Can we compare peer-to-peer loans to savings accounts?
I don't think you can compare savings accounts and peer-to-peer lending. The former is a liquid way of stashing some money away (IOW you can get at it pretty much any time you want) whereas the latter is extremely illiquid (you only get your money back if and when the loan has been repaid). Also, as mentioned by the other posters, there is a risk attached to p2p lending, even if the borrowers are vetted by the p2p lending platform. You're essentially taking the same risks that a bank would take when writing a couple of personal loans, and that's quite far removed from a safe haven for your cash. If you have enough money to invest (not save, invest) then it might be worth putting a small amount into p2p lending, but it's anything but an alternative to a savings account. "That argument is an argument for investing generally, not peer-to-peer lending per se, and the argument as phrased (""thus you should invest your money at a Peer-to-peer loan platform"") is a false dichotomy. That said, as soon as one is investing as opposed to just getting a small but guaranteed return, then risk comes into play.  In that sense, any savings account is fundamentally different from any investment, and, in that reading, the two shouldn't be compared as different approaches to ""investing"".  Peer-to-peer lending as an investment could be aptly compared with stock market investing, for one." Peer to peer lending isn't FDIC insured.  You can lose all your investment with peer to peer lending, whereas you will not lose your deposited money in a savings account, even if it doesn't grow very fast.
There is no difference in safety form the perspective of the bank failing, due to FDIC/NCUA insurance.  However, there is a practical issue that should be considered, if you allow payments to be automatically withdrawn from your checking account  In the case of an error, all of you money may be unavailable until the error is resolved, which could be days or weeks.  By having two accounts, this possibility may be reduced.  It isn't a difference between checking and savings, but a benefit of having two accounts. Note that if both accounts are at the same bank, hey make take money from other accounts to cover the shortfall. That said, I've done this for years and have never had a problem.  Also, I have two accounts, one at a local credit union with just enough kept in it to cover any payments, and another online account that has the rest of my savings.  I can easily transfer funds between the two accounts in a couple days. You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency? I'm not sure there is good data on Kiva, etc, but P2P microlending site Prosper has released their data. The default rates are evidently fairly high. For borrowers in the 'developed' world (the target audience of Prosper), other sources of credit are available (e.g. banks); one has to suspect, then, that borrowers on Prosper are considered too risky for bank loans. "Credit Unions turn a profit by lending money at a higher interest rate than their savings do, just like banks do. It is an amoral feat, completely parallel to any moral weights you have assigned to ""the system"". If the most favorable circumstance is you receiving access to capital, then you can easily achieve that with zero reservations about the system that granted it to you." "Your instructor's numbers do not seem to have any basis in current reality. At this page you can see a comparison of interest rates offered by banks and credit unions.  In the most recent table for June 2014, banks paid an average interest rate of 0.12 percent on savings accounts, while credit unions paid an average of 0.13 percent.   If you look back further, you will see that interest rates paid by banks and credit unions are generally comparable.  Credit union rates tend to be a little bit higher, but certainly not 7 times higher. The last time any financial institution paid as much as 15% on a savings account would probably be the early 1980s.  You can see here a historical chart of the ""prime rate"" for lending.  Savings account rates (at either banks or credit unions) would typically be lower. (This is based on the US, in accordance with your tag.  Interest rates in other places, especially developing countries with less stable currencies, can be dramatically different.)" "Yes... but it is a matter of balancing risks.  It is wiser to keep a small amount of ""ready cash"" as an emergency/buffer -- and to suffer the gradual loss to inflation...  Than it is risk becoming ""stuck"" in an emergency with zero dollars in any (low or no cost) source of funds -- those kinds of ""emergencies"" ($500 or $1,000 ""unexpected/unbudgeted"" expenses) are fairly frequent and virtually inevitable.  You lose vastly MORE money when you are forced to borrow those amounts (interest -- even **low-rate** loans -- is virtually always higher than the average inflation rate)." Looks more like an idea for a business rather than an actual business -- especially since it hasn't even launched. That said, it does have its merits. What bank actually holds the deposit funds becomes irrelevant, and may actaully change from time to time as they forge better partnerships with different banks.  Think of it like a mutual fund -- the individual stocks (if there are stocks) in the fund are less important than the balance of risk vs. income and the leveling of change over the course of time. It offers services banks offer, without fees (at least that is the proposal) with the addition of budgetting capability as well. It does have downsides as well There is an increased level of indirection between you and your money. They propose to simplify the banking business model, but in fact are only hiding it from you.  The same complexity that was there before is still there, with the added complexity of their service on top of it.  It's just a matter of how much of that complexity you would have to deal with directly. With that in mind, I would reiterate that they are not a business yet -- just a proposed business model.  Even the sign up process is a red flag for me.  I understand they need to gauge interest in order to forge initial relationships with various banks, but I don't see the need for the 'invitation only' sign up method.  It just sounds like a way to increase interest (who doesn't like feeling exclusively invited), and is a bit too 'gimmicky' for my taste. But, like I said, the idea has merit -- I have my reservations, but will reserve full judgement until they are an actual operating business. The best description of P2P lending process I saw comes from the SEC proceedings. They are very careful about naming things that are happening in the process. Prosper got back to business after this order, but the paper describes succinctly how Prosper worked when its notes haven't yet been registered by the SEC. These materials contain a lot of responsible comments on how crowdfunding, including P2P lending, works. Someone I know had an idea to open a savings account as an LLC or corporation to receive better interest rates on savings, and set up a system where anyone can pool money in and receive a larger cut through savings interest than with a personal account. Is this legal/feasible in any way? Here are some typical differences between savings and checking accounts: Depending on your banks offerings and your personal goals, you would have to decide which factors matter to you. It's certainly possible that you may conclude there is no difference in your case. "To begin with, bear in mind that over the time horizon you are talking about, the practical impact of inflation will be quite limited. Inflation for 2017 is forecast at 2.7%, and since you are talking about a bit less than all of 2017, and on average you'll be withdrawing your money halfway through, the overall impact will be <1.3% of your savings. You should consider whether the effort and risk involved in an alternative is worth a few hundred pounds. If you still want to beat inflation, the best suggestion I have is to look at peer-to-peer lending. That comes with some risk, but I think over the course of 1 year, it's quite limited. For example, Zopa is currently offering 3.1% on their ""Access"" product, and RateSetter are offering 2.9% on the ""Everyday"" product. Both of these are advertised as instant access, albeit with some caveats. These aren't FSCS-guaranteed bank deposits, and they do come with some risk. Firstly, although both RateSetter and Zopa have a significant level of provision against bad debt, it's always possible that this won't be enough and you'll lose some of your money. I think this is quite unlikely over a one-year time horizon, as there's no sign of trouble yet. Secondly, there's ""liquidity"" risk. Although the products are advertised as instant access, they are actually backed by longer-duration loans made to people who want to borrow money. For you to be able to cash out, someone else has to be there ready to take your place. Again, this is very likely to be possible in practice, but there's no absolute guarantee." "I invested a small amount of money with Prosper, and later with Lending Club. I don't know why there is such a discrepancy, but over half of my Prosper loans defaulted, while only 1 of my Lending Club loans has defaulted so far. I think that P2P lending is for ""early adopters"" right now. There are regulation issues, transparency issues, legal issues, etc. Once all of those issues get worked out, I think that P2P lending will eventually overtake conventional lending, and it will be more profitable for both the lender and the borrower. The Internet is simply eroding the value that banks are adding to the process (primarily aggregation of funds), and the system has to change." In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing.  Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks).  This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk.  Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other.  If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly.  You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund.  Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable.  You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post.  The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification.  The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot. There's a primer on valuing community banks by oddball Stocks, an investor who specializes in that kind of stuff. I can't link it cause I'm on my phone, but just search it up on Google and I'm sure you'll find it. "The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an ""expected profit rate"" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with ""typical"" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!"