Did FinTech Lenders Facilitate PPP Fraud?

J. Griffin, Samuel Kruger, Prateek Mahajan
{"title":"Did FinTech Lenders Facilitate PPP Fraud?","authors":"J. Griffin, Samuel Kruger, Prateek Mahajan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3906395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the distribution of the Paycheck Protection Program’s (PPP) $803 billion in funds, FinTech lenders began minimally but ramped up their market share to over 80% of originated loans by the end of the program. We examine metrics related to potential misreporting including non-registered businesses, multiple businesses at residential addresses, abnormally high implied compensation per employee, and large inconsistencies in jobs reported with another government program. We assess these four metrics with five additional measures and extensive supporting analysis. FinTech loans exhibit sharp and discontinuous increases in misreporting at maximum loan thresholds and round loan amounts. FinTech loans are more than 3.5 times as likely to be initiated by someone with a criminal background, strongly cluster in industry-county pairs to a degree that is infeasible based on U.S. Census data on establishment counts, and frequently exhibit similar loan features within lender-county pairs. Certain FinTech lenders seem to specialize in questionable loans with more than 40% of their loans experiencing at least one misreporting indicator. Few of these loans have been prosecuted by authorities or repaid. FinTech lenders with the highest misreporting in the first two rounds of the program in 2020 increase both their market share and their misreporting substantially in the third round in 2021. While FinTech lenders likely expand PPP access, this may come at the cost of facilitating fraudulent credit.","PeriodicalId":20999,"journal":{"name":"Regulation of Financial Institutions eJournal","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"37","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regulation of Financial Institutions eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3906395","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 37

Abstract

In the distribution of the Paycheck Protection Program’s (PPP) $803 billion in funds, FinTech lenders began minimally but ramped up their market share to over 80% of originated loans by the end of the program. We examine metrics related to potential misreporting including non-registered businesses, multiple businesses at residential addresses, abnormally high implied compensation per employee, and large inconsistencies in jobs reported with another government program. We assess these four metrics with five additional measures and extensive supporting analysis. FinTech loans exhibit sharp and discontinuous increases in misreporting at maximum loan thresholds and round loan amounts. FinTech loans are more than 3.5 times as likely to be initiated by someone with a criminal background, strongly cluster in industry-county pairs to a degree that is infeasible based on U.S. Census data on establishment counts, and frequently exhibit similar loan features within lender-county pairs. Certain FinTech lenders seem to specialize in questionable loans with more than 40% of their loans experiencing at least one misreporting indicator. Few of these loans have been prosecuted by authorities or repaid. FinTech lenders with the highest misreporting in the first two rounds of the program in 2020 increase both their market share and their misreporting substantially in the third round in 2021. While FinTech lenders likely expand PPP access, this may come at the cost of facilitating fraudulent credit.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
金融科技贷款机构助长了PPP欺诈吗?
在工资保障计划(PPP) 8030亿美元资金的分配中,金融科技贷款机构开始时的市场份额很低,但到计划结束时,它们的市场份额上升到80%以上。我们研究了与潜在的误报相关的指标,包括未注册的企业、居住地址的多家企业、每位员工的隐含薪酬异常高,以及与另一个政府项目报告的就业岗位存在很大的不一致。我们评估这四个指标与五个额外的措施和广泛的支持分析。金融科技贷款在最高贷款门槛和贷款金额上的误报表现出急剧和不连续的增长。金融科技贷款由有犯罪背景的人发起的可能性是前者的3.5倍以上,在某种程度上,产业-县对强烈聚集在一起,这是根据美国人口普查局关于企业数量的数据不可行的,并且在贷款人-县对中经常表现出类似的贷款特征。某些金融科技贷款机构似乎专门从事有问题的贷款,超过40%的贷款至少存在一项误报指标。这些贷款很少被当局起诉或偿还。在2020年前两轮计划中报错率最高的金融科技贷款机构,在2021年的第三轮中,其市场份额和报错率都大幅增加。虽然金融科技贷款机构可能会扩大PPP接入,但这可能会以促进欺诈性信贷为代价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Did FinTech Lenders Facilitate PPP Fraud? Financial Reform and Public Good Provision: Municipal Bankruptcy Law and the Financing of Hospitals How Do Acquisitions Affect the Mental Health of Employees? Anti-Discrimination Insurance Pricing: Regulations, Fairness Criteria, and Models The Unintended Benefits of Increased Disclosure Frequency: Evidence from the Brokerage House Industry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1