Advertisement

Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 111–129 | Cite as

The relationship between soft information in loan titles and online peer-to-peer lending: evidence from RenRenDai platform

  • Jianrong Yao
  • Jiarui Chen
  • June WeiEmail author
  • Yuangao ChenEmail author
  • Shuiqing Yang
Article
  • 347 Downloads

Abstract

Online peer-to-peer (P2P) lending is a central component of Internet finance. It can help borrowers raise funds quickly—a particularly useful feature for small and medium enterprises and individuals with no credit on record with a central bank. In this paper, we use data from Chinese RenRenDai lending platform to investigate the relationship between loan purpose and funding success rate. In order to identify the purpose of borrowing from the title of the loan, LDA topic model of text mining technology is applied to make classification for loan titles. Our results indicate that the purpose of the loan has a significant influence on whether the loan is successful. Ambiguity surrounding the loan’s purpose significantly reduces the likelihood of a borrower successfully securing that loan. Loan purpose for business often ensures a higher funding success rate. These results suggest that borrowers should comprehensively fill out the loan title when applying for funding via an online P2P platform. Results also suggest that online P2P platform investors do not blindly invest in others in an attempt to secure high returns.

Keywords

Peer-to-peer lending Topic model Soft information Loan title Funding success 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. LY18G020013 and LQ14F010006, the Humanity and Social Science Foundation of the Ministry of Education of China under Grand No. 15YJA630005 and the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61502414.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrawal, A., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2014). Some simple economics of crowdfunding. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 14(1), 63–97.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Allison, T. H., Mckenny, A. F., & Short, J. C. (2013). The effect of entrepreneurial rhetoric on microlending investment: An examination of the warm-glow effect. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 690–707.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andreas, P., & Hamid, S. (2015). Herding and contrarian behavior in financial Markets. Econometrica, 79(4), 973–1026.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barasinska, N., & Schäfer, D. (2014). Is crowdfunding different? Evidence on the relation between gender and funding success from a German peer-to-peer lending platform. German Economic Review, 15(4), 436–452.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Berger, S. C., & Gleisner, F. (2009). Emergence of financial intermediaries in electronic markets: The case of online P2P lending. Business Research, 2(1), 39–65.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blei, D. (2011). Probabilistic topic models. In ACM SIGKDD international conference tutorials (pp. 55–65).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blei, D. M., & Lafferty, J. D. (2007). Correction: A correlated topic model of science. Statistics, 1(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaffee, E. C., & Rapp, G. C. (2012). Regulating on-line peer-to-peer lending in the aftermath of Dodd–Frank: In search of an evolving regulatory regime for an evolving industry. Washington & Lee Law Review, 69(2), 485.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen, D., Hao, L., & Xu, H. (2013). Gender discrimination towards borrowers in online P2P lending. In The twelfth Wuhan international conference on e-business (pp. 20–24).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, D., Li, X., & Lai, F. (2016). Gender discrimination in online peer-to-peer credit lending: Evidence from a lending platform in China. Electronic Commerce Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-016-9247-2.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, J. Z., & Ning, X. (2013). Empirical research on the influence of personal information on P2P lending’s success rate—Evidence from Renrendai. Accounting & Finance, 6, 3.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, N., Ghosh, A., & Lambert, N. S. (2011). Auctions for social lending: A theoretical analysis. Games & Economic Behavior, 86, 367–391.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen, X., Zhou, L., & Wan, D. (2015). Group social capital and lending outcomes in the financial credit market. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 15, 1–13.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cruys, T. V. D. (2008). A comparison of bag of words and syntax-based approaches for word categorization. In Proceedings of the ESSLLI workshop on distributional lexical semantics (pp. 47–54).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davidoff, T., & Welke, G. (2004). Selection and moral hazard in the reverse mortgage market. SSRN Electronic Journal.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.608666.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dorfleitner, G., Priberny, C., Schuster, S., Stoiber, J., Weber, M., de Castro, I., et al. (2016). Description-text related soft information in peer-to-peer lending—Evidence from two leading European platforms. Journal of Banking & Finance, 64, 169–187.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duarte, J., Siegel, S., & Young, L. (2012). Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. Review of Financial Studies, 25(8), 2455–2484.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Emekter, R., Tu, Y., Jirasakuldech, B., & Lu, M. (2015). Evaluating credit risk and loan performance in online peer-to-peer (P2P) lending. Applied Economics, 47(1), 54–70.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fan, W., Wallace, L., Rich, S., & Zhang, Z. (2006). Tapping the power of text mining. Communications of the ACM, 49(9), 76–82.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faure-Grimaud, A., & Martimort, D. (2002). Collusion, delegation and supervision with soft information. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 70(2), 253–279.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferrara, E. L. (2003). Kin groups and reciprocity: A model of credit transactions in Ghana. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1730–1751.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Freedman, S., & Jin, G. Z. (2008). Do social networks solve information problems for peer-to-peer lending? Evidence from Prosper.com. Social Science Electronic Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1936057.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gao, Q., & Lin, M. (2015). Lemon or cherry? The value of texts in debt crowdfunding. Working paper.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Greiner, M. E., & Wang, H. (2007). Building consumer-to-consumer trust in e-finance marketplaces. In Reaching new heights. Americas conference on information systems, Keystone, Colorado, USA. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(Suppl 1), 5228–5235.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    He, Y. (2012). Incorporating sentiment prior knowledge for weakly supervised sentiment analysis. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, 11(2), 4.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Herzenstein, M., & Andrews, R. L. (2008). The democratization of personal consumer loans? Determinants of success in online peer-to-peer loan auctions. Bulletin of the University of Delaware, 15(3), 274–277.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hme, R., & Tzsch, S. (2011). Collective exposure: Peer effects in voluntary disclosure of personal data. In International conference on financial cryptography and data security (pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hoff, K., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1990). Introduction: Imperfect information and rural credit markets—puzzles and policy perspectives. World Bank Economic Review, 4(3), 235–250.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hofmann, T. (1999). Probabilistic latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the fifteenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (pp. 289–296). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hotho, A., Nürnberger, A., & Paa, G. (2005). A brief survey of text mining. GLDV Journal for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology, 20, 19–62.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hunt, P. (2013). Peer-to-peer lending. Mortgage Finance Gazette, 39, 19–23.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iyer, R., Khwaja, A. I., Luttmer, E. F. P., & Shue, K. (2009). Screening in new credit markets: Can individual lenders infer borrower creditworthiness in peer-to-peer lending? SSRN Electronic Journal.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1570115.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Knobloch, L. K. (1975). Uncertainty reduction theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kreiner, D. S., Schnakenberg, S. D., Green, A. G., Costello, M. J., & Mcclin, A. F. (2002). Effects of spelling errors on the perception of writers. Journal of General Psychology, 129(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Larrimore, L., Jiang, L., Larrimore, J., Markowitz, D., & Gorski, S. (2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lee, E., & Lee, B. (2012). Herding behavior in online P2P lending: An empirical investigation. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11(5), 495–503.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lim, K. W., & Buntine, W. (2014). Twitter opinion topic model: Extracting product opinions from tweets by leveraging hashtags and sentiment lexicon. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 1319–1328). ACM.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lin, C., & He, Y. (2009). Joint sentiment/topic model for sentiment analysis. In ACM conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 375–384).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lin, M. (2009). Peer-to-peer lending: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the fifteenth americas conference on information systems, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lin, M., Prabhala, N. R., & Viswanathan, S. (2013). Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Friendship networks and information asymmetry in online peer-to-peer lending. Management Science, 59(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lin, X., Li, X., & Zheng, Z. (2016). Evaluating borrower’s default risk in peer-to-peer lending: Evidence from a lending platform in China. Applied Economics.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.1262526.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lipp, O. V., Neumann, D. L., Siddle, D. A. T., et al. (2001). Assessing the effects of attention and emotion on startle eyeblink modulation. Journal of Psychophysiology, 15(3), 173–182.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Luo, B., & Lin, Z. (2013). A decision tree model for herd behavior and empirical evidence from the online P2P lending market. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 11(1), 141–160.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Martens, M. L., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1107–1132.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mi, J. J., & Zhu, H. (2016). Can funding platforms’ self-initiated financial innovation improve credit availability? Evidence from China’s P2P market. Applied Economics Letters.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2016.1197358.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pang, J. F., Bu, D., & Bai, S. (2001). Research and implementation of text categorization system based on VSM. Application Research of Computers, 18(9), 23–26.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pope, D. G., & Sydnor, J. R. (2011). What’s in a picture?: Evidence of discrimination from Prosper.com. Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 53–92.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Pynte, J., Kennedy, A., & Ducrot, S. (2004). The influence of parafoveal typographical errors on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 178–202.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ravina, E. (2007). Beauty, personal characteristics, and trust in credit markets. SSRN Electronic Journal.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.972801.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Renneboog, L., Horst, J. T., & Zhang, C. (2008). Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behavior. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1723–1742.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18(11), 273–280.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stein, J. C. (2000). Information production and capital allocation: Decentralized versus hierarchical firms. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 57(5), 1891–1921.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Suh, B., & Han, I. (2003). The impact of customer trust and perception of security control on the acceptance of electronic commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 135–161.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tan, Y. Y. (2016). Application of instance-based model in optimization of investment portfolio—An empirical study based on Renrendai. Commercial Research, 62(12), 126–131.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang, H. J., & Liao, L. (2014). Chinese P2P platform’s credit authentication mechanism research—Evidence from Renrendai. China Industrial Economics, 4, 136–147.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yan, X., Guo, J., Lan, Y., & Cheng, X. (2013). A biterm topic model for short texts. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1445–1456). ACM.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zhou, S., Li, K., & Liu, Y. (2009). Text categorization based on topic model. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 2(4), 398–409.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of InformationZhejiang University of Finance and EconomicsHangzhouChina
  2. 2.College of BusinessUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations