|
Post by extremis on Oct 23, 2016 10:01:37 GMT
The risk actually stays with investor in the end, not Mintos nor Loan Originator and should be treated as such when making the investments, even into buyback guarantee loans. I couldn't agree more. That was just an unfortunate choice of words, what i actually meant was the obligation for the buyback guaranteed loans (not the risk) stays with the Loan Originator. Risk is, of course, all ours since we (investors) are lending our money. Now, the question of how much related are Mintos group companies with their Loan Originators is still open. martins has said that (with the exception of Hipocredit) Mintos does not share controlling shareholders with any of the loan originators and i trust he is saying the truth. However, i am not really sure what this means. Let me give an example: if Mintos or a Loan Originator is owned (or controlled) by a Holding company and another Loan Originator is owned by another Holding company then they would appear unrelated since they do not share any shareholders. But what if both Holding companies are owned/controlled by the same person(s)? Doesn't that mean that those persons ultimately own/control both the companies? I guess the only way to put an end to this discussion is to disclose the whole shareholders' structure of both Mintos group companies and all of its Loan Originators; if a major shareholder is a company then we should check its shareholders too, and so on, until we reach a physical person. Only this way we could be certain that the whole Mintos business is not run by the same person(s). But, i guess, this will be very hard to do, as some shareholders would like (and probably have taken the necessary steps) to remain anonymous. Anyway, if anyone has information about the shareholders' structure, i invite him/her to share it with us at this thread.
|
|
|
Post by rahafoorum on Oct 23, 2016 10:30:24 GMT
Another part there is the keyphrase "controlling" shareholders. There's a conflict of interest even if it's not a controlling shareholder, but "simply" 10% shareholder or if there are many of such 10-20% shareholders who combined would actually have a controlling share of the company. Controlling or not, is not the main issue imho.
|
|
|
Post by kilozulu on Oct 23, 2016 13:11:47 GMT
If mr.Kesenfeld truly is the owner/in control of the Mintos platform and biggest lenders, then it would mean it is less diversified risk and conflict of interest risk for investors. Essentially the same as Twino platform then.
On downside - Twino was open about being controlled by lender from the start. On upside - even if the same owner, the Mintos lenders are separate legal entities and invest in different type of loans, thus still largely diversified risk.
Mintos and Twino are my favourite p2p platforms, this event has just reduced a bit Mintos lead. To be honest I'm more concerned about rates going down.
|
|
|
Post by karloshi on Oct 23, 2016 13:31:13 GMT
The attraction of Mintos for me was that it offered something different from some of the other p2p sites, as in a marketplace for other companies. The structure of the marketplace and the buyback guarantee was attractive because it implies that as investors, while there is a financial risk, our money has extra levels of protection compared to other platforms. If there is a link between Mintos and the loan originators then the extra level does not exist and shouldn't be advertised as such. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Mintos and their ability to run a successful platform, however, any connection between Mintos and the loan originators should be disclosed to investors so we can make accurate and informed decisions. Again a lack of transparency creating suspicion among investors will only end up with a lack of trust in the platform and be harmful to their reputation and business.
|
|
yacop
Posts: 68
Likes: 42
|
Post by yacop on Oct 24, 2016 6:11:21 GMT
The risk actually stays with investor in the end, not Mintos nor Loan Originator and should be treated as such when making the investments, even into buyback guarantee loans. Now, the question of how much related are Mintos group companies with their Loan Originators is still open. martins has said that (with the exception of Hipocredit) Mintos does not share controlling shareholders with any of the loan originators and i trust he is saying the truth . However, i am not really sure what this means. Let me give an example: if Mintos or a Loan Originator is owned (or controlled) by a Holding company and another Loan Originator is owned by another Holding company then they would appear unrelated since they do not share any shareholders. But what if both Holding companies are owned/controlled by the same person(s)? Doesn't that mean that those persons ultimately own/control both the companies?I guess the only way to put an end to this discussion is to disclose the whole shareholders' structure of both Mintos group companies and all of its Loan Originators; if a major shareholder is a company then we should check its shareholders too, and so on, until we reach a physical person. Only this way we could be certain that the whole Mintos business is not run by the same person(s). But, i guess, this will be very hard to do, as some shareholders would like (and probably have taken the necessary steps) to remain anonymous. Anyway, if anyone has information about the shareholders' structure, i invite him/her to share it with us at this thread. This is the core question. Based on Leva's chart (which I have not verified yet) there may seem to be a connection between shareholders of holding companies. If verified, this could be a major drawback on Mintos's integrity and independence. As a precaution I have taken necessary steps to reduce my exposure on Mintos.
|
|
|
Post by martins on Oct 27, 2016 16:02:01 GMT
We appreciate that investors share their experience and opinion. However, we would like to kindly ask investors to review the claims before making them in public and in case of any unclear questions contact our support at support@mintos.com. As we have reported before our annual reports are prepared in accordance with IFRS and we disclose the transactions with related parties accordingly. You can find our annual reports audited by Ernst & Young here: www.mintos.com/en/about-us/investor-relations/ Each of the loan originators have their own shareholding structure. As per IAS 24 (International Accounting Standard 24 which sets clear rules what is and what is not related party) Mogo is not related party to Mintos. Mogo has a diverse shareholding structure and they have also attracted mezzanine financing from Mezzanine Management which among other is backed by European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and European Investment Fund (EIF) - globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/06/12/744184/0/en/CORRECTION-Mogo-Finance-attracts-EUR-23-3-million-mezzanine-growth-capital-from-Mezzanine-Management-12-06-2015.html With Banknote and Lendo we started to do business only in 2016. As per IAS 24 guidance they are related parties to Mintos (overlapping non-controlling shareholders) so we would disclose these as related parties in our 2016 annual report if they continue to fall under the definition. Hipocredit is Mintos group company. The change in investment structure affects only Hipocredit and Banknote loans originated to consumers in Latvia. The structure for investments Mogo loans has not changed and investors continue to invest in direct claims towards the borrower. Nor has the structure changed for any other of 11 loan originators on the Mintos marketplace. The change in structure was due to limitations set out in the license from Consumer Rights Protection Centre (CRPC) in Latvia (here are all the companies that have received the license - www.ptac.gov.lv/lv/table/kapitalsabiedribas-kuras-sanemu-licenci-pateretaju-krediteanas-pakalpojumu-sniegsanai). In CRPC view the loan originators are not allowed to assign claims from consumer loans originated in Latvia. That view has been disputed by the loan originators.
|
|
|
Post by reeknralf on Oct 27, 2016 17:05:13 GMT
The change in investment structure affects only Hipocredit and Banknote loans originated to consumers in Latvia. So just to be 100% clear, you've only been obliged to change the loan structure for mortgages issued to Latvians. As such, if I avoid Hipocredit loans in Latvia, I will have a direct charge on the property?
|
|
|
Post by extremis on Oct 27, 2016 22:54:38 GMT
Each of the loan originators have their own shareholding structure. martins, could you disclose Mintos and Loan Originators shareholding structure? Except Hipocredit, Banknote and Lendo are there any other Loan Originators (especially the major ones like Creamfinance, Capitalia, etc.) that are related parties to Mintos under IAS 24?
|
|
|
Post by martins on Oct 28, 2016 15:40:11 GMT
Under IAS 24 only Hipocredit, Banknote, and Lendo are related parties to Mintos. Based on the feedback from investors we will disclose this information accordingly in the Loan Originators section of our website.
Unfortunately, we cannot disclose the shareholding structure of the loan originators as they are private companies.
|
|
|
Post by martins on Oct 28, 2016 15:45:03 GMT
The investment structure change affects only Hipocredit and Banknote loans that are originated to consumers in Latvia. For these loans investors are buying a claim against the respective loan originator with repayments pegged to the end-borrower payments. For investments in all other loans investors continue to have a direct claim against the end-borrower. The change in investment structure affects only Hipocredit and Banknote loans originated to consumers in Latvia. So just to be 100% clear, you've only been obliged to change the loan structure for mortgages issued to Latvians. As such, if I avoid Hipocredit loans in Latvia, I will have a direct charge on the property?
|
|