Inflation & The Plight of the Honest Saver

Anyone clinging to the belief that their deposits with the bank, building society or National Savings are holding their value must surely have received a wake-up call this week with the news that inflation hit 2.3% in February. At this level – the highest since September 2013 and already ahead of the Government’s 2% target for the year – the purchasing power of their money is going backwards in real terms. Furthermore, those looking to take advantage of the new National Savings Bond announced in the Budget only two weeks ago may stop to consider that the 2.2% on offer from next month for a deposit of £3,000 will effectively render them a loser from Day One.

As for those with money in traditional, easy access deposit accounts paying 1% or less, their cash is being eroded at an alarming rate of knots. And the use a tax-free ISA wrap does not even come close to bridging the gap.

The sad thing is that, while honest savers stoically see the value of the nest egg slip away by stealth, they are encouraged to believe that they are protected by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). They are protected, of course, if a bank or building society goes bust, but, since that will probably never be allowed to happen, the safety net is largely an illusion – and a cruel one at that given that the FSCS does not protect them from good old-fashioned inflation, which is the real enemy. Bank and building society depositors may not be losing their capital in one hit, but they are losing part of its value with the passage of each day.

The fact is that, even if they wanted to, the banks are virtually powerless to do anything about the plight of the saver – their access to cheap capital through deposit and current accounts to pass on to borrowers at astronomical rates of interest is what they live off. In modern parlance, they have very little ‘wriggle room’ because of their structure and overheads.

With interest rates glued to rock-bottom for the foreseeable future and inflation on the march, consumers are being forced to look at the various alternatives, such as P2P loans, where the market is young, ambitious and nimble. Risk is obviously – and very understandably – a big factor in many consumers’ minds, but returns of up to 8.5% with a good measure of security are not only available, but also sustainable in the current market. The advice must surely be to look around, research what is available, from whom, and to spread the risk by not putting money in one place.

In ArchOver’s case, the money will be lent out to ambitious, creditworthy SMEs through a robust risk assessment process. Surely, that has to be better than just sitting back watching the value of your capital gradually slip away.

The Balancing Act

From former City regulators like Lord Adair Turner to current ones like Andrew Bailey, the chief executive of the FCA, everyone overseeing or commenting on P2P appears to be convinced that the sector is sitting on a time-bomb of bad loans. Inevitably, the mainline Press has taken up the cry by issuing grave warnings of impending disaster alongside constant reminders to lenders that their money is not covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). Scaremongering abounds.

The argument runs that the dash for volume is pressurising loss-making platforms to approve poor quality loans to earn the fees to pay the staff and keep the lights on. The cries have become all the more strident since it has become evident that there is an imbalance between willing P2P lenders, of which there is a surfeit, and quality borrowers, who are short supply. The situation simply reflects the lack of yield available through traditional banking/National Savings products and the reluctance of well-run SMEs to borrow money while the medium to long-term economic outlook remains so uncertain. Both sides are acting perfectly sensibly which may be frustrating for the P2P operators, but is ultimately for the good.

In the circumstances, the latest action by Zopa, the founder of P2P lending, to introduce a waiting list for lenders is all the more commendable. The management has decided, quite rightly in my view, that it will be better in the long run to maintain the quality of borrowers to protect its lender base – in other words, far better to impose a short-term delay in placing the money than scramble to find borrowers at any cost. Zopa has also taken the opportunity to point out that its stance is designed to look after the interests of existing borrowers rather than use the best deals to entice new customers – a policy that the banks and building societies would do well to replicate.

Some of the other platforms – Funding Circle, for example – have been raising institutional money which, ultimately, will have to yield an institutional-size return. That doesn’t mean to say that it will necessarily be forced to take silly risks and, to date, there has been no hard evidence that credit standards have been lowered.

Balancing borrowers and lenders isn’t new – we do it all the time and always will. The trick is not to be tempted by the short-term expedient over building a robust business for the longer term. Pain, in the form of losses, may be needed to achieve this, which means that the fittest will survive while others may fall by the wayside. Again, all perfectly normal for a young, rapidly-developing sector.   

 

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be”

The phrase “Neither a borrower nor a lender be” sounds both elegant and wise, but if the advice contained in those words, taken from a passage in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, were to be adopted literally, the commercial world as we know it today would come to a shuddering halt. Whether we like it or not, money is the essential lubricant for any business, regardless of size, sector and location.

That is why there should be no shame or stigma attached to borrowing – provided it is for the right reasons and terms are sensible and fair. Right now, the P2P lending sector is awash with both individual and institutional investors eager to secure a reasonable return on their cash in the current low interest rate environment. But SME borrowers are not so plentiful, presumably because they are uncertain about the post Brexit world that lies ahead.

If that is the primary reason for lack of appetite then, if anything, the picture is becoming even more confusing as politicians, lawyers and other vested interests jostle for position on deciding the final terms of the UK’s exit from the EU. But, as those of us in the P2P sector know only too well, there is another, more apposite quote (this time from Benjamin Franklin) that says Out of adversity comes opportunity”. The unvarnished truth is that, if the 2008 financial crisis had never happened, the P2P sector would probably never have taken root and flourished in the way that it has. So, for that, let us all be thankful.

In the meantime, SMEs, often described as the backbone of the UK economy, should not be encouraged to get themselves into debt simply for the sake of it, or just because the money is available, but to view borrowing as the gateway to growth and opportunity – to invest in people, technology, new plant, marketing, or a new products or services.

The trick, though, is to borrow on the right terms. The banks may be lending more to SMEs than they were, say, a year ago, but often this is not in the form of a straightforward fixed term, fixed rate loans. Customers are often encouraged to go down the invoice financing route, where fees can be extortionate and the arrangement can be difficult to escape from once signed.

The cost of borrowing is trending down because of competition, which is exactly the way it should be. And the ‘one size fits all type of finance’ is a thing of the past; there is an immense variety of options available if you can be bothered to shop around. That lenders will want their money back is obvious, but you don’t necessarily have to give up your precious equity, or risk losing your house through signing personal guarantees, just to gain access to the right type of finance. Alternative finance has brought genuine innovation to financial markets – it would be a pity to suffocate it with onerous regulation.

“The P2P Sector Is Growing Up”

There was always going to come a time when the Alternative Finance revolution would falter – maybe we have already reached that point. P2P lending and equity crowdfunding are no longer quite so new and, as the latest missive from the FCA makes clear, this particular side of the Altfi sector has outgrown the rule book. There are also early signs that the novelty is starting to wear off, certainly with the media. So, perhaps now is an ideal opportunity to take a step back and reflect.

Looking ahead into 2017, it is difficult to see how the benign conditions that have helped P2P platforms to create such a significant presence so rapidly – e.g. recovering economy, low interest rates, banks on the back foot – can continue indefinitely. Sooner or later interest rates will start to climb back up and there will be a downturn in the economic cycle. And, with so few platform operators making a profit, there are bound to be casualties.

Some platform backers may grow impatient with the expensive pursuit of acquiring market share at any cost and insist on seeing a return on their investment. Other platforms may simply ‘time out’ because their proposition is not sufficiently different or they have insufficient mass or financial backing to continue.

This could lead to business failures or, more likely, mergers/take-overs of platforms. Consolidation would be a perfectly normal phase for an emerging sector that has a myriad of players all vying for customers and profitability. The High Street banks, too, will recover their poise and may decide to dip their collective toe in the water by making a P2P acquisition or two of their own – if they do, they will almost certainly take aim at the biggest, the most established or those best placed to be scaled. All this is not so much to be pessimistic, rather it is to be realistic. Consolidation is inevitable.

The important thing is to make sure that P2P lenders do not suffer financially. If a platform fails, it does not follow that the loans in which the lenders are invested go bad. All P2P operators should have run-off plans in place to cover that eventuality – something that the FCA, quite rightly, insists upon. If private investors start to lose money, the press and other critics will have a field day.

What is also important is that the P2P sector does not allow itself to be divided into a number of component parts, either into the large and small platforms, or those with different business models. The sector should operate as one for its own protection and for the common good.

The P2P sector is growing up – it can either be in charge of that process or be at the mercy of others.

growth