According to a study by researchers at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin, nine of the top ten PPP lenders with the highest rates of suspicious loans are fintech companies, and the remaining one operates as a fintech company.
Overall, the researchers found that 1.8 million PPP loans totaling $ 76.3 billion had suspicious characteristics.
The report points to regulatory gaps and due diligence failures that have led to a suspicious lending of taxpayer money to help family stores hit by the pandemic.
“These results highlight the high costs associated with low levels of supervision and the lack of sufficient negative impact on borrowers and lenders due to poor lending practices under PPPs,” the researchers concluded.
‘I closed my eyes’
Specifically, the report found that the three largest fintech issuers of PPP loans – Cross River, Capital Plus and Harvest – had “high and growing rates” of misreporting and received more than $ 900 million each in processing fees.
The authors wrote that the sheer volume of suspicious lending to fintech companies suggests that “many lenders either encouraged such loans, turned a blind eye to them, or applied weak supervision procedures.”
Cross River, Capital Plus, and Harvest did not respond to requests for comment.
The Fintech Association, an industry trade group, championed the role of fintech during the pandemic.
“Despite evolving government leadership and inadequate processing systems, fintech companies have met the goal of a regulatory PPP program throughout the lending process, helping save hundreds of thousands of small businesses,” said Penny Lee, CEO of the trading group, said in the message.
Lee also pointed the finger at traditional lenders.
“While small businesses have suffered, many large legacy financial institutions have refused to lend to businesses with no existing relationships,” the statement said.
Fintech use digital technologies to issue loans, store deposits and provide other banking services, usually without physical bank branches. This new model relies heavily on loan application validation algorithms and sometimes lacks the robust compliance procedures that traditional banks rely on. Fintech tends to be less subject to regulatory scrutiny.
“There is a trade-off between quick and easy access to government funds and the potential for abuse,” said Sam Krueger, one of the study’s authors and assistant professor of finance at the University of Texas at Austin, in an interview.
To identify potential fraud, researchers looked for red flags in PPP loan applications, including unregistered businesses, multiple businesses at home, unusually high estimated compensation per employee, and large disparities in the number of workers. reported in applications for participation in other government programs.
“Online lending is not a problem in itself,” the report says. “One thing that sets Square and Intuit apart is that they have established customer relationships based on a wide range of payment, accounting, payroll and other financial support services.”
Luxury cars, jewelry and other items purchased with PPP funds
Federal prosecutors prosecuted dozens of applicants who allegedly took advantage of the emergency assistance program.
The Justice Department says that since the launch of the PPP, it has prosecuted more than 100 defendants in more than 70 criminal cases related to the program. The Justice Department confiscated more than $ 65 million in cash proceeds that it said was fraudulently derived from PPP funds. The prosecutor’s office also seized real estate and luxury items purchased with loans.