FCA to regulate crowdfunding and P2P lending.
Discussion
Extending the ban on commission and correctly regulating it has to be good news.
http://www.professionaladviser.com/professional-ad...
http://www.professionaladviser.com/professional-ad...
Trust buddy closed a few weeks ago, ostensibly for a short while, but recently announced it was filing for bankruptcy. If the sector is to have a long term prospect, it has to show its as 'safe' as any other investment - safer maybe, given the potential and unique risks.
https://www.trustbuddy.com/en/
https://www.trustbuddy.com/en/
madmover said:
Completely agree. I think this is a good step and one which should of already been taken in the ideal world..
Not sure about that. My rule is if its not FCA regulated, it's probably a good idea to get the magnifying glass out. I'm not convinced that allowing regulators to expand is a great idea.I have mixed feelings about that. Good regulation is good however cumbersome. However, it's thin on the ground, which is infested, chickweed like instead, by bad regulation.
Regulatory bodies tend to go for quick, easy wins, instead of the really serious issues. Sad to say, and I don't mean this to be a sweeping generalisation, but any investment schemes which allude to bigger returns are more likely (I accept, there is no proper evidence) to appeal to those who haven't got a 'proper' financial plan in place. I'm a firm believer in getting rich slowly.
The evidence surrounding storage pods, car parking spaces though, indicates that the excitement of higher returns and something 'different' induces a hasty response. Anyone who has sufficiently little going on in their lives to follow me on Twitter will know the fight I'm having with two particularly nasty and virulent scammers at the moment. These types of investments *can* make things easier for scammers and can unfairly disadvantage impulsive people.
Aside from that, it'll give the new area a lot more credibility. Which is good. The chances are too, it'll raise costs through taxation via an increased regulatory burden. Which isn't.
Regulatory bodies tend to go for quick, easy wins, instead of the really serious issues. Sad to say, and I don't mean this to be a sweeping generalisation, but any investment schemes which allude to bigger returns are more likely (I accept, there is no proper evidence) to appeal to those who haven't got a 'proper' financial plan in place. I'm a firm believer in getting rich slowly.
The evidence surrounding storage pods, car parking spaces though, indicates that the excitement of higher returns and something 'different' induces a hasty response. Anyone who has sufficiently little going on in their lives to follow me on Twitter will know the fight I'm having with two particularly nasty and virulent scammers at the moment. These types of investments *can* make things easier for scammers and can unfairly disadvantage impulsive people.
Aside from that, it'll give the new area a lot more credibility. Which is good. The chances are too, it'll raise costs through taxation via an increased regulatory burden. Which isn't.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff