Somehow I haven’t heard about Microplace but it’s an exciting addition the the expanding world of P2P lending and microfinance. It is different to Kiva because you invest in a security (like a bond) for a fixed term, usually 2-4 years and you receive a return, although minimal 1.5-3%. As I understand it the big issue is getting registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Microplace is backed by eBay which certainly helped whereas Kiva was a start up and was forced into going the non-profit route.

It’s great to have two companies to compare and contrast.

Kiva is more personal. I choose who I want to lend to and can received feedback and updated information on how the borrower is getting on. This is really important as it builds a web of social capital.

With Microplace you are buying a package of loans and so you don’t have that personal contact. Also there is the issue of return. I think it’s good you can get a return on your loan as long as it does not influence the rate being paid by the eventual borrower.

So you could actually lend to the same borrower through either Kiva or Microplace but somehow Microplace can get you a small return on your money. I’ll be digging further to see how they do this.  So far they have been very helpful and open.

In a way the securitisation approach is not much different from mortgage backed securities where people invest in a package of mortgages. Of course we all know what’s happened with those. However i would stress this is completely different in that all the loans are unsecured anyway. It’s also important to note that default rates on microfinance are a mere 1-3%.

When we cut out the banks and go direct we enable relationships of trust to be built. This allows the traditional aspects of social relationships to take place. No one cares if you default to the bank but to default to other people can bring personal shame and other social fallout.

These 2 companies are blazing a trail for the rest of the finance industry. P2P finance could well be the next big thing.

Dave Wetzel, Vice-Chair of Transport for London, writes an interesting paper focusing on the issues of transport infrastructure and increases in surrounding land values. The issue of land and its possible taxation reared its head recently here in NZ but has since had little media interest.

However, its time we really focused on land and its value within the economic system. One of the examples Dave looks at is the building of the Jubilee Line Extension back in the 1990s. It was a marvelous piece of engineering and brought new and convenient transport options to many Londoners.

It also brought wealth to people who owned land and property in and around the areas where new stations were sited. He quotes Don Riley, a London property developer, who calculated,

“..these land values alone, have increased by a staggering STG13bln when the construction of the line itself was only STG3.5bln.”

So this wealth has been gained for no effort (well there is always effort in speculation) and represents a windfall gain. So why shouldn’t some of that have been used to actually fund the line itself.  Dave uses this example to develop an argument for a Land Value Tax as a way of funding public infrastructure.

We don’t need PPPs when projects can be funded out of future wealth gains. This is a subject which gets little attention but deserves much more.