Is a crowded bridging market a bad thing?

It had good rates and good service and it will be missed in the bridging community I’m sure. I was even more perturbed, however, by the comments that came afterwards.

Upon announcing the decision, John Allbrook, CEO of Borro, claimed the market was too crowded and said this was the primary reason for the lender’s exit. Following this, many articles I’ve read and conversations I’ve had have echoed John’s thoughts, ie the bridging sector is already “full” and there is no room for anyone else.

While I can understand where these comments are coming from – indeed the market has seen a surge in new lenders in recent months – I think the attitude that “there is already too much competition so why bother” is damaging for consumers.

As we all know, competition is great for borrowers. When lenders have to compete with each other, they’re much more likely to offer great rates and up the ante on things such as technology and service. When competition is really strong, this should mean propositions get even better.

The notion that there are already lenders operating there so there’s no point trying to beat them is somewhat defeatist.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m well aware that there’s only so far lenders can go when competing on rates before the deal becomes unfeasible, but what about customer service? What about ease of use for websites? What about improvements to communication tools? These are all areas lenders – in every sector – can continue to improve on.

Yes, the bridging sector is crowded. But I hope those players already in it – and any new entrants eyeing it – use this as motivation to be the best of the best.