sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490 
Likes: 415
|
Post by sapphire on Mar 1, 2018 10:12:01 GMT
Is there a list of P2P platforms (if any) currently operating under an interim FCA permission? Asking as not sure if anything with spaces under 'FCA Auth' in p2pindependentforum.com/thread/7741/fca-authorised-ifisa-list can be deemed to be operating with an interim permission or if this list is specifically for IFISA permissions so does not include P2P platforms who do not wish to offer IFISA and are operating with an interim permission for non-IFISA business? |
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,330
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Mar 1, 2018 10:21:58 GMT
The list is fully authorised platforms only to the best of my knowledge
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 1, 2018 10:22:51 GMT
|
|
sapphire
Member of DD Central
Posts: 490
Likes: 415
|
Post by sapphire on Mar 1, 2018 13:45:43 GMT
Thanks chris Some of the names on this list without a 36H listed seem have been around for quite some time now. Is the interim permission initially granted for a limited period, (12 months?), and if a full permission not obtained by then, expected to be renewed with a further (limited?) extension of the 'interim permission'? or is the interim permission initially granted for an unspecified period until converted to a full permission or revoked by the FCA? or something else? |
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 1, 2018 19:15:01 GMT
Thanks chris Some of the names on this list without a 36H listed seem have been around for quite some time now. Is the interim permission initially granted for a limited period, (12 months?), and if a full permission not obtained by then, expected to be renewed with a further (limited?) extension of the 'interim permission'? or is the interim permission initially granted for an unspecified period until converted to a full permission or revoked by the FCA? or something else? Sorry I don't have much idea how it works beyond knowing that we were given a cut off date whereby we had to submit our application for full permissions, after which our interim permission period was extended whilst that application process was completed. The FCA went through all the important details of the operation, made site visits, etc. before eventually granting us full permissions. I believe you can see an examples with LI and W&Co where they withdrew from that process and are no longer operating as peer-to-peer lending platforms issuing Article 36H compliant loans. I'm CTO though so my knowledge is limited.
|
|
|
|
Post by mememe on Mar 1, 2018 21:42:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by samford71 on Mar 1, 2018 23:41:59 GMT
True. The 36H is a red herring. For platforms that are just focussing on consumer P2P, 36H is the most likely route they would take. For firms, however, that have a broader business they may take another route. For example, LendInvest who started off as Montello, a small fund manager. LendInvest Funds Management Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of LendInvest Ltd) is regulated by the FCA, both in relation to fund management activities and acts as an AIFM in respect of investments on the P2P platform. So LendInvest doesn't need 36H, it needs AIFMD regs which it has. Downing Crowd's product is not P2P but actually Non Readily Realisable Securities (NRRS), essentially unlisted corporate bonds. These are securities under FCA regs and thus given their parent company is already regulated for that, no 36H is required. By contrast, MarketInvoice doesn't need to be regulated at all since invoice finance falls under asset based financing, which is not currently an activity regulated by the FCA.
|
|
|
|
Post by justuslee on Mar 2, 2018 9:32:59 GMT
We must appreciate that every business/platform have their own nuances. Whilst the delays are hugely frustrating, P2P is here for the long haul and the regulator has to be 100% satisfied that everything from the segregated client account structure to the competence of the individuals running the business meet the ever increasing standard required to "operate an electronic platform in relation to lending" AKA P2P.
One of the frustrations that I do have, is that firms that are not 36H compliant, still promote themselves as P2P. I read a post earlier which is entirely correct, a number of larger bridging/development - loan brokers/marketplaces could not adjust their business models to meet the legal requirement to issue 36H Peer to Peer bilateral loan agreements and so correctly withdrew from P2P promotion. If you are funding loans with hedge/institutional funds, you are not P2P! it's a simple as that and hence their departure from FCA P2P authorisation, trade bodies and forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by chris on Mar 2, 2018 10:52:48 GMT
True. The 36H is a red herring. For platforms that are just focussing on consumer P2P, 36H is the most likely route they would take. For firms, however, that have a broader business they may take another route. For example, LendInvest who started off as Montello, a small fund manager. LendInvest Funds Management Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of LendInvest Ltd) is regulated by the FCA, both in relation to fund management activities and acts as an AIFM in respect of investments on the P2P platform. So LendInvest doesn't need 36H, it needs AIFMD regs which it has. Downing Crowd's product is not P2P but actually Non Readily Realisable Securities (NRRS), essentially unlisted corporate bonds. These are securities under FCA regs and thus given their parent company is already regulated for that, no 36H is required. By contrast, MarketInvoice doesn't need to be regulated at all since invoice finance falls under asset based financing, which is not currently an activity regulated by the FCA. Depends if you want to call them P2P or not. AIUI from a regulatory point of view if you're not 36H then you're not P2P. You may be something else that can be made to look and feel like P2P but you're not P2P and will be either covered under different regulations or unprotected if it's an unregulated activity.
|
|
