P2P-Banking.com

MYC4 will change its fee structure for borrowers for new loans starting in July. One main point of criticism had been that MYC4 by charging origination fees profited from any loan, regardless whether it was paid back or defaulted.

MYC4 has reacted. In future there will be no origination fees and only fees on the interest of the repayments. This uis a step in the right direction as the interests of MYC4 are now more aligned with the interests of the lenders. To make or increase profit MYC4 has to avoid and decrease defaults.

Quote of the announcement:

We have made a strategic decision with regards to the way MYC4 earns money by removing “closing fees” and only charging “interest fees” on the loans, when they are being repaid. That means that we put ourselves on the same side as the Investors on MYC4 only earning money when the Borrowers repay their loans.

With this change we want to signal that we believe strongly in the viability of the Businesses, and to align MYC4 earning with the earning of the investors and similar to investors be affected by any defaults and currency fluctuation.

Concretely, MYC4 will change the current income structure, where the Borrower is charged a flat fee of 2% of the loan amount, payable only when the loan is actually disbursed, and an additional fee of 2% (interest spread) when the loan is repaid on the basis of a declining balance. This corresponds to a total fee to MYC4 of approx. 3 percent of the total loan amount.

Instead, we will charge 6% interest commission. Considering a 12-month loan time, this 6% charge matches the 2% on initial balance plus the 2% on outstanding balance fees. The change will in most cases be neutral for the borrower.

In the same line, MYC4 encourages our Partners to shift their income from closing fees to repayment (interest) fees to show their belief in the quality of their portfolio towards investors. However, our Partners are not obligated to change their income structure, so it is up to each of them if and when they will change due to for instance their cash-flow situation.

P2P lending holds great promise: more transparency, purposeful direction of investments and economic advantages for borrowers and lenders. Some even talk of democratization of financial processes.

But are advantages and risks evenly balanced between borrowers and lenders?

For the borrower p2p lending fulfills most promises and the only risk is that the desired loan goes unfunded. Most services have a simple fee structure with no hidden fees and the borrower only pays fees when he does receive the wanted loan. And within a time frame of a few weeks after sign-up the borrower reaches his goal - once his loan is funded and the money is transferred to his account. Platforms with auction mechanisms can even benefit the borrower further in supplying the loan at a lower interest rate then the maximum he set.

The lender on the other side is promised an attractive return on investment but faces multiple risks:

• borrower fails to repay the loan
• (identity) fraud
• p2p lending company fails and ceases to service loans (e.g. Boober Netherlands)
• unreliable forecasts of ROI and default rates
• on some services: open/undefined tax and legal issues
• on some microfinance services: currency exchange risks
• on some microfinance services: risk of MFI failure

There is also an information asymmetry. The borrower usually has most of the information he needs in advance and the information he has is accurate. Should the information be not accurate (e.g. wrong information on at what interest rates he can be funded) then he can retry at no additional costs only incurring a delay. The lender has information, which is partly based on estimates or forecasts that might prove unreliable and other parts of the information might be untrue (e.g. borrower reported income or borrower description of purpose of the loan). For privacy reasons it might also be a subset of the information the p2p lending service itself has on the borrower (e.g. town of residence omitted, or income or jobs listed only in categories instead of values).

The lending experience of the lender is further hindered by the timeline. The problems may impact him at any point in time of a several year loan term. And he either has no way to terminate his investment immediately or if there is a secondary market he might be only able to do so by accepting economic disadvantages in return for the option to selling off.

The situation of the lenders in this comparison to the borrowers is worsened by the alignment of interests of the p2p lending service company with the borrowers. This is due to several factors:

• in most models borrowers pay the larger part of the fees and are thereby important for the revenues
• in some markets attracting borrowers is the limiting factor for growth
• for obvious image and marketing reasons the p2p lending company is not eager to share information on fraud and (in some cases) default details
• for the same reasons companies are slow to react and change their lender information when real default levels are much higher then fore-casted (or even advertised) default levels (examples are Prosper, MYC4)

This imparity results in different levels of satisfaction with the p2p lending service for lenders and borrowers. While those p2p lending services that offer (unmoderated) discussion forums have only few unsatisfied borrowers voicing their opinion (and then mostly on technical issues) lender concern and critic rises over time on some of these services (to the extend that Prosper even deleted it’s forum at one point in time).

(more…)

Acting on problems that came about when an insurance scheme, that was supposed to cover over 200 loans in Ivory Coast, failed (see previous coverage), MYC4.com announced it will reimburse all lenders on these loans, if the loans default.

Mads Kjaer, CEO of MYC4, announced:

We have in previous update informed that we will intervene and take on the obligation towards the Investors and cover defaults on loans. MYC4 will cover all defaults on MISCOCI covered loans. In actual numbers this could amount to a total cost of EUR 388,000. This will put financial strains on our company, yet we believe it’s the right thing to do.

Now, what does it mean that MYC4 covers MISCOCI included loans? As noted, 242 loans in Cote d’Ivoire were supposed to be covered by MISCOCI insurance. These 242 are very likely to default within the near future - some are already defaulted (cf. MYC4’s default policy) and therefore MYC4 will cover Investors’ loss on their principal.

This means covering the spread between what has already been paid back and Investor’s principal or in other words: MYC4 will step in to reimburse Investors whatever amount they still have not received of their original investment. Meaning the original bid value minus total received repayments over time. We are currently working how we technically can do this in the system and will revert back with an update in two weeks time.

Loans without MISCOCI:
With regards to the not MISCOCI-covered Cote d’Ivoire loans, we are aiming at a solution that will create the best possible chances for Investors to get some of their money back by ensuring that Notre Nation and Ivoire Credit will continue to collect repayments also after the technical default on the platform.

Lenders welcomed this decision in forum feedback.

Other MYC4 news:

• MYC4 wins prize as “best financial e-commerce” by FDIH, the Danish Association of Internet and Distance Trade
• The first bid by IFU and CSR was made on MYC4 in their aim to invest 2.2 million EUR on MYC4 (see earlier coverage)

MYC4 a p2p lending platform for micro-loans to entrepreneurs in Africa, today released a new layout. 10 months after the last change the new layout looks more clearly structured. The changes only impact the appearance, there were nearly no functional changes in this release.

P2P lending is spreading internationally. While the biggest loan volumes are generated in the US market, many p2p lending websites have been established in other international markets.

P2P-Banking.com has created the following overview table listing services that are in operation and ranked them by loan volume. The loan volumes are not directly comparable for they are cumulative since launch of each service and represent different time spans.

In total approx. 740 million US$ have been funded through peer to peer lending/social lending services so far worldwide.

This image may be reprinted on other internet sites, provided it is not altered or resized and the following text (including the direct link to this article) is given as source directly below the image:
Source: P2P-Banking.com

Since the previous version of this table especially Zopa (UK), Lending Club and Kiva thrived. With Prosper, Loanio and Fynanz halted, Lending Club profits from the situation.

This image may be reprinted under the same conditions as the first one.

MTN Uganda, a telecommunication company with 3.5 million customers, will invest 250,000 US$ to fund loans to small and medium scale enterprises via MyC4.

“This is a great opportunity for us to champion the notion of an African Company helping fellow Africans instead of the common perception that Aid should always come from “Abroad”" said Mr. Van Veen during the announcement and launch of the partnership at the Sheraton Kampala Hotel. The capital investment guidelines require that MTN’s loan contribution must constitute a minimum of 33 percent of the total loan required.
Under the agreement, $50,000 would be invested immediately in a six months pilot phase which is expected to shed light on how best to administer the funding. “The learning after the pilot phase will guide us on how to manage the capital repayments and their re-investment over the three year period”.

MyC4 has the first three Tanzania loans online. I bid a small amount on the loan requestof Eliamin Eliakimu Swai who runs a car spare parts repair shop in Dar es Salaam. Local provider in Tanzania is Growth Africa Capital, which also serves Kenya.

In this post Netbanker questions, if MyC4 and Kiva are offering p2p lending. He argues they are “not really peer-to-peer”.

Let’s have a look, if these microfinance models can fit under the definition of peer to peer lending. One aspect of p2p lending is, that the lender can select individual borrowers, which he wants to lend money to. Kiva and MyC4 offer this choice. A p2p lending platform usually allows search parameters to narrow the search for matching borrowers (e.g. by credit grade). Both have this function allowing to search by country, gender, industry and more.

A possible argument against classifying MyC4 and Kiva as p2p lending companies is the fact that they use local microfinance institutions as intermediaries acting between lender and borrower and charging fees. That is true, but several other p2p lending services (e.g. Prosper, Lending Club and Smava) use banks as intermediaries (for legal reasons).

So where exactly is the divide seperating MyC4 and Kiva from other p2p lending services. They differ especially on the factor that:

1. Borrowers can not sign up themselves (so one side is really offline); borrowers are selected and screened by the MFIs
2. Business model
3. Lenders receive no interest at Kiva
4. Lenders and borrowers do not reside in the same country.

I still think that MyC4 and Kiva can be defined as p2p lending services. With Microplace the case is different, because no individual borrowers can be identified; therefore Microplace could be excluded form p2p lending (Microplace states that it is not a p2p lending site).

(Photo credit: Stig Nygaard)

MyC4.com has a great concept with an ambitious goal: ‘Let’s end poverty by 2015′. Lenders can invest in African businesses of small entrepreneurs. MyC4 gained a lot of positive media coverage and received awards.

The realization of this concept is an enormous task, facing many hurdles. Since MyC4 is transparent and lenders earn interest problems do impact the user experience. Current user discussions deal with issues like defaults, currency risks, transaction costs, pending time, information accuracy and communication.

While I am sure that Kiva has to overcome similar problems, the difference is that on Kiva these issues are more dealt with in the background and the average user is not or less aware of them.

Like Kiva, MyC4 partners with local microfinance institutions (called ‘providers’ on MyC4 - see overview of provider results) that screen loan applicants. These partners are trying hard to validate the business of the applicant as good as possible, but conditions and environment complicate the task.

Furthermore the partners are on a learning curve - a process that MyC4 supports. Data accuracy of the loan details listed by the provider sometimes is questionable - this was one of the causes MyC4 cancelled some Ivory Coast loans earlier.

Example: an active listing that raises questions

Alima Thiam, retail shopkeeper in Senegal, seeks a 13,873 Euro loan.

: About :
Married and a mother of 2 children, Alima has been trading items for 8 years. Her business grew so fast that in April 2007, she was able to open her first store. Her business is still growing at a fast pace and she needs additional working capital to increase her inventory of goods and add new items.

Objective of the opportunity:
With a loan of €13873, Alima seeks to increase her stock provided that it would guarantee more interesting sales. She wants to buy her goods early to avoid paying higher prices, hence keeping her costs down. She will use the increased margin to introduce new items.

The information provided in the listing raises the following plausibility questions:

1. The relation of the loan amount to the yearly income seems very high
2. The listed collateral - an Audi 80 - is given with a value of  9,711 Euro. This seems a very high value for a very old car model. (independent of issues whether the collateral could really be secured in case of default)
3. The location pictured does not look like it is in proportion to the amount of goods that could be bought for the loan value.

What reasons could have caused possible inaccuracy of information in this loan listing?

Githa Kurdahl, doing an internship with Ivoire Credit has described her findings regarding inaccurate descriptions in an excellent post on Oct. 21st. In summary she pointed out the following causes:

1. mistakes due to manual calculations
   
2. mistakes in translation
3. lack of business records
4. exaggerated projections
5. optimistic borrowers
6. mismatch between European and African business context.

The Industrialisation Fund for Developing Countries (IFU) and CSR Capital have decided to invest a total of DKK 15 million (approx. EUR 2.2 million) in Africa through MYC4. The Danish Development Minister Ulla Tørnæs supports the decision.

“This is an extremely important milestone for MYC4. That IFU and CSR Capital now invest through MYC4 is an endorsement of our initiative as a serious tool in the fight to eradicate poverty in Africa through the marketplace myc4.com,” says CEO of MYC4 Mads Kjær and continues:

“We hope this will inspire financial institutions, pension funds and companies to invest in Africa through MYC4. We are already well under way, but to make a significant difference for the development in Africa, this kind of investors play an important role.”

Political support
Danish Development Minister Ulla Tørnæs warmly welcomes IFU’s initiative to invest in Africa through MYC4.

“Danida has been the facilitator for MYC4. Through the Public Private Partnerships, Danida has supported the development of MYC4. I am glad to see the interest and support for the new marketplace. It shows the economic potential for investments in Africa,” says Tørnæs.

DKK 10 million from IFU, 5 from CSR Capital
IFU is an independent fund under the Danish Foreign Ministry. IFU’s purpose is to promote economic development in developing countries in partnership with the Danish industry, and now the fund invests DKK ten million in Africa through MYC4.

“With the investment IFU wants to contribute to poverty reduction and business development of small and medium enterprises in Africa,” says Investment Manager Kasper Svarrer from IFU.

In addition, the private investment firm CSR Capital invests DKK five million through MYC4. CSR Capital focuses specifically on social and environmentally sustainable investments:

“Good investments and development can and must go hand in hand in order to create the basis for sustainable economic, environmental and social growth and welfare in any society”, says CEO of CSR Capital Sven Riskær.

(Source: MyC4.com)