Actually, ACLEDA started life as an MFI, way back when, and eventually made the transition to one of, if not the, largest bank in the country.vladimir wrote:They also did it to ACLEDA, who I think, are one of the biggest banks in Cambodia, and certainly not an MFI.QED wrote:First the government makes some MFIs change logos to clarify that they are not government-related.
Greed and Power
- Playboy
- 20,000 Posts; I need professional help !
- Reactions: 288
- Posts: 24827
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:30 pm
- Location: Hotel K: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
- Contact:
"We, the sons of John Company, have arrived"
The medium-term aim of Prasac too. To become a bank that is. I think it's alrrady number 5 or something by cap?Playboy wrote:Actually, ACLEDA started life as an MFI, way back when, and eventually made the transition to one of, if not the, largest bank in the country.vladimir wrote:They also did it to ACLEDA, who I think, are one of the biggest banks in Cambodia, and certainly not an MFI.QED wrote:First the government makes some MFIs change logos to clarify that they are not government-related.
Where are the conspiracy theorists who should be suggesting the big 3 MFIs are behind this with a view to wiping out the competition. I don't find that hard to believe.
- vladimir
- Feminist Watch List
- Reactions: 4
- Posts: 34235
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 7:43 am
- Location: mod edit
Hahaha!
Serendipity is a strange thing...on the thread: Are there expat loansharks in Cambodia? Monday Jan 12th, 2015
Serendipity is a strange thing...on the thread: Are there expat loansharks in Cambodia? Monday Jan 12th, 2015
SCC wrote:mm yeah, just what I was thinking. I didn't knows I was keeping such bad company.Lucky Lucan wrote:It was in Australia, just Google it FFS.Walter White wrote: Wasn't Tim "Sharky" Ward running his loan business out of Pattaya, or was that back when he was in Australia?
Yeah, and we all know you were just doing this out of the goodness of your heart and weren't at all interested in squeezing a dime out of desperate locals. Usury is one of the biggest issues that keeps people in poverty here. You should be ashamed of yourself, but instead you blame it on other people's greed. Utterly fucking pathetic.robboat wrote:Wife got me involved with this a few years ago....seemed an easy way to make some extra money as borrowers from around our market could repay at our shop during the day.....We all know the Khmer hunger for money.....stupid!
ירי ילדים והפצצת אזרחים דורש אומץ, כמו גם הטרדה מינית של עובדי ההוראה.
where is this high risk?scobienz wrote: Most funding for these loans comes from retail deposits (supplemented here and there by development bank loans). To maintain profitability at a capped interest rate, savers can say goodbye to those relatively high savings rates, so no more 9-10% returns. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but given the high risk inherent in the MFI lending portfolio, no sensible investor is going to bother putting their savings into MFIs to get the same 4-6% that they can get from much more secure banks.
which area of mfi's are you talking about?? if you're going to drivel on, please be specific.
the larger loans lent at the same 30 + percent- mfe's - which people are being lent by the newer companies - that seem more intent on mfe loans for deeds?
has has already been explained, the high interest rates and malpractice surrounding an increasing number of these mfe loans - the one's the banks are increasingly funding- is what needs to be controlled and capped.
if someone wants a new motorbike to show off their status - then no one should be lending him that money. those loans are for starting/ supporting small businesses which generate income to pay back the loans.
that's what Yunis originally set up the mfi idea for.
if they are handing out the loans to people who can't afford to pay them back then they are behaving the same as the loan sharks as they know what the end result will be- loss of land/ house.
if your investments lie with these companies, i suggest you do the world a favor and hang yourself now. or at least discover who is doing what and place your money in one that isn't behaving like a loan shark.
you can't have your cake and eat it. you can't tell everyone your're helping the poor of the world, if in fact you're doing the opposite. your money, your investments = your responsibility.
these people would likely not have borrowed from a loan shark, but people obviously told them that mfi's were different. possibly the mfi suppliers themselves?
the major problem in all this seems to be the small loans for food and medicine which are being capped in the same package without the government making a distinction.
please explain how high interest rates are acceptable on incredibly low default rates. i know you wont because you cant. it doesn't make sense.
no, idiot, it means it's boom time for the big banks. what do you think they're getting involved for? - philanthropy? lmao.So we come full circle. Low returns for investors means reduced deposits, which means reduced funds to lend to borrowers. The likes of ABA or ANZ won't be lending to the rural poor, which means its boom time again for the local money lenders charging 10% per month.
Last edited by Abou-Gor on Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
- ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ
- Daylight, I need Daylight !?!
- Reactions: 685
- Posts: 4707
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:42 pm
You are a dumbass.Abou-Gor wrote: please explain how high interest rates are acceptable on incredibly low default rates. i know you wont because you cant. it doesn't make sense.
It's been explained a couple of times which you can't seem to understand.
Just leave it now, each post you make just makes you look stupid.
excuse me , but i was the one who brought it up - including figures of default pages ago. answer the question.ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ wrote:You are a dumbass.Abou-Gor wrote: please explain how high interest rates are acceptable on incredibly low default rates. i know you wont because you cant. it doesn't make sense.
It's been explained a couple of times which you can't seem to understand.
on the contrare, each post makes you look more and more involved with this dogey practice.Just leave it now, each post you make just makes you look stupid.
ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ thanks for your insightful posts. You're explanations were very helpful.
It seems that Visionfund is writing of non-performing debt without seizing the collateral of the debtor.
It seems that Visionfund is writing of non-performing debt without seizing the collateral of the debtor.
- ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ
- Daylight, I need Daylight !?!
- Reactions: 685
- Posts: 4707
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:42 pm
That's not actually so uncommon (in the uk anyway). The cost of realising the collateral is often deemed to high - financial cost and cost to reputation with negative publicity.riverman wrote:ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ thanks for your insightful posts. You're explanations were very helpful.
It seems that Visionfund is writing of non-performing debt without seizing the collateral of the debtor.
Sure there not selling the debt on so that it's no longer on their books?ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ wrote:That's not actually so uncommon (in the uk anyway). The cost of realising the collateral is often deemed to high - financial cost and cost to reputation with negative publicity.riverman wrote:ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ thanks for your insightful posts. You're explanations were very helpful.
It seems that Visionfund is writing of non-performing debt without seizing the collateral of the debtor.
- ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ
- Daylight, I need Daylight !?!
- Reactions: 685
- Posts: 4707
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:42 pm
Yeah that can happen, as long as they aren't concerned with the reputational cost.RobW wrote:Sure there not selling the debt on so that it's no longer on their books?ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ wrote:That's not actually so uncommon (in the uk anyway). The cost of realising the collateral is often deemed to high - financial cost and cost to reputation with negative publicity.riverman wrote:ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ thanks for your insightful posts. You're explanations were very helpful.
It seems that Visionfund is writing of non-performing debt without seizing the collateral of the debtor.
I'd hope that sold debt would still show as losses on the balance sheets - but I could certainly be hidden
- ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ
- Daylight, I need Daylight !?!
- Reactions: 685
- Posts: 4707
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 4:42 pm
I'm no expert anymore but I think you are just repackaging and selling a financial instrument so it could be written down as an equity?ផោមក្លិនស្អុយ wrote:No, not a debt. But it is a loss.RobW wrote:^ It's hidden. It's no longer a debt.
MFIs seek regulator’s support
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/business/m ... rs-support
for being poor i mean. im sure you would all agree (in private)
this dumbass posted the comment below yesterday.
As a reason for manipulating the figures one of you suggests it is to avoid 'negative publicity'. if that doesn't set alarm bells ringings then i don't know what does.
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/business/m ... rs-support
return on equity of about 20 to 25% grabbed from poor fuckers. well i guessed they deserved it.The apex body for the nation’s microfinance industry announced yesterday that the central bank had tentatively agreed to a number of measures it had requested to ease the burden on microfinance lenders following last week’s unilateral decision to cap annual interest rates at 18 percent as of April 1...
Ieng Tong said if the central bank were to follow through on these measures he was optimistic that the microfinance sector could weather the sudden imposition of an 18-percent cap on interest – a drastic cut from the prevailing 20 to 30 percent rates offered on loans under $1,000. Analysts have warned the new interest rate ceiling could bankrupt dozens of MFIs while drying up credit channels to the poor...
“The problem is that some of his colleagues in the government think that all MFIs are hugely profitable and can handle this 18 percent cap, which some can, but they don’t fully understand the market and that the smaller players giving small loans are barely profitable,” Mony added.
Sok Voeun, chief executive of LOLC (Cambodia) Plc, said the rate cap would slice deep into the MFI’s profits, but was unlikely to sink it.
“Our return on equity will decrease significantly this year and next year,” he said. “In the past, we use to get a return on equity of about 20 to 25 percent, but this year we might receive maybe 5 to 10 percent.”
for being poor i mean. im sure you would all agree (in private)
this dumbass posted the comment below yesterday.
so in your above posts, you've repeated the info about how the figures are manipulated to show low default - something that was posted pages ago. but no one has made a comment as to what the real rate of default is.by Abou-Gor » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:44 am
the major problem in all this seems to be the small loans for food and medicine which are being capped in the same package without the government making a distinction.
As a reason for manipulating the figures one of you suggests it is to avoid 'negative publicity'. if that doesn't set alarm bells ringings then i don't know what does.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 2 Replies
- 992 Views
-
Last post by YaTingPom
Sun Jul 28, 2019 12:26 pm
-
- 2 Replies
- 1109 Views
-
Last post by horace
Thu Nov 14, 2019 1:52 pm
-
- 14 Replies
- 715 Views
-
Last post by MaxB
Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:14 pm
-
-
Movin Out Sale - Power Tools and Equipment
by Angelito7591 » Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:47 am » in Buy and Sell - 0 Replies
- 1384 Views
-
Last post by Angelito7591
Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:47 am
-