Tag: sme

Banks see that the future of lending to SMEs is Alternative

Author
Angus Dent
Date

The Bank of England revealed last week that lending to SME’s had dropped in the final three months of 2015 to £599 billion, down from £755 billion last September. Tradition dictates that businesses do not tend to borrow money around Christmas, and those that try are viewed as desperate. Yet these are big numbers: the £156 billion difference from Q3 to Q4 is over 31 times the £4.94 billion all-time figure Nesta estimations that P2P Lenders had facilitated for SMEs. The fact of the matter is that the banks aren’t lending to up and coming businesses that drive the economy, and an increasingly large vacuum is emerging.

The government, keen to plug this gap, had put the “Funding for Lending” scheme in place, in which the banks are offered cheap loans from the Bank of England that are aimed to reach small businesses. Clearly the scheme isn’t working: the Bank of England’s data for the Q4 of 2015 revealed that £6.3 billion (an increase of 262% on the previous quarter) had been borrowed by the bank in the same period. Unless that is going to filter through to all the SME’s in Q1 2016, where is that money going?

The emergence of challenger banks such as Aldermore, Shawbrook and Metro Bank has seen the big banks distance themselves further from SMEs. Aldermore announced that they’ve lent £6.1 billion in 2015, making them the third largest lender on the Funding for Lending scheme. Similarly Shawbrook’s loan book grew 44% to £3.36 billion in 2015 (to put that into perspective, that’s more than the entire P2P Lending industry managed in 2015). These figures are still just a drop in the ocean, however, and it is still very much a case of “if” not “when” UK SMEs are receiving the kind of funding that can help them drive GDP in the near future. In the long term, however, it will be alternative finance that steps in alongside the banks, providing a stable working relationship between the two is maintained.

The banks are already starting to turn to alternative finance platforms who are keen to facilitate funding to both consumers UK SMEs. Funding Circle, for instance, receive referrals from RBS and Sanatander and back in May, Zopa and Metro Bank announced a deal whereby the bank would lend money across their platform to consumers. The trend will continue but the traditionally clunky banking processes are reflected in building the working relationships: banks like to take their time and tend to cherry pick. It is no surprise that only the two bigger players in the UK market have formal partnerships. The emergence of so many Peer to Peer lending platforms, though, specialising in such diverse and niche products, has meant they simply can’t keep up. And if they can’t beat them, they will start to join them in swathes.

Zopa CEO Giles Andrews has said in the past that they don’t allow any institutions to do their own credit analysis on those customers, something that seems unbelievable, given the depth the banks go into even just to set the relationship up in the first place. Furthermore, it’s not as if Zopa can stop anybody carrying out their own credit analysis, especially one of their potentially biggest institutional lenders. But his attitude in general is right: if the banks want to lend to consumers and businesses through alternative finance providers they should be treated the same as all other lenders. It is a democratic process after all.

The lull in funding for SMEs since the credit crunch of 2009 continues, but not for long. Alternative Finance is here to help, and if the banks want a piece of the action they will have to do so on the same terms as everybody else.

Are the economic benefits of “Brexit” worth the potential disintegration of political and financial order?

Author
Angus Dent
Date

With a decision on the timing of the “Brexit” vote looming, David Cameron is starting to ramp up the pro-EU rhetoric to convince the public to ignore the Eurosceptics and vote to maintain the status quo. The decision has very much been Cameron’s Sword of Damocles moment, hovering over his current tenure and threatening to create an unwanted Prime Ministerial legacy akin to Eden’s Suez Canal Crisis.

Yet there is an overwhelming feeling that whatever Cameron says will pale into insignificance should a “defining incident” take place that pushes those sitting on the fence to unite against staying in the EU. Marine Le Pen’s initial success in the regional elections in the aftermath of the Paris attacks shows just how quickly people can make a potentially rash decision on the basis of fear and loathing. Le Front National might have mellowed since Le Pen ousted her right-wing firebrand father, but any electoral gains for the party would have represented an alarming move towards the ugly end of right-wing conservatism. Fortunately a wave of sentiment against the Front National and some tactical voting saw the party end up without control of a region, despite support from at least 6.6 million voters.

There is still a feeling that leaving the EU is a proposition that is just too scary for the general public to plump for- the “British” thing to do would be to knuckle down and get on with it in order to avoid such a huge political and social catharsis. Yet a Daily Telegraph poll on Friday last week saw over 80% of the 22,000 voters said Britain should leave the EU. Despite the obvious bias of Telegraph readers, this is still an alarmingly high figure for Cameron to stomach. After all, these are the people that, more likely than not, are the staunchest supporters of his party.

From a financial point of view, the UK’s global financial clout wouldn’t be affected too much by a decision to leave the EU. It is unlikely there would be a banker exodus and freedom from stifling and constantly changing EU regulation will be welcomed by financial institutions. Yet the UK economy would undoubtedly take a beating: world-leading economists unanimously agree on that- have a look at this FT article for more proof: http://on.ft.com/1Q8XeSw.

Cameron needs to emphasize the enormous practical issues that hinder the UK from leaving the EU. The significant upheaval of the EU regulatory framework would be a minefield that would make or break businesses in industries such as the food and drinks sector. As it stands, companies have to abide by EU food regulations if they want to export to the EU but have no say over those regulations. Something as innocuous as a change in the wording of a law can mean the difference between a product being allowed to make a health claim or it failing to meet the requirements. It is worth considering just how crucial altering such stringently inflexible regulation is to UK SME’s who are most the perilously placed.

Moreover, Britain would need to renegotiate its trade rules with the EU in order to preserve its favourable status. Under World Trade Organisation rules, the UK would have no more access to the single market than would China. Any negotiation would come at huge financial and political loss: just look at the amount of financial support Norway gives to the EU each year to curry favour. Britain would then need to renegotiate its trading relationships with the rest of the world; EU partakes in 35% of all world trade so “Brexit” would deny the UK to an extraordinary range of privileges afforded to EU competitors.

The cost of leaving, combined with the converse cost of “staying in”, would be felt for years to come. Yet it looks unlikely to get to that point; the Lisbon Treaty only allows for two years of negotiations for a country to leave the EU, unless all 27 nations unanimously vote to extend the period. Negotiation is done with whole EU rather than country by country, presenting major obstacles. It seems hard to fathom that Britain wouldn’t have the option to cordially extend the negotiations, yet all of the individual nations will certainly seek to negotiate the best deal for themselves, particularly concerning immigration, given the tensions regarding economic migrants and asylum seekers from the Middle East. The rancorous callers for tighter immigration need to recognise how difficult it is for Britain to tighten its control on non-Brits arriving to live in` the country, when the negotiations could force Britain to accept an even greater migratory burden. The British public should also take into account the effect it will have on Britons currently living abroad (c. 2 million) in other EU countries who would lose their EU citizenship. The same notion extends to those with businesses or business interests abroad. It hardly seems aspirational to any business owners to reject the ease at which the EU allows business expansion across borders. Likewise, it is no wonder that Cameron wants to extend the vote to 16 year olds, for whom the Schengen Area presents a chance to escape the clutches of their parents if anything else.

Yet despite the dense complexities of Britain leaving the EU the decision makers will have to take into account, we are still faced with a referendum that will only ask us “‘should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”. In age where, for better or worse, the public needs politics to be made more understandable and politicians more approachable, this is a vote that should not be put to the public in such stark wording that belies the delicate, yet far-reaching, intricacies of the result.

The Autumn Statement: the Upshot for Alternative Finance

Author
Angus Dent
Date

The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement has come and gone without much focus on the alternative finance sector. Back in July, the Innovative Finance ISA (IFISA) was propositioned amidst much fanfare from P2P lending platform CEOs keen to see investors receive encouragement to lend money from the government. Yet the March budget was a little light on the details of the ISA’s mechanics, and very little has been revealed in Osbourne’s Autumn Statement. Here is the subparagraph concerning the IFISA in full:

“The list of qualifying investments for the new Innovative Finance ISA will be extended in Autumn 2016 to include debt securities offered via crowdfunding platforms. The government will continue to explore the case for extending the list to include equity crowdfunding”

So, still no place for equity crowdfunding: this should not change before April 2016 and it is unlikely to be a feature of the ISA whilst the government continues to fear that investors are ignorant of the differences between debt- and equity- based lending. Debt-based securities are included, however; good news for Wellesley and UK Bond Network particularly. The good news for P2P lenders to SMEs comes with the declaration that Credit Reference Agencies (CRAs), such as Experian, will have to provide equal access to all finance providers. This will ensure that P2P lenders are afforded the same privileges as banks and will go some way to ensuring investors can feel confident in the SMEs they are lending to. Competition in the market place can only be healthy for the UK economy.

Coupled with the budget’s release came the outcome of the Bank of England’s stress tests, that saw Standard Chartered and RBS labelled the weakest lenders. The general consensus seems to be that the banks have learnt from their mistakes, yet the reality that two of the top seven banks in the UK are deemed not to have enough capital strength is still a stark warning that the UK banking system is not as resilient as it needs to be. Yes, nobody failed the stress tests, however all the banks have still been urged to hold back more capital despite evidence that they are handling their risk more carefully. The upshot for alternative finance providers? The government is trying to level out the playing field, whilst the banks still face restrictions in the wake of a financial crisis that they caused. The government clearly want the banks to remain cautious and drive economic growth from a wider pool of alternative sources. The ISA won’t bring in a flood of investors in the first year necessarily, but in five years’ time expect to see SMEs benefitting from the wisdom of a bigger and better educated crowd.

Bankers’ Conduct: Yet another reason why SMEs and savers are avoiding the Banks

Author
Angus Dent
Date

Potential misconduct by bankers has been included in the banks’ compulsory stress checks carried out by the European Banking Authority. Good news? Well, partly. Their hand has been forced by the stark reality that banks see litigation costs as a result of foul play by their employees as part and parcel of operating cost. This isn’t exactly a morsel, either; poor conduct accounts for 7.5% of the average bank’s operating cost, according to The Group of Thirty, an international body of financiers and academics charged with examining the consequences of private and public sector issues.

Holding back capital to account for misconduct is not the same as trying to stamp out misconduct. The rather feeble ruling lacks the teeth to punish the banks for continuing the attitude of short-termism that provided the stimulus for the financial crisis in 2008: bankers can still get away with borrowing short-term, lending long-term and apply the leverage by borrowing from each other. The bonus culture that was so vehemently criticised is still prevalent. Those who wished for prison sentences, confiscation of funds and other sanctions for the culprits of the financial crisis won’t be celebrating this new ruling. The cost of covering for this misconduct is likely to be keenly felt by ordinary savers and SMEs who find access to finance increasingly difficult to access.

The “conduct” ruling comes in light of the new stress tests that global financial regulators hope will force banks to hold sufficient capital in their reserves to absorb an economic downturn. The figure bandied around in the US press is a staggering $1.19 trillion of debt that can be written off when the banks fail. This will take away billions of pounds, dollars and euros, all of which could be lent out through directly matching lenders with borrowers. The fall guys? UK SMEs with restricted access to finance, and savers stuck with the miserable gruel of savings accounts and ISAs. The Solution? P2P Lending matches up lenders and borrowers, cuts out the banks and middle men and allows SMEs to benefit from the wisdom of a crowd. Ultimately it is a huge fillip for the global economy: surely the band of global regulators should spend less time trying to shore up a broken model that puts social cohesion and economic solidity at risk, and more time focussing on producing fully regulated P2P lending platforms.

The momentum is already shifting away from the banks: including the conduct of bankers in the stress tests is not the answer for the regulatory authorities. Investing in P2P will ultimately benefit SMEs, the lifeblood of any developed economy, and savers who can earn decent interest on their savings by matching directly with borrowers through secure, regulated platforms.