No one ever said that the FCA’s task of setting out a definitive set of rules and regulations for the crowdfunding industry was going to be easy, but last week’s interim feedback statement underlines just how far the regulator’s deliberations still have to go. It doesn’t help that the report talks about the dangers of “regulation arbitrage” – I imagine that most people had to look up what it meant! – or that crowdfunding was the descriptor used to cover both equity and debt finance. Commentators had just about got round to calling the latter crowdlending, or P2P lending, to make the distinction between the two very different forms of investment.

But be that as it may, the crux of the matter appears to be that some of platforms are pushing the boundaries of ‘interim permissions’ to the point where, to all intents and purposes, they are acting like a bank, but are not governed by the same jurisdiction or restrictions as a bank. As P2P Lending evolves and new business models appear so the lines are bound to become blurred. The FCA’s dilemma is that any set of rules made at a given point in time is almost certainly going to be out of date very quickly. And so, reluctantly, I have to agree that it is better to wait and to get it right than to rush something out for commercial expediency.

In the meantime, I can confirm that ArchOver does not try to operate like a bank and has no plans to become one. Our proposition is clear and fair, starting with our policy to treat all lenders equally.

One of the major problems is that, in its efforts to be fair and transparent, the FCA is creating more confusion. If it knows which platforms and services conform to its idea of what is good and clear, perhaps one way ahead would be to name them, authorise them and set them up as an example for everyone else to follow. Surely it would be far more instructive to benchmark the industry than to use opaque expressions (e.g. regulation arbitrage) to try to get its point across.

It would also be better to show us what is acceptable than to wait until someone does something wrong and then to beat them with a big stick. Everyone would understand that.

In the meantime, the P2P lending sector is continuing to provide invaluable support to the SME sector and interest-starved investors are still receiving a reasonable return on their money. Where’s the harm in that?

The CEO of the FCA, Andrew Bailey’s, comments to the House of Commons’ Treasury Committee when questioned by Chris Philp MP, have given rise to some comment and a very good open letter from Christine Farnish, Independent Chair of the Peer-to-Peer Finance Association. The discussion so far is one of detail. It seems to me that before we get to the detail we should consider the principles involved.

Usually banks, correctly in my opinion, describe what they provide as products. We as consumers buy a product, say a deposit account paying 0.5% interest pa. We have no idea what the bank does with the money, that’s not our concern; we have our 0.5% return. Which given the doctrine of ‘too big to fail’ is correctly almost the risk free rate of return……a few Italian readers may disagree. No further information is required.

On the other hand P2P lenders provide a service to their lenders (and borrowers). We bring the opportunity for lenders to earn a on their money than is available with a bank product. We should make it clear how much security the lender will have and leave it to the lender to make a judgement on whether or not the trade off between security and return suits them.

Of course this begs the question how much is sufficient service; another judgement call. Most of the platforms will, correctly in my view, provide credit analysis on the potential borrower. It is for the lender to assess whether the platform’s systems of credit analysis are sufficient for their purposes. The platforms must, and do, publish their systems of credit analysis. Too few, again my judgement, of the platforms provide a sufficient monitoring service after the loans have been made (perhaps this is driven by the upfront fee model, as Chris Philp suggests). The platforms should provide sufficient information on the potential borrower, or class of borrower, to allow the lender to make a judgement on whether to lend. To my knowledge all of the platforms work hard at this provision and are regularly increasing the amount and scope of the information provided. Regretfully, as with all markets, there will never be a perfect provision of information.

It is for the potential lender to judge whether the information provided is sufficient. If they don’t find it sufficient then they’ll leave their money with the banks product. The decision is always with the lender. After all it is the lenders capital that is at risk, this must always be made clear.

Accepting the principal that the banks provide a product and the P2P lenders a service is the first step in accepting that the P2P lenders need only a small amount of capital, when compared to a bank. The capital required by the P2P is sufficient to allow the P2P, in a calamitous financial position, to transfer information under its living will to another nominated party to monitor all loans facilitated to repayment. This is, of course, exactly what the FCA require of us.

Tag: return

FCA Feedback Statement

Product or Service?