Access Has a Price: Borrowers, Investors, and the U.S. Market

The French study shows how a particular junior unsecured FinTech loan can complement bank credit; the current U.S. survey shows why firms continue to seek online lenders even when the price is uncertain. This comparison focuses on the dimensions a borrower can actually experience—approval, speed, collateral, total cost, and later financing capacity—while keeping the two evidence bases separate. The goal is not to name a universal winner, but to identify which features must match before the French collateral mechanism can be carried into another market.

The price of being fundable

The French product was attractive partly because it solved a timing and access problem. In the study’s sample, FinTech platforms offered junior, unsecured loans to small and medium-sized firms, with no specified collateral or personal guarantee required by the product. Applications were handled online, and platforms could decide in less than a week, sometimes in less than a day. Banks often took more than a month. That difference can matter to a firm trying to purchase equipment or preserve a business relationship before an opportunity disappears.

But the French product was not inexpensive. The average loan was about €150,000, the median was €50,000, and average maturity was 38 months. The average interest rate including fees was 7.8%, with a maximum of 16.8%. An application fee, a proportional origination fee of roughly 3% to 5%, interest paid to investors, and possible late- or early-repayment charges all belonged to the financing cost. In a comparison with similar fixed-term bank loans, the FinTech rate including fees was 5.5 percentage points higher after controls; the baseline bank rate was 1.8%.

That premium has two plausible sources. First, a junior unsecured lender is less protected if the borrower fails, so the price can compensate investors for credit risk. Second, the borrower may value speed and the chance to obtain money without first assembling acceptable collateral. The study observes the premium and describes the speed difference, but it does not isolate a precise price for convenience. The safe conclusion is that access and speed were part of the product’s appeal, while risk and fees made the product more expensive.

The 2025 Small Business Credit Survey suggests that this trade-off remains recognizable in the United States, even though the legal product is broader. The Federal Reserve Banks collected responses from 6,525 small employer firms, and 38% reported applying for a loan, line of credit, or merchant cash advance in the preceding 12 months. Among applicants seeking those products, the share that applied to an online lender rose from 17% in the 2020 survey to 29% in the 2025 survey. Medium- and high-credit-risk applicants were more likely than low-risk applicants to apply online.

The reasons firms chose a lender reveal what “access” means in practice. Among applicants at online lenders, 64% cited speed or decision time, 49% cited the chance of being funded, and 38% cited the fact that no collateral was required. These were not merely abstract preferences. A firm that expects a bank to take too long, doubts that it will meet a collateral requirement, or needs a decision before a cash-flow problem worsens may choose a costlier channel because the alternative is not a cheaper loan; it is no usable loan on the required timetable.

The approval figures show why access should not be reduced to market growth.