Giulio Cornelli, Jon Frost, Leonardo Gambacorta, Raghavendra Rau, Robert Wardrop, Tania Ziegler 20 studenog 2020

In the final decade, two new forms of credit intermediation have grown quickly. Both use new know-how to compete with banks of their core lending operate (Stulz 2019). 

The first innovation is fintech credit – i.e. credit exercise facilitated by digital (on-line) platforms that aren’t operated by industrial banks (Claessens et al. 2018). This can be referred to as ‘debt-based alternative finance’ (Wardrop et al. 2015). It contains peer-to-peer or market lending by platforms like Zopa and Funding Circle in the UK, Lending Club and SoFi in the US, Yiren Digital and others in China, and Harmoney in Australia and New Zealand. It additionally contains bill buying and selling, mini-bonds, and different types of financing for customers and small companies primarily based on on-line platforms. Data on one of these exercise are compiled in the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) Global Alternative Finance database (Ziegler et al. 2020). These knowledge, mentioned in Rau (2020) and accessible from CCAF, are primarily based on an annual on-line questionnaire of other finance volumes and traits accessible for the interval 2013-2018.

A second innovation is the enlargement of big tech corporations into credit markets. Big tech refers to giant firms whose main exercise is digital companies, reasonably than monetary companies (de la Mano and Padilla 2018, Frost et al. 2019). These corporations typically have giant established networks from non-financial enterprise strains, similar to digital commerce (or e-commerce), social media or web search, and these networks and actions give them entry to worthwhile knowledge on people and corporations (BIS 2019). In current years, many such corporations have begun to lend to their customers, both straight – for instance, via a monetary companies subsidiary – or in partnership with conventional monetary establishments. Examples embody the lending actions of Alibaba’s Ant Group and Tencent’s WeBank in China, of Amazon in the US, UK, and different international locations, of Google in India, of M-Pesa and different cellular cash operators in Africa, or Grab and Go-Jek in Southeast Asia, and of Mercado Libre and others in Latin America. 

Because these new types of credit intermediation are new, they’re typically not but included in official credit statistics. This is an issue, as central banks and regulators are liable for monitoring credit markets. Like good pilots, authorities shouldn’t be ‘flying blind’. 

We purpose to fill this hole with a brand new paper (Cornelli et al. 2020) and database. The database combines knowledge from the CCAF Global Alternative Finance database with hand-collected knowledge on big tech credit from varied public sources similar to corporations’ annual reviews, in addition to info from contacts at big tech firms and central banks.1

The knowledge present that globally, big tech credit is booming and is overtaking fintech credit (Figure 1). Big tech lending volumes reached $572 billion in 2019 – a development of 44% over 2018. Fintech credit volumes really declined in 2019, by 25% to $223 billion. This decline is pushed solely by China, the place regulatory reforms and a collection of platform exits have led to a contraction in each the inventory and circulation of fintech lending. In different international locations, fintech credit continues to develop quickly. 

Slika 1 Big tech credit is overtaking fintech credit (billions of US {dollars})

Fintech i velika tehnološka tržišta kredita širom svijeta

Bilješke: 2019 fintech lending quantity figures are estimated on AU, CN, EU, GB, NZ, and US.
izvor: Cornelli et al. (2020).

The largest markets for big tech credit in absolute phrases are China, Japan, Korea, and the US. In every of those markets, lending by big techs, both straight or in partnership with monetary establishments, has risen quickly (Figure 2). In Japan, e-commerce agency Rakuten and social media firm LINE are notable lenders. In Korea, the two digital banks Kakao Bank and OkayBank have ramped up their lending since their launch in 2017. 

Slika 2 Big tech credit is booming in Asia, the US, and Africa (hundreds of thousands of US {dollars}, logarithmic scale)

In the final decade, two new forms of credit intermediation have grown quickly. Both use new know-how to compete with banks of their core lending operate (Stulz 2019).

Bilješke: Figures embody estimates.
izvor: Cornelli et al. (2020).

In some markets, the two new types of credit intermediation have gotten economically related. In explicit, the sum of fintech and big tech credit flows had been equal to 2.0% of the inventory of whole personal credit in China in 2019 (Figure 3). Meanwhile, they reached 5.8% of the inventory of whole credit in Kenya and 1.1% in Indonesia. In superior economies, volumes are smaller relative to general markets, however market shares may be giant in particular market segments. In the UK, for instance, Ziegler et al. (2020) estimate that fintech credit platforms accounted for as much as 27.7% of equal financial institution credit to small and medium enterprises with annual turnover beneath £2 million in 2018. Buchak et al. (2018) and Fuster et al. (2018) present that fintech lenders have gotten essential gamers in US mortgage markets.

Slika 3 Fintech and big tech credit are sizeable in some international locations (hundreds of thousands of US {dollars}, logarithmic scale)

In the final decade, two new forms of credit intermediation have grown quickly. Both use new know-how to compete with banks of their core lending operate (Stulz 2019).

Bilješke: (1) Lending quantity knowledge is for 2019. (2) The ratio to whole inventory of credit refers to home credit supplied by the monetary sector. Data for 2018. (3) Total different credit is outlined as the sum of fintech and big tech credit. Data for 2019.
izvor: Cornelli et al. (2020).

Drivers of fintech and big tech credit

To perceive the drivers of fintech and big tech credit, we carry out panel regressions of log credit per capita for 79 international locations over 2013-2018.2 We verify that fintech and big tech credit may be defined by a mixture of provide and demand components. 

On the demand aspect, we present the following: 

  • More developed economies (with larger GDP per capita) have a better demand for credit from corporations and households, and thus larger fintech and big tech credit. This relationship decreases for very excessive ranges of improvement (in keeping with Claessens et al. 2018 and Bazarbash and Beaton 2020). 
  • When banking companies are costlier (larger banking sector mark-ups), as an illustration due to much less competitors, this may occasionally imply extra demand for cheaper credit. Fintech credit is very larger in these instances. 
  • Where there’s a bigger un(der)met demand for monetary companies, as proxied by fewer financial institution branches per capita, we discover larger fintech credit volumes, however no more big tech credit. 

On the provide aspect, we discover that:

  • More stringent banking regulation (a proxy for the general stance of economic regulation; see Barba Navaretti et al. 2017) is related to larger fintech and big tech credit. These guidelines might create obstacles to the entry for fintech and big tech corporations. Conversely, devoted regulatory frameworks for fintech credit enable these markets to develop and develop (in keeping with Rau 2020). 
  • Institutional traits, similar to the ease of doing enterprise, investor safety, and disclosure and the judicial system, are related to larger volumes, probably as a result of they permit fintech and big tech corporations to enter credit markets and to develop.
  • Characteristics of the incumbent banking system and of economic markets form innovation. Alternative credit volumes are larger the place banks are higher capitalised and the place markets are deeper, implying that fintech and big tech credit can complement financial institution credit and market-based finance, reasonably than substituting for it.

Looking forward: What implications for coverage? 

Fintech and big tech credit are rising quickly in international locations around the world. Data on their measurement and development have till now been scarce. The CCAF database and the knowledge in our new paper purpose to fill this hole. Nonetheless, enhancing the knowledge availability will stay an essential coverage precedence. As such, efforts to incorporate fintech and big tech credit suppliers in regulatory reporting ought to proceed apace. 

As with different types of credit, there’s the potential for these new types of lending to boost financial development – but additionally to engender dangers to the macroeconomy and monetary system. In explicit, as credit grows quickly, there’s the potential for particular person debtors to change into over-indebted, and – as in previous intervals of fast credit development – even for dangers to monetary stability. Whether this development represents the pure diffusion of a promising new sort of intermediation or a credit bubble stays an open query; it could be doable to evaluate this solely after a downturn.

In this gentle, the Covid-19 pandemic represents an essential check to those new enterprise fashions. Information on lending flows and credit losses over 2020 isn’t but accessible. Yet will probably be essential to evaluate how new credit fashions operate throughout their first downturn in the monetary and enterprise cycle. Yet after the preliminary shock and credit losses, it may be anticipated that the larger demand for on-line companies might additional assist fintech and big tech credit. In some markets, fintech and big tech corporations have even helped to channel emergency lending to small companies. Policymakers ought to proceed to watch these new markets, develop a greater understanding of their dangers and potential. They might must speed up the tempo of regulatory innovation to higher regulate and supervise an more and more digitalised monetary sector (BIS 2020, World Bank and CCAF 2020). 

Authors’ Note: The views expressed are these of the authors and don’t essentially characterize these of the Bank for International Settlements.


Bank for International Settlements (BIS) (2019), “Big tech in finance: opportunities and risks”, BIS Annual Economic Report, Chapter III, June. 

Bank for International Settlements (BIS) (2020), “Central banks and payments in the digital era”, BIS Annual Economic Report, Chapter III, June. 

Barba Navaretti, G, G Calzolari, J M Mansilla-Fernandez and A F Pozzolo (2017), “FinTech and Banks: Friends or Foes?”, European Economy: Banks, Regulation, and the Real Sector, 2 prosinac. 

Bazarbash, M and Okay Beaton (2020), “Filling the Gap: Digital Credit and Financial Inclusion”, IMF Working Paper 20/150.

Buchak, G, G Matvos, T Piskorski and A Seru (2018), “Fintech, regulatory arbitrage, and the rise of shadow banks”, Časopis za financijsku ekonomiju 130 (3): 453 – 83. 

Claessens, S, J Frost, G Turner, and F Zhu (2018), “Fintech credit markets around the world: size, drivers and policy issues”, BIS Quarterly Review, Rujan.

Cornelli, G, J Frost, L Gambacorta, R Rau, R Wardrop and T Ziegler (2020), “Fintech and big tech credit: a new database”, BIS Working Paper 887 (additionally revealed as CEPR Discussion Paper 15357).

Frost, J, L Gambacorta, Y Huang, H S Shin and P Zbinden (2019), “BigTech and the changing structure of financial intermediation”, Ekonomska politika 34 (100): 761 – 99.

Fuster, A, M Plosser, P Schnabel and J Vickery (2018), “The role of technology in mortgage lending”, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no 836, February.

Mano, M de la and J Padilla (2018), “Big tech banking”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics 14 (4): 494 – 526.

Rau, R (2020), “Law, trust, and the development of crowdfunding”, University of Cambridge Working Paper.

Stulz, R (2019), “FinTech, BigTech, and the Future of Banks”, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 31 (4): 86 – 97.

Wardrop, R, B Zhang, R Rau and M Gray (2015), “Moving mainstream: the European alternative finance benchmarking report”, Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance.

World Bank and Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (2020), “The Global Covid-19 FinTech Regulatory Rapid Assessment Report”, World Bank Group and the University of Cambridge, October.

Ziegler, T, R Shneor, Okay Wenzlaff, B Wang, J Kim, A Odorovic, F Ferri de Camargo Paes, Okay Suresh, B Zhang, D Johanson, C Lopez, L Mammadova, N Adams and D Luo (2020), The Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report, Travnja.


1 In some instances, it has been essential to estimate lending flows primarily based on end-year shares of credit, and to estimate 2019 numbers primarily based on figures in previous years and development in consumer numbers or revenues. Where big tech corporations lend in a number of jurisdictions, it has typically been essential to make assumptions about how such lending is distributed throughout totally different markets.

2 We exclude 2019 volumes given the lack of availability of many impartial variables.