EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

CONSUMER LENDING EFFICIENCY: COMMERCIAL BANKS VERSUS A FINTECH LENDER

Joseph Hughes (), Julapa Jagtiani () and Choon-Geol Moon ()
Additional contact information
Julapa Jagtiani: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
Choon-Geol Moon: Hanyang University

Departmental Working Papers from Rutgers University, Department of Economics

Abstract: Using 2013 and 2016 data, we compare the performance of unsecured consumer loans made by U.S. bank holding companies to that of the fintech lender, LendingClub. We focus on the volume of nonperforming unsecured consumer loans and apply a novel technique developed by Hughes and Moon (2017) that decomposes the observed rate of nonperforming loans into three components: a best-practice minimum ratio, a ratio that gauges nonperformance in excess of the best-practice (reflecting the relative proficiency of credit analysis and loan monitoring), and the statistical noise. Stochastic frontier techniques are used to estimate a minimum rate of nonperforming consumer loans conditioned on the volume of consumer loans and total loans, the average contractual lending rate on consumer loans, and market conditions (GDP growth rate and market concentration). This minimum gauges best-observed practice and answers the question, what ratio of nonperforming consumer loans to total consumer lending could a lender achieve if it were fully efficient at credit-risk evaluation and loan management? The frontier estimation eliminates the influence of luck (statistical noise) and gauges the systematic failure to obtain the minimum ratio. The conditional minimum ratio can be interpreted as a measure of inherent credit risk. The difference between the observed ratio, adjusted for statistical noise, and the minimum ratio gauges lending inefficiency. In 2013 and 2016, the largest bank holding companies with consolidated assets exceeding $250 billion experience the highest ratio of nonperforming consumer loans among the five size groups constituting the sample. Moreover, the inherent credit risk of their consumer lending is the highest among the five groups, but their lending efficiency is also the highest. Thus, the high ratio of consumer nonperformance of the largest financial institutions appears to result from assuming more inherent credit risk, not from inefficiency at lending. In 2016, LendingClub’s scale of unsecured consumer lending is slightly smaller than the scale of the largest banks. And like these large lenders, its relatively high nonperforming loan ratio is the result of a higher best-practice ratio of nonperforming consumer loans – i.e., higher inherent credit risk. As of 2016, LendingClub’s lending efficiency is similar to the high average efficiency of the largest bank lenders - a conclusion that may not be applicable to other fintech lenders. While the efficiency metric is well-accepted, widely used, and conceptually sound, it may be subject to some data limitations. For example, our data do not include lending performance during an economic downturn when delinquency rates would be higher and when lenders more experienced with downturns might achieve higher efficiency.

Keywords: commercial banking; online lending; credit risk; lending efficiency (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G21 L25 C58 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ban, nep-eff and nep-pay
Date: 2018-11-19
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sas.rutgers.edu/virtual/snde/wp/2018-06.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rut:rutres:201806

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Departmental Working Papers from Rutgers University, Department of Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().

 
Page updated 2019-04-15
Handle: RePEc:rut:rutres:201806