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.
What will a rate rise mean for P2P lending?
A few weeks ago, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney confirmed that the days of 0.5% borrowing costs are numbered. Although the change to the Bank of England base rate is unlikely to be immediate, Carney suggested an increase in the next six months was probable. It would represent a first change in borrowing costs since March 2009, and Carney added that the base rate will likely peak at just over 2% in the ‘medium term’.
Although such a figure is barely half the historic norm since the Bank came into being in 1694, the fact that many homeowners have never experienced an increase on their monthly mortgage repayments has sparked something of a re-mortgage frenzy.
Yet while some feathers may have been ruffled among borrowers, those in the long-suffering savers camp will be relieved. In simple terms, an increase in the cost of borrowing equates to better returns on savings. Poor earnings on low-risk investments and money in the bank have become commonplace in recent years, and while this has largely coincided with low rates of inflation, maximising wealth has been hard going since the recession.
Rates and peer-to-peer lending
Of course, such a market has very much opened the door to peer-to-peer lending (P2P), and those willing to take a small leap of faith in terms of risk by lending money directly to borrowers have benefited from returns often in excess of 6%.
Yet what will the rate increase mean for peer-to-peer lending, which has hardly known a world without a 0.5% base rate? After all, banks will be able to offer better rates on savings in the event of a rate rise too. And as the costs of borrowing money rise, will P2P platforms still be an attractive proposition to prospective borrowers?
Making predictions is far from an exact science, and hindsight could well prove to be more accurate than foresight. But interest rates will of course affect both lenders and borrowers who make use of peer-to-peer platforms. Returns for those who lend money will be boosted, while those seeking a loan will likely make repayments at a higher Annual Percentage Rate (APR).
So will this create a market skewed too heavily in favour of lenders, resulting in an imbalance of incoming lending capital with demand from borrowers? Or will the wave of funds moving towards lending through P2P abate, given that keeping money in savings accounts will be more beneficial than before?
The answers to such questions will be less dependent on the behaviour of peer-to-peer lending platforms, and more down to the response from banks and other high-street financial institutions. One thing that consumers can safely depend on is the agility and efficiency of P2P, and, from a lender perspective, this will allow them to derive the full benefits when rates go up.
It would be a surprise if the interest rates offered by banks to savers didn’t improve too, but to what extent will this reflect proportionally in their customers’ pockets? History offers us compelling evidence that at least some portion of these improved ‘margins’ will end up in these high-street heavyweights’ profit column, and should this be the case, the prospect of alternatives can only become more appealing. Put the shoe on the other foot, and borrowers seeking loans can expect no favours from banks. APRs will go up at least in proportion to the rise in base rates, while some may well be inclined to steal a yard or two and charge a significantly higher rate to those taking out a loan – using the guise of the rate change as justification.
Such prophecies may sound theoretical, but there is a considerable degree of historical evidence to back them up. What’s more, banks, as the established guard, rely heavily on consumer inertia, with many simply accepting their fate in terms of the poor value they offer without seeking alternatives.
Complacency is the enemy
It’s no time for P2P platforms to become complacent though. One universal truth is that higher interest rates are typically associated with higher borrower default rates on loans across the board, particularly across loan books with a high proportion of mortgaged homeowners and those with variable rate debt. For banks, and, more specifically, those with money in the bank, this is no great cause for concern. But for peer-to-peer lenders, it is definitely something to be wary of.
Yet provided underwriting standards are upheld, reputable platforms need not experience a major spike in borrower default. Most importantly, in relative terms, there is no reason to believe either borrowers or lenders will be any worse off when Mr Carney eventually decides to give the rates an upward nudge. What will be fascinating to see is whether the reputation of peer-to-peer lending actually ends up being enhanced ever further. Call us optimists, but we have every confidence this will be the case!
Main image "Mark Carney" by Financial Stability Board. Image subject to copyright. A link to the image and appropriate licence can be found here. You must not use or reproduce this image other than in accordance with the licence.
- Quick guide to how our interest rates work
- Innovative Finance ISA: The good and the 'bad'
- The ultimate guide to your first P2P investment
Get email updates for future blogs:
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.