|
|
Post by oldatheist on Mar 20, 2014 10:41:30 GMT
I see, in which case I don't think I would really be interested in a pure p2p NISA.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Mar 20, 2014 12:08:40 GMT
We welcome the message from Treasury that ISAs will now include P2P, but there is a lot of regulatory issues to sort and also reporting to HMRC which isn't clear yet. Don't expect a P2P ISA to appear in the next 6 months.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Mar 20, 2014 12:38:53 GMT
Some further thoughts.
If you lend through Ratesetter or Wellesley as currently operated, in principle aren’t you only doing the same as placing a deposit with a bank or building society?
Those august institutions lend to firms and individuals (or at least did so in the past) and many of them participate in a multitude of other weird and wonderful investments and activities.
Based on that, what is there to prevent a “Cash P2P NISA” being offered subject to the budget and supporting documents being amended?
Or would that be competition for the vested interests in banking? 
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewholgate on Mar 20, 2014 12:47:06 GMT
There is nothing to stop a cash ISA aimed at P2P being offered with the exception of a fund manager willing to invest in these platforms. Regulation should solve that.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Mar 20, 2014 13:01:02 GMT
Some further thoughts.
If you lend through Ratesetter or Wellesley as currently operated, in principle aren’t you only doing the same as placing a deposit with a bank or building society?
Those august institutions lend to firms and individuals (or at least did so in the past) and many of them participate in a multitude of other weird and wonderful investments and activities.
Based on that, what is there to prevent a “Cash P2P NISA” being offered subject to the budget and supporting documents being amended?
Or would that be competition for the vested interests in banking?
The only problem being that Cash ISAs are covered by the FSCS and the currently proposed regulation of P2P lending does not include FSCS coverage, so it would take changes to regulation either to take P2P based cash ISAs out of the FSCS or introduce for P2P lending.
|
|
|
|
Post by mead187 on Mar 20, 2014 16:32:25 GMT
When and IF Assetz plan to implement a P2P ISA I would be very interested.
|
|
|
|
Post by aloanatlast on Mar 20, 2014 17:15:37 GMT
Given that people will only be able to own one active equity NISA, smaller and right thinking investors (which probably makes up the majority) are not going to want to hold the whole of their Equity NISA in P2P loans and even more so not in P2P loans from a single platform Hang on. Since the average investor in such as Zopa or FC only has a few thousand quid in, I would have thought that most of them don't have any stocks and shares or any interest in buying any, but would still quite like to tax-shelter their P2P interest.
Most holders of ISAs are small savers who don't max out their allowances. If they want to put a bit in a P2P, are they "irresponsible investors"?
Actually I suspect that quite a few people who've got S&S ISAa to max out their allowances will now be looking to get out of the stock market, and the P2Ps will be keen to attract them.
Seems to me the Treasury's thinking on P2P ISAs is probably much more along the lines of the packaged ISAs offered by fund houses, rather than the self-select platforms offered by brokers.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136 
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Mar 20, 2014 18:09:18 GMT
Some further thoughts.
If you lend through Ratesetter or Wellesley as currently operated, in principle aren’t you only doing the same as placing a deposit with a bank or building society?
Those august institutions lend to firms and individuals (or at least did so in the past) and many of them participate in a multitude of other weird and wonderful investments and activities.
Based on that, what is there to prevent a “Cash P2P NISA” being offered subject to the budget and supporting documents being amended?
Or would that be competition for the vested interests in banking?
Even in RS or Wellesley, p2x investments are totally different to bank or BS deposits. There is no FSCS guarantee, and won't be. The support for losses is strictly limited to the provision fund (plus, in the case of Wellesley, well-meaning promises). The FCA is dead against p2x investments being marketed as akin to deposits and they are right. This is why p2x will never be included in cash NISAs.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Mar 20, 2014 18:26:10 GMT
...Given that people will only be able to own one active equity NISA... Im not sure this is correct. As far as I know, although you can only open one stocks and shares ISA in any tax year, there is nothing to stop you opening a different stocks and shares ISA every year, if you want to. I've never felt the need to have more than one stocks and shares ISA, but if p2x is allowed in then I might - especially if the platforms start offering their own ISAs. One way to get diversification could then be to put money into a true equity stocks and shares ISA one year, and into a p2x stocks and shares ISA the next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Mar 20, 2014 22:33:19 GMT
Some further thoughts.
If you lend through Ratesetter or Wellesley as currently operated, in principle aren’t you only doing the same as placing a deposit with a bank or building society?
Those august institutions lend to firms and individuals (or at least did so in the past) and many of them participate in a multitude of other weird and wonderful investments and activities.
Based on that, what is there to prevent a “Cash P2P NISA” being offered subject to the budget and supporting documents being amended?
Or would that be competition for the vested interests in banking?
The FCA is dead against p2x investments being marketed as akin to deposits and they are right. This is why p2x will never be included in cash NISAs. Why are they against it and why are they right?
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,136
Likes: 1,484
|
Post by pikestaff on Mar 21, 2014 8:26:53 GMT
The FCA is dead against p2x investments being marketed as akin to deposits and they are right. This is why p2x will never be included in cash NISAs. Why are they against it and why are they right? For the reasons you edited out of my previous post. The FCA does not want p2x investments marketed as akin to deposits, because they are not deposits. They are riskier and do not have a FSCS guarantee. They do not want naive investors misled into thinking of p2x as deposit equivalents. It terrifies politicians too. Can you imagine the consequences if "widows and orphans" lose out because they were "mis-sold" p2x? We should welcome the FCA being strict on this because, if they were not, the political backlash from a failure could be disastrous for p2x.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Mar 21, 2014 9:57:29 GMT
Why are they against it and why are they right? For the reasons you edited out of my previous post. The FCA does not want p2x investments marketed as akin to deposits, because they are not deposits. They are riskier and do not have a FSCS guarantee. They do not want naive investors misled into thinking of p2x as deposit equivalents. It terrifies politicians too. Can you imagine the consequences if "widows and orphans" lose out because they were "mis-sold" p2x? We should welcome the FCA being strict on this because, if they were not, the political backlash from a failure could be disastrous for p2x. Pikestaff could not agree more with what you say. I guess by the time ordinary P2X is approved for NISA each offer will be have to be plastered with warnings akin to those currently in use for shares, unit trusts and the like. I am thinking of phrases like: "Warning, shares can go up an down" and lots more beside which are intended to warn off the naïve investor.
|
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Mar 21, 2014 12:29:12 GMT
Why are they against it and why are they right? For the reasons you edited out of my previous post. The FCA does not want p2x investments marketed as akin to deposits, because they are not deposits. They are riskier and do not have a FSCS guarantee. They do not want naive investors misled into thinking of p2x as deposit equivalents. It terrifies politicians too. Can you imagine the consequences if "widows and orphans" lose out because they were "mis-sold" p2x? We should welcome the FCA being strict on this because, if they were not, the political backlash from a failure could be disastrous for p2x. OK, I'll buy it on those grounds.
However, playing devil’s advocate, you could say that the majority of FSCS backed bank and building society savings accounts are risky for the uninitiated and “widows and orphans” when they lose purchasing power thanks to the current derisory interest rates even with inflation around the 2% mark.
|
|
