Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 663

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Peer-to-Peer Lenders Versus Banks: Substitutes or Complements?

Tang, Huan·2019·The Review of Financial Studies

Abstract

This paper studies whether, in the consumer credit market, peer-to-peer (P2P) lending platforms serve as substitutes for banks or instead as complements. I develop a conceptual framework and derive testable predictions to distinguish between these two possibilities. Using a regulatory change as an exogenous shock to bank credit supply, I find that P2P lending is a substitute for bank lending in terms of serving infra-marginal bank borrowers yet complements bank lending with respect to small loans. These results indicate that the credit expansion resulting from P2P lending likely occurs only among borrowers who already have access to bank credit.Received June 1, 2017; editorial decision September 15, 2018 by Editor Andrew Karolyi. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix, which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/rfs/hhy137

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 663

Metadata

Authors
Tang, H.
Venue
The Review of Financial Studies
Published
2019-04-04
Volume
32
Issue
5
Pages
1900-1938
ISSN
  • 0893-9454 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7368
OpenAlex
W2933605307
Cited by
663
References
1
FWCI
63.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Peer-to-Peer Lenders Versus Banks: Substitutes or Complements? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/rfs/hhy137
The paper
Tang, H. (2019). Peer-to-Peer Lenders Versus Banks: Substitutes or Complements? The Review of Financial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhy137

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.