Optional Annuities Could Mean Working Pensions

Odd that Will Hutton should claim in The Observer, of all places, that making the purchase of pension annuities optional will end in long term social disaster. UK pensions are already a long term social disaster. Hutton himself points out that "400,000 people buy £11bn of annuities every year", yet "the annuity market [has become] overstretched, offering indifferent and often wildly different rates." 

This is because consumers have no choice. There's no competitive pressure at all on the insurance companies or their agents to remove unnecessary middlemen, reduce fees to customers or simplify products. In fact, the Financial Services Consumer Panel recently found that the annuities industry continued to focus on increasing its revenues through product complexity, even when consumers were given the option to shop around. No one in the industry seized the opportunity to make annuities more transparent and better value for the consumer. [Update on 26 March: Legal & General has suggested the market for individual annuities will shrink by 75% - rather endorsing the government decision to make them optional!].

Will Hutton argues that rather than make annuities optional "the response should have been to redesign [the market] and figure out ways it could have offered better rates with smarter investment vehicles". But that seems naive, given the FSCP findings. The industry had that opportunity and declined it. 

It's equally naive to suggest that less demand for annuities will mean losing a valuable opportunity for insurance companies to 'pool the risk' of funding pensions. The industry merely sees risk pooling as a chance to exploit asymmetries of information to line its own pockets. 

The only way for the government to shake up the cosy annuities cartel was to remove the implicit guarantee that everyone would have to buy an annuity. 

Mr Hutton then seeks to set up some kind of moral panic that the 'freedom to buy a Lamborghini' instead of an annuity will result in people simply frittering away their life savings. Not only does this suggest that he'd rather your life savings were placed in the grubby mitts of the annuities industry so they can buy the Lamborghinis, but it also insults the consumers who face the abyss of the annuities market. Their concern clearly arises from the lack of decent returns, not because they're eager to spend the cash on exotic cars.

Finally, Will suggests that the State is entitled to control how you invest your pension money because it allowed you to avoid paying income tax on your pension contributions in the first place. If you agree with that, then presumably you would say the State is entitled to control how you spend every penny of your income that it has allowed you to keep. This of course places a great deal of trust in the State's financial management capabilities that we know from bitter experience is ill-deserved. As a result, it's more likely that citizens will gain greater control over the allocation of 'their' tax contributions, not less (as I've joked about previously). But regardless of whether it's the State or the taxpayer who is in control, neither party wants the State to be saddled with the consequences of an uncompetitive and opaque annuities market. That would only suit the annuities spivs. Again, the only alternative is to expose the market to competition from all manner of transparent savings and investment opportunities. 

Importantly for economic growth, the freedom to avoid annuities opens up the potential for £11bn a year to be invested directly into the productive economy at better returns in much the same way that the new ISA rules will liberate 'dead money' from low yield bank deposits. Not only could we see some pension capital crowd-invested into long term business and infrastructure projects in a way that won't be interrupted by the need to purchase an annuity, but those in draw-down might also consider some 3 to 5 year loans to creditworthy borrowers as a way to generate some additional monthly income.

At Last: ISAs Go To Work

Finally, the last lines of resistance have fallen and the Chancellor has announced that ISAs will go to work: 

"To further increase the choice that ISA savers have about how they invest, ISA eligibility will be extended to peer-to-peer loans, and all restrictions around the maturity dates of securities held within ISAs will be removed. The government will also explore extending the ISA regime to include debt securities offered by crowdfunding platforms."

In addition, from 1 July 2014 ISAs will be reformed into a simpler product, the ‘New ISA’ (NISA), with an overall limit of £15,000 per year. You will be able to hold cash tax-free within your Stocks and Shares NISA (if your provider allows it). And you'll be able to ask NISA providers to switch your money between cash-NISAs and Stocks and Shares NISAs.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, these changes offer a huge boost to the real economy, because savers will be able to lend their 'dead' savings directly to each other and to small firms to help fill the funding gap left by the banks. At the same time, savers will improve the value of their investments, not only by diversifying into a new asset class, but also one that provides a decent return.

In 2012, the Treasury estimated that about 45% of UK adults have an ISA, with a total of £400bn split equally between cash and stocks/shares.  But others had found that cash-ISAs were only earning an average of 0.41% interest (after initial ‘teaser’ rates expire), and 60% of savers never withdraw money from their account. That amounts to £120bn worth of 'dead money', because only £1 in every £10 of bank loans goes to small firms, and we rely on those firms for 60% of new jobs.

Hats off to the government and the Treasury for putting in the work to turn this situation around.

2013: Levelling The Financial Playing Field

Six years of financial crisis have finally produced some of the legal changes that will expose the cosy world of regulated financial services to innovation and competition. But there is plenty more to do.

During 2013 we've seen consumer credit move to the FCA, the regulation of peer-to-peer lending, and the FCA's proposed rules for how the 'crowd' can lend and invest. And this week the Banking Reform Act implemented the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking and key recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.

Some may see these changes as a magnificent display in closing the stable door. But I prefer to see it as an opening of the floodgates. 

After all, the European Commission is consulting on its own approach to regulating online financial marketplaces; and the US states are competing with the Securities Exchange Commission on the regulation of crowd-investing.

So 2014 will see a lot of focus on enabling the growth of alternative financial services, at the same time as the banks become even more preoccupied with solving their own problems at their customers expense.

That bodes well for a market that grew 91% in 2013.

But, like I said, there's still a lot of work to do.

 

Failure Is Key To The Success Of Equity CrowdInvesting

An odd article on page 20 of today's FT suggests that the failure of some ventures to raise money somehow puts 'crowdfunding' in doubt, while page 4 cites Nesta research to show that this alternative finance market is growing rapidly. 

What's going on?

Well, traditional financiers have been forced to take crowdfunding seriously now that the FCA is consulting on specific rules to govern certain types (peer-to-peer lending and crowdinvesting in equities and debt securities). Some see this as an opportunity, and want to help these alternative marketplaces grow, while others perceive a threat that must be contained.

Those who feel threatened typically overplay the benefits of 'traditional' investment models, and mistake the strengths of the crowd-based models for weaknesses. 

For instance, venture capitalists often claim that theirs is 'smart money' compared to equity-based crowdinvesting. In fact, one is quoted in today's FT article as saying that VC investment brings "partners, skills and support that will nurture the business through growth over the medium to long term." This is rubbish. Venture capitalists spend most of their time looking for deals, not managing the businesses in which they have invested - and most of those businesses will fail anyway. They are not looking to build a portfolio of steady performers, they are hoping a few stars from their stable will return 20 to 30 times their investment. Board meetings are infrequent events at which VCs study the numbers. The occasional insightful comment may emerge, but these pale to insignificance compared to the 360 degree, 24/7 feedback any business experiences in today's social media world. Ironically, most of the time is actually taken up by management explaining the business to the VC directors - and quite properly so. But any responsible director can fullfil this role, and a business that can raise VC money or other funding is equally likely to attract directors with real subject matter expertise (and/or genuine independence) in any event. VCs don't have a monopoly on introducing good directors.

Related to this is the issue of discretion. Few people may be aware a business is seeking VC investment, but nor could they be expected to care since they are excluded from the process. So the search for venture capital generates zero interest among potential customers or other supporters of the business. Nor is the venture process likely to be very efficient, let alone successful. Start-ups and early stage companies typically approach many VC firms in the hope of getting a commitment from 2 or 3. It's a gruelling 3 to 6 month process involving lengthy, repetitive due diligence sessions that come as a huge distraction from the day-to-day management of the business.

Crowdinvesting, on the other hand, enables the business to engage in a single process that tests the appetite of both investors and customers. Flaws may be visible to the world, but this transparency provides consumer and investor protection while giving the business a chance to adapt on both fronts at an early stage. This may not guarantee long term success any more than traditional venture funding does, but it helps everyone avoid wasting a whole lot of time and money.

It's a process that venture capitalists might grow to like.

UK Government: Gamble All You Like, But Don't Invest

You've got to wonder about priorities at the Department of Culture Media and Sport. They allowed UK bookmakers to harvest £46 billion through betting machines last year - not to mention the bingo and lotteries freely advertised on TV - while computer games companies complained they can't offer shares to fans who crowdfund games development. 

Consider this from today's Telegraph:

• Britons gambled £46 billion on betting terminals last year, an increase of almost 50% in four years.

• Gamblers lose up to £100 every 20 seconds on the fixed odds machines.

• 588,000 under-18s were stopped when they tried to enter a betting shop last year, six times as many as 2009, and 27,000 people were challenged once they had placed a bet.

• Bookmakers made profits of £1.55 billion from the terminals between April 2012 and March 2013.

Meanwhile, even though the FCA has said that ordinary folk will be able to invest to fund the development of a computer game, for example, they must first certify that they will not invest more than 10% of their 'net investible portfolio' and either seek financial advice or satisfy an "appropriateness test". That's because they say investing is risky for consumers... 

Compared to what?!

Image from RoehamptonStudent.com. 

Do TV Advertising Rules Limit Economic Growth?

There has been plenty of research into the alleged effect of TV sex and violence on human behaviour, but how does TV adversely impact our economic behaviour? 

This issue was recently highlighted by the FCA's proposed new rules on crowdfunding. Left in isolation, the current restrictions on financial promotions suggest the State would prefer us to play bingo or buy lottery tickets than invest the same small amounts in funding the growth of each other's businesses. 

The FCA is right to point out the risks of investing in start-ups, but it should compare those risks to the risks consumers face when putting their money into other products that are more freely advertised.

We rely on small businesses for over half of all new jobs and a third of private sector turnover. Yet, those small businesses struggle for funding while over half of the UK's adults engage in regulated gambling that is designed to cost consumers far more than they 'win'.

It may be true that over half of business start-ups fail within 3 years, but they still employ at least one person in the meantime. And maybe more of those businesses would survive if we lent them some of our bingo money, or bought their shares with at least some of the money we chuck away on the ponies. Better that the money goes in wages, and the goods and services that small businesses typically buy, rather than simply to line the pockets of the bookies - and you have the chance of getting a decent return on small business loans, or if you happen to invest in the businesses that succeed in the longer term. 

No doubt someone will raise the moral panic about 'good causes' being starved of lottery money if we don't allow the promotion of that form of gambling. But I'm not talking about any ban on advertising lottery or bingo etc., just a relaxation of rules on the promotion of productive financial instruments (though it would be more efficient to simply donate a third of your lottery money directly to good causes on a crowdfunding platform than to wait for it to filter through the books of a lottery operator).

Ads for apparently 'safe' bank savings products are not helpful here, since savings rates are low and banks are not focused on lending to small businesses. We have over £200bn sitting passively in low interest bank deposits, yet banks' savings rates are below the rate of inflation, and banks only lend £1 in very £10 to SMEs. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme might protect your deposit if the bank goes under, but that's another cost that consumers end up paying for, and it won't protect the value of those deposits against inflation. Stocks and shares ISAs and pensions are similarly 'passive' investments in financial assets, rather than productive ones.

The highly restrictive approach to financial promotions has neither prevented financial scandals nor created a sound financial system - two of many reasons why people have resorted to lending directly to each other, or investing directly in each others' projects and businesses. So why not allow these new alternatives to be promoted more openly - at least to the same extent as riskier, non-productive activities like playing bingo or buying lottery tickets?

We need to move away from rules that dictate what we can do with our money, to rules that enable a fully informed choice from amongst all the options. 

At any rate, the State should certainly not create a situation where the money-related messages which the average TV viewer receives do not include investing directly in the productive economy.

Image from RoehamptonStudent.com.

Matched Funding For UK SME Lending Platforms

At a ‘FinTech’ Cabinet Office workshop on Monday, we were informed/reminded that the "Business Bank" created by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills has at least £300m to invest in any platform or business that will provide debt funding to SMEs.

Apparently few applications have been received so far.

The process starts with just a 3-pager to establish whether its worth proceeding to a more detailed pitch. If the process is to proceed, it should be no more intensive than a typical VC/angel investment process (see section 2 of the doc).

Related investment funding programmes include:

• £50m to expand the Business Angel Co-Investment Fund to a £100m fund; 

• £25m to extend the Enterprise Capital Fund programme to include a VC Catalyst Fund, which will invest in venture capital funds that specialise in early stage venture capital and are near to close, enabling them to commenc e investment in small and medium sized enterprises.

• Plans to expand the Enterprise Finance Guarantee (“EFG”), aimed at using guarantees to help bridge the “affordability gap” by providing a guarantee to lenders of up to 25% of the overall cost of repaying a loan; and separately, extending EFG to support businesses lacking track record, who are seeking loans of under £25k.

Several other programmes (like the Business Finance Partnership) are also being consolidated under the umbrella of the “Business Bank”, boosting the overall amount available to about £1.5bn. New senior management with private equity experience have been appointed in order to speed the programme along.

Here's an explanation of the strategy and timing for the Business Bank to become fully operational. 

Crowdfunding Regulatory Arbitrage - Updated

October is 'crowdfunding month' out there in the regulatory world. The European Commission is consulting. The SEC is consulting. Some US states are consulting. The French are consulting. And today, the FCA is consulting.

The European Commission is still in fact-finding mode, so should have the luxury of plucking all the good bits out of the US and UK approaches.

Ironically, the SEC's approach looks too much like small beer to enable fund-raisers to take on the entire US market, but enabling them to raise $1m every 12 months could be really helpful on an intra-state basis (and, indeed, possibly for many EU-based start-ups). On the other hand, it would probably be tough to market anywhere the investor limit of $2,000 or 5 percent of annual income or net worth, for those with annual income/net worth of less than $100,000.

On some ground the FCA's approach might look somewhat better, but in my view, the FCA has not struck the right balance in its proposals to regulated peer-to-peer lending and crowd-investment. 

Loan-based crowdfunding platforms should be regulated more like payment platforms rather than like investment firms, as the FCA proposes. As a result, it will be substantially more expensive to establish and operate a platform with no real change in how operational risks are managed. Businesses and institutions may also be put off, both by the need to be authorised just to invest in the loans, as well as uncertainty as to their compliance obligations given that their own systems aren't even involved. The good news here is that the FCA advocates 'secondary market' for loans. 

The good news for investment-based crowdfunding is that the FCA supports wider 'retail' participation than it has to date. But people will still be asked to certify that they will not invest more than 10% of their 'net investible portfolio' and face an 'appropriateness test' if they do not get advice. In other words, it will still be much easier to stick a tenner on a pony, where the bookmaker wins, rather than to back a local business in support of the economy. No one seems to take responsibility for these strange inconsistencies in the way we are allowed to use our money...

The French proposals have the benefit of adopting the approach, called for by the industry last December, of effectively regulating loan-based platforms as payment service providers. However, as Aurélie Daniel has pointed out the proposals also contain controversial "upper limits for loan-based crowdfunding... a maximum loan amount around €250 per individual per project and a global maximum loan amount around €300,000 per project." While this might not trouble consumer loan-based platforms, it would negatively impact platforms that facilitate loans to businesses and for the purchase or development of larger assets such as commercial property. Ironically, the French appear to have reserved such loans for banks, and in this respect the FCA's proposals are of course more helpful. The limits apparently do not apply in relation to investment-based crowdfunding.

At any rate, I guess entrepreneurs may be able to take their pick as to the most suitable fundraising regime.

We Need Let The Crowd into Financial Services

What a difference a year makes. At an industry event yesterday none other than Nicola Horlick, a well-known fund manager, confirmed her faith in crowdfunding as way of people putting money directly into the lifeblood of the economy, at a time when bank finance for small businesses is limited. Her own film finance vehicle raised £150,000 by issuing shares within weeks of an initial discussion with Seedrs CEO, Jeff Lynn, about how the crowd might help. A year ago, she wouldn't have given it a moment's thought. 

Of course, Nicola was referring to equity crowd-investing, which is the latest type of crowdfunding to burst into life. People have been donating to each other's projects via online marketplaces for nearly a decade and lending to each other online since 2005. Even the UK government is lending along side savers on peer-to-peer lending platforms. 

But these 'direct finance' marketplaces are no longer simply challenging a dozy bunch of retail banks. The addition of crowd-investing in shares and bonds is a direct assault on the sophisticated world of venture capital, private equity and boutique investment banking. 

Silicon Roundabout has launched a rocket attack on Mayfair.

This trend has raised a few bushy eyebrows down at Canary Wharf, where the paint is still wet on the signage at the hastily re-named Financial Services Conduct Authority. Not everyone at the FCA is excited by the prospect of just anyone being able to put a tenner into a business run by Nicola Horlick. In fact, the 'hawks' down there seem to believe that ordinary folk should content themselves with a low interest savings account, a lottery ticket and a flutter on the nags between visits to the nearest pub. If you can't afford to lose a grand, say the hawks, then you've hit the economic buffers. The banks can enjoy the use of your savings for free, while the government enjoys the betting taxes and the excise on your beer and cigarettes.

And we wonder why the poor get poorer.

You might also wonder, as I did yesterday, how 'the government' might explain to the same person who is banned from buying a share in the local bakery why he is still be free to blow £10 on a drug-fuelled quadruped at a racetrack, or donate it to a band that might go triple platinum and never have to share a penny of the upside with those who backed them.

But that's where you're reminded that the government never puts itself in the citizen's shoes; and there's really no such thing as 'the government' anyway. Just individual civil servants at separate desks in separate buildings, each looking at his or her own policy patch and waiting to be told what to do. Collaboration is not a creature common to Whitehall. In that world, no one at, say, the Treasury snatches up the phone to share a bold new vision for driving economic growth from the bottom-up with the folks over at Culture Media and Sport, or Business Innovation and Skills or Communities and Local Government. 

Or do they...?

At least those in Parliament, bless them, did collaborate in response to the ongoing financial shambles. Julia Groves of the UK Crowd Funding Association quoted some choice words on alternative finance from the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and I've set out the full quote below (as I have previously). Julia also put it very nicely in her own words: "Wealth is not a skillset." We need to let the crowd into financial services, and we need to keep the 'crowd' in crowdfunding. Let's hope this time the following message permeates all the way to the remaining hawks at Canary Wharf.

"57. Peer-to-peer and crowdfunding platforms have the potential to improve the UK retail banking market as both a source of competition to mainstream banks as well as an alternative to them. Furthermore, it could bring important consumer benefits by increasing the range of asset classes to which consumers have access. This access should not be restricted to high net worth individuals but, subject to consumer protections, should be available to all. The emergence of such firms could increase competition and choice for lenders, borrowers, consumers and investors. (Paragraph 350)

58. Alternative providers such as peer-to-peer lenders are soon to come under FCA regulation, as could crowdfunding platforms. The industry has asked for such regulation and believes that it will increase confidence and trust in their products and services. The FCA has little expertise in this area and the FSA's track record towards unorthodox business models was a cause for concern. Regulation of alternative providers must be appropriate and proportionate and must not create regulatory barriers to entry or growth. The industry recognises that regulation can be of benefit to it, arguing for consumer protection based on transparency. This is a lower threshold than many other parts of the industry and should be accompanied by a clear statement of the risks to consumers and their responsibilities. (Paragraph 356)

59. The Commission recommends that the Treasury examine the tax arrangements and incentives in place for peer-to-peer lenders and crowdfunding firms compared with their competitors. A level playing field between mainstream banks and investment firms and alternative providers is required. (Paragraph 359)."

A Directory of Crowdfunding Directories?

Crowdfunding directories are becoming useful, given the wide variety of potential models, specific geographic and other constraints, and the rapidly increasing numbers of new platforms opening up new niches. 

Each directory seems to take a slightly different tack or favour certain types of platform, so it will be interesting to see which 'prevail' and why, and whether they represent a source of customers. 

For instance, Nesta recently launched Crowdingin.com, which aims to list information on platforms open to fundraising from individuals and businesses in the UK. 

Directories with a broader focus include AllStreet, Crowdfund Insider, and Crowdsourcing. The Canadian NCFA has its own nationally-oriented directory.  

Of course, trade body membership lists are also important, particularly where regulation is still evolving and the trade body has a published set of rules that members have committed to follow, e.g. the P2PFA, UKCFA.

By all means suggest any others you have found useful (and why)... At this rate, we'll need a directory of directories!

Image from gCodeLabs.

Labour Is Still Pushing Financial Capitalism

When Gordon Brown (remember him?) repeatedly proclaimed the "end of boom and bust" he was declaring his belief - along with that of his fellow group-thinkers - that capitalism had found a way to become sustainable. But his support for unbridled growth in everything from investment banking to the Private Finance Initiative eventually revealed he was hooked on financial capitalism, rather than the 'real' capitalism of employment and productivity. Look at how ISAs, for example, have become a drain on the 'real economy'.

Ed Milliband has been trying to repair Labour's image with some lipstick apologies here and there, but old habits die hard.

Recently, the party released "An Enterprising Nation", a report by its Small Business Taskforce. To be fair, there are some good insights into the problems faced by small business, as you would expect from the membership of the taskforce. But, surprisingly, the report contains no proposals for short term solutions, or even medium term solutions. One suspects that either the collective intelligence had already fed all those ideas into the government, or the left wing political establishment doesn't grasp the need to foster an environment in which new businesses can start and thrive today.

Academic as they may be, perhaps the worst of Labour's long term ideas is that of a US-style Small Business Administration. It's an idea I first heard from them in November 2011. And as I pointed out then, the SBA programme had already gained a somewhat unhealthy reputation through David Einhorn's book "Fooling Some of the People All of the Time." Heavy application of the Labour lipstick has now branded this idea the "Spark Umbrella" (a nod to the many local German savings banks, or sparkassen, to which this programme actually bears no resemblance).

Basically, the idea is to saddle the UK with 20 lending vehicles, or "Sparks", funded with £10m of public money (naturally) and £90m drawn, no doubt, from the traditional City suspects. Each Spark would fund its lending to local businesses by selling the loans to the "Spark Umbrella" which would in turn finance the loan purchases by issuing bonds to investors eager to package those bonds into  another set of bonds to sell to... anyone stupid game enough to buy them.

Sound familiar? 

The only way not to end up carrying the can for this, would be to emigrate.

But the UK already has an artificial, publicly subsidised channel for small business lending that limits innovation and competition in the retail financial markets. It's run by the UK's major banks. So we don't need another publicly guaranteed channel to crowd-out sustainable private alternatives. 

I mean, who would start a local lending business knowing that the government was about to launch a publicly funded competitor?

The government should foster an environment in which the private sector can generate alternative finance options, not simply create markets that are ultimately underwritten by the taxpayer.

The fundamental flaw in the Spark Umbrella is its reliance on securitisation (or vertical credit intermediation) to try to overcome the riskier nature of small business lending. That model is hugely expensive in terms of issuing and underwriting bonds that are prone to being mis-priced, particularly in riskier markets, as we have seen. It also creates huge scope for moral hazhard, and traditional financial institutions, intermediaries and speculators are likely to be the only potential winners - as Einhorn's book reveals. There is certainly no guarantee that the loans to small businesses will be competitive with other potential alternatives.

Anyone pointing to the US for solutions also has to understand that, like Germany, it enjoys a much more varied set of small business funding options than the UK, as Breedon reported. So it's possible that the SBA won't have crowded-out US private finance businesses in the way that Spark Umbrella would in our bank-dominated market. 

It's also worth noting that Spark Umbrella is purely debt focused, whereas only 3% of UK small businesses finance themselves by issuing shares.  

Of course, we already have a rapidly growing set of alternative financial services platforms that are beginning to solve the problems that the Spark Umbrella will not. Peer-to-peer lending and crowd-investing provide finance to borrowers and entrepreneurs in small amounts directly from many people at competitive rates from the outset, using both debt and equity finance. There is no need to create new markets for these platforms to grow. However, the government has been dragging its heels on the removal of regulatory barriers and perverse incentives, and that does represent an opportunity for opposition parties. 

True, the government has directed some of the Business Finance Partnership funds through peer-to-peer finance platforms. But that funding goes directly into the businesses who borrow - not through countless intermediaries in the financial markets. Labour needs to recognise the difference.

Horizontal vs vertical credit intermediation from Simon Deane-Johns

'Bank' of Dave Goes P2P

I've hugely enjoyed the documentary series tracing Dave Fishwick's valiant efforts to start a small community 'bank' in Burnley high street. 

I say 'bank' because, while it made for good television to say so, Dave didn't necessarily mean "bank" in regulatory terms. His goal was to enable local people to lend to other local people and businesses without profiting unduly. He rightly thought that's what banks are supposed to do, so he was determined to call himself a 'bank' to make the point. And his good-humoured, optimistic crusade has certainly rammed the point home.

While Dave also didn't necessarily set out to launch a peer-to-peer lending marketplace, his path to launch was eerily familiar to those who have done so. The FSA wouldn't speak to us either, prior to the launch of Zopa in March 2005, but was all too keen to discuss the detail afterwards. Fortunately we'd done our homework and didn't have to stop taking money. At least that made for good TV in Dave's case.

Since 2005 a dozen other management teams have also threaded their way through the regulatory maze to directly link savers and borrowers, or investors and entrepreneurs, via online 'P2P' lending or crowd-investing markeplaces. And it's good to see that Dave's journey has led him to adopt the peer-to-peer model on the high street. He may be facing the bricks-and-mortar problems that the online models solve, but at least he's shown there is very real demand for innovation amongst people who still manage their finances by walking around. And the benefits to the 200 local borrowers who are paying a net 5% to local savers are undeniable.

Unfortunately, there are still unnecessary difficulties in structuring these businesses, regardless of whether they facilitate loans or investments in shares or debt. The sources of that uncertainty were summarised here in January 2012, here in February 2012, here in June 2012 and here in July 2012. Industry CEOs and others met policy and regulatory officials to discuss these difficulties at a summit in December 2012, and again last month (as summarised here). The salient points were also explained again in my submission to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards.

However, while it's clear there is plenty of shared frustration and many officials have been supportive in discussions, there is worryingly little sign of actual regulatory change.

We need a lot more war stories like Dave's.

My Legal Alter Ego Has Been At It Again

Image from Parliament.uk

This time he's made a submission 

To the Banking Standards Commission.

He's a poet and he didn't know it.

Evidence From Non-bankers On Banking Standards

Here's what some of the non-banks have to say about banking standards (from 17:52).

Kickstarter's Kick In The Butt For UK Banks

The news that Kickstarter, a US rewards-based crowdfunding operator, has opened a dedicated UK platform is hugely encouraging for anyone concerned about our banking problems.

No doubt Kickstarter is responding to demand from the UK-based entrepreneurs and their supporters who were already using the US platform. But it's also a big bet on the future of alternative finance in the UK, and Kickstarter's expansion will mean a lot of focus on the different ways that people can directly fund other people's personal finances, projects and businesses.

The term 'crowdfunding' first gained currency to describe US 'rewards-based' peer-to-peer platforms like ArtistShare and Kickstarter, and similar platforms already operate in the UK (e.g. Peoplefund.it, Crowdfunder and those mentioned here). These platforms are designed to raise money for small budget projects via the internet without infringing laws that control the offer of 'securities' to the public. Entrepreneurs can post 'pitches' seeking donations, and may offer a 'reward' of some kind in return.

Other peer-to-peer finance platforms enable markets for personal loans and small business loans - called 'person-to-person lending' or 'peer-to-peer lending'. Examples include Zopa, Ratesetter and Funding Circle in the UK, Comunitae in Spain and IsePankur in Estonia which just announced that anyone from the EEA and Switzerland can lend to Estonian borrowers.

The peer-to-peer model has also been adapted to fund charities or not-for-profit projects, which is known as 'social finance' (e.g. Buzzbnk); and to enable many people to fund tiny local businesses in developing countries - referred to as 'micro-finance' (e.g. Kiva, MyC4).

Finally, the peer-to-peer model is being developed to enable direct investments in return for shares and more complex loan arrangements (debentures). This has proved impossible to date in the US, where even Lending Club and Prosper have had to register their peer-to-peer lending platforms with the Securities Exchange Commission. But in the UK, Crowdcube and, more recently, Seedrs and BankToTheFuture appear to have found ways through the regulatory maze to enable the crowd to invest in the shares of start-up companies. Abundance Generation enables funding for alternative energy. Kantox enables people to switch foreign currency and Platform Black enables the sale of trade invoices. CrowdBnk, Trillion Fund and CrowdMission say they're coming soon.

There are signs that the regulatory maze will become much easier to navigate. Both the US and UK governments have recognised that more needs to be done to encourage the growth of these alternative forms of finance. 

The US passed the JOBS Act to provide ways to enable crowd investment in securities. And against a backdrop of proposed legislative changes in the UK, the government has praised self-regulation by the industry and set up a working group to assess the need for changes to the legal framework. That working group includes representatives from the Office of Fair Trading, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, HM Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Cabinet Office. The Department for Culture Media and Sport is also interested in the potential for peer-to-peer finance to fund the development of arts and entertainment. 

The European Commission is also taking an interest in this field, and a regulatory summit is being planned in early December to introduce industry leaders and EU/UK policy-makers and regulatory officials to discuss proportionate regulation to encourage the responsible growth of peer-to-peer finance.

Kickstarter has made a pretty solid bet.

UK Takes Joined-up Regulatory Approach To P2P Finance

The UK government has announced a cross-departmental working group to support the sustainable development of peer-to-peer finance (aka 'crowdfunding'), as part of its latest response to the Red Tape Challenge. 

The composition of this working group is testimony to the broad policy implications and opportunities posed by this new form of financial model for consumers and small businesses. The list of members includes the Office of Fair Trading, the Department of Business Innovation and Skills, HM Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and the Cabinet Office. However, it is known that the Department for Culture Media and Sport is also very interested in the potential for peer-to-peer finance to fund the development of the arts and entertainment industry.  

Specifically, that working group will "monitor the appropriateness of the current regulatory regime for peer-to-peer platforms" and take the lead in engaging with the peer-to-peer finance industry.  In the meantime, the government wishes to encourage continued self-regulatory efforts by the Peer-to-Peer Finance Association to address common operational risks, and to engage with policy-makers and regulators.

Other aspects of the government's response to the 'disruptive business models' Challenger Businesses Red Tape Challenge are discussed here.