MyC4

MYC4 Moves Software Development from Uganda to Copenhagen

wiseclerk

MYC4 has announced that the software development department of MYC4 will move form Kampala, Uganda to Copenhagen, Denmark where the MYC4 headquarter is located.

Quote from the announcement by CEO Mads Kjaer:

Dear Community,

After long and careful consideration, MYC4 has decided to move the software development department from Kampala, Uganda, to the Copenhagen office. The decision is made in close connection with MYC4’s strategic focus on streamlining the organization by focusing all efforts on (a) building a solid and scalable IT platform, (b) creating a strong basis for growth in Africa, and (c) improving the capacity and quality with MYC4’s current Partners.

There are two crucial reasons behind this decision:

Creating an effective cooperation between Copenhagen and Kampala has proven too complex. The Development Team in Kampala is strong and hardworking, but the current setup does not allow us the close dialog, sharing of ideas, productivity and flexibility that we require. To give an example of the challenges – the internet connection to the Kampala office, which we share with another company, is one of the best available, yet it is only 750 Kbits/second and is expensive (30,000 DKK/month).

The overhead costs are too high. Especially “hidden costs” for travel, slower development, waiting time and rework due to difficulties in communication.

Initially we saw a lot of benefits from having the software development team located in Africa. However, after having kept trying to improve to set up and make development run flexibly, we must face the fact that the setup is too complex to meet the demands and goals for MYC4’s development. Therefore, over a transition period of 2 months, the Kampala Office will be closed and a software development department established in Copenhagen.

…

Despite the fact that this is a difficult situation with personal as well as practical consequences, we are confident that it is the only thing to do in order to meet MYC4’s mission and vision and ensure the long term quality and scalability of the platform. …

(Source)

P2P Lending Companies Show Strong Growth – Aug. 09

wiseclerk 1 Comment

P2P lending services continue to grow. In some markets the speed of growth has even accelerated.

P2P-Banking.com has created the following overview table listing services in operation and ranked them by loan volume funded in the past 6 months.

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

For some service like the Korean Moneyauction and Popfunding no figures were available. Also omitted are some services that did not reply to information requests.

Note that Prosper.com was closed for most of the observed time span and did not make the minimum cutoff for the table. Also note that Zopa Italy is currently closed.

For a table listing more p2p lending companies check previous ‘P2P Lending Companies by Loan Volume – Jan. 09‘.

Especially british Zopa and the German services show strong growth lately. Smava nearly doubled loan volume in July compared to June (chart), whereas Auxmoney tripled it (chart). At Smava currently even 25,000 Euro loans (approx. 35,750 US$) are funded with bids in only 4 minutes (!) bidding time (example loan).

On the other hand MYC4‘s growth slowed in the last months (chart) due to problems with the providers loan picks.

MYC4 to Change Structure of Borrower’s Fees

wiseclerk 1 Comment

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.

For Debate: A Flaw in Current P2P Lending Models?

wiseclerk 9 Comments

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).

Continue reading →

MYC4 will cover for MISCOCI loans

wiseclerk 1 Comment

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)