Since opening our doors back in 2014, we’ve always prided ourselves on living and breathing two key principles at Lending Works: innovation, and putting the customer first in everything we do.
Are price controls good or bad for the UK economy?
A couple of weeks ago, industry regulator Ofgem introduced a new cap on energy prices. Specifically, those on default tariffs will have their annual bills capped at £1,136, making for an average saving of £75 for an estimated 11 million Brits.
On the face of it, such an intervention appears to be a force for good. Energy providers, and particularly the Big Six, have rightly come in for criticism after fleecing customers on these particular tariffs - customers who, effectively, are their most loyal. Creating a significant saving for such a vast number of people is therefore hard to argue with, and the overall saving of £1bn actually exceeds the profits made by Big Six firms in 2017.
However, there is a flip side to this coin. Companies will not simply accept such a black hole in their profits without seeking to recoup them elsewhere. In some cases, this may mean trimming their workforce. More likely though is an increase in the prices of fixed-rate tariffs. These are tariffs which customers have actively switched to in order to make savings, as encouraged by Ofgem.
Indeed, 17 per cent of customers switched tariff or provider last year, taking advantage of a straightforward switching process, extensive competition (there are over 70 energy suppliers in the UK) and savings which usually run into the hundreds of pounds. Should the prices of these fixed-price tariffs rise, and/or competition diminish as a result of reduced switching, then the legacy of the energy price cap (in place until 2023) may not be so positive.
So, are price floors and ceilings a good idea?
The impact of this cap on the energy market remains to be seen, but it begs a certain question: does market intervention ever work? It's a divisive issue which has always split economists. In the UK, floors and ceilings have been a particularly hot topic in the last few years, with wage floors, rent controls, tuition fee caps, minimum savings rates and rail fare freezes helping to shape the economic debate.
We've recently seen the implementation of a so-called Living Wage (essentially a minimum wage), which many free-market capitalists believed would adversely affect unemployment. However, the evidence thus far has been very much to the contrary, with jobless rates continuing to hit new record lows in the UK. Furthermore, many people have been lifted out of poverty as a result, with over 300,000 workers estimated to have been helped by this statute.
A less-successful example of a price floor is where we’ve seen a minimum price set for certain types of agricultural goods, designed to boost the income of farmers. The consequence of this is that it incentivises farmers to produce an excess of goods, with it falling on the State to pick up the tab for these surpluses in order to maintain the price floor.
In terms of price caps with mixed fortunes, the cap on tuition fees springs to mind, given that nearly all British universities charged the full rate of £9,250 for 2017-18. Not only is there little hope of the market becoming competitive again under the current system, but it also makes it difficult for prospective students to determine the quality of the institution based on such distorted price comparisons.
Free market success stories
There are also a number of examples of successful, unfettered markets which have delivered great value and quality to consumers. The enduring supermarket price war is one which has benefited consumers hugely, although you could point to any number of industries where competition is thriving.
Equally, there are a number of markets where consumers are ostensibly being ripped off. Obvious examples are the sky-high rents tenants are facing, derisory interest rates on savings and current accounts, excessive insurance premiums, the costs of broadband and mobile telephony products/services, and many more.
A recent study by the Social Market Foundation found a strong correlation between high levels of market concentration and poor service delivery in the UK. A high concentration of big companies also tends to be the common denominator among uncompetitive sectors. And there is no better example of this than energy, where the Big Six's collective market share amounts to just under 80 per cent each for gas and electricity.
Switching is the cure, not intervention
Many believe that with these behemoths taking up so much real estate, the market is broken, and there is no hope of fair competition ever being established. But this simply isn't true. As mentioned above, there are dozens of suppliers to choose from, and the Big Six's market share actually fell to a record low in 2017. The best way to bring down the inflated charges we face for gas and electricity is to vote with our feet and switch.
In the case of energy, there is a general reluctance to do so, given the perceived hassle of switching, and a scepticism about smaller providers. But in truth, switching could hardly be any simpler, and regardless of the provider you choose, the gas and electricity running through your pipes will be the same.
Similar principles are applicable to many other sectors like personal banking, where customers keep their money in savings accounts which pay negligible interest, or forego switching benefits on current accounts. Insurance is another good example, where customers waste millions each year by accepting automatic renewals.
It is of course lamentable that, rather than reward loyal customers, these companies instead choose to treat them as cash cows, and prey on their inertia. But we as consumers wield a whole lot more power than we think, and by taking our business elsewhere when being charged over the odds, companies will be forced to respond with better deals.
That's not to say there is never a case for state intervention, or at least the provision of some assistance for consumers and market participants. But more often than not, a proactive approach on the part of the individual can go a long way to restoring a fair price equilibrium, and ultimately deliver the value to those who deserve it most: consumers.
Our website offers information about saving, investing, tax and other financial matters, but not personal advice. If you're not sure whether peer-to-peer lending is right for you, please seek independent financial advice, and if you decide to invest with Lending Works, please read our Key Lender Information PDF first.
With the retail sector enduring its fair share of challenges, companies are looking at new ways to attract customers, and drive conversion. In an overcrowded, dog-eat-dog marketplace, with behemoths such as Amazon flexing their muscle, it’s easier said than done.
On 4 June 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released its new regulatory framework for peer-to-peer lending (P2P); a Policy Statement known as PS19/14. As you might imagine, it's a document which, following a three-month consultation, is a hefty read of no fewer than 102 pages.
For all the resilience the UK economy has shown, there is no doubt that this year's ISA season is set against a backdrop of uncertainty. Whatever the pros and cons, Brexit, and a lack of clarity on what our future economic relationship with the EU will look like, has left us at a crossroads.
In a difficult climate, customer acquisition and lead generation present stern challenges for UK retailers, and a great deal of marketing spend invariably gets directed towards getting feet through the door.
Over the last decade, there can be little dispute that the reputation of mainstream banks – and particularly the so-called ‘Big Four’ (HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and RBS) – is at its lowest ebb.
The peer-to-peer (P2P) lending industry is now regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The regulatory framework has been designed to protect customers and promote effective competition.
The financial crisis is a bitter memory of what can go wrong when regulators lose control of markets. It seems hard to fathom now, but a little over a decade ago, buyers could acquire mortgages to the tune of 125 per cent of the home’s value (the Northern Rock Together mortgage being one of the most infamous), with only the most lax affordability checks standing in their way.
Numerous theories have emerged as to why the UK has endured such a severe productivity problem over the last decade. Growth in productivity of just 2 per cent during that period would typically have been accomplished within a single year prior to the financial crisis, and thus the 'productivity puzzle' continues to confound economists
In the aftermath of the financial crisis back in 2008/09, the Bank of England (BoE) had considerable headroom in terms of monetary policy, and - rightly - it made full use of it.
It’s no exaggeration to say that the global financial system as a whole is predicated on the ability to buy something now, and pay for it later. Barely anyone would be able to make a substantial purchase such as a house without an instrument like a mortgage.