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.

There has been much speculation about the potential impact of the IFA and wealth manager communities eventually throwing their weight behind the P2P sector. Why they haven’t done so up until now hinges on the argument that without FCA approval they have not felt able or willing to recommend P2P products to their clients. The FCA’s lengthy deliberations regarding which P2P platforms are granted full authorisation – a process that is still ongoing for most of the major platforms, including ArchOver – have obviously not helped the cause.

Crucially, authorised status will dictate which platforms will be able to offer an Innovative Finance ISA product. It is widely anticipated that, for those who pass the FCA test, this could act as the trigger that will prompt IFAs/wealth managers to give their active endorsement to P2P through IF ISAs. The hope is that, once the regulatory shackles come off, the floodgates will open as lenders/investors pile in to take advantage of tax free returns on P2P loans (obviously within annual ISA limits), which we know would generate far more attractive returns than those based on bank or building society deposits.

It all sounds great. My only question is: why do we need the wealth managers and IFAs now? Surely disintermediation lies at the very heart of the whole P2P lending project – a process by which the investor receives a greater share of the return because the middle man has been removed from the equation.

This can be easily demonstrated in the world of investment management where investors are forced to give up part of their gain in the form of fees. An investment of, say, £100,000 may produce an annual return of 7%, or £7,000. A return reduced to 6%, of £6,000, by fees would mean a reduction of £1,000 in one year alone. Over a period of five years, arithmetic shows that the cumulative loss would be £17,797, assuming annual returns are reinvested. Removing the middle man may involve slightly more effort on the part of the investor – virtually none if you are being charged fees to invest in a tracker fund – but the savings can be considerable. And it makes still less sense to be charged fees in the years when investments fall in value.

And the same applies to the world of debt finance where the banks are a classic case to point. For decades, they have enjoyed low cost of capital which, when combined with the low returns offered to depositors, explains how they can afford to maintain a presence in the High Street.

The internet has been one of the driving forces behind disintermediation – it allows the dissemination of information to large numbers of people at low cost. And the process has only just begun.

To ‘re-intermediate’ by inserting a layer of fee-charging organisations between the client and the product provider – IFAs, wealth managers and P2P aggregators, to name a few – represents an unnecessary step backwards. Those who take the risk should keep the gain

Tag: returns

Inflation & The Plight of the Honest Saver

Disintermediation