But the numbers don't say that. They're reporting their *total*...

But the numbers don't say that. They're reporting their *total* bad debt since launch.

The total *revenue* since launch is 23 million.
The *net revenue* (money made) since launch is 1.6 million

The *total losses* are 38k.

They're not sugar coating the numbers. Of 23 million loaned to consumers, they have only lost 38k. If that's really true, that's really a testament to the quality of customers they're attracting. That's insanely low.

They have divided the total losses by the total loaned, which I think is the most reasonable metric = 0.16%
Or you can be a little more pessimistic, and divide it by the net revenue = 2.3%. Which (as someone who actually works for a credit provider) is exceptionally low given the volume. Supermarkets tend to operate with 3-4% shrinkage budgets. All respect, Kevin, but these numbers are not bad news.


I am impressed by the performance. They lend to people who pay. Good work.

My only real concern is growth. Afterpay were lossy from the start (no credit checking at all) and Zip used to have a reputation for being hard to get approved by. It appears, from this, that Malaysians pay their bills, but this is just the initial people.

Afterpay, Zip and Humm should serve as examples to the board. If you have continued growth targets, you inevitably take more risks.