Is information transparency important for funders? A case study of sharia P2P lending companies in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18196/jai.v24i2.17220Keywords:
Information Transparency, Multiple Agency Theory, Information Asymmetry, Sharia P2P Lending, FundersAbstract
Research aims: This study explores the importance of information transparency for funders as parties who provide funding to borrowers' projects. It also analyzes information transparency practices in sharia P2P lending.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The study used a qualitative case study, focusing on three sharia P2P lending companies in Indonesia. Data were collected through interviews with parties from three sharia P2P lending companies and 11 funders.
Research findings: It was found that information transparency is important for funders, increasing their confidence to invest. In addition, based on multiple agency theory, there is information asymmetry between funders and sharia P2P lending borrowers, which can be reduced by information transparency measures from funders, sharia P2P lending, and borrowers based on cost-benefit considerations.
Theoretical contribution/Originality: This research explores the application of information transparency in sharia P2P lending companies, which, as far as researchers are concerned, has not been raised in previous studies. In addition, the study builds a conceptual framework of information transparency in sharia P2P lending companies based on multiple agency theory.
Practitioner implication: The research has implications for applying information transparency in sharia P2P lending, which can improve information updates and communication from sharia P2P lending to its funders.
Research limitation/Implication: The study only focused on three out of the seven sharia P2P lending in Indonesia. Therefore, the differences in business, focus, and other characteristics of the remaining four were not considered.
References
Arini, S. C. (2022, December 7). Kejanggalan Dalam Gagal Bayar TaniFund Rp 14 M yang Bikin Investor Curiga. DetikFinance. https://finance.detik.com/fintech/d-6445915/kejanggalan-dalam-gagal-bayar-tanifund-rp-14-m-yang-bikin-investor-curiga
Arthurs, J. D., Hoskisson, R. E., Busenitz, L. W., & Johnson, R. A. (2008). Managerial Agents Watching Other Agents: Multiple Agency Conflicts Regarding Underpricing in IPO Firms. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.31767256
Atz, U., & Bholat, D. (2016). Peer-to-peer lending and financial innovation in the United Kingdom. Bank of England Working Paper No. 598, 1–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2774297
Bachmann, A., Becker, A., Buerckner, D., Hilker, M., Kock, F., Lehmann, M., Tiburtius, P., & Funk, B. (2011). Online Peer-to-Peer Lending – A Literature Review. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 16(2). Retrieved from http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/jibc/
Basha, S., Elgammal, M. M., & Abuzayed, B. M. (2021). Online peer-to-peer lending: A review of the literature. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 48, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2021.101069
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press Inc.
Calvo, N., & Calvo, F. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and multiple agency theory: A case study of internal stakeholder engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1223–1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1633
Chen, D., & Han, C. (2012). A Comparative Study of online P2P Lending in the USA and China. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce, 17(2), 1–15. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=b571e6eaad090a3efc3174a3bd34a2331bb881c7
Chen, D., Lai, F., & Lin, Z. (2014). A trust model for online peer-to-peer lending: a lender's perspective. Information Technology and Management, 15(4), 239–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-014-0187-z
Chen, X., Huang, B., & Shaban, M. (2022). Naïve or sophisticated? Information disclosure and investment decisions in peer to peer lending. Journal of Corporate Finance, 77, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101805
Dahlifah, D., & Sunarsih, U. (2020). The Effect of Cross-Sharia Membership and the Size of the Sharia Supervisory Board, the Size of the Company on the Disclosure of Sharia Compliance. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 127. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.200309.028
Dashwood, H. S., Idemudia, U., Puplampu, B. B., & Webb, K. (2022). Ghana's adoption of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI): The path from data disclosure to community accountability. Extractive Industries and Society, 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2022.101068
Dewi, M. K., Manochin, M., & Belal, A. (2021). Towards a conceptual framework of beneficiary accountability by NGOs: An Indonesian case study. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.102130
Gao, M., Yen, J., & Liu, M. (2021). Determinants of defaults on P2P lending platforms in China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 72, 334–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2020.11.012
Ge, R., Feng, J., & Gu, B. (2016). Borrower's default and self-disclosure of social media information in P2P lending. Financial Innovation, 2(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-016-0048-3
Ge, R., Feng, J., Gu, B., & Zhang, P. (2017). Predicting and Deterring Default with Social Media Information in Peer-to-Peer Lending. Journal of Management Information Systems, 34(2), 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1334472
Gonzalez, L. (2022). Financial literacy in for-profit vs. pro-social peer-to-peer lending. Managerial Finance, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/MF-07-2021-0329
Granados, N., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2010). Information transparency in business-to-consumer markets: Concepts, framework, and research agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0249
He, Q., & Li, X. (2021). The failure of Chinese peer-to-peer lending platforms: Finance and politics. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101852
Hoskisson, R. E., Arthurs, J. D., White, R. E., & Wyatt, C. (2013). Multiple Agency Theory: An Emerging Perspective on Corporate Governance. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Governance. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642007.013.0030
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Kamaruddin, M. I. H., & Auzair, S. M. (2020). Measuring 'Islamic accountability' in Islamic social enterprise (ISE). International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, 13(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMEFM-04-2018-0134
Khan, H. (2011). A Literature Review of Corporate Governance. International Conference on E-Business, Management and Economics. IACSIT Press. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Humera-Khan-4/publication/267773286_A_Literature_Review_of_Corporate_Governance/links/5553e1fc08aeaaff3bf19e17/A-Literature-Review-of-Corporate-Governance.pdf
Khan, M. S. (2022). Covid-19 and Interview Mode Debates: Reflections on Using WhatsApp for Voice-only Interviewing. South Asia Chronicle, 11, 493–519. edoc.hu-berlin.de
Klein, G., & Shtudiner, Z. (2016). trust in others: does it affect investment decisions? Quality and Quantity, 50(5), 1949–1967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-015-0245-6
Klein, G., Shtudiner, Z., & Zwilling, M. (2021). Why do peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platforms fail? The gap between P2P lenders' preferences and the platforms' intentions. Electronic Commerce Research, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09489-6
Kuruppu, S. C., Dissanayake, D., & de Villiers, C. (2022). How can NGO accountability practices be improved with technologies such as blockchain and triple-entry accounting? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 35(7), 1714–1742. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2020-4972
Li, X., & Hasan, I. (2021). VC Participation and failure of startups: Evidence from P2P lending platforms in China. Finance Research Letters, 40, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101726
Li, Y., Li, C., & Gao, Y. (2020). Voluntary disclosures and peer-to-peer lending decisions: Evidence from the repeated game. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 14(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11782-020-00075-5
Lin, M., Prabhala, N. R., & Viswanathan, S. (2013). Judging borrowers by the company they keep: Friendship networks and information asymmetry in online peer-to-peer lending. Management Science, 59(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1560
Michels, J. (2012). Do unverifiable disclosures matter? Evidence from peer-to-peer lending. Accounting Review, 87(4), 1385–1413. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50159
Mudjahidin, Hidayat, A. A., & Aristio, A. P. (2021). Conceptual model of use behavior for peer-to-peer lending in Indonesia. Procedia Computer Science, 197, 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.134
Mutamimah, & Robiyanto, R. (2021). E-integrated corporate governance model at the peer to peer lending fintech corporation for sustainability performance. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 42(2), 239–244. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2021.42.2.03
O'Donovan, G. (2002). Environmental disclosures in the annual report: Extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), 344–371. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570210435870
OJK (2022). POJK No. 10 Tahun 2022 tentang Layanan Pendanaan Bersama Berbasis Teknologi Informasi.
OJK. (2022). Statistik Fintech Lending Agustus 2022 [Fintech Lending Statistics August 2022]. https://www.ojk.go.id/id/kanal/iknb/data-dan-statistik/fintech/Default.aspx
Prystav, F. (2016). Personal information in peer-to-peer loan applications: Is less more? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 9, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2015.11.005
Rahadiyan, I., & Mentari, N. (2021). Keterbukaan Informasi Sebagai Mitigasi Risiko Peer To Peer Lending (Perbandingan Antara Indonesia Dan Amerika Serikat). Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 2(28), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol28.iss2.art5
Riggins, F. J., & Weber, D. M. (2017). Information asymmetries and identification bias in P2P social microlending. Information Technology for Development, 23(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1247345
Rouault, J., & Albertini, E. (2022). Reconciling the social sector with external accountability requirements: Lessons from stewardship theory. Journal of Business Research, 142, 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.082
Saad, R. A. J., Norazita, M. A. Z., & Norfaiezah, S. (2014). Islamic accountability framework in the zakat funds management. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164, 508–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.139
Sánchez-Ballesta, J. P., & Lloréns, M. B. (2010). Monitoring, reputation and accountability in issuing banks in mid-nineteenth-century Spain. Explorations in Economic History, 47(4), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eeh.2009.08.006
Saputra, M. R. (2020). Penerapan Prinsip Transparansi Informasi Keuangan Pada Perusahaan Financial Technology Peer To Peer Lending Dalam Kerangka Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen. Undergraduate thesis. Sebelas Maret University. https://digilib.uns.ac.id/dokumen/detail/80245/Penerapan-Prinsip-Transparansi-Informasi-Keuangan-Pada-Perusahaan-Financial-Technology-Peer-To-Peer-Lending-Dalam-Kerangka-Hukum-Perlindungan-Konsumen
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business (6th ed.). Wiley.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
Wang, Q., Su, Z., & Chen, X. (2021). Information disclosure and the default risk of online peer-to-peer lending platform. Finance Research Letters, 38, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101509
Wang, Z., Jiang, C., Zhao, H., & Ding, Y. (2020). Mining Semantic Soft Factors for Credit Risk Evaluation in Peer-to-Peer Lending. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(1), 282–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1705513
Wei, X., Yu, B., & Liu, Y. (2020). Accessing Information Asymmetry in Peer-to-Peer Lending by Default Prediction from Investors' Perspective. Symmetry, 12(6), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM12060935
Yan, J., Yu, W., & Zhao, J. L. (2015). How signaling and search costs affect information asymmetry in P2P lending: the economics of big data. Financial Innovation, 1(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-015-0018-1
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research - Design And Methods. Sage Publications.
Zhu, Z. (2018). Safety promise, moral hazard and financial supervision: Evidence from peer-to-peer lending. Finance Research Letters, 27, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2018.07.002
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
License
Journal of Accounting and Investment is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
