Zopa is one of the most prominent businesses in the UK fintech scene. Launched in 2005 with a brand new peer-to-peer (P2P) model for consumer loans, the firm has today lent more than £1.5bn with 53,000 lenders on its books. The journey has been far from simple however, and in the latest episode of the FinTalk podcast we talk to co-founder and executive chairman Giles Andrews about the growing pains of entrepreneurship, good timing and why realism is as important as optimism for startups.
Listen to our discussion today or check out the transcript below.
P2P lending was a brand new model when Zopa launched, how easy a sell was it to investors?
Venture capitalists (VCs) like big ideas. With P2P we were the first to do it in the world and it was a big idea; we were aiming to transform the financial services industry. What I learned about VCs is that they are more interested in ideas that have some chance – even if only a very, very small one – of becoming a very big business. We unashamedly sold the prospect of Zopa becoming a very big business and that became an easy sell.
The fact it was a brand new model was not a problem as they recognised the problem we were trying to solve – giving better value to consumers in a huge market. What they have on their check list is; is there a big market; is there a consumer need and is the team credible and they decided the answer to those questions was yes.
What about winning over your first customers?
That was much more challenging. We raised the money in Autumn 2004 and launched the business in March 2005 to a reasonable amount of PR noise. We got written about nicely as a disruptive new idea but to a deafening silence in terms of customer adoption. We had been guilty of the sin of over-optimism as most entrepreneurs are and take-up of the business was very slow. We were asking people to trust us, a startup in London, with their money, to let us lend on their behalf to complete strangers. We were asking for them to then expect to one get their money back and two get a good return on it. It seems obvious now but it was tough sell back then.
What was the business like at that stage?
We initially stocked the platform up with money from friends and family, begging and borrowing form everyone we knew. That meant we had stock of money to sell. However we underestimated the challenge of cutting through the noise of the financial services industry. We naively thought that if you have the best value and best serviced loan in the market on the internet, people will find it. Actually financial services businesses, particularly pre-crisis, spent a huge amount of money marketing their products so it was hard to find borrowers.
That meant the first wave of lenders wasn’t very happy – we’d persuaded them to part with their money and then didn’t lend it out. When we eventually sold out that first wave of our customers’ money to our borrowers, it was not replaced. Then the challenge became, ‘how do we get new lenders to believe this proposition and trust us with their money?’.
We existed in this state of living hand to mouth with low levels of adoption for the first two or three years.
Were you convinced the idea was going to work or were there doubts?
We were optimistic entrepreneurs and I consider myself an optimistic entrepreneur, but there were periods of doubt. 2006 was a particularly dark year – one year after launch. We were getting nowhere in the UK and we weren’t new anymore so therefore not an interesting story. We’d raised more money to launch the business in the US but couldn’t find any lawyers that could tell us whether what we were doing in the UK was legal in the US. Then to cap it all in the summer of that year our founding CEO Richard Duvall suddenly became unwell and very quickly died of pancreatic cancer – so the business was not in a happy place at all. A lot of us were looking at ourselves and asking what we’d got into.
In some ways I was slightly an outsider in the team as I had been brought in by a mate to help him do a job raising money and had then stayed having been successful in that because I thought it was a great bunch of people and a great idea. But it wasn’t my idea and I was probably less bought into it than others at that point. As a process of us all having to confront where we found ourselves and the scale of the business as it was then, I was deemed the natural person to run it as I had more of an entrepreneurial or small business background than others in the funding team and therefore I began to feel more invested as it felt more my own.
When did the business start to gain real momentum?
Something very significant happened: the financial crisis in 2008. That was the turning point and the making of the business. One way to think about our business is as sitting in the bank spread – the gap between what banks pay their savers and charge their borrowers. Before the crash that spread was extraordinarily small – firstly because the world was awash with cheap money and people were doing crazy things with it. Secondly – though the product is well publicised, its connection with spreads is not – there was the banning of payment protection insurance (PPI), which happened at almost the same time as the crisis. That means banks had to suddenly make profits on loans, which meant they had to reprice them. This meant our job of providing value either side of the spread became much easier.
Also the timing was good because we were then three years’ old and, although we had not lent a lot of cash in that time, our average loan maturity was three years so we could point to loans going through a full cycle. We could show a really good credit performance at a time when the world was doing crazy things and banks were going bust. For this little startup to have lent its money prudently and safely, providing investors with a positive return was something we could sell.
Read the full transcript on PaymentEye
Europe’s introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) next May will have implications for businesses around the world and US corporates should start getting ready if they haven’t already done so.
Accidental data breaches are causing almost as much concern as the steady rise in ransomware attacks, reports insurer Beazley.
The statement issued by the bank also suggests that fiat currencies are superior, due to their price stability.
Nine months on from the US tightening up regulation of money market funds (MMFs), organisations show little appetite for investing in prime money funds reports the Association for Financial Professionals.