As regular readers will be aware, we write regularly on the difficulties experienced by institutional investors seeking to take advantage of the peer-to-peer (P2P) loan asset class. Here's a recent piece describing the "malaise" of institutional investors committing capital by way of investment trust.We're pleased to report, however, that the problems are not universal. Honeycomb appears to be doing better than many UK-listed investment trusts investing in P2P assets.
Historical Performance And IFISA Process Guide
Question: When is advice not advice? Answer: When it comes from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).Let's start with a little context. There's been a greater focus on the peer-to-peer (P2P) sector from commentators and regulators, following the lamentable failure of the P2P platform, Lendy. Lendy's collapse was linked – completely unfairly – with a number of problems experienced by investors in unregulated investments. That scene was set by the London & Capital Finance debacle, followed by a slew of other similar but unrelated failures (unless you count the role of the regulator – which many disgruntled investors do).
It's in the light of the difficulty the FCA found itself in that we should consider the regulator's announcement of a new limit on investor exposure to P2P assets, the loans facilitated on this and other P2P platforms. Investors should not commit more than 10 per cent of their portfolio to P2P is the broad thrust of the proposition. It comes amid a drive towards greater transparency in reporting defaults and bad debts in platforms' loan books, more scrupulous risk management requirements and clarity on dealing with wind-downs in the event of a platform failure.That's right and proper. P2P is a young and fast-expanding sector of financial technology, and these measures are as prudent as they are welcome.
Measures are prudent and welcome
The necessary implication is that the fund was previously actively deemed suitable for investors