| Course | FI310 FinTech Principles and Concepts |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 5 |
| Paper type | Platform business analysis |
| Length | About 610 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Finance |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for FI310 Unit 5
What a Platform Earns for Standing Where the Factor Stood: A Unit 5 Platform Business Analysis of Invoice Finance
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
FI310: FinTech Principles and Concepts
Unit 5 Platform Business Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The marketplace, the supplier, the funders and every figure are composite; the articles and book cited are real.
The Old Value Chain
A packaging supplier sells $100,000 of goods to a regional grocery chain on 60-day terms. To get cash sooner, it sells the invoice to a factoring company. The factor advances 80 percent, $80,000, immediately, then pays the remaining $20,000 less its fee when the grocery chain pays. The fee is about 3.4 percent of face, $3,400, for the 60 days. In return, the factor checks the grocery chain's credit, collects the payment and, on a non-recourse agreement, absorbs the loss if the chain does not pay. The factor funds the advance from its own bank line.
The New Value Chain
On the marketplace, the grocery chain first confirms the invoice through its payables system, promising to pay the full amount on day 60 to whoever holds it. Three institutional funders then bid to buy the confirmed invoice. The winning bid prices the 60 days at an annualized 7.2 percent, a discount of about $1,180 on $100,000. The supplier receives about $98,220 within a day, after the discount and the platform fee. The marketplace charges the supplier a fee of 0.6 percent of face, $600, and charges the funder a small servicing fee of 0.2 percent, $200.
Who Gets What
Under factoring, the supplier gave up $3,400 and waited 60 days for the last 20 percent. On the marketplace, it gives up $1,780 in discount and fees and receives nearly everything at once. Its cost falls by almost half.
The funder earns about $1,180 for 60 days of exposure to a large grocery chain that has confirmed the debt, a low-risk return. The marketplace earns $800 per $100,000, about a quarter of the factor's $3,400 fee. The factor's remaining income, the difference, disappears, because the work it did, judging the buyer's credit and collecting, is now done more cheaply: the buyer's confirmation replaces credit checking, and payment flows through the platform.
The platform earns less than the factor did because it does less: once the grocery chain confirms the invoice, the risk is the chain's, not the supplier's, and pricing that risk is easy for funders who already lend to large retailers.
Why Both Sides Join
A two-sided platform must attract both sides, and it often subsidizes the side that is harder to win (Rochet & Tirole, 2003). Here, suppliers are many and small, and funders are few and large. The marketplace charges suppliers more than funders because funders have alternatives and suppliers save so much compared with factoring. The grocery chain, which pays nothing, joins because confirming invoices strengthens its supply chain at no cost.
Where the Model Is Weak
The model works only when the buyer is large and willing to confirm. A supplier selling to small buyers cannot use it and still needs a factor. If the grocery chain disputes an invoice after confirming it, the funder bears a risk the platform has not priced well. And the platform depends on funder appetite, which can shrink quickly in a credit squeeze.
Conclusion
The marketplace takes about a quarter of the old intermediary's revenue and passes most of the rest to suppliers. That is a durable business only at scale. FinTech platforms often succeed by doing a narrow part of an old intermediary's job more cheaply, not by doing all of it (Philippon, 2016; Chishti & Barberis, 2016).
References
Chishti, S., & Barberis, J. (2016). The FinTech book: The financial technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and visionaries. Wiley.
Philippon, T. (2016). The FinTech opportunity (NBER Working Paper No. 22476). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w22476
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
The Purdue Global FI310 Unit 5 instructions
Unit 5 of FI310 asks you to analyze a fintech platform that replaces a traditional intermediary. Start with the old value chain: who paid whom, for what service and at what price. Then lay out the new chain step by step with the same figures. Show what each party gives up and gains in each version, including the platform's own take. Explain which part of the old intermediary's work the platform now performs and which part has disappeared or moved. Use two-sided market reasoning to explain who pays fees and who is subsidized. Name the conditions under which the model fails. End with a judgment about whether the business is durable. Cite the two-sided markets research and a fintech course text in APA 7, and label composite figures.
How the FI 310 Unit 5 example is put together
The sample's old chain has the factor advancing $80,000, paying the remaining $20,000 less a $3,400 fee and absorbing nonpayment risk on a non-recourse deal. In the new chain, the grocery chain confirms the invoice, three funders bid, and the winner prices sixty days at 7.2 percent annualized, a discount of about $1,180. The supplier also pays a $600 platform fee and receives about $98,220; the funder pays a $200 servicing fee. The supplier's cost falls from $3,400 to $1,780. The highlighted sentence explains that the platform earns less because the buyer's confirmation removes most of the risk the factor used to price. A weakness section notes small buyers, disputes after confirmation and funder appetite in a credit squeeze.
FI310 Unit 5 rubric: what earns full points
Platform analyses in FI310 earn points for figures that trace value from one chain to the next and add up. Graders check that the old intermediary's price and services are stated, that the new chain shows each party's fees, and that the platform's take is compared directly with what it replaced. The rubric rewards using two-sided market logic to explain pricing, and it values a clear statement of which work the platform performs and which disappears. Analyses that describe a platform's features without its revenue, skip the subsidized side or ignore conditions for failure receive fewer points. Labeled composite figures and research on platform pricing make the judgment credible.
FI310 Unit 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak Unit 5 papers describe the platform's website rather than its economics. Others give the new fees without the old ones, so no comparison is possible. Two-sided reasoning is often mentioned by name but never applied to explain why one side pays more. Many papers miss that the platform's lower price comes from doing less, because someone else, here the confirming buyer, now carries the risk. Failure conditions are left out. Where your prompt names a payments, lending or insurance platform, a writer can rebuild that firm's value chain and price both sides of it.
Get an FI310 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Tell us which platform your Unit 5 prompt names and which intermediary it displaced, then attach the FI310 instructions and rubric. The analysis draws both value chains for that firm, works out its take rate from public figures where they exist, and lists what the old middleman used to provide. Your first custom sample is free, turned around in 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More FI310 papers and BS in Finance samples
- FI310 Unit 1: Discussion Post on Mobile Deposit
- FI310 Unit 2: Mortgage Closing Process Comparison
- FI310 Unit 3: Phone Wallet Payments Analysis
- FI310 Unit 4: Digital Lending Case Study
- FI310 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- FI310 Unit 7: Risk Assessment Memo
- FI310 Unit 8: Technology Adoption Brief
- FI310 Unit 9: Financial Inclusion Analysis
- FI310 Unit 10: Sector Outlook Report
FI310 Unit 5 questions, answered
Can I analyze a consumer platform instead, such as peer-to-peer lending?
Yes, if your prompt allows it. The same questions apply: which intermediary left, what the platform charges on each side, and who now holds the risk the intermediary used to carry. Peer-to-peer lending is a strong example precisely because individual lenders ended up bearing defaults a bank would have absorbed, and several early platforms changed their funding models as a result.
Where would real take-rate figures come from for a named company?
Public companies usually report transaction volume and revenue, and dividing one by the other gives an approximate take rate. Private platforms rarely disclose either, so a sample built on a private firm labels its figures as estimates and explains the basis. Promotional pages quoting customer savings are the weakest source available, and graders here tend to notice when a paper leans on them.
Where can I find a free FI310 Unit 5 sample paper?
This page holds a full FI310 Unit 5 platform business analysis of an invoice finance marketplace replacing a factor, with both value chains priced, the platform's take and APA 7 references.
Why does the supplier pay more than the funder?
Because funders are few and have other places to lend, while suppliers are many and save so much compared with factoring that they accept a higher fee. Two-sided platforms charge the side that values them most and court the side that is harder to win.
When would a supplier still need a factor?
When its customers are small or unwilling to confirm invoices. Without a confirmation, funders face the supplier's own credit and collection risk, which is exactly the work a factor prices and the marketplace in the sample does not do.