IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rfinst/v32y2019i5p1900-1938..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer-to-Peer Lenders Versus Banks: Substitutes or Complements?

Author

Listed:
  • Huan Tang

Abstract

This paper studies whether, in the consumer credit market, peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platforms serve as substitutes for banks or instead as complements. I develop a conceptual framework and derive testable predictions to distinguish between these two possibilities. Using a regulatory change as an exogenous shock to bank credit supply, I find that P2P lending is a substitute for bank lending in terms of serving infra-marginal bank borrowers yet complements bank lending with respect to small loans. These results indicate that the credit expansion resulting from P2P lending likely occurs only among borrowers who already have access to bank credit.Received June 1, 2017; editorial decision September 15, 2018 by Editor Andrew Karolyi. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Suggested Citation

  • Huan Tang, 2019. "Peer-to-Peer Lenders Versus Banks: Substitutes or Complements?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 32(5), pages 1900-1938.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:32:y:2019:i:5:p:1900-1938.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhy137
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:32:y:2019:i:5:p:1900-1938.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfsssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.