know, securities are regulated. This could get even hairier as the government is suddenly quite concerned about "securtized" loans these days since (as you might have heard) some of the financial world's problems have something to do with such instruments. This certainly isn't a problem that just faces Lending Club. In fact, it's almost surprising that it happened to it first, rather than its larger competitors like Prosper and Zopa. In the meantime, though, it's a good reminder that while web 2.0 startups can enable a lot of neat things, the folks back in Washington DC still have plenty of power over what certain businesses can and cannot do.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: loans, p2p lending, securities law


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    rkme, 9 Apr 2008 @ 11:10pm

    and what we peons can do

    we lowly taxpayers have to use our money to bail out Bear Stearns so the big boys don't have to take a loss. P2P loans might make and save us commoners some money, that's when it becomes a no-no.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn Charles, 10 Apr 2008 @ 5:26am

    up-to-the-minute English department

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Glenn Charles, 10 Apr 2008 @ 5:27am

      Re: up-to-the-minute English department

      As I hit the ** enter key. 'Securitized'? Indeed. So I suppose the Department of Homeland Security means we're... --Glenn

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Evil Mike, 10 Apr 2008 @ 8:02am

    I miss...

    the days when anybody could start a business and not get screwed by laws and taxes fifty ways from Sunday.

    What ever happened to "by the people for the people"? Was that an illusion the entire time?

    Fucking administration. Somebody comes up with a good idea... so they say "Hey! We're not sucking blood out of your business fast enough! You can't do that!"

    Fucking leeches.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Tony, 10 Apr 2008 @ 3:21pm

    Nothing new

    Things have been like this for a long time - at least since the 90's (probably longer). SEC regulations are the single biggest barrier keeping poor, or even middle-class, entrepreneurs from really making a go of their business. If you have an idea that can be brought to market for, say $100,000, you pretty much have to have the money already, or personally know someone who does.

    The "little guy" is limited to things he can build for next to nothing, while "big business" can keep doing things as usual.

    Somehow, I doubt it's going to change anytime soon.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.