Nine of the top ten PPP lenders with the highest rate of suspicious loans are fintechs — and the remaining one acts like a fintech company, according to the study by researchers at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.
Altogether, the researchers found that 1.8 million PPP loans with a total value of $76.3 billion had suspicious characteristics.
The report points to regulatory gaps and due diligence failures that allowed for suspicious lending of taxpayer money intended to help mom-and-pop shops hurt by the pandemic.
“These findings highlight the large costs of low oversight and lack of sufficient negative ramifications to borrowers and lenders for poor lending practices in the PPP,” the academics concluded.
‘Turned a blind eye’
In particular, the report found that the largest three fintech issuers of PPP loans — Cross River, Capital Plus and Harvest — all had “high and increasing rates” of misreporting and received more than $900 million each in processing fees.
The sheer scope of the suspicious lending by the fintechs, the authors wrote, suggests that “many lenders either encouraged such loans, turned a blind eye to them or had lax oversight procedures.”
Cross River, Capital Plus and Harvest did not respond to requests for comment.
The Financial Technology Association, an industry trade group, defended the role of fintechs during the pandemic.
“Despite evolving government guidance and inadequate processing systems, financial technology companies executed the goal of the PPP program with the regulatory compliance standards in mind throughout the lending process, helping to save hundreds of thousands of small businesses,” Penny Lee, the trade group’s CEO, said in a statement.
Lee also pointed the finger at traditional lenders.
“While small businesses suffered, many large, legacy financial institutions refused to provide loans to businesses without existing relationships,” she said in the statement.
Fintechs use digital technology to issue loans, hold deposits and provide other banking services, typically without physical bank branches. This newer model leans heavily on algorithms to screen loan applications and sometimes lacks the robust compliance procedures that traditional banks rely on. Fintechs also tend to face less oversight from regulators.
“There is a tradeoff between quick and easy access to government funds and potential for abuse,” Sam Kruger, one of the study’s authors and an assistant finance professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview.
To identify potential fraud, the academics looked for red flags in PPP loan applications, including businesses that weren’t registered, the existence of multiple businesses at a residential address, unusually high implied compensation per employee and large inconsistencies in the number of workers reported in applications for other government programs.
“Online lending does not appear to be the problem in and of itself,” the report said. “One thing that sets Square and Intuit apart is that they have established relationships with customers based on a broad suite of payment, accounting, payroll, and other financial support services.”
Luxury cars, jewelry and other items bought with PPP funds
Federal prosecutors have gone after dozens of applicants who allegedly exploited the emergency program.
Since the PPP launched, the Justice Department says it has prosecuted more than 100 defendants in over 70 criminal cases involving the program. The DOJ has seized more than $65 million in cash proceeds from what it says were fraudulently obtained PPP funds. Prosecutors have also seized real estate and luxury items purchased with the loans.