This is why I have always been skeptical about peer to peer lending. There aren&#x27;t that many type of investors in the system. I can think fundamentally of four with big volumes.<p>1. Banks who have lots of depositors, who are retail investors, but who do not wish to take any risk. They see their deposits as quasi-cash. So the bank takes the risk if a loan goes bad, which is why most of the loans are secured on property (mortgages). And why a smaller fraction will be invested in unsecured loans.<p>2. Pension funds, again investors with very little appetite for risk, who do not make investment decisions themselves, you just let your pension fund invest the money for you, and they are not in the business with taking big risks.<p>3. Insurance companies, who invest the proceeds from the premium paid on insurance contract until a claim is made. Again not in the business of taking massive risks.<p>4. Asset managers, which can manage investment from retails clients, but for who the majority of clients do not manage their portfolio actively and rely on asset managers to make the decisions for them.<p>All 4 are massive and constitute the backbone of the financial system. All 4 have in common that the ultimate investors (depositors, pension contributors, insuree and retail investors) do not make any investment decision themselves.<p>For p2p lending to make more than a tiny dent in this market, they need these investors to fundamentally change their behavior, to stop relying on someone else to analyse the risk, and to start actively doing their own due diligence, choose a p2p company, trust them with their money, and start reviewing credit profiles and underwrite the loans. Sure, there are some active retail investors who spend their days on online broker websites, who read lots of articles and research. But in term of volumes, not many. I just can&#x27;t see where the money would come from for p2p lenders to make a difference.