P2P lending continues to grow in Europe


P2P-Banking.com has released its lending volumes for May 2017, and has measured a major increase in the volumes of almost all P2P market places compared to last year’s May. This has come to an approximate $500 million dollars in added volume. Globally, Morgan Stanley forecasts lending volumes of up to US$290 billion dollars by 2020.


We’ve seen a major increase in Chinese P2P lenders, with 2612 lenders coming out of China and turning over approximately $US$18 billion dollars in loans a month. Though, harsh central bank regulations are seeing a threat to this volume as they continue to increase regulations on P2P lending.


Achieving global recognition

Over the last half a decade, we’ve seen P2P lending go from a niche to a reasonable method of investing. This sort of recognition is what P2P lending needs to reach the next level and become wide-spread amongst retail investors as well.


A few years ago, P2P lending was considered to be a fad that would be extinguished very quickly due to its high risks for investors. Though we’ve seen some issues with Lending Club in the U.S., specifically related to some shady loans covered by Bloomberg in 2016.


P2P lending critics are quick to bring up Lending Club’s faults and extrapolate them to reflect the entirety of the P2P lending markets. But, we have to remember that there are a few bad eggs in any market. Conventional banking has led to some of the worst financial crises in history or do we just pretend to ignore sub-prime loans?


It’s important to be aware of the flaws in a financial institution but shady deals and risky ventures done in a few companies do not reflect the entirety of that financial market. P2P lending has the opportunity to excel and grow to huge levels as it garners more and more recognition in the financial sector.


We’re excited to be a part of this growth and we hope you have a look at MarketLend as a means of lending.

Google Tax

Scott Morrison introduced the ‘Google Tax’ or the less exciting Diverted Profits tax on the 29th of November this year, stating that it will ensure that tax dodging corporations will be heavily scrutinised and taxed heavier if they try and dodge their tax. The tax will allow the ATO to broaden their scope and ensure that these large multi-nationals can properly be punished.This is something that a lot of Australians are frustrated with, especially SME owners that pay a 30% corporations tax. Running a successful business shouldn’t give you immunity from taxation, and that seems to be the case with the status quo at the moment.


We see a lot of successful multi-nationals enter Australia, crowd out Australian businesses and divert their income overseas to avoid any tax. You could argue that they are giving Australians jobs, sure, you aren’t wrong on that front. However, there is a major amount of money that we, as Australians, are putting into their companies.


Just because you can afford the best accountants in the world and amazing tax lawyers should not preclude you from paying tax. I think this is a bi-partisan issues that should be agreed on by both parties.


The proposal states a $200M increase in the Australian budget if tax evasion by multi-nationals is adequately prevented and the money is redirected back into Australia. As a Government that was cracked down on about this very issue, it is refreshing to see some action taken on it. It will be interesting where support lies on this tax, and how it will affect multi-nationals entering into Australia.Will it stop multi-nationals from setting up shop in Australia? If this passes, we’ll have one of the strictest laws on this issue in the world. Google has moved billions of dollars to Bermuda, it’s under pressure from Indonesia to pay its taxes, and it’s proud of how the company avoids taxes.Whether this is okay or not depends on what you believe.

Irish tax law is the a major way to avoid corporate tax liability, using payments between related entities in corporate structures to move payments across from a higher-tax country to one with lower jurisdiction.