Auntie's Fall From Grace: Death Of Another UK Institution

The resignation letter of the BBC's latest director-general reveals deep flaws in yet another of the UK's self-serving institutions.

One assumes the document was the product of some discussion, and that the "unacceptable journalistic standards of the Newsnight film that was broadcast on Friday 2 November" was carefully chosen as the narrowest possible reason for the top bureaucrat to go. Some care was taken not to mention the mishandling of the Jimmy Savile revelations, for example, or the seismic cultural implications of the BBC choosing to spike a story about his criminality in favour of a series of fawning tributes. But isn't it simply the case that a cosy insider is incapable of cleaning the place up? After all, Lord Patten said he only hired Entwistle to make the BBC "10 or 20% better" and it's now a vastly bigger job than that.

This tendency to cover up, to obfuscate, defend and deflect is the stuff of mere politics. It should not feature in the management of a public organisation in the public interest. 

Yet it's what we've come to expect from the British establishment. It permeated the Parliamentary expenses scandal and the conduct that led to the bank bailouts. It resurfaced in the failure of UK banks to honour Project Merlin, their Libor-fixing activities and attitude to international money laundering. It was present in the activities of GlaxoSmithKline that yielded a $3bn criminal settlement. It's there in the evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, the handling of the Hillsborough disaster by South Yorkshire Police and the systemic cover-up of child abuse.

And you can be sure we have not seen the last example. It seems that Britons are fascinated to learn just how rotten the country's institutions really are.

Rise Of The Facilitators: Big Society Capital

Last night, at a ResPublica event, I heard Nick O'Donohoe, CEO of Big Society Capital, outline a pragmatic vision for a social investment market in the UK. Critically, BSC's role is not to hand out £600m in cash to well-intentioned social entrepreneurs. Instead, it's focused on creating the capability for deprived communities to identify, manage and finance projects that will have a mainly social impact, but with the expectation of some financial return. 

Let's say you want to introduce 'makerspaces' for local people with expertise in operating machinery to invent stuff and make individual items to order. It seems reasonable to believe this could help regenerate some industrial towns. Consider the adventures of Chris Anderson, who recently announced his departure as editor of Wired to run a drone manufacturing business he built as a hobby, as described in his latest book. 

How would you make it happen? How would you establish the feasibility of such a project, identify the right equipment, locate an appropriate building, obtain any necessary planning permission and so on? 

This takes time and expertise, not to mention seed money. Numerous intermediaries must be available to help entrepreneurs co-ordinate and finance their project locally. It can't be done by Big Society Capital from its offices in Fleet Street. It can't be done by civil servants from Westminster, or even by the local council. This has to be a distributed effort all around the country, leveraging online resources where that makes sense. Such intermediaries - or facilitators - will include social banks, active social investors, professional and other support businesses, as well as platforms that enable funds to flow directly from people with cash to social entrepreneurs. The role of Big Society Capital is to invest in the development of a strong network of these social investment intermediaries.

But maybe we shouldn't be too definitive about what is 'social'. I think this approach will be truly successful when facilitators and entrepreneurs aren't necessarily conscious of the fact that the positive social impact of their activities is far greater than the scale of their financial results. To this end, we should factor into all our corporate and project objectives an obligation to take responsibility for somehow improving the community to which the corporation or project relates. In this way, all businesses would have an overlapping social purpose as well as a financial one. 

Similarly, financial services need to support this broader responsibility. Of course it's critical that investors know exactly whether they are donating money, receiving interest payments or getting a share in a company. But if I'm putting £20 directly into any project, my customer experience shouldn't be different depending on whether I'm offered a ticket to a concert, interest at 3% per annum or 2 shares in the project operating company - in fact the same project should be able to offer me all three, seamlessly. That's the sentiment behind efforts to proportionately regulate peer-to-peer finance. All types of enterprise should be able to offer all kinds of instruments over a proportionately regulated digital platform, within an ISA.

Now that would generate some serious big society capital.

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.

Roundheads v Cavaliers

Dog eat dog

Last night I found myself in front of "Roundhead or Cavalier: Which One Are You?", a sort of 'Dummies Guide' to the English Civil War which, needless to say, I found quite informative.

Perhaps the key difference between the Roundheads (puritan Parliamentarians) and Cavalier (flambuoyant Royalists) was the Roundhead preference for rigorous discipline over their opponents' dedication to partying and lining their own pockets. Tellingly, the ripely named Prince Rupert of the Rhine (of hunting poodle fame) was unable to prevent his Cavalier cavalry from looting the Parliamentarian baggage while the battle raged. This wasn't so much of a problem early on, at the Battle of Edgehill, but had tragic consequences at the Battle of Naseby which spelled the end for the Royalist cause. 

In the show's closing stages, we were treated to various pundits views on whether modern Britons are more Roundhead or Cavalier in their attitude. And while the comparison wasn't made, it occurred to me that recent events have revealed a certain preoccupation with looting in the heat of battle, resulting in the rolling of heads... 

But beware the Restoration.

  

Banks Tell Customers Last

Bailing out (of) the UK

Two days ago it was all over the national media that ING Direct UK's savings and mortgage business had been sold to Barclays, with the actual transfer to occur in Q2 2013. Yesterday, the media were telling us what it means for customers. Yet only this morning do I receive the self-centred email from ING Direct UK (extract below). I'm not suggesting that we customers should get the information ahead of the stock market (if it's price sensitive). But I think we should've been among the first to know directly, rather than being told by the national media. 

Of course, the note also reveals that the bank views its customers as just a bunch of financial assets, and that the deal is a huge blow to competition and innovation in the retail banking market. The first three paragraphs blather on about the wisdom of ING slimming down and how the business "is a good fit" with Barclays millions of other customers. This makes us feel so special. Then, as an afterthought, they add the weazily statement that "there will be no immediate effect on the services you currently receive." Weazle word: "immediate". As in, "get your money out immediately." If I'd wanted to save with Barclays, I'd have followed the 15 million other sheep long ago. My old Egg credit card got bought by Barclays and that experience hasn't been warmly personal either. Time to switch.

"We wanted to let you know directly that it has been announced that ING Direct N.V has entered into an agreement with Barclays to acquire ING Direct UK’s savings and mortgage business.

This decision is a result of ING Group’s continued evaluation of its portfolio of businesses, in line with its stated objectives of sharpening its focus and streamlining the group. It is expected that the actual transfer of ING Direct UK’s savings and mortgage business will take place during the second quarter of 2013.

ING Direct UK is a good fit with Barclays existing UK Retail Banking Business that looks after more than 15 million personal and 700,000 business customers in the UK. With a network of around 1600 branches in the UK, customers can bank in person, over the phone, online and through mobile applications. Barclays look forward to continuing to provide a secure home for your savings and/or mortgage in the future.

There will be no immediate effect on the services you currently receive."