MYC4 providers react on high default rates

Over the last months it became clear that MYC4.com loans default at a much higher percentage then expected. MYC4 management states several growth and quality problems that led to the situation. Better training of the local providers, partner ratings, spot audits and a license system are measures that shall improve the quality in loan selection and management in the future.

Currently one challenge is to deal with the failing loans issued in the past. The earlier problems with Ivory coast loans continue. About half of the issued loans were insured by the organisation MISCOCI against defaults. MISCOCI failed today and is reported to be bankrupt. MYC4 has announced a few minutes ago, that they will publish until March 20th, what this means for the lenders on the defaulted Ivory Coast loans (MISCOCI covered 242 loans with an outstanding balance of 388,644 Euro).

NotreNation, one of the providers in Ivory Coast, yesterday named poor selection of borrowers by inexperienced credit agents and the difficult economic situation in Ivory Coast as reasons for high default rates.

GrowthAfrica, a provider in Kenya with a high portfolio at risk rate (PAR) has announced yesterday that it will buy back 65 very poorly performing loans at 95 percent of the balance from the lenders. This step was taken as GrowthAfrica felt they share responsibility for the poorly performing loan portfolio. GrowthAfrica expects to buy back loans for more then 125,000 Euro in total.

First payments on my Babyloan loans

In December I discovered Babyloan (see blog post) – a microfinance platform like Kiva allowing individuals to lend to small entrepreneurs in developing countries.

Now the first payments by borrowers took place. Lenders are notified by Babyloan via email. Sample email:

The entrepreneur Suman has reimbursed 373,00 € to the MFI and has 2987,00 € to reimburse. You will receive an email for each reimbursement. After the last reimbursement, you can either reinvest this money or have it transferred to your bank account.

MTN Uganda pledges 250,000 US$ to fund small businesses through MyC4

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”.

Babyloan microfinance

Launched in summer French Babyloan.org has about 1750 lenders financing peer to peer micro-loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. I signed up yesterday when I found the service (thanks to Jean Christophe Capelli for the pointer) and helped to fund 5 loans to borrowers in Benin, Cambodia and Tajikistan. One of them is Kheav Sitha who runs a small restaurant stand at her house in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. She wants to borrow 140 Euro for 6 months.

Signing up went smoothly. I liked the user interface for selecting the loans. It features summaries of the loan detail that are shown with AJAX on the right side of the screen while moving the mouse over photos of the borrowers seeking loans on the left side. The website is in French and English, but on some points the English translation seemed to be missing. Funds are transferred in via credit card payment – I have not yet found out how they can be transferred out after the loan term ends if they are not re-lend.

Like other platforms Babyloan partners with local microfinance institutions (MFIs). The MFIs screen the borrowers and handle the payout to the borrowers – in the case of Babyloan the payout has actually taken place BEFORE the loan is placed on the platform – and the MFI takes the sum to refinance the loan.
Unlike at MyC4 lenders do not receive interest. While Kiva asks for voluntary donations to fund its operations, at Babyloan a fee of 1 Euro per 100 Euro funded is compulsory . (Minimum a lender can lend is 20 Euro).

Babyloan is backed by Acted (a NGO), Bred (a regional bank in France) and Credit Cooperatif.

The following presentation explains what Babyloan does for MFIs:

Are Kiva and MyC4 p2p lending services?

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)