Switzerland

Switzerland is widely recognised as having one of the most independent, prosperous and stable economies in the world, which is why for decades nervous investors have regarded the country as a safe haven for their money in times of global turbulence.

In 2014, when Russia was facing huge problems and money was pouring into Switzerland chasing up the local currency, the Swiss National Bank surprised the world by dropping the domestic Base Rate to minus 0.25% in a determined effort to weaken the value of the Swiss Franc because it was damaging the country’s export effort. Today, and for the same reason, Switzerland’s Base Rate stands at minus 0.75%.

Although the Swiss economy has had two relatively sluggish years in 2015-16, it is expected to grow by around 1.5% in 2017. Yet Bond yields remain at minus 0.19%, which hardly provides rich pickings for local yield-hungry investors who, per capita, are reckoned to be the world’s wealthiest.

Back in the UK, we have a parallel situation regarding low fixed interest returns and following our decision to leave the EU – an organisation with which, of course, Switzerland has never been integrated – we are moving to a position where we will have even more in common.

The one crucial difference from an investor’s point of view is that the UK has developed some attractive alternative asset forms, such as P2P loans the demand for which is booming. Yields of 6% and more are commonplace which, bearing in mind the relative security provided by the larger platforms through provision funds or, in ArchOver’s case, credit insurance, represents something approaching a decent return.

No one is pretending that P2P loans are risk free – of course capital can be at risk – but many individuals and institutions have decided that, given all the information available, the transparency and free entry for investors to participate, the overall odds are worth accepting.

As ever, investment timing is vitally important. Sterling, which took such a battering following the Brexit vote, is slowly recovering and is expected to rise in value against currencies like the Swiss Franc. In the meantime, the lower value of our currency is doing wonders for our exporters and the UK economy is now expected to grow. All things considered, and bearing in mind that low interest rates look like being part of the financial landscape for the foreseeable future, now would seem to be a very good time to invest in UK PLC – leave it too late and you could ‘miss the bus’.

swiss-flag

Jargon Busting

The varied funding structures used by new companies can be a bewildering topic for the uninitiated, not least because they are mired in financial jargon.

 

How many non-financial people could explain how seed funding differs from mezzanine finance for example? Or who supplies these different types of funding?

 

Let’s cut through the jargon and take a look at the key concepts.

 

When any company is created, or in its early stages, it is described as a startup. They are often not profitable or even generating revenue.

 

jargon-busting

 

Thus, they desperately require a financial lifeline to help navigate through this formative period. This seed capital, as it is known, is usually equity rather than debt and allows startups to invest in areas such as product development and general operations to get them on their feet.

 

So where do they look to obtain it? It is hard to come by from traditional financers such as banks, or venture capitalists, as it considered a very high risk investment, so startup directors must often look to friends, family and their own savings for this initial cash. It is also likely that some angel investors (like TV’s dragons) will be interested in investing at this very early stage. These are often wealthy veteran entrepreneurs who invest their own money and can offer advice based on experiences.

 

Latterly, of course, crowdfunding platforms have also offered equity-based funding.

 

If the startup moves forward, the business may then be in a position to launch a new round of funding and attract new investment when the initial funding runs out. This is likely be referred to as a Series A funding round and may be followed by a Series B, C, D and so on. These are sometimes termed alphabet rounds.

 

These will usually be for an equity stake in the business, though some businesses may offer debt instead if their balance sheets are robust and directors do not want to dilute their ownership.

 

Unlike the initial round, however, the business will now likely be able to attract institutional investment from venture capitalists to stabilise them over the medium-term.

 

Venture capitalists invest through a business, rather than as individuals or part of a syndicate as angel investors do, and also tend to offer larger amounts than angels. They will likewise offer a growing business support and contacts to help them, but will generally take a more active role in its running and require a seat on the board.

 

All these companies will now have traded for at least a few years, acquiring a financial track record and hopefully a steady customer base. This increased business maturity and stability tends to translate into lower risk (and lower reward) for potential investors, something that changes the nature of the available sources of finance.

 

Some companies with more robust balance sheets will now be in a position to seek out senior debt in the form of loans secured against assets of the business.

 

Senior debtholders are those that are most likely to be repaid in the event that a business gets into financial difficulty. Gaining a loan from a bank at this this stage of development is notoriously difficult however. As such, businesses are increasingly turning to newer sources of finance, such as peer-to-peer lending platforms, to provide them with the credit lines they need.

 

Others businesses that lack assets against which to secure debt, or the stable cash flows to service it, may look to invoice financing to improve their cash flow.

 

Invoice financing can be split into discounting and factoring, both of which involve the third party finance provider advancing the money owed to a business by its customers, minus a service fee. With factoring, the finance provider takes control of the debtor book, while with discounting the relationship between a business and its customers is left untouched.

 

For businesses in certain sectors, manufacturing particularly, there is an increasing availability of supply chain finance (SCF). SCF links buyer, seller and financier, providing short-term credit to optimise working capital for both buyer and seller. More simply put the buyer uses the financiers money to pay the suppliers invoices, with the financier taking title to the raw materials provided and the goods that the buyers manufactures from them. SCF is available from both banks and P2P business lenders.

 

For those businesses that seek to expand aggressively though, either of these forms of financing alone may not be enough, leading them to seek out mezzanine finance to help them achieve their goals.

 

Mezzanine finance is usually unsecured and sits behind senior debt in terms of repayment priority. Because of this increased risk for the lender, it carries a much higher interest rate and often a clause that converts the debt into equity in the company if the loan is not repaid.

 

These types of funding will suffice to meet the business requirements of many companies, allowing for growth while keeping ownership in private hands. The next step, if the company chooses, is to go public with an IPO (Initial Public Offering).

 

There are a number of reasons why a company might consider going public, such as reducing the burden of interest payments or generating publicity. Over and above any of these considerations though is the ability that being publically listed brings to raise large amounts of capital on a consistent basis.

 

That said, firms must take into account the significant costs of the listing process, as well as the increased regulatory requirements.

 

 

Are Commerzbank about to blaze the P2P Lending trail?

In the Twittersphere, the word “Fintech” tends to provoke a lot of hot air. Speculation leads to everything from wild estimations and massive valuations to doomsday predictions and floccinaucinihilipilification. You aren’t going to get that word into 140 characters easily, but the exaggerated fervorous lexicon endemic to “#FinTech” dictates that you should try to if you want to fit in. And it isn’t just Twitter; print media and digital news services regularly produce supercharged opinion articles that try so hard to “think the unthinkable” that the “thinkable” (and usually the reasonable) is of seemingly negligible importance. As I’ve said before, that is what happens when you create a portmanteau that attempts to define such far-reaching businesses and sectors. Readers will start to think that Bitcoin price fluctuations become, all of a sudden, of tantamount importance to a Peer to Peer lending platform.

In light of this, Crowdfund Insider’s headline “Germany’s Second Largest Bank, Commerzbank, said to Launch P2P Platform this Year” seems to suggest a familiar speculatory path is being trodden, particularly as it comes from “informed sources” whispering in the ear of the P2P-Banking.com blog. The article claims that German behemoth Commerzbank plans to launch its own P2P Lending marketplace, “Main Funders”, in 2016. Yet what is particularly interesting here is that this would be the first sign of a bank directly implementing an in-house peer-to-peer lending operation. Why is this interesting? Because it makes a lot of sense, and it could herald a huge change in the way people see peer to peer lending. Plenty of banks, both big and small, are showing an increased appetite for lending across platforms in both the UK, US and Europe. Under German law, only banks can fund loans; to bypass this all existing P2P lending companies in Germany partner with a transaction bank which originates the loan and then sells the proceeds (repayments and interest) to the investors: a complex procedure that is hardly widespread. By building its own platform, Commerzbank would circumvent some of the legal hurdles and provide the tailored, modern and agile solution to SME borrowing that the banks in the UK can’t (or won’t) provide, whilst also offering investors and savers an increase on the miserable rates they are all too used to.

Commerzbank has Main Incubator as their fintech accelerator offering venture capital to start ups, so it is an area that they should know well and more importantly have a vested interest in. This may sound like bad news for smaller peer to peer lending platforms who may fear being muscled out. However, it is more likely a case of “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”: established banks bring the wealth, history and stature that could help Peer to Peer Lending escape from the bubble of hot air that is “Fintech”. However, is this really P2P lending? We have a bank, a highly regulated entity, entering a market that isn’t so highly regulated, certainly in terms of capital requirements. One of the things that has driven the banks away from SME lending is the large amounts of capital they have to put aside for these loans. This is behind the drive towards Invoice Discounting, which requires less capital to be put aside. Commerzbank’s solution could be that their P2P requires less capital than ordinary SME lending. There’s also the question as to whether Commerzbank, and other German banks, have made sufficient provision for the bad lending of the past. Is this a case of smoke and mirrors in the form of moving things around the balance sheet?

What is certain is that banks’ enthusiasm for P2P lending would produce solid, mutually beneficial relationships that can help SMEs and savers alike. Yes, there will inevitably be teething problems as the banks adapt to the fleet-footed world of P2P lending and the P2P lenders adapt their models to fit the strict regulatory processes of the banks. But Commerzbank’s embryonic P2P marketplace could be the trailblazer that sets the way for future banking… if it exists at all.

Disruptive Fintech, the FSCS and the World Economic Forum: busting some Peer to Peer Lending myths

Barely a day goes by without some media coverage on the Peer to Peer Lending sector. The good news is that knowledge of the sector continues to grow, to such an extent that the standard sporadic “What is Crowdlending” articles indicative of a nascent sector are being replaced by up to date reporting of relevant industry news. Coupled with increased coverage in mainstream print and digital media has come an increase in independent industry reports. This year has seen (to name only a few) Citi’s “Digital Disruption” report, KPMG’s “Pulse of Fintech” and the annual Nesta Alternative Finance Guide, all using statistical data to shed light on the trends and outlook for peer to peer lending.

However, the news concerning the application of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) to peer-to-peer lenders is an example of a grey area that can emerge from misleading reporting. The FT Adviser article by Laura Miller published on 18.4.16 and titled “FSCS reveals how it will consider P2P claims” gives an accurate representation of what the FSCS has said in its report, but fails to deduce the significance (if any) behind a potential ruling. The FSCS was brought in to protect the savers who put their money with banks, who in turn would lend out the money without the discretion of those savers. Peer to peer lending gives individuals the chance to choose to whom their money is lent, on what terms and rates, and how much. They know the risks and mitigate these risks accordingly by lending to many projects, and even across many platforms. Now for a platform such as RateSetter, which chooses where the money is dispersed, the news that the FSCS will cover up £50,000 of defaults may come as good news, although their provision fund covers this anyway. There is also an issue with the wording- the FSCS will pay out only if “bad advice” is deemed to have been given. I don’t need to tell you why such woolly language is wholly unsuitable for financial compensation schemes. The FSCS was set up to apply for the banks and it should stay that way- instead of massaging an unsuitable solution to fit peer to peer lending, another form of protection could be made available to lenders over P2P platforms. The less said about FT Adviser’s choice of interviewee, the better- another case of an IFA dinosaur using scaremongering tactics. He chooses to neglect the fact that P2P platforms’ due diligence on potential borrowers is as thorough as the banks- ArchOver even has the benefit of a second opinion from the credit insurers.

Which leads me onto the World Economic Forum report written in conjunction with Oliver Wyman. The report warns that consumers could face big losses from peer to peer lenders; “even if alternative sources of credit are monitored appropriately, many actually shift risk to the end consumer – which has the potential for sizeable losses to be directly incurred by average investors who may not understand the product or its associated risks.” The FCA regulation that will come into place for peer to peer lenders should help dispel some of these fears. Investors already are well aware of any risks involved in lending over platforms, as there are risk warnings at every stage of the process. And the FCA will do more to ensure that investors need to be HNWI or educated investors to invest with large single payments, despite in doing so slightly undermining the democratic processes of lending.

Peer to peer lending gives people a chance to throw off the shackles of the bank and escape from the miserable interest rates on offer, or paying the 1% management fees that wealth management charge for riskier investments into the likes of equity markets (for a poor return in the current climate). All this with the benefit of credit insurance, provision funds, the confidence in joining a crowd of institutions (family offices, schools, councils, banks etc.) and other individuals in lending to a business. And these individuals should not be patronised or considered naïve- the general demographic is very much aged 55+, ex-directors and professionals who are careful with their savings and conduct their own checks on who they are lending to. Yes, there has to be a certain amount of trust and research done on the peer to peer lender chosen- they do that as well.

And it isn’t just critical articles concerning alternative finance that are oft inaccurate- some of the “pro-Fintech” articles seem to be barking up the wrong tree as well. Take Matthew Lynn’s comments in the Telegraph this week, for instance. I share his enthusiasm for fintech’s potential, but it really isn’t about bashing the banks- as has been said many times before, banks and fintech platforms will work together in the future for the benefit of borrowers and lenders alike. Banks will continue to lend alongside individuals and smaller institutions on the ArchOver platform, at the same rates and same terms- it really is all about democracy. The banks will learn a lot from working with fintech, just as fintech can benefit from the wealth of experience and vast networks the banks have.