《劍橋大學：2021年全球替代金融市場基準報告（英文版）（197頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《劍橋大學：2021年全球替代金融市場基準報告（英文版）（197頁）.pdf（197頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、Tania Ziegler,Rotem Shneor,Karsten Wenzlaff,Krishnamurthy Suresh,Felipe Ferri de Camargo Paes,Leyla Mammadova,Charles Wanga,Neha Kekre,Stanley Mutinda,Britney Wanxin Wang,Cecilia Lpez Closs,Bryan Zhang,Hannah Forbes,Erika Soki,Nafis Alam and Chris Knaup.Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking

2、 TheReport2ndJune 2021In partnership with:With support of:The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking ReportTania Ziegler,Rotem Shneor,Karsten Wenzlaff,Krishnamurthy Suresh,Felipe Ferri de Camargo Paes,Leyla Mammadova,Charles Wanga,Neha Kekre,Stanley Mutinda,Britney Wanxin Wang,Cecilia Lp

3、ez Closs,Bryan Zhang,Hannah Forbes,Erika Soki,Nafis Alam and Chris Knaup.Table of ContentsForewords.5A Note from the Editors.10Research Team.11Acknowledgements.14Executive Summary.25Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance Ecosystem.30Introduction.30Methodology.32The Size and Growth of the Global Al

4、ternative Finance Market.35Market Dynamics.51Financial Inclusion.54Risk&Regulations.58Predictors of Market Development.62Chapter 2:A Regional Discussion on Europe&the United Kingdom.70Total Regional Volume.70Market Dynamics.79Institutionalisation.84Internationalisation.85Financial Inclusion.87Risk&R

5、egulations.90Chapter 3:A Regional Discussion on Asia Pacific.99Total Regional Volume.99Market Dynamics.106Institutionalisation.108Internationalisation.109Financial Inclusion.110Risk and Regulations.113Chapter 4:A Discussion on China.119Total Regional Volume.119Market Dynamics.120Chapter 5:A Regional

6、 Discussion on the Americas.122A Discussion on the United States&Canada.122Alternative Finance in Latin America&the Caribbean(LAC).129Market Dynamics.140Financial Inclusion.145Risk&Regulations.148Chapter 6:A Regional Discussion on the Middle East and North Africa.153Introduction.153Total Regional Vo

7、lume.153Market Dynamics.159Institutionalisation.159Internationalisation.160Financial Inclusion.160Risks and Regulations.162Chapter 7:A Regional Discussion on Sub-Saharan Africa.165Introduction.165Total Volume by Year.165Foreign and Domestic Alternative Finance Platforms in SSA.166Total Volume by Mod

8、el.167Institutionalisation.172Internationalisation.173Financial Inclusion.174Risk&Regulations.176Endnotes.182Appendix.190Forewords5ForewordsThe mission of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance to address the knowledge gaps left by a rapidly evolving alternative finance landscape is even more

9、relevant today than when the Centre started this important work in 2015.The COVID-19 pandemic,and related public policy responses,has rapidly changed the context in which financial technology firms operate and the associated risks and opportunities for funders,fundraisers,regulators and policy maker

10、s.For this reason,we amended our original timeline to be able to present two years of data,collected and analysed between July 2020 and May 2021.It is our hope that this work will provide timely,credible data that shines a light on the performance and contribution of this sector prior to and during

11、COVID-19 and will bring forward tangible insights that can aid the decision-making of market participants,regulators,and related stakeholders.The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report contributes 2019 and 2020 data,collected from financial technology firms that undertake Digital

12、Lending and Digital Capital Raising activities,to our globally comparable panel database on alternative finance.The data shows that alternative finance volumes globally(excluding China)continued to show strong growth reaching a record high of$113 billion dollars in 2020.Given the devastating impacts

13、 of economic lockdowns on Micro,Small and Medium-sized Enterprises(MSMEs)globally,it was further encouraging to see the share of alternative finance volumes raised by businesses increase by 51%year-on-year to record$53 billion in 2020;increasing the share of alternative finance volumes raised by bus

14、inesses from 38%in 2019 to 47%in 2020.The development of the alternative finance market globally continues to be uneven,with noteworthy gains in the United States,Latin America and the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa but declines in Peoples Republic of China,Asia-Pacific(excluding China)and Middle-

15、East and North Africa.An enabling regulatory environment remains a critical factor for the success of this sector,with the majority of responding firms citing changes in regulation as their highest perceived risk.Differential performance of this sector across markets allows us to compare policy and

16、regulatory approaches by region-particularly relevant given the global nature of alternative finance.This study found that in 2020 multi-jurisdictional firms were responsible for 44%of global alternative finance volumes.I would like to thank our research partner,Agder University,as well the UK Forei

17、gn,Commonwealth and Development Office(FCDO),Invesco,The Inter-American Development Bank(IDB)and The Asian Development Bank Institute(ADBI)for their generous financial support for this project.Dr Robert WardropDirectorCambridge Centre for Alternative FinanceThe 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market

18、Benchmarking Report6Public interest in alternative finance continues to grow especially in periods of uncertainty as those which continue to unravel following the global COVID-19 pandemic.This period has influenced individuals and businesses in many aspects of our daily lives and work,both raising c

19、oncerns and creating opportunities for renewal and innovation.Financial markets in general,and alternative finance in particular,are of no exception.The current global alternative finance benchmarking report represents a unique and insightful research into the development of alternative finance duri

20、ng the past two years.It shows ways in which the industrys development has been influenced by COVID,as well as aspects in which it has been resilient in the face of COVID.Overall,it is impressive to note that the industry maintains its growth in a majority of markets while exhibiting flexibility in

21、realigning itself with emerging needs and conditions.We at the University of Agders School of Business and Law maintain our commitment to the research of this fascinating industry and its impact on multiple stakeholders at the local,national,regional,and international levels.Our Center for Crowdfund

22、ing Research is an internationally recognized knowledge hub maintaining a wide network of collaborations with academia,industry,and government entities in Norway and abroad.As in previous years,we continue our close cooperation with the University of Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance through

23、the co-production of the global alternative finance industry report.This partnership has produced a series of impactful publications and events and is based on common aspirations for excellence and leadership in scholarly work on alternative finance.We continue our strong commitment to this importan

24、t line of work and look forward to following its development through ever more ambitious research.Dr.Kristin WallevikDeanSchool of Business and LawUniversity of Agder Forewords7This 2nd Global Alternative Finance Benchmarking Study illustrates the global explosion of financial technology.Around the

25、world,FinTech is blowing apart traditional ways of banking,investing and raising finance.FinTech can increase access to vital finance for vulnerable populations.In 2020 international remittances processed via mobile money increased by 65%.These new technologies provide huge opportunities and rewards

26、 for FinTech pioneers and for investors and countries in search of growth.But FinTech brings new hurdles to overcome.As innovation continues to move at pace,it is crucial that regulators,policy makers and industry work together to ensure it is done in a secure way that protects consumers and encoura

27、ges competition.We are working to address this with our international partners.The UK has more than 10 per cent of the global market share in FinTech.It is a national success story that is central to the Chancellors aim to make the UK the most open,and dynamic place in the world to operate a financi

28、al services business.But FinTech will also be an increasingly important engine for growth in developing and emerging economies.Which is why the Foreign,Commonwealth&Development Office supports the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance to deliver technical assistance using insights from studies li

29、ke this to help policymakers,regulators,and industry to navigate the digital transformation of the global financial system.The report confirms that the United Kingdom continues to be a global epicentre of fintech development and growth.It shows how the UK FinTech sector grew from$4.9bn in 2015 to$12

30、.6bn in 2020.The report also plots strong growth in FinTech across Sub-Saharan Africa,Asia-Pacific,and the Middle East and North Africa.FinTech delivered$10.7bn of finance across these three regions last year,of which$4.5bn was accessed by businesses.While COVID-19 has subdued the growth of FinTech

31、in some areas,and reversed gains in others,we are also encouraging signs of its resilience in Indonesia,Vietnam,Thailand,Kenya,and South Africa.The study reveals the important role of FinTech in extending finance to women and lays bare how fragile these gains can be.In 2019,businesses run by women r

32、aised$84bn from FinTech platforms globally.This declined to$37bn in 2020.While this decline happened within the context of a global pandemic,and an overall decline in Chinas share of the global fintech market,it highlights the continued need for policy,regulation and development initiatives that pri

33、oritise the financing of female entrepreneurs.FinTech clearly has a huge role to play in helping individuals and economies to grow their way out of poverty,and the UK government is committed to accelerating that growth.James Duddridge MPThe UKs Minister for AfricaForeign,Commonwealth&Development Off

34、ice(FCDO)The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report8Invesco is proud to be a sponsor of the ongoing research published by the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance.This is the second Global Alternative Finance Report Invesco has had the opportunity to be involved with,and the i

35、nsights that are presented provide key indicators of spaces that we continue to monitor as our industry experiences fundamental business and operational disruptions imposed by technological advancements.2020 was a year like no other.World economies were tested with the onset of the global Covid-19 p

36、andemic;the result of which were a series of unprecedented and disparate actions and reactions including the complete shutdown of entire countries creating ripple effects in financial markets that are still being felt today.While the pandemic challenged the core of several industries,it also provide

37、d noteworthy moments in financial markets and accelerated interest in new opportunities particularly in the cryptocurrency and digital asset spaces.While the focus of this report is specifically on the global classic alternative finance activities related to lending and capital raising,such as P2P/M

38、arketplace Consumer Lending and Balance-sheet Business Lending models,we are beginning to see the convergence and intersection of threads of a completely new landscape in alternative finance via digital assets and decentralized finance.As we continue to monitor how these two spaces shape the competi

39、tive landscape in relation to one another,the trends provided in this report become increasingly relevant as proof points to incorporate into the signals to guide the actions of traditional asset management.For example,we recently read headlines that El Salvador made the decision to accept bitcoin a

40、s legal tender.This decision opens entire new opportunities that we also believe will eventually also play a factor in the alternative finance space.The information in the report provides a global view and regional nuances in key geographic markets where we operate.From a global perspective,the cont

41、inued contraction of activity in China and the growth of institutional investment are of particular interest as both are key areas of focus for Invesco.The observation of overall contraction of alternative finance volume in 2020,with data points showing growth in key European economies including the

42、 UK,Germany,and France,signals that the growth in alternative finance is not just a passing fad,but a steadily growing sustained evolution even in difficult times.Additionally,this year Invesco announced the expansion of activities into Africa as a key growth region,a strategic decision also support

43、ed by information illustrated in the report of the rapid growth of alternative finance activities.As the financial services landscape morphs and evolves,we intend to strengthen our relationship with academic institutions such as Cambridge among other external ecosystem members.As always,Invesco appr

44、eciates the quality and consistency of research,and commend the research teams dedication to pursuing and delivering updated insights despite the challenges and circumstances presented by the pandemic.Invesco continues to pursue our commitment to becoming the most client centric asset manager,and ou

45、r journey is made possible through access to best in-class knowledge and partnerships like the one we have with the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance.Dave DowsettGlobal Head of Technology Strategy&InnovationInvescoForewords9This Second Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report con

46、tinues the success of the first global report and the three consecutive editions of The Americas Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report.We have supported the University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance(CCAF)research on the Fintech ecosystem for six years now.The social and economic effec

47、ts of COVID-19 created a social and economic burden for Latin America and the Caribbean(LAC),and governments answered to the challenges with various policies,including enabling Fintech models in some jurisdictions.Fintech appears as a solution for financing Micro,Small,and Medium Enterprises that ot

48、herwise would not receive any financial services because of risk perceptions.In Chapter 4:A Regional Discussion on the Americas,the reader will find new exciting data series and analysis that confirm the former assertion,and more:steady growth of alternative finance amid the challenging times and re

49、strictions imposed by COVID-19,and the potential for fintech platforms in financing MSMEs all across the region.Results from the Region:During the last couple of years(2019-2020)the alternative finance(AF)ecosystem in Latin America and the Caribbean grew up reaching$5.27 billion in originations for

50、2020,representing a growth of 9.1%compared to 2019($4.83 billion)but a stunning 191%when compared with 2018($1.81 billion).Brazil leads the region with$3.37 billion in 2020,60%of the total.Second place in size is Chile($803.6m,11%),followed by Mexico($547.9m,7%),and Colombia($341.7,6.5%).On the othe

51、r hand,the LAC AF ecosystem increased the share of business finance to reach 86%in 2020 from 60%in 2018.Alternative finance business-oriented funding grew 260%compared with 2018,from$1.08 billion to more than$4.45 billion.Balance-Sheet Business Lending is the most used model in LAC to finance busine

52、sses with a total volume of more than$3 billion.Invoice trading explains an additional$1 billion of the total volume.Brazil and Chile,respectively,lead the volumes for these models in the region.AF platforms appear to be a feasible alternative to finance the Micro,Small,and Medium Enterprises,95%of

53、their business clients.More interestingly,Alternative Finance works as a tool for financial Inclusion in other ways.Although 78%of fundraisers had an account in the financial system,they used AF as their primary funding source.As in the past editions of the study,we gathered numbers on gender;female

54、 fundraisers share decreased from 34%(2018)to 22%(2020),while female funders increased slightly from 22%to 23%.Regulatory risks remain ranked as the highest risk perceived by platforms in the region.Again,44%of the platforms consider that a regulatory change is the most relevant risk,followed by cus

55、tomer fraud(29%)and cyber-security breaches(25%).Interestingly,countries with regulatory advancements related to AF:Fintech(Brazil and Mexico)and Factoring(Chile)have been growing in volume significantly more than others who are just recently implementing or issuing regulations(Colombia,Peru).Furthe

56、rmore,new AF regulations or rules were issued in Brazil,Colombia,Ecuador,Mexico,Peru,among other jurisdictions.Also,the implementation of three regulatory sandboxes in Brazil(central bank,securities,and insurance supervisors),a new version for the sandbox regulation in Colombia,the implementation of

57、 the sandbox in Mexico,and the start for innovation hubs in Central American countries occurred during 2019 and 2020.Most of these advances had the support of IDB through FintechLAC.IDB published recent studies on regulatory innovations,including one on multi-jurisdictional regulatory sandboxes.Fina

58、lly,the Second Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report constitutes part of IDB Groups“Vision 2025,Reinvest in the Americas”from several standing points:MSME financing gap,promotion of a digital economy,and the prioritization of gender.These topics are integrated with the efforts of Fin

59、techLAC,the first and only public-private group for the Fintech ecosystem in LAC.We hope the readers use the valuable data and information in the text,compare our region with others in the world,and understand that more actions should be taken by public and private actors of the ecosystem to grow.Th

60、is effort will soon be complemented with a deep-dive in which more than 550 MSMEs,who were financed by AF platforms allowed us to compile data on their characteristics.Juan Antonio KettererConnectivity,Markets,and Finance Division ChiefInter-American Development BankThe 2nd Global Alternative Financ

61、e Market Benchmarking Report10A Note from the EditorsThe alternative finance industry has weathered significant challenges since its birth.These range from establishing its position vis-vis the well-entrenched existing financial sector,negotiating regulatory amendments for better accommodating innov

62、ative business models,wining the heart and trust of would-be fundraisers and funders,as well as surviving a global plague that have stressed commercial activities in a variety of sectors throughout the world.The current report is a testimony for the resilience of the alternative finance industry in

63、face of all adversity.Specifically,when excluding the Chinese outlier,the global alternative finance industry has maintained healthy growth during both 2019 and 2020.Indicating that it has played a supporting role in helping stakeholders through the challenges that unfolded with the COVID-19 outbrea

64、k.In this respect,we see ample evidence of flexible and creative responses by industry players to both the challenges and opportunities that have emerged in the past two years.Moreover,the current report highlights the unique circumstances and developments observed in different regions,which vary si

65、gnificantly in terms of their international exposure,regulatory evolution,business model compositions,degrees of engagement of institutional vs.retail funders,and the extent to which actors helped improve financial inclusion.Despite these differences,we also show that across countries,alternative fi

66、nance development is supported by favorable macro environments characterized by higher levels of economic development,regulatory adequacy for alternative finance models,prevalence of general societal trust,and availability of relevant skills in the population.Many markets remain at early stages of i

67、ndustry development,still negotiating their place in a wider economic context vis-vis traditional industry players,regulators,and prospective users of platform services.It remains to be seen whether the facts and figures documented represent the birth pains and blessings of a new industry,or whether

68、 they are part of a temporary development that can help reshape an old one,and continue to follow the extent to which alternative finance delivers on its promises of greater financial democracy in the long run.Accordingly,it remains paramount that we continue to follow these developments and report

69、them to the benefits of all stakeholders in the free and transparent way in which we have they have been done under the roof of the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance.We are grateful to all research partners,platform respondents,and industry organizations that have contributed to the creation

70、of this report under challenging conditions.We hope you find it helpful and insightful and invite you to participate in future data collections underlying this and similar reports.Sincerely,Tania ZieglerRotem ShneorKarsten WenzlaffResearch Team11Research TeamEDITORS&AUTHORSTania Ziegler Tania is Hea

71、d of Global Benchmarking at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance and manages the Centres industry facing research activities.She has authored over 25 industry reports and contributed to numerous academic and working papers since joining the CCAF.Tania is an expert on SME finance and leads th

72、e Centres work on SME Access to Finance in LATAM.Tania completed an MSc at the London School of Economics,and a BA at Loyola College Maryland.Tania is a 2010 Fulbright Scholar.Rotem ShneorRotem is an associate professor at the University of Agders School of Business and Law in Norway and leads its C

73、rowdfunding Research Center(www.crowdfunding-research.org).He is also an affiliate researcher at the Cambridge University Center for Alternative Finance and co-author to its annual industry reports.He co-founded and currently serves on the board of the Norwegian Crowdfunding Association.Rotem has pu

74、blished in a wide range of academic journals,trade magazines,and contributed several chapters to edited book volumes.He is also lead editor and author of a popular book on Advances in Crowdfunding Research and Practice.Karsten Wenzlaff Karsten is a Research Affiliate at the at the Cambridge Centre f

75、or Alternative Finance.His research focus is on FinTech Self-Regulation,Civic Crowdfunding,Corporate Crowdfunding and Public-Private Partnerships in Alternative Finance.He teaches at the University of Hamburg at the Chair for Digital Markets and in the Cambridge Fintech Regulation and Financial Inno

76、vation Course at the Judge Business School of the University of Cambridge.In 2008 he received an MPhil in International Relations with a thesis on international financial regulation from the University of Cambridge.Since 2013,he supported the CCAF on the Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report,editi

77、ng the European Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report since 2017 and editor of the Global Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report since 2018.In 2020,he became part of the Centres COVID-19 Response Team.CO-AUTHORS&RESEARCH TEAMKrishnamurthy Suresh Krish is a Market Researcher for Asia-Pacific regio

78、n at the CCAF.Prior to joining CCAF,he was working with the Indian Institute of Management(IIM)Bangalore,India.His research interests lie in the areas of small and medium enterprise(SME)financing,new and alternative financing models for startups and SMEs,as well as regulatory frameworks.He was a vis

79、iting fellow(Pavate fellow)at the Cambridge Judge Business School in 2018.Felipe Ferri de Camargo Paes Felipe is a Research Associate at the CCAF,he works with the Global Benchmark team,leads the work on SME Access to Finance in LATAM and participated in the development of the CCAF Alternative Finan

80、ce Atlas.He pursued his bachelors in mechanical engineering in Brazil and a masters in management at the School of Economics at the University of Coimbra(FEUC)in Portugal with a focus on sharing economy macro economy effects in Lisbon.The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report12Le

81、yla Mammadova Leyla is a Research Associate at CCAF and holds a PhD degree at Loughborough University in P2P(peer-to-peer)Lending.Her research investigates in credit risk and the future potential of digital lending market.She studied MSc in Finance and Investment at Bristol University and also worke

82、d for the Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic as a Financial Researcher Charles Wanga Charles is a Market Researcher,Sub Saharan Africa at CCAF since May 2020.Prior to joining CCAF,he was a Partner at Foresight Survey and Digital Solutions and he has also worked as a Research Manager at InterMedia S

83、urvey Institute,a global research consultancy.He holds a Bachelor of Science(Statistics)from the University of Nairobi and is pursuing a Master of Science(Social Statistics)from the same university.Neha Kekre Neha has been a Research Associate at the CCAF since May 2020.Before joining the CCAF,she p

84、ursued her Masters in Regulatory Governance from Tata Institute of Social Sciences,Mumbai.Her masters thesis focused on identifying the regulatory issues of peer-to-peer lending entities in India.She holds an undergraduate degree in Computer Science Engineering.Her academic pursuits have developed h

85、er research interests towards fintech and financial regulation(especially in the credit markets),understanding the interaction of alternative finance with the traditional financial systems and exploring the gaps therein.Stanley MutindaStanley is a Market Researcher for MENA-MED at the CCAF.Prior to

86、joining CCAF,he worked on various research projects at Busara Centre for Behavioral Economics and BFA Global.Previously,he worked for DataFirst Research Services housed at the University of Cape Town,South Africa,Ericsson,and Equity Bank Ltd,Kenya.He holds a Masters degree in Development Economics f

87、rom the University of Cape Town,South Africa and a Bachelor of Economics degree from the University of Nairobi,Kenya.Britney Wanxin WangBritney is a Research Associate at Imperial College Business School and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance(CCAF).She received her PhD from Imperial Colleg

88、e London,and her BBA in Finance and Accounting with a Minor in Mathematics from the University of Hong Kong SAR.Her primary research interests include IT-enabled novel finance models,particularly online crowdfunding,and marketing/finance interface.Britney is currently the data lead in the global ben

89、chmarking research project and has co-authored several global and regional benchmark reports published by CCAF.Cecilia Lpez Closs Cecilia holds a BA on Business Administration from the Universidad Paraguayo Alemana(UPA).In 2019,she joined the CCAF as part of their Global Internship Programme.She asp

90、ires to continue learning about Fintech and the positive impact it can have on financial inclusion in developing countries,such as Paraguay.Bryan Zheng Zhang Bryan is the Executive Director and a Co-Founder of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance(CCAF).He has been researching the UK alternat

91、ive finance market since 2013 and co-authored more than 35 high impact reports on financial innovation and regulatory innovation globally.Hannah Forbes Hannah is a Research Associate at the CCAF and has a PhD in Crowd Innovation.Her research is within the democratisation of capital for start-ups wit

92、h a focus on equity and rewards-based crowdfunding.She is also the Founder of The Funding Crowd,a UK-based crowdfunding consultancy,that supports businesses in raising finance through alternative models.Research Team13Erika SokiErika holds a Masters degree from the Brazilian National School of Publi

93、c Administration,where she developed research on SME financial inclusion and the perspectives of fintech players entering the Brazilian SME credit market.She has served as a civil servant at the Brazilian public sector for over a decade,where,prior to dedicating to research on financial inclusion,Er

94、ika worked extensively in international affairs,as advisor to the Central Bank Governor,and as officer for cooperation projects in central banking and financial regulation issues.She has also acted at local government level as head strategic management advisor,prior to joining the Central Bank staff

95、Nafis AlamProf Alam is currently working as a Professor of Finance and Head of School of Accounting and Finance at Asia Pacific University of Technology and Innovation(APU).He is also a research affiliate of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance(CCAF)at Judge Business School,University of Cambrid

96、ge and contributes to global reports on Alternative Finance.Prof Alam works closely with the financial services industry in the Southeast Asia region and consult them on FinTech and Financial regulations.He can be followed at https:/ Knaup Chris is a Research Associate at the Cambridge Centre for Al

97、ternative Finance.Prior to CCAF he worked as a mid-market technology investment banker in London.Chris holds a distinction in an MSc in Economics&Finance from the University of Bristol and has completed a first-class BEng in Engineering from the University of Sheffield with a year abroad in Singapor

98、e.The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report14AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the following individuals for their contribution and considerable support throughout the data collection,analysis and writing of this report:Gianluca Quaranta(Crowdfunding Cloud),Nicholas Drury(CC

99、AF),Yassar Nasser(CCAF),Patrick Conteh(CCAF),Alexander Reviakin(CCAF),Qiran Ju(Imperial),Zihao Han(Imperial),Anton Dek(CCAF)and Yue Wu(CCAF)for their considerable research support throughout the data collection,analysis and writing up process.We would also like to thank Raghavendra Rau,Robert Wardro

100、p and Herman Smit for their counsel and guidance throughout this study.We would like to extend our utmost gratitude to our research partners from across the globe.Without the help of these organizations,our survey dissemination would not have been possible:Peter Renton(LendIt),Andrew Dix(CrowdfundIn

101、sider),Janine Hirt(Innovate Finance),Takeshi Kito(Japan FinTech Association),Leah Callon-Butler(GIFT),Sebastian Resano(GIFT),Shakila Kerre(FSDA),Elizabeth Howard(Africa Crowdfunding Association),Craig Asano(NCFA Canada),Susanne Chishti(FinTech Circle),Mercy Simorangkir(AFTECH),Nameer Khan(MENA FinTe

102、ch Association),Chia Hock Lai(Singapore FinTech Association),Pauline Theobald Wray(Expand Research-BCG),Aaron Block(Expand Research-BCG),Stijn van der Krogt(Universidad Paraguayo Alemana),Olayinka David-West(Lagos Business School),Gabrielle Inzirillo(Plug and Play),Tal Schwartz(Canadian Lenders Asso

103、ciation),Gary Schwartz(Canadian Lenders Association),Tom Hill(EY),Angel Sierra(FinTech Chile),Augusto Santos(Portugal FinTech),Matthew Pinter(Crowdfunding Institute of Australia),Simon Clegg(New Zealand Crowdfunding Association),Natalia Pinzon(Asociacion FinTech Guatemala),Mariano F.Biocca(Camara Ar

104、gentina de FinTech),Jorge Reyes(Ecuador FinTech),Maria Laura Cuya(FinTech Peru),Brian Tang(Hong Kong SAR FinTech Association),Thalia Sanae Waga(ABFintechs),Alessandro Lerro(Italian Equity Crowdfunding Association),Segun Aina(FinTech Association of Nigeria),Nattha Sirithanapisarn(Thai FinTech Associa

105、tion),Bruce Davis(UKCFA),Mike Carter(36H-Innovate Finance),Erick Rincon Cardenas(Colombia FinTech/Alianza Ibero-America),Kartik Varma(TechStars),Daniela Rocha Gil(Colombia FinTech),Cinthia Facciuto(Camara FinTech Paraguay),Francisco Mere(FinTech Mexico),Tulga Sukhdorj(Mongolian FinTech Association),

106、Louise Garbo(Swedish FinTech Association),Christian Fae(Digital Finance Forum),Antonina Olecka(Swiss Finance and Technology Association),Alex Scandurra(Stone&Chalk),Shan Luo(FinTech Space),Josue Toho(Africa FinTech Forum),Carlos Valderrama(Legal Paradox),Ignacio Esteban Carballo(UCA),Owolabi Taiwo(A

107、frica FinTech Network),Alex Sea(Africa FinTech Forum),Dumisani Dube(FinMark Trust),Kgomotso Tolamo(FinMark Trust),Eladio Delgado(Spanish Crowdlending Association),Florence de Maupeou(Financement Participatif France),Dr.Simon Amrei(Swiss Lending Association),Thomas Moth(Wirtschaftskammer sterreich),M

108、iguel Armaza(Wharton FinTech),Zianah Muddu(Financial Technology Service Provider Association Uganda,Africa Fintech Network),Nazek Khatib(FinTech Galaxy),David Charlet(Anacofi),Euna Cook(PeopleFund,South Korea)and Lito Villanueva(FintechAlliance.ph)In addition,we would like to thank the following org

109、anisations for their assistance in data collection and verification across Europe:European Centre for Alternative Finance at the University of Utrecht,Copenhagen FinTech,Finance Estonia,University of Hamburg Digital Markets Chair,Bundesverband Crowdfunding,the Nordic Crowdfunding Association,Crowd-F

110、und-Port Interreg Central Europe,Bulgarian Fintech Association and the Romanian Fintech Association.We would also like to thank the following individuals for their guidance throughout this research program.They are Ronald Kleverlaan(ECAF),Dr.Vytautas enaviius(the Lithuanian P2P Lending Association)a

111、nd Dr.Pawee Jenweeranon(Thammasat University).Acknowledgements15We are very thankful to Louise Smith for designing the report,Karen Farnell for proof reading,Charles Goldsmith,Neil Jessiman and Philippa Coney for press and communications support,and Yvona Duncan and Kate Belger for their administrat

112、ive support.Finally,The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance would also like to express our gratitude to the UK Foreign,Commonwealth and Development Office(FCDO),Invesco,the Inter-American Development Bank,and the Asian Development Bank Institute for their financial support of this study.We woul

113、d like to particularly thank Kim Bromley,Kathryn White and Shakira Birtwhistle at the FCDO,Bradley Bell of Invesco,and Juan Ketterer and Diego Mauricio Herrera Falla of the Inter-American Development Bank Institute for making this research possible.We would like to thank our industry research partne

114、rs from organizations across the globe who kindly disseminated the survey and provided much appreciated assistance to our study:FACFACThe 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report16We thank the following alternative finance platforms for participating and contributing to this study:A

115、cknowledgements17The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report18Acknowledgements19The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report20Acknowledgements21The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report22Acknowledgements23The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Marke

116、t Benchmarking Report24Executive Summary25Executive SummarySince 2015,the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance(CCAF)has tracked and analysed the development of the global online alternative finance industry.In a typical year,CCAF data collection covers the preceding year.However,the COVID-19 pan

117、demic presented a unique set of challenges which heightened the need to provide timely data to inform industry responses,evidence-based regulation and policymaking.To this end,this Global Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report presents two years of data 2019 and 2020,collected and analysed by our r

118、esearch team between July 2020 and May 2021.By presenting market data for both years,this report can provide a clearer picture of the impact of COVID-19 on digital lending and digital capital raising activities around the world.In total,821 firms provided 2019 data,while 703 firms reported on their

119、2020 activity via our global benchmarking survey.These survey responses translate to 1,801 firm-level observations for 2019 and 1,660 firm-level observations for 2020,given firms that operate in multiple jurisdictions(sometimes via a separate entity)report their activities in each market individuall

120、y.When breaking down the survey sample by region,the 2019 data includes 631 firm-level observations in Europe,108 in China,359 in Asia Pacific(APAC)(excluding China),258 in Latin America and the Caribbean(LAC),78 in the Middle East and North Africa(MENA),206 in Sub-Saharan Africa(SSA),82 in the US a

121、nd Canada,and 79 platforms in the UK.In 2020,this data sample includes 654 firm-level observations in Europe,53 in China,342 in APAC(excluding China),205 in LAC,76 in MENA,191 in SSA,72 in the US and Canada,and 67 firms in the UK.In 2019,15%of respondents,or 126 unique firms,reported operating in tw

122、o or more countries.In 2020,the share of multi-jurisdictional firms increased to 17%of respondents but reduced in absolute terms to 118 unique firms.These multi-jurisdictional firms tend to be more established and facilitate a significant amount of online alternative financing activities contributin

123、g 47%of total global market volume in 2019 and 44%of the global market volume in 2020.Global Highlights China dominated the global online alternative finance market up until 2018.However,local market developments and regulatory changes have led to a considerable decline in volumes and its global mar

124、ket share.In 2019,the Chinese market accounted for 48%of the global volume,and in 2020 for only 1%.Accordingly,when Chinese volumes are included in our global analysis,total global market volume has notably decreased,falling 42%in 2019 and a further 35%in 2020 from$304.5 billion in 2018 to$176 billi

125、on in 2019 and$114 billion in 2020.When we exclude the Chinese market from our analysis,it emerges that global online alternative finance market has grown consistently over the past three years.Global volumes(excluding China)rose by 3%from$89 billion in 2018 to$91 billion in 2019.And in 2020,despite

126、 COVID-19,the global market volume rose a further 24%year-on-year to reach$113 billion.The largest business model globally in 2019,when excluding China,P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending remained the largest model type,with a total volume of$33.6 billion,accounting for 37%of the total global volume in

127、 2019.In 2020,though still the largest single model,growth slowed down substantially,accounting for a total volume of$34.7 billion,or 31%of global market share.Accordingly,in 2020,the largest regional alternative market was the United States and Canada($73.93 billion)with the US being the largest na

128、tional market with$73.62 billion,which accounted for 65%of global online alternative finance market volume.This is followed by the UK($12.64 billion),Europe excluding the UK($10.12 billion),the Asia Pacific excluding China($8.90 billion),LAC($5.27 billion),SSA($1.22 billion),China($1.16 billion)and

129、MENA($0.59 billion).The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report26 With on-balance sheet activities on the rise,and their relative dominance in the United States and Canada,it is not surprising to see that Balance Sheet Business Lending(excluding China)reported the second highest tr

130、ansaction volumes for both years among all models,with$19 billion in 2019 and$28 billion in 2020.Interestingly,the research has noted that 16%of firms who previously operated only a P2P/Marketplace model now engaged in on-balance sheet activities.The Donation-based Crowdfunding model has experienced

131、 exponential growth,accounting for$7 billion globally in 2020.The leap in annual growth of 160%between 2019 and 2020,can be attributed largely to the flurry of COVID-19 related charitable,community and health-related online fundraising activities around the world.Market concentration globally as mea

132、sured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index(HHI),for the aggregate alternative finance market remains relatively low.However,when measuring the HHI for specific alternative finance business models,the analysis suggested that seven out of ten online alternative models have experienced increased market co

133、ncentration in 2020 compared to 2019.P2P/Marketplace Business Lending,Balance Sheet Business Lending,and P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending showed the greatest increases in market concentration.In 2020,that volume of online alternative finance(excluding China)that went to micro,small and medium-sized

134、enterprises(MSMEs)rose substantially.In 2019,global online alternative finance for business accounted for$35 billion,up 13%year-on-year and in 2020,increased significantly further by 51%year-on-year to$53 billion.By way of comparison,in 2019,business funding was 38%of the total volume,while in 2020

135、business funding accounted for 47%of the total volume.As with previous years,online alternative funding for businesses overwhelmingly stemmed from Debt-based models,with$32.8 billion of debt finance raised in 2019(or 96%of all business funding)and$49.6 billion raised in 2020(94%).Equity-based models

136、 contributed$1.5 billion in 2019 and$2.2 billion in 2020(3%in 2019 and 4%in 2020).Non-investment models accounted for$533 million in 2019 and$744 million in 2020.The highest MSME finance volumes were recorded in the US($15.4 billion in 2019;$32 billion in 2020),the UK($6.5 billion in 2019;$6.4 billi

137、on in 2020)and Europe($4.3 billion in 2019;$5.2 billion in 2020).LAC alternative finance firms raised$4 billion for businesses in 2019 and$4.5 billion in 2020.In 2020 alone,just over 85%of all alternative finance volumes in LAC can be attributed to MSME financing.The Asia-Pacific region(excluding Ch

138、ina)raised$4.3 billion for businesses in 2019 and$4.21 billion in 2020,reporting a decrease in volume for the first time after five years of continuous growth.Institutional funding plays an important role in the functioning of the online alternative finance market,and increasingly so within the cont

139、ext of COVID-19.Based on data provided by 58%of the firm-level observations,we found that in 2019,approximately$28.5 billion of the market volume was financed by institutional investors,accounting for 16%of the entire global volume for that year.In 2020,based on 60%of the firm-level observations,app

140、roximately$43.6 billion of the market volume was financed by institutional investors,which represented 42%of the entire global volume.This represents a 53%year-on-year growth in the volume of institutional funding.Overall,Debt-based models make up the highest proportion of institutional funding,with

141、 most Debt-based models having more than two thirds of their total finance provided by institutional investors.P2P/Marketplace and Balance Sheet Business Lending firms reported the highest growth in terms of institutional funding volumes,and accounted for$13 billion and$21.2 billion in 2020,respecti

142、vely.Geographically speaking,platforms in the US&Canada reported the highest level of institutionalised funding both in 2019(74%)and 2020(98%).In regions such as APAC and LAC,companies reported a yearly decrease in institutional investment.APAC firms reported a decrease from 61%($3.47 billion)in 201

143、9 to 55%($2.93 billion)in 2020,whilst LAC reported a decrease from$3.16 billion in 2019 to that of$2.93 billion in 2020.When considering the banking status of borrowers,on balance,alternative finance activities remain heavily skewed towards catering for those individuals and customers which are alre

144、ady banked.Crowd-led Microfinance,unsurprisingly,is the only exception with 72%of clients categorised as unbanked,and 27%as underbanked.Executive Summary27 The P2P/Marketplace and Balance Sheet Consumer Lending models both saw slightly elevated instances of underbanked clients(25%and 20%,respectivel

145、y).Lending models that focus on serving business clients have a slightly higher proportion of underbanked clients,though again the predominant client base is that of banked customers.30%of clients in the P2P/Marketplace Business Lending were categorised as underbanked,27%for Balance Sheet Business L

146、ending and 27%from Invoice Trading.Geographically,online alternative finance firms in the UK primarily cater to banked customers(96%),with only 4%being identified as underbanked.Other regions with significantly high levels of banked customers were LAC(86%)and MENA(83%).In contrast,FinTech activities

147、 in SSA are showing their potential to improve access to finance for underserved groups,with respondents across the region indicating that approximately 49%of their customer base could be described as unbanked,and a further 48%as underbanked.Though still predominantly catering to banked customers,fi

148、rms across the Asia Pacific reported that 51%of their clients were underbanked,with a further 4%unbanked.Surveyed firms have provided information on the gender distribution of both their funders and their fundraisers.Overall,the percentage of female fundraisers has only slightly increased from 37.8%

149、in 2019 to 38.9%in 2020.However,the percentage of female fundraisers of alternative finance activities in four of seven regions increased from 2019 to 2020:APAC(23%to 24%),Europe(26%to 34%),SSA(47%to 54%),and the UK(47%to 59%).However,activities in the US and Canada(55%to 37%),LAC(43%to 22%)and MENA

150、(34%to 30%)all denoted a decline in the percentage of female fundraisers who utilised online alternative finance.Female market participation differs widely across alternative finance models as well.For most models,female participation,whether as a fundraiser or funder continued to be below 40%and sa

151、w further declines during 2020.When reviewing Debt and Equity-based models,eight of eleven models reported catering to a lower percentage of female fundraisers in 2020,with P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending reporting the largest drop in the share of female fundraisers from 61%in 2019 to 35%in 2020.Ho

152、wever,Donation-based Crowdfunding had the highest number of female fundraisers at 63%across the models surveyed.When considering key risks to firm operations,for a majority of respondents,a change in regulation is perceived as the greatest potential risk.These concerns were especially prominent in f

153、irms offering services relating to P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending(50%),Balance Sheet Consumer Lending(52%),and Invoice Trading(50%),where at least half of the respondents perceived this to be high risk.In addition,customer fraud is ranked as a major concern for firms in Invoice Trading(58%),P2P/Ma

154、rketplace Property Lending(42%),and Balance Sheet Consumer Lending(41%).Regional Highlights Europe From 2013 to 2019 the European online alternative finance market volume(including the UK)grew consistently from$1.5 billion in 2013 to$23.2 billion in 2019.However,2020 saw a drop in overall market vol

155、ume to$22.6 billion,representing the first decrease in market volume since 2013.The UK accounted for 56%of the European market in terms of volume.The UK online alternative finance industry reported consistent annual growth in market volume over the past five years,growing from$4.9 billion in 2015 to

156、$12.6 billion in 2020 and,despite the challenges brought by COVID-19 and other factors,the UK online alternative finance market grew from$11 billion in 2019 to$12.6 billion in 2020.When excluding the UK,European market volumes declined more substantively from 2019 to 2020,reporting a$2.3 billion red

157、uction,from$12.2 billion in 2019 to$9.9 billion in 2020.When considering market volume at a country level,some countries bucked the overall European trend and grew between 2019 and 2020.These included Germany($1.42 billion to$1.48 billion),France($1.32 billion to$1.66 billion)and Italy($1.55 billion

158、 to$1.86 billion).The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report28APAC Online alternative finance firms facilitated over$18.5 billion in total funding during 2019 and 2020,nearly 38%more than the total volume recorded from 2013 to 2018.In 2019,the market reached a peak volume of$9.5 b

159、illion and the market then saw a decline of 7%between 2019 and 2020,which can be attributed to lower marketplace lending activities in the region as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.The overall market declined in 2020,mainly driven by declines in lending in South and Central Asia,which reported a r

160、eduction of 40%in activity,amounting to$1.9 billion in 2020.Similarly,Oceania saw a decline of 9%in market volume.However,both East Asia and South-East Asia recorded an increase in market activities and continued to grow despite the challenges of COVID-19.Consequently,East Asia($2.9 billion)and Sout

161、h-East Asia($2.7 billion)were the largest markets in the Asia-Pacific region(excluding China)for 2020.The Americas In 2019,the region reported a total online alternative finance volume of$56.7 billion,which rose to$79 billion in 2020,a 40%year-on-year increase.The US became the largest market in the

162、 world in 2020 with 65%of the global market share.The total US volume reached$73.62 billion in 2020,growing 43%year-on-year from$51.52 billion in 2019.The US market contributed nearly 93%of the overall activities in the Americas in 2020.Despite its dominance in the region,its relative importance dec

163、lined by 3%between 2018 and 2020.This was mainly due to the increased share of alternative finance volumes in LAC countries,led by Brazil.After surpassing the$1 billion threshold in 2018,LAC saw a growth of 167%in alternative finance volumes between 2018 and 2019,amounting to$4.83 billion.Between 20

164、19 and 2020,albeit growing more modestly by 9%,volumes reached$5.27 billion in total.A distinctive feature of the LAC alternative finance market is that the vast majority of sectoral activities cater primarily to MSMEs,with over 85%of the 2020 total volume going to businesses across the region($4.5

165、billion).Middle East and North Africa The MENA region has experienced an impressive growth in online alternative finance activities between 2013 and 2018.In this period,the regions total alternative finance volume grew from$36 million to$802 million.However,over the past two years,the region has see

166、n a decline in online alternative finance volumes.Between 2018 and 2019,the total funds raised in the region declined by 6%from$802 million in 2018 to$764 million in 2019,with a further 22%year-on-year decline recoded in 2020 to reach$595 million.Sub-Saharan Africa In 2019,the total online alternati

167、ve finance volume in SSA reached$1.1 billion,a significant increase of 429%from 2018.This is the first time that the region has surpassed the one-billion threshold.Continued growth was achieved in 2020,though at a more modest pace with 10%growth recorded in 2020,reaching a total of$1.2 billion.Techn

168、ical note:We present the data provided by respondents to our survey.However,it is worth noting that portions of the decline in volume reported for certain regions during the last two years can be explained by the inability of close to 200 platforms that have provided data for the 2018 survey,to do t

169、he same for 2019 and 2020,despite maintaining their operations.This is particularly evident in Europe,APAC,and MENA.Hence,decline in these regions should be viewed with caution as it is likely to be overestimated due to non-response of certain platforms.The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benc

170、hmarking Report291.The Global Alternative Finance Ecosystem30Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemChapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemIntroductionResearch Rationale and ObjectivesThis report is the second in our series of global alternative finance ecosystem benchmarking s

171、tudies.Since 2015,the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance(CCAF),together with our global and regional network of research partners,has tracked the development of online alternative finance industry with particular emphasis on Digital Lending and Digital Capital Raising activities.The creation o

172、f readily comparable time-series data on a global level has allowed for researchers,policymakers,regulatory authorities and a variety of interested stakeholders to understand how this ecosystem has emerged,grown,and evolved over time.When we published our first Global Alternative Finance report whic

173、h presented 2018 year data,it was not clear how COVID-19 would affect FinTech firms and the customers they service.In a typical year,CCAF data collection covers the preceding year.However,the COVID-19 pandemic presented the research team with new and unforeseen challenges when collecting 2019 annual

174、 data.In the first instance,numerous FinTech firms were in the throes of dealing with the pandemic,contending with operational challenges,whilst also trying to service new and existing clients within a capricious financial environment.It was a challenging request to seek substantive 2019 data points

175、 at that juncture.As a result,the CCAF,alongside the World Bank and World Economic Forum launched a Global Rapid Assessment study with the purpose of quickly identifying key pain points and resiliencies born out of the first months of the pandemic.This study allowed us to understand some of the dyna

176、mic shifts occurring within the Digital Lending and Digital Capital Raising space and inform our time-series data in a more appropriate fashion.To this end,this Global Alternative Finance Benchmarking Report presents two years of data 2019 and 2020.By collecting firm-level data for both years,the re

177、search team could provide a clearer picture of the impact of COVID-19 during 2020 and examine whether the trends observed throughout our time-series data collection still hold true.In particular,we examined if COVID-19 had impacted lending and capital raising transaction volumes and growth in ways w

178、hich deviated substantively from historic trends.And where such deviations exist,had these changes been felt uniformly across the globe,or is there market bifurcation at a regional or business model level?This report combines regional analysis with a discussion of global trends,highlighting how some

179、 developments are universal while others are specific to a certain context.The regions and jurisdictions covered in this study include:The Asia Pacific and China;the United States of America and Canada;Latin America and the Caribbean;Continental Europe and the UK;the Middle East and North Africa;and

180、 Sub-Saharan Africa.Data covered in this report is inclusive of 2019 and 2020,with data analysis occurring in March-May 2021.Data collection commenced in July 2020 and ended in March 2021.Terminology:This report focuses narrowly on alternative finance models as they relate to digital lending and dig

181、ital capital raising activities.Though a somewhat amorphous term,at its core,alternative finance includes digital finance activities that have emerged outside of the incumbent banking systems and traditional capital markets and occur online.In particular,these online alternative finance ecosystem co

182、mprises of various lending,investment,and non-investment models that enable individuals,businesses,and other entities to raise funds via an online digital marketplace.As the ecosystem has evolved,clear model types have emerged and become more delineated and sophisticated.As such,the CCAF has adopted

183、 a taxonomy of 16 models that can be broadly divided into Debt,Equity,and Non-investment models.The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report31Debt-models,commonly associated with P2P/Marketplace Lending activities,include non-deposit taking platforms that facilitate online credit to

184、 individuals,businesses or other borrower-entities from individual lenders or institutional investors.This debt can be in the form of a secured or unsecured loan,a bond or another type of debtor-note.The below models are included in this category:CategoryBusiness ModelStakeholdersP2P/Marketplace Len

185、ding1 Consumer LendingIndividuals or institutional funders provide a loan to a consumer borrower,commonly ascribed to off-balance sheet lending.Business LendingIndividuals or institutional funders provide a loan to a business borrower,commonly ascribed to off-balance sheet lending.Property LendingIn

186、dividuals or institutional funders provide a loan,secured against a property,to a consumer or business borrower,commonly ascribed to off-balance sheet lending.Balance Sheet Lending2 Consumer LendingThe platform entity provides a loan directly to a consumer borrower,ascribed to on-balance sheet non-b

187、ank lending.Business LendingThe platform entity provides a loan directly to the business borrower,ascribed to on-balance sheet non-bank lending.Property LendingThe platform entity provides a loan,secured against a property,directly to a consumer or business borrower,ascribed to on-balance sheet non-

188、bank lending.Invoice Trading3 Invoice TradingIndividuals or institutional funders purchase invoices or receivables from a business at a discount.SecuritiesDebt-based SecuritiesIndividuals or institutional funders purchase debt-based securities,typically a bond or debenture,at a fixed interest rate.M

189、ini-bonds4 Individuals or institutions purchase securities from companies in the form of an unsecured bond which is mini because the issue size is much smaller than the minimum issue amount needed for a bond issued in institutional capital markets.Consumer Purchase Finance/BNPLA buy now/pay later pa

190、yment facilitator or Store Credit solution,The debt-activities that are currently specifically segmented by our taxonomy are the ones presented in this report separately.Other presently emerging,debt-based activities are captured in our report as other.One additional model introduced in our revised

191、taxonomy in this report relates to(interest-bearing)customer cash-advance models.Equity-based models(including Equity-based Crowdfunding)relate to activities where individuals or institutions invest in unlisted shares or securities issued by a business,typically a start-up.As Equity-based models hav

192、e advanced,sub-sets of the model like Real Estate and Property-based Crowdfunding have flourished,with investors able to acquire full or partial ownership of a property asset via the purchase of property shares.Finally,Non-investment-based models,including Reward-based and Donation-based Crowdfundin

193、g,are arguably the iterations of crowdfunding most recognised by the public.In the case of these two models,individuals provide funding to a project,an individual or a business without any obligation from the fundraiser to provide a monetary return for the funds raised.In the current report,we also

194、include crowd-led microfinance in this category,where profits made from such loans can serve as donations which are re-invested in new microcredit,most commonly for pro-social purposes.CategoryBusiness ModelStakeholdersEquity-basedEquity-based CrowdfundingIndividuals or institutional funders purchas

195、e equity issued by a company.Real Estate CrowdfundingIndividuals or institutional funders provide equity or subordinated debt financing for real estate.Revenue/Profit SharingIndividuals or institutions purchase securities from a company,such as shares or bonds,and share in the profits or royalties o

196、f the business.Non-Investment-basedReward-based CrowdfundingBackers provide funding to individuals,projects or companies in exchange for non-monetary rewards or products.Donation-based CrowdfundingDonors provide funding to individuals,projects or companies based on philanthropic or civic motivations

197、 with no expectation of monetary or material.Crowd-led Microfinance5 Interests and/or other profits are re-invested(forgoing the interest by donating)or provides microcredit at lower rates.OtherThe research team recorded volumes raised through other alternative finance models,including Community Sha

198、res,Pension-led Funding,and other models that fall outside the existing taxonomy.32Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemMethodologyThe following section outlines key aspects and considerations relating to the methodological procedures and practices in the current study,including data so

199、urces,data collection procedures,data handling,and quality control.Data Sources:The primary data reported comes from the Alternative Finance Industry Benchmarking Survey,which is distributed annually by the CCAF.This 34-question survey was distributed as a stand-alone online survey(covering 2019 and

200、 2020 data collection)and an additional survey module appended to the Global COVID-19 FinTech Market Rapid Assessment Survey(covering 2019).This survey captured data from active alternative finance platforms that fell within the above-outlined taxonomy.The list of platforms was compiled based upon t

201、he following sources:Previous study respondents and participants Firm lists provided by research partners List of additional firms compiled through desk-based research,to include new platforms not identified in the previous sourcesOverall,data from 821 unique firms were captured for 2019,translating

202、 to 1,801 firm-level observations6 globally.For 2020,the unique firms captured dropped to 703,with 1,660 firm-level observations.When compared to the 2018 panel,the research team observed a substantive drop in unique firms which responded to the survey.In 2018,1,227 unique firms contributed just ove

203、r 2,300 observations,a drop of 406 firms.When accounting for the further drop in 2020,the research team notes a panel decrease of 524.In addition to the firms that responded to the Global Alternative Finance Benchmark Survey,web-scraping was also used to get the most up-to-date transaction volumes f

204、or a limited number of key platforms.This was carried out within the research centre using widely available Python web-scraping libraries and was relevant to 6 unique firms.When we consider observations by region,the 2019 data includes 631 firm-level observations in Europe,108 in China,359 in the As

205、ia-Pacific region(excluding China),258 in Latin America and the Caribbean,78 in the Middle East and North Africa,206 in SSA,82 in the US and Canada,and 79 platforms in the UK.In 2020,this changes to 654 firm-level observations in Europe,53 in China,342 in the Asia-Pacific region(excluding China),205

206、 in Latin America and the Caribbean,76 in the Middle East and North Africa,191 in SSA,72 in the US and Canada,and 67 platforms in the UK.With respect to observation changes noted,respondents provided annual data at platform-country level,accounting in some instances for multiple observations at a ju

207、risdiction level.This allowed us to better capture volumes from domestic and international platforms operating in a country.It is note-worthy to point out that when we consider these multi-jurisdictional platforms(firms with substantive operations in two or more countries/jurisdictions),their activi

208、ty has also declined markedly against the 2018 panel.In 2018,47%of firms were operating in at least two or more countries.However,by 2019,our data indicates that only 15%(or 126 unique firms)were multi-jurisdictional operators.In 2020,17%of the panel(or 118 firms)were multi-jurisdictional.This is a

209、considerable shift in the historical trends we have observed,where historically(or pre-pandemic)firms were actively pursuing a more international strategy.We suggest that this trend can be explained by several reasons:first,greater regulatory clarity causes platforms to reconsider certain market ope

210、rations.Second,COVID-19 caused platforms to reduce operational risks through concentration in fewer markets or when scaling overseas operations during times of greater uncertainty.And finally,there is a certain degree of non-repeat responses from internationally active platforms in the current data

211、collection against previous years.7It should be noted,however,that when considering the volumes attributed to multi-jurisdictional firms,in 2019 47%of global volumes derived from multi-jurisdictional firms,and 44%in 2020.Therefore,though operationally there are fewer unique firm respondents that are

212、 multi-jurisdictional,those that are,enjoy considerable market share.Over the past seven years,the CCAF has maintained a global database of active firms and contacts to facilitate our research.We have also kept track of platforms that have ceased operations,suspended activities(sometimes temporarily

213、)or The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report33transitioned/pivoted into other fields/traditional finance,as well as examples of mergers within the industry.As a result of the pandemic,more attention was placed to ensure that the same panel of participating firms from each region

214、 was captured in the 2018 dataset.For the most part,this occurred.However,when considering the 2018 panel,there were 320 Chinese-based firms and 418 rest-of-world firms which were not captured this year.The 320 firm drop in China relates specifically to regulatory mandate changes which have forced c

215、losures and effectively rendered P2P lending activities unlawful.One constraint that the research team faced in their 2019 and 2020 data collection,related to the fact that much of this data collection occurred during the global pandemic,with many firms unable to contribute to the study due to the i

216、nherent operational challenges presented by the pandemic.The outstanding 418 firms were those that declined to respond due to operational limitations as a result of the pandemic8,those which suspended their operations,and/or those that merged with another firm and hence surveyed as one rather than s

217、eparate entries.In a few cases where platform non-participation led to a significant impact on reported volumes,these were reported and clearly indicated under the relevant regional review sections.At the same time,the 2020 data includes data reported from 305 platforms that have not responded in th

218、e 2018 survey,either because they have only been established in the period between 2018-2020,or because they had chosen not to participate in previous years studies.Data Collection The Global Alternative Finance Benchmarking Survey consisted of 34 questions,including both single and multiple respons

219、e questions,relating to platform operations and performance in 2019 and 2020.This years survey consisted of five parts covering:fundraisers;funders;platform structure and strategy;risks and regulations;and financial inclusion9.The structured nature of the survey allowed platforms to provide comprehe

220、nsive,precise,and cohesive self-reported data.Many of the questions remained the same as those used in the previous year to ensure that longitudinal/time-series analysis was possible,especially with respect to questions relating to total transaction volumes.Platforms were also presented with a serie

221、s of non-compulsory questions which built on key research themes identified in last years report.To more accurately attribute fundraiser volumes,platforms were able to report model-level activities and volumes on a per country basis.Subsequently,firms could more accurately describe their operations,

222、especially where activities occurred outside of their domestic market.Invitations for survey participation were sent by members of the research team directly to platforms,published on targeted social media groups,and distributed via research partners through their own independent networks(such as in

223、dustry associations,partner research institutions,etc.).Survey invitations were distributed in the form of personalised email communications,direct messages via social media and telephone calls to platform management.The research partners were instrumental in identifying appropriate alternative fina

224、nce platforms across the region,promoting the survey and serving as advisors to the core research team.The survey was distributed in English,French,Spanish,Portuguese,German,Russian,Mandarin-Chinese,Korean,Japanese,Bahasa Indonesia,Thai and Vietnamese.The survey was hosted on a dedicated site,with s

225、ubmissions accessible only to the principal researchers involved in this project.Once the data set was collected,any discrepancies such as misattributed volumes and anomalous figures were cross-checked through direct contact with the platforms.Quality Control and Data Handling:Sanitation and verific

226、ation were conducted between March and May 2021.In cases where the survey could not obtain primary data(or where there were discrepancies in reported data),the research team consulted secondary data sets to inform the research and asked for additional or clarifying data directly from the platform.Th

227、e research team anonymised and sanitised data prior to analysis.All personal data was stripped and securely removed from the database.As platforms reported figures in their local currency,the data analysis team converted all local currencies into 34Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemU

228、SD for the relevant year.10 This was done using the historical average annual rate for 2019 and 2020,respectively.In previous years,the currency rate volatility between major currencies was moderate.2020 saw heavy currency fluctuations,especially between currencies in Asia,South America and Africa a

229、gainst the US-Dollar.Some countries which had their currency pegged against the US-Dollar or the Euro were required to move their currency pegs.Therefore,local currency volumes in 2020 expressed in US-Dollar terms may be slightly lower in the year-on-year change between 2019 and 2020 if the local cu

230、rrency depreciated.The research team has commented on the impact of this currency effect in the regional chapters.Nevertheless,as the aim of this report is to measure the economic performance of alternative finance markets and models in a comparative perspective,using a consistent currency was the p

231、referred methodology.As such,all findings are presented in USD,using historic rates.For all average data points,the team applied weightings by transaction volume per observation and significant outliers were removed.In most cases,data was only reported if there were a minimum of 10 observations by c

232、ountry and model.In other cases,special consideration was made based on the specific country and model under consideration where such threshold was less relevant(i.e.,the case of relatively small countries).Additionally,the research team conducted an additional market competition analysis using the

233、Herfindahl-Hirschman Index(HHI)for assessing the market concentration levels of the alternative finance volumes at global,regional,and important business model levels.11At completion,the data was encrypted and stored for retrieval exclusively for the use of this project.Throughout the analysis proce

234、ss,explanations are suggested for identified trends and survey results.Whenever necessary,abnormal deviations in identified trends vis-vis our previous report was principally explained by situations where specific platforms either contributed to last years research but did not participate again this

235、 year,or participated this year but did not contribute in the previous year.Throughout the report composition process,both analyses and write-up were subjected to extensive peer-reviewing within the research team.Whenever necessary,additional external reviews of certain sections were also conducted

236、to further ensure quality of reporting.Guarantee fund helps to secure investments in Africa and Asia during the pandemic Markus Schwaninger,CFO,Ecoligo GmbH(equity-based platform;Germany,Vietnam,Kenya,Ghana,Thailand,Costa Rica,and the Philippines)When the COVID-19 pandemic began,equity-based investm

237、ent slowed.Amid uncertainty,people were hesitant to invest.We are convinced that the effects of delays in payments should not be felt by the investors on our platform.To protect them from delayed payments which may result from circumstances such as the pandemic,we began a Guarantee Fund.The fund was

238、 started with the capital of our platform Ecoligo:our commitment to facilitating climate investments at a time when we need to reduce global CO2 emissions as fast as possible.This resulted in nearly three times the investment volume of 2019,suggesting that such protection mechanisms can transform gr

239、een alternative finance markets.The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report35The Size and Growth of the Global Alternative Finance MarketFigure 1.1:Total Global Alternative Finance Volume 2015-2020,USDSince 2015,online alternative finance actors have provided financing to individua

240、ls and businesses across the globe in a myriad of ways.However,market development followed very different paths in China and the rest of the world in a manner which severely distorts reality when data is aggregated together on a global level.Here,while the rest of the world follow a steady and gradu

241、al growth trajectory,China has experienced a quick and dramatic cycle of boom and bust.In the earlier years,the role of the Chinese P2P lending industry served as a substantive and indeed dominant driver of total transaction volume,making up the largest market shares and growing at a considerable pa

242、ce.Yet,since regulatory changes were introduced in 2018,the prominence of the Chinese lending marketplace has considerably decreased.Accordingly,when lumped together,the total alternative finance volumes derived from digital lending and capital raising FinTechs globally amounted to$176 billion in 20

243、19 and$114 billion in 2020.This represents a significant global level decline driven by the decrease in volume from China,accounting for a 42%reduction in global volumes occurring between 2018 and 2019,and a further 35%decline recorded between 2019 and 2020.In 2017,China accounted for 86%of the tota

244、l market.In 2019,the Chinese market only accounted for 48%of the global volume,and in 2020 for less than 1%of the market,when the Chinese lending market shrank to a small fraction of its former self.As such,the Chinese experience represents a cautionary tale about both the importance of regulation i

245、n market development,as well as the substantial implications of both excessively permissive and excessively restrictive regimes.And so,we do ourselves a disservice if we do not exclude this behemoth outlier when evaluating the impact of FinTech activities on a global context in the longer-term.There

246、fore,it is important to examine the global online alternative finance market more holistically by taking into account the drastic decline of the Chinese P2P lending market over the last two years.Figure 1.2:Global Alternative Finance Volume(excluding China)2017-2020,USDWhen observing the rest of the

247、 world,total transaction volumes attributed to alternative finance platforms actually had continued to increase in the last two years even against the backdrop of COVID-19.From 2018 to 2019,the global volumes(excluding China)rose by 3%from$89 billion to$91 billion.From 2019 to 2020,the volume rose b

248、y 24%to$113 billion.To contextualise the global volumes reported in 2019,it is worth reminding the reader that this less than robust growth rate may be reflective of data-collection difficulties exacerbated by COVID-19.As noted in the methodology,data collection for the 2019 year occurred in 2020.Th

249、roughout the year,many FinTech platforms across the globe experienced challenges stemming from the pandemic.Though this study captured a 1005020015030025040045035001394420152904720163058920184196020171769120191141132020Billions Total Volume(excluding China)Total Volume(including China)04010020601401

250、20802017602018892020113201991Billions36Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance Ecosystemmagnitude of players still active in the ecosystem,because of firm suspension or a general inability to participate at similar levels to previous years,the 2019 figures likely represent a more conservative annua

251、l volume.When considering the year 2020,transaction-level data suggested the alternative finance market continues to grow despite the pandemic.As shown in our Global COVID-19 FinTech Market Rapid Assessment Study12,most FinTech activity verticals saw significant growth across the globe in the first

252、and second quarter of 2020.However,an early assessment of Digital Lending activity suggested an annual decline.This study provided a rapid impression on how transaction values had been impacted within the first 6 months of 2020 as impacted by COVID-19.Firms were asked to provide directional indicato

253、rs on their experienced change in value against the same period in 2019.On balance,firms attributed to the Digital Lending vertical indicated a net-decline when comparing H1-2020 to H1-2019.When examined further,the absolute values collected in the Global Benchmark Survey demonstrated that the initi

254、al stagnation experienced within the first two quarters of 2020 is not reflective of the full-year data.In fact,most markets have since recovered with the second half of 2020 making up for the initial market upheaval experienced in the first half.Total Volume by RegionFigure 1.3:Market Share of Alte

255、rnative Finance Activity by RegionTable 1.1:Market Share of Alternative Finance Market by Region,2018-2020201820192020RegionTotal VolumeMarket Share(%)Total VolumeMarket Share(%)Total VolumeMarket Share(%)APAC$6,173,183,410 2%$9,541,822,124 5%$8,911,183,422 8%China$215,396,387,691 71%$84,346,675,112

256、 48%$1,161,105,257 1%Europe$7,730,584,934 3%$12,233,219,605 7%$9,940,940,894 9%LAC$1,806,937,802 0.6%$4,833,142,985 3%$5,274,457,369 5%MENA$800,545,330 0.3%$763,896,349 0.4%$594,755,996 0.5%SSA$209,142,111 0.1%$1,105,847,839 0.6%$1,215,799,093 1%UK$10,367,889,668 3%$11,015,704,173 6%$12,642,678,927

257、11%USA&Canada$62,047,079,229 20%$51,871,355,441 30%$73,929,869,084 65%TOTAL$304,531,750,175 100%$175,711,663,628 100%$113,670,790,043 100%The decline of the Chinese market can most acutely be seen when considering its decline in market-share over time.Having historically accounted for the lions shar

258、e of market activity,by 2020 the once outlier accounted for just over 1%of global volumes.With the decline of the Chinese market,market dynamics have shifted,with the United States and Canada amounting to 65%of global market volumes,and the United Kingdom accounting for just over 11%.When comparing

259、2019 to 2020,other regional developments begin to emerge,suggesting that COVID-19 has impacted the various geographies observed in different ways.For instance,the volume in the Asia-Pacific and Europe increased from 2018 to 2019,but then decreased from 2019 to 2020.While it is unclear if the recorde

260、d declines in these regions are real declines or camouflaging small actual changes in volumes between 2019 and 2020(as over 100 70%100%50%80%60%90%40%30%20%10%0%201948%7%30%6%5%3%0.6%20208%9%5%65%11%1%1%201871%20%3%2%1%3%APAC China Europe LAC USA&Canada SSA UKThe 2nd Global Alternative Finance Marke

261、t Benchmarking Report37platforms did not repeat their 2018 participation in the 2019-2020 survey in both regions).Accordingly,it is highly likely these regions did not experience substantial changes,in terms of either decline or growth,of volumes between 2019 and 2020.In contrast,North,Central and S

262、outh American markets have on balance increased their market-share across the three years.Though relatively small when compared to other regions,MENA and SSA have consistently increased their market share across the three years.These steps from 2018 to 2020 can be attributed to growth in a handful o

263、f Middle Eastern and African countries and will be discussed in more detail in their subsequent regional chapters.The Geographic Distribution of Platforms and Market VolumesAs discussed within the methodology,the 2019 and 2020 survey response rate declined against the 2018 panel of firms.When consid

264、ering global observations,2019 saw 1,801 country-level observations from 821 firms and 1,660 observations from 703 firms in 2020.The numbers of responses are based on the activities of platforms in each jurisdiction,therefore platforms operating in more than one country are counted as having given m

265、ore than one response.The decline therefore can be attributed to various platforms ceasing their operation in 2019 and 2020.The full table of responses per country can be found in the annex.Table 1.2:Number of Observations by Region,2018-2020201820192020RegionCountProportionCountProportionCountPropo

266、rtionAPAC36916%35920%34221%China43819%1086%533%Europe70430%63135%65439%LAC30113%25814%20512%MENA844%784%765%SSA1908%20611%19112%UK894%794%674%USA&Canada1476%825%724%TOTAL2322100%1801100%1660100%Figure 1.4:The Geographical Distribution of Surveyed Platforms(2019)100+51-100 30-50 16-30 10-15 6-9 4-5 2

267、-3 138Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemFigure 1.5:The Geographical Distribution of Surveyed Platforms(2020)The changes in platform response rates are indicative of the development of the alternative finance ecosystem in particular jurisdictions.In 2018,the United States provided a s

268、ample of 100 platforms to the survey,this number declined to 64 in 2019 and 56 in 2020,despite higher market volumes increasing from$61 billion in 2018 to$71 billion in 2020,which is evidence of an ongoing market consolidation in the United States.A similar trend can be observed in the UK and Brazil

269、.British responses declined from 90 platforms in 2018 to 75 in 2019 to 67 in 2020,again with the background of increasing market volumes of$10 billion in 2019 and$12 billion in 2020.Brazilian responses declined from 56 in 2018 to 44 in 2019 and 32 in 2020,although the overall volume in Brazil rose f

270、rom$0.6 billion in 2018 to$3.3 billion in 2019 and$3.4 billion in 2020.The responses from other countries showed a steadier market development.For instance,German responses declined from 63 in 2018 to 53 in 2019,increasing again to 57 in 2020,against the backdrop of a market growth from$1.2 billion

271、in 2018 to$1.4 billion in 2020.Some countries have seen a sharp increase in volumes with the background of steady response rates.By way of example,the Indian market volume in 2018 was$0.5 billion,increasing to$2.9 billion in 2019 and then sharply dropping to$1.7 billion in 2020.The market volume was

272、 reflected in the platform responses,which was 58 in 2018,68 in 2019 and 56 in 2020.Figure 1.6:Comparative Market Volumes of Alternative Finance Transactions,2019(in USD)51-100 30-50 16-30 10-15 6-9 4-5 2-3 1$50b+$10b-49b$1b-10b$100m-1b$10m-100m$1m-10m$10k-1m$0-10kThe 2nd Global Alternative Finance

273、Market Benchmarking Report39Figure 1.7:Comparative Market Volumes of Alternative Finance Transactions,2020(in USD)As in previous years,there is a clear positive relationship between the number of platforms active in a country and the volume.Both in 2019 and 2020,the number of foreign firms in a coun

274、try better explains the volume recorded in the country than the presence of domestic platforms.The explanatory power of the correlation increases for domestic firms from 2019 to 2020,which means that other explanations become more important in 2020.For foreign firms,the explanatory power of the corr

275、elation decreases,which means that the presence of foreign platforms is less important in 2020 than in 2019 for volumes per country.And while international platforms continue to drive a substantial volumes in various markets,their impact may have weakened during COVID-19.This is of note,as the overa

276、ll proportion of multi-jurisdictional firms(firms with operations in two or more countries)declined substantially in 2019(15%of firms)and 2020(17%of firms),particularly when compared to 2018(47%of firms).Yet,as discussed above,when we consider the total volumes attributed to multi-jurisdictional fir

277、ms,we note that$83.72 billion(or 47%)of the 2019 values come from such firms.Similarly,in 2020$50.49 billion(44%)is derived from multi-jurisdictional firms.Therefore,their absolute power is substantive.A note of caution is warranted here,as the positive association we identify between presence of fo

278、reign platforms and market volumes may represent a more nuanced direction of causality.On the one hand,markets with higher volumes may attract more foreign firm market entries.On the other hand,foreign firm market entries may further drive local volumes thanks to more competition and greater appeal

279、to international supporters.In any case,market internationalisation is associated with higher volumes at the national level.$50b+$10b-49b$1b-10b$100m-1b$10m-100m$1m-10m$10k-1m$0-10k40Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemFigure 1.8:Number of Platforms vs.Volumes in Country(Ln Value)-2019

280、Figure 1.9:Number of Platforms vs.Volumes in Country(Ln Value)-2020Table 1.3:Domestic vs Foreign Number of Observations from Respondents 2019-202020192020RegionDomesticForeignTotalDomesticForeignTotalAPAC172176348157185342China100810844953Europe257387644252402654LAC12213625894111205MENA146478136376S

281、SA2817820626165191UK601979531467USA&Canada52288048247280599618016879731660Number of platforms in countryLn Volumes in Country Domestic Foreign 12ForeignExpon.(Foreign)Linear(Domestic)12Expon.(Domestic)Expon.(Foreign)Linear(Foreign)R=0.3156R=0.4870102030405060708090100024681012Linear(Foreign)Number o

282、f platforms in countryLn Volumes in Country Domestic Foreign 12ForeignExpon.(Foreign)Linear(Domestic)12Expon.(Domestic)Expon.(Foreign)Linear(Foreign)R=0.3488R=0.52870102030405060024681012The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report41Global Volume by Alternative Finance ModelsTable 1

283、.4:2019&2020 Total Volume by Model Categories(Including China)2019 Full Dataset(China+ROW)2020 Full Dataset(China+ROW)Alternative Finance ModelVolume Market Share2019 RankingChange in Ranking 2018 v 2019Volume Market Share2020 RankingChange in Ranking 2019 v 2020P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending$103,

284、107,000,000 59%1$34,740,386,058 31%1P2P/Marketplace Business Lending$20,813,486,434 12%2$15,374,366,221 14%3(-1)Balance Sheet Business Lending$19,815,995,713 11%3$28,018,497,789 25%2(+1)Balance Sheet Consumer Lending$10,746,940,564 6%4(+1)$13,025,246,839 11%4P2P/Marketplace Property Lending$4,593,22

285、5,687 3%5(+1)$3,073,502,699 3%7(-2)Balance Sheet Property Lending$4,039,738,352 2%6(-2)$1,808,250,437 2%9(-3)Invoice Trading$3,715,241,050 2%7$3,882,363,843 3%6(+1)Real Estate Crowdfunding$2,874,474,252 2%8$2,777,136,757 2%8Donation-based Crowdfunding$2,680,580,111 2%9(+3)$7,002,990,526 6%5(+4)Equit

286、y-based Crowdfunding$1,093,718,625 1%10(-1)$1,520,444,679 1%10Reward-based Crowdfunding$897,311,407 0.51%11(-1)$1,250,683,128 1%11Consumer Purchase Finance/BNPL$591,711,865 0.34%12$505,372,720 0.44%12Debt-based Securities$496,444,345 0.28%13(-2)$384,760,119 0.34%13Crowd-led Microfinance$182,370,557

287、0.10%14$151,483,347 0.13%14Revenue/Profit Sharing$35,585,989 0.02%15(-1)$84,514,275 0.07%15Community Shares$20,886,410 0.01%16$23,693,137 0.02%17(-1)Mini Bonds$6,236,156 0.00%17(-2)$43,932,747 0.04%16(+1)Other$878,327 0.00%18(-5)$3,044,582 0.00%18The decline of the Chinese alternative finance ecosys

288、tem plays a substantive role when reviewing the contribution to annual alternative finance derived from two key models,namely P2P/Marketplace Consumer and Business Lending.Of note,the P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending model has consistently accounted as the largest alternative finance model since 201

289、3,yet it has faced a significant drop in absolute volume in 2019($103 billion)and in 2020($35 billion),driven by the decline in Chinese P2P Consumer Lending.Similarly,the P2P/Marketplace Business Lending model saw a significant drop of 59%in 2019($21 billion)and a further decline of 26%($15 billion)

290、in 2020.42Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemTable 1.5:2019&2020 Total Volume by Model Categories(Excluding China)2019 Global Dataset Excluding China2020 Global Data Excluding ChinaAlternative Finance Model Volume Market ShareModel RankingChange in Ranking 2018 v 2019 Volume Market Sh

291、areModel RankingChange in Ranking 2019 v 2020P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending$33,606,240,567 37%1$34,733,430,066 31%1Balance Sheet Business Lending$19,132,408,437 21%2$28,018,468,321 25%2Balance Sheet Consumer Lending$10,628,711,073 12%3(+1)$11,893,247,173 11%4(-1)P2P/Marketplace Business Lending$7,

292、378,843,454 8%4(+1)$15,374,032,703 14%3(+1)P2P/Marketplace Property Lending$4,093,908,169 4%5(+1)$3,073,501,606 3%7(-2)Balance Sheet Property Lending$4,039,738,352 4%6(-3)$1,808,250,436 2%9(-3)Invoice Trading$3,621,223,547 4%7(+1)$3,868,914,901 3%6(+1)Real estate Crowdfunding$2,874,474,252 3%8(-1)$2

293、,777,136,742 2%8Donation-based Crowdfunding$2,680,454,133 3%9(+3)$7,002,577,758 6%5(+4)Equity-based Crowdfunding$1,093,646,218 1%10(-1)$1,520,408,438 1%10Reward-based Crowdfunding$887,443,612 1%11(-1)$1,242,796,093 1%11Consumer Purchase Finance/BNPL$591,711,865 1%12$505,372,721 0%12Debt-based Securi

294、ties$490,227,397 1%13(-2)$384,760,118 0%13Crowd-led Microfinance$182,370,557 0%14$151,483,348 0%14Revenue/Profit Sharing$35,585,989 0%15(-1)$84,514,275 0%15Community Shares$20,886,410 0%16(-1)$23,693,137 0%17(-1)Mini Bonds$6,236,156 0%17(-1)$43,932,746 0%16(+1)Other$878,327 0%18(-5)$3,044,581 0%18Wh

295、en excluding China,a clearer picture emerges,allowing for a richer discussion on the evolution of any one model type from year to year.The P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending model remains the largest single model contributing to market-share across both years,with only a marginal shift in market size

296、from 37%to 31%.It is worth noting that in previous years,this model has always accounted for the largest market share,and when removing Chinese outliers,market share remains consistently in the mid-thirty percent range.However,unlike previous years,this model has not increased at pre-COVID growth-ra

297、tes.Though in absolute terms this model has grown,some regions saw stagnation or decline,resulting in net-alternative finance drops.With on-balance sheet activities on the rise,it is not surprising to see that Balance-sheet Business Lending ranked as second largest model for both years,with$19 billi

298、on in 2019 and$28 billion in 2020.Closely linked to the P2P/Marketplace Business Lending model(with 16%of respondents operating both models),a growing number of firms are achieving greater scale by relying upon on-balance sheet activities.Increasingly,the research has noted that firms which previous

299、ly operated only a P2P/Marketplace model have now engaged in on-balance sheet activity,with institutional investors as the primary relationship counterpart.As such,volume driving activity is linked closely to the balance-sheet model component of a firm.In 2019,Balance Sheet Consumer Lending ranks th

300、ird(again,closely aligned to P2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending),though dropping to fourth position in 2020.In contrast,the P2P/Marketplace Business Lending model rose to third position in absolute market-share in 2020.When considering P2P/Marketplace and Balance Sheet Property Lending,these two model

301、s have shrunk in absolute volume from 2019 to 2020.Not surprisingly,COVID-19 has played a role in the decline of these two models,with many respondents indicating that loan-origination was suspended or scaled back during the first half of 2020.Qualitative remarks,however,suggest that firms were begi

302、nning to recover in the latter half of 2020,and that 2021 has begun to rebound.When considering market-share,the donation-based Crowdfunding model has experienced exponential growth,going from a ranking of nineth in 2019 to fifth in 2020.This leap relates to its substantial annual growth rate of ove

303、r 160%between 2019 and 2020.This can be attributed directly to the flurry of charitable,social and health related fundraising activities during the COVID-19 pandemic regionally and globally.The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report43Figure 1.10:Global Volume by Model,2018-2020(Ex

304、cluding China)Total Volume by Region and ModelIn 2019,China accounted for the largest market-share,generating$84.3 billion from Debt-based models,$0.07 million from Equity-based models,and$9.99 million from Non-investment models.The US and Canada accounted for the second largest market jurisdiction,

305、raising$49.21 billion from Debt models,$1.9 billion from Equity models,and$759 million from Non-investment models the highest regional volumes for both Equity and Non-investment models globally.However,by 2020,the United States and Canada became the largest overarching region,driving alternative fin

306、ance market volume($73.93 billion),and contributing$70.84 billion to Debt-based models,$1.83 billion from Equity-based models,and$1.26 billion from Non-investment models.In 2020,the United States alone accounted for 65%of market share of global volumes reported.This is followed by the United Kingdom

307、($12.64 billion),Europe excluding the UK($9.94 billion),the Asia-Pacific excluding China($8.91 billion),Latin America&the Caribbean($5.27 billion),Sub-Saharan Africa($1.22 billion),China($1.16 billion)and the Middle East&North Africa($0.59 billion).Historically,the United Kingdom has always ranked t

308、hird with respect to market volume.But with the substantial decline of China,the UK is now the second largest market globally,and has raised$6.15 billion via Debt-based models,$656 million 510301520354002519 billionBalance Sheet Business Lending15 billion28 billionBillions 2020 2019 2018Crowd-led Mi

309、crofinance182 million151 million34 billionP2P/Marketplace Consumer Lending32 billion35 billion1 billionReward-based Crowdfunding871 million1 billion7 billionP2P/Marketplace Business Lending8 billion15 billion4 billionInvoice Trading3 billion4 billion3 billionDonation-based Crowdfunding639 million7 b

310、illion4 billionP2P/Marketplace Property Lending4 billion3 billion490 millionDebt-based Securities844 million385 million6 millionMini Bonds95 million44 million11 billionBalance Sheet Consumer Lending9 billion12 billion1 billionEquity-based Crowdfunding2 billion2 billion3 billionReal Estate Crowdfundi

311、ng3 billion3 billion1 millionOther414 million4 billionBalance Sheet Property Lending11 billion2 billion3 millionConsumer Purchase Finance/BNPL505 million592 million21 millionCommunity Shares24 million95 million36 millionRevenue/Profit Sharing85 million398 million44Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Fi

312、nance Ecosystemfrom Equity-based models,and$5.84 billion from Non-investment models the highest regional volume under this model globally.Dramatically,China dropped down to the fourth place after the Asia Pacific region,generating more than 90%of its market volume from Debt-based models.Table 1.6:20

313、19 Total Volume by Region and Model Categories Key Region or Jurisdiction DebtEquityNon-investmentTotal2019 RankAPAC$8.73b$450.26m$357.06m$9.54b5China$84.34b$0.07m$9.99m$84.35b1Europe$10.94b$968.33m$328.40m$12.23b3LAC$4.68b$49.42m$105.55m$4.83b6MENA$730.55m$12.93m$20.42m$0.76b8SSA$1.03b$15.89m$57.36

314、m$1.11b7UK$8.27b$624.13m$2.12b$11.02b4USA&Canada$49.21b$1.90b$759.53m$51.87b2Table 1.7:2020 Total Volume by Region and Model CategoriesKey Region or Jurisdiction DebtEquityNon-investmentTotal2020 RankRank Change 2019 vs 2020APAC$7.59b$737.39m$586.60m$8.91b4(+1)China$1.15b$0.04m$8.30m$1.16b7(-6)Europ

315、e$8.23b$1.13b$575.78m$9.94b3LAC$5.17b$36.92m$69.07m$5.27b5(+1)MENA$570.84m$12.47m$11.45m$0.59b8SSA$1.15b$7.83m$56.19m$1.22b6(+1)UK$6.15b$656.39m$5.84b$12.64b2(+2)USA&Canada$70.84b$1.83b$1.26b$73.93b1(+1)The following tables provide a breakdown of regional activity by overarching category and model-t

316、ype,including the market-share attributed to each region by model.Debt-models made up most of global activity,with P2P/Marketplace Consumer lending accounting for 61%of debt in 2019 and 34%in 2020.P2P/Marketplace Business Lending accounted for 12%of all debt activities in 2019 and 15%in 2020.The 2nd

317、 Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report45Table 1.8:2019 Regional Volume Breakdown for Debt Models GeographyAPACof which market share$3134.3m$1623.89m$619.7m$827.5m$1574.1m$574.2m$6.4m$374.3m$8734.5m36%19%7%9%18%0%7%0%0%4%Chinaof which market share$69500.6m$13434.6m$499.3m$118.2m$683.6

318、m$94.0m$6.2m$84336.6m82%16%1%0%1%0%0%0%0%0%Europeof which market share$4182.6m$1481.3m$371.1m$608.0m$33.3m$2249.7m$1808.8m$6.1m$112.0m$79.7m$10932.5m38%14%3%6%0%21%17%0%1%1%LACof which market share$199.0m$58.7m$3.1m$492.8m$3033.4m$10.1m$755.2m$0.0m$55.3m$69.6m$4677.3m4%1%0%11%65%0%16%0%1%1%MENAof wh

319、ich market share$103.3m$152.2m$400.0m$0.0m$0.2m$4.5m$50.0m$20.3m$730.6m14%21%55%0%0%0%1%0%7%3%SSAof which market share$513.0m$15.6m$0.04m$462.7m$23.2m$16.1m$0.4m$1.6m$1032.6m50%2%0%45%2%0%2%0%0%0%UKof which market share$2160.6m$2537.9m$1899.3m$17.8m$1062.3m$462.3m$0.1m$129.2m$8269.6m26%31%23%0%13%0%

320、6%0%2%0%USA&Canadaof which market share$23313.3m$1509.2m$796.7m$8219.9m$13406.0m$1780.0m$0.0m$136.8m$46.2m$49208.2m47%3%2%17%27%4%0%0%0%0%TOTAL of which market share$103106.8m$20813.5m$4589.2m$10746.9m$19816.0m$4039.7m$3715.2m$6.2m$496.4m$591.7m$167921.8m61%12%3%6%12%2%2%0%0%0%Table 1.9:2020 Regiona

321、l Volume Breakdown for Debt ModelsGeographyAPACof which market share$2193.4m$1819.6m$541.8m$999.1m$1259.7m$7.7m$239.3m$2.4m$351.4m$7414.5m30%25%7%13%17%0%3%0%0%5%Chinaof which market share$7.0m$0.3m$0.0m$1132.0m$0.0m$13.4m$1152.8m1%0%0%98%0%0%1%0%0%0%Europeof which market share$3071.4m$1843.6m$500.2

322、m$657.0m$105.2m$9.7m$2016.5m$13.9m$129.9m$57.0m$8234.2m37%22%6%8%1%0%24%0%2%1%LACof which market share$260.8m$29.9m$9.5m$410.9m$3274.6m$10.6m$1146.2m$14.3m$11.7m$5168.5m5%1%0%8%63%0%22%0%0%0%MENAof which market share$107.1m$124.3m$300.0m$0.1m$2.3m$2.0m$20.0m$15.0m$570.8m19%22%53%0%0%0%0%0%4%3%SSAof

323、which market share$768.8m$13.7m$0.1m$346.3m$15.1m$0.2m$0.2m$3.8m$3.8m$1151.8m67%1%0%30%1%0%0%0%0%0%UKof which market share$255.3m$3262.2m$1312.1m$754.9m$462.3m$30.0m$72.1m$6148.9m4%53%21%0%12%0%8%0%1%0%USA&Canadaof which market share$28076.7m$8280.7m$409.8m$9479.8m$22606.7m$1780.0m$142.4m$66.5m$7084

324、2.5m40%12%1%13%32%3%0%0%0%0%TOTAL of which market share$34740.4m$15374.4m$3073.5m$13025.2m$28018.5m$1808.3m$3882.4m$43.9m$384.8m$505.4m$100856.7m34%15%3%13%28%2%4%0%0%1%Equity-based models accounted for$4 billion in 2019 and$4.4 billion in 2020 of alternative finance volumes globally.Though much sma

325、ller than its debt counterparts,the majority of the models in this category showed a growing trend compared to the previous years.P2P/Marketplace Consumer LendingP2P/Marketplace Business LendingP2P/Marketplace Property LendingBalance Sheet Consumer LendingBalance Sheet Business LendingBalance Sheet

326、Property LendingInvoice TradingMini BondsDebt-based SecuritiesConsumer Purchase Finance/BNPLTotal Debt ModelsP2P/Marketplace Consumer LendingP2P/Marketplace Business LendingP2P/Marketplace Property LendingBalance Sheet Consumer LendingBalance Sheet Business LendingBalance Sheet Property LendingInvoi

327、ce TradingMini BondsDebt-based SecuritiesConsumer Purchase Finance/BNPLTotal Debt Models46Chapter 1:The Global Alternative Finance EcosystemIn recent years,Real Estate Crowdfunding(71%or$2.87 billion in 2019;63%or$2.77 billion in 2020)and Equity-based Crowdfunding(27%or$1.09 billion in 2019;35%or$1.

328、52 billion in 2020)were the largest model in this category.The Equity-based Crowdfunding model was the second leading model of this category.In 2020,equity-based crowdfunding accounted for 100%of MENA region($12.5 million),84%of UK($549 million)and 45%of APACs($333 million)equity-based market volume

329、.Table 1.10:2019 Regional Volume Breakdown for Equity ModelsGeographyEquity-based CrowdfundingReal Estate CrowdfundingRevenue/Profit SharingCommunity SharesTotal Equity ModelsAPACof which market share$219.4m$222.1m$8.3m$0.4m$450.3m49%49%2%0%Chinaof which market share$0.1m$0.1m100%0%0%Europeof which

330、market share$224.1m$732.8m$11.4m$0.0m$968.3m23%76%1%0%LACof which market share$10.3m$28.9m$10.3m$49.4m21%58%21%0%MENAof which market share$12.9m$0.0m$0.0m$12.9m100%0%0%SSAof which market share$10.3m$5.5m$0.0m$15.9m65%0%35%UKof which market share$474.6m$129.1m$20.4m$624.1m76%21%0%3%USA&Canadaof which

331、 market share$141.9m$1761.6m$0.1m$0.0m$1903.6m7%93%0%TOTAL of which market share$1093.7m$2874.5m$35.6m$20.9m$4024.7m27%71%1%1%Table 1.11:2020 Regional Volume Breakdown for Equity Models GeographyEquity-based CrowdfundingReal Estate CrowdfundingRevenue/Profit SharingCommunity SharesTotal Equity Model

332、sAPACof which market share$333.5m$351.8m$51.5m$0.6m$737.4m45%48%7%0%Chinaof which market share$0.0m$0.0m100%0%0%0%Europeof which market share$279.7m$822.1m$26.1m$0.0m$1127.9m25%73%2%0%LACof which market share$12.6m$23.8m$0.5m$36.9m34%64%1%0%MENAof which market share$12.5m$12.5m100%0%0%0%SSAof which

333、market share$1.2m$0.0m$6.6m$7.8m15%0%85%0%UKof which market share$549.3m$84.0m$23.1m$656.4m84%13%0%4%USA&Canadaof which market share$331.5m$1495.4m$1827.0m18%82%0%0%TOTAL of which market share$1520.4m$2777.1m$84.6$23.7m$4405.9m35%63%2%1%Donation-based Crowdfunding represented the largest share of Non-Investment models volumes,and accounted for$2.68 billion(or 71%)in 2019 and$7 billion(83%)in 2020.