Who are the most solid lenders on Mintos? Our Mintos lender ratings

Last updated - 19 August 2019

Mintos lenders can default or close down - it has happened before

In 2017, Mintos lender Eurocent failed, and defaulted on its Mintos ‘buyback guarantee’ commitments. This is likely to lead to signifcant losses for Mintos investors as a high proportion of Eurocent customers defaulted on their loans. Other lenders have been quietly removed from Mintos recently, with the lenders closing down their operations – including Dindin and BIG Microfinance. We had raised concerns about both of these companies – thankfully Mintos lenders were repaid in full in these cases. 

These events have inevitably led investors to pay more attention to the quality of the other lenders on the Mintos platform. That led us to create this page – our Mintos lender ratings. Our goal is to provide investors with key information on each lender, and a rating score to help highlight those that are lowest and highest risk. 

New potential default - Aforti

On 7th August 2019 Mintos announced that it was suspending primary and secondary market loan purchases relating to Aforti Holdings of Poland. You can read the statement here. It appears that the lender has failed to pass on some borrower repayments to Mintos, most likely due to liquidity issues. This unfortunately appears to be a very similar situation to Eurocent, which is still unresolved and proceeding through the Polish bankruptcy process. 

We have been expecting a new default to come from Mintos lenders for a while now, but we are slightly surprised that it is Aforti that has been the next lender to run into issues. They had scored 50/100, not a high score, but there are more obviously risky lenders out there. Their most recent report showed a profit in Q1 2019, following an underlying pre-tax profit (before goodwill write-off) of almost €1m in 2018. Reporting quality was much better than average, with up to date presentations and audited financial statements. Their stock price remains high and apparently unaffected by the Mintos announcement. Aforti’s leverage was however higher than average and for now we see this as potentially the most likely the reason that they may be experiencing funding difficulties. 

For now Mintos investors with Aforti loans in their portfolio have to wait to get more information to understand the situation better. There is still a possibility that Aforti can source further capital and/or liquidity and this may be a temporary issue. We understand meetings are being held this week with Aforti management to discuss the situation. Unfortunately our current assessment is that the firm is most likely to be put into runoff. Why? Once a small firm like this loses the confidence of funding partners like Mintos, and liquidity issues are made public, without shareholder support it is very difficult to find alternative funding and avoid an insolvency procedure. This will in our view most likely lead to losses for Mintos investors and a delay in recovering their investments.

Key financial information of each Mintos lender

The table below captures the key financial information for each lender. This can be useful to quickly lookup the profile of each lender, and compare the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

All Figures in EUR million (profits annualised where appropriate):

Mintos Lender Reporting period Loans Equity Profit - latest Profit - prior year Audited
Mogo Jun 2019 161.2 21.1 7.4 2.6 Yes
ID Finance Holding (Kazakhstan) Dec 2018 86.3 9.5 7.9 3.7 Yes
Creditstar Mar 2019 88.5 20.0 2.8 2.2 No
Capital Service Mar 2019 27.6 3.3 -0.5 -1.4 Yes
Kredit Pintar Dec 2018 4.8 8.6 5.9 No
Credissimo Dec 2018 17.2 16.3 3.2 5.0 Yes
IuteCredit Dec 2018 48.0 12.7 7.3 3.0 Yes
ExpressCredit Mar 2019 12.7 -3.4 -2.6 -1.6 No
Vizia / Banknote Dec 2018 20.1 6 4.6 2.9 Yes
Simbo Dec 2018 6.9 -0.1 0.8 -1.0 Yes
SOS Credit Jul 2019 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 No
Monego Dec 2018 4.1 0.4 -0.6 0 Yes
Tengo Sep 2018 4.1 -0.4 No
Cashwagon Dec 2018 20.9 5.3 -5.1 -6.3 No
Placet Group Dec 2018 32 15.9 3.5 3 No
Akulaku Nov 2018 67.4 48.4 -23.5 No
AgroCredit Dec 2018 5.2 1.8 0.2 0.1 No
Acema Mar 2017 38.6 14.7 2.0 2.4 Yes
BB Finance Group Dec 2018 14.2 4.9 -1.1 0.8 Yes
Creamfinance Dec 2018 51.2 12.4 1.6 -0.4 Yes
Extra Finance Dec 2018 4.6 2.0 0.1 2.0 No
Mozipo Group Dec 2017 6.6 4.3 0.2 0.5 Yes
Aasa Dec 2018 73.2 -2000 -2000 -2000 No
Kredo.al Dec 2018 2.8 0.1 -0.8 -0.2 No
Aforti Dec 2018 27.1 1.7 0.1 0.3 Yes
Dinero Dec 2018 4.1 2.0 -1.6 -0.2 Yes
Dozarplati Dec 2018 6.2 2.7 1.0 0.1 No
Capitalia Dec 2018 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 Yes
Credilikeme Dec 2018 0.4 1.1 0.1 -0.7 No
Lendo Dec 2017 17.7 0.8 -2.2 No
EcoFinance Dec 2018 4.9 1.7 0.1 0.4 Yes
ITF Group Dec 2018 2.5 1.2 0.2 0.2 Yes
EBV Finance Dec 2018 18.3 3 0.3 0.1 Yes
Hipocredit Jun 2018 4.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 No
Debifo Dec 2018 7.8 0.1 -0.1 0.2 No
Kviku Dec 2018 8.8 1.8 0.7 0.1 Yes
Rapido Finance Dec 2018 1.8 -1.7 -1.7 -1.9 Yes
Tigo Dec 2018 2.1 -0.7 -0.8 -0.3 Yes
Efaktor Dec 2018 7.2 0.5 0.1 0.2 Yes
Peachy Oct 2018 4 -1.2 -0.7 -1.6 No
GetBucks Dec 2018 111 -2.6 -14.7 -12 Yes
Varks Dec 2018 16.6 3.7 6.8 -0.9 Yes
LF TECH Dec 2017 20.8 16 10 5.1 No
Credius Dec 2018 9.7 7.8 0.4 1.8 Yes
Rapicredit Dec 2018 2.8 0.1 -0.7 -0.4 Yes
Sebo Dec 2018 9.5 -0.2 1.8 -0.6 Yes
Kredit24 Dec 2018 2.4 -0.7 -0.7 0.7 Yes
Watu Credit Dec 2018 8.3 1.8 1.6 0.2 Yes
Bino Dec 2017 5.7 -1.7 -2 -0.1 No
Kuki.pl Dec 2018 72.7 5.2 -6.9 No
1pm Nov 2018 141.6 57.3 7.1 7.2 Yes
Metrokredit May 2018 0.7 0.3 -1000 No
AlfaKredyt Dec 2018 4.9 1.3 0.3 0.2 No
Mikro Kapital Dec 2018 21.3 5.5 0.1 0 No
Fireof Dec 2018 3.8 0.9 0.0 No
ID Finance Spain Dec 2018 11.6 -0.9 0.1 -0.4 Yes
ID Finance Mexico Dec 2018 1.7 -1.0 -0.6 -0.4 No
Lime Zaine Dec 2018 10.3 3.3 0.6 0.6 Yes
Dineo Credito Dec 2018 8.6 1.3 2.2 2.8 No
Dineria Mar 2019 1.6 -1.4 -1000 No
Lendrock Dec 2018 0.5 1.1 -0.3 -0.2 No
Dziesiątka Finanse Dec 2018 4.4 2.0 0.2 0.0 Yes
Novaloans Mar 2019 1.2 1.3 0.9 0.5 No
Alex Credit Mar 2019 3.1 1.3 0.6 -0.3 No
CashCredit Dec 2018 8.5 2.2 0.7 0.1 Yes

Our Mintos lender ratings

Our Mintos lender ratings are based on 5 characteristics – profitability, capitalisation, size, track record and the quality of their reporting. We have allocated marks out of 20 for each metric, giving a total score out of 100. Mintos have recently introduced their own ratings – from A (best) to D (default), which we have included as a comparison.

Latest rating changes - August 2019


Mogo released its 1H 2019 results (click the arrow above for link). We had been cutting the Mogo rating due to its growing leverage and default rates. However leverage is now stable, and Mogo recorded a strong profit in 1H19 on the back of lower bad debt costs. Score increased from 71 to 76.


Rating has been suspended pending further information from Mintos and/or Aforti (see comments above)

New: SOS Credit

SOS Credit is a very small lender from Ukraine, with a €1.2m loan portfolio. However it has been profitable in the last 2 years and is currently mainly funded with shareholder equity. However these positive factors are offset by low scores for small size and poor disclosure quality, leading to a score of 46.

ITF Group

ITF Group received a slight increase in rating from 45 to 50. It is a tiny Bulgarian lender but is stable, has good leverage ratios and it makes a small profit each year. If it was 20 times larger we would like it a lot more.

Ratings re-affirmed:

The following companies had no changes to their scores following their latest financial disclosures: Dineo, Rapido


Kazakhstan lender Kredit24 has had its score fall from 50 to 32 following release of 2018 results. It fell to a loss in 2018 and now has a negative equity position.

Cash Credit

Cash Credit has received an upgrade from 35 to 53 following a big increase in profit in 2018 and improved disclosures.


Polish lender Alfakredyt was upgraded from 33 to 45 based on its higher profit in 2018 and increased capital levels.

Latest rating changes - July 2019

BB Finance

BB Finance now operates in just Finland and Estonia. It has had to close down its Georgia and Czech Republic operations in 2019 as they were loss making. Losses in these countries were the main reason why the business fell to a loss of €1.1m in 2018. Their score fell from 62 to 55, but it will likely recover in future if it can recover in its core markets.

Capital Service

Polish lender Capital Service has had its score fall from 65 to 57 following release of 2018 results. In the last two years it has generated pre-tax profits but it has incurred huge (unexplained) corporation tax bills that has pushed it into a loss. This, as well as an increase in leverage has led to a fall in score.


Small lender Dozarplati had been break-even in 2016 and 2017 but it achieved a €1m profit in 2018. It has also grown its capital base and these factors led to a score increase from 56 to 61.

Watu Credit

Big score lift from 39 to 61, driven by a very strong result for 2018. Profit increased from €0.2m to €1.6m. The business also grew its equity and loan portfolio considerably, and has reasonable capital ratios.


Russian lender Kviku had a successful 2018, increasing profits considerably, from €0.1m to €0.7m. Balance sheet ratios also improved, leading to a score increase from 45 to 57.


Columbian lender Rapicredit's losses continue to grow, with a €0.7m loss in 2018. Quite frankly we think their balance sheet looks very strange to us too. Our score has fallen from 40 to 28.


Slight downgrade from 34 to 32 due to the company moving from a profit in 2017 to a small loss in 2018.

ID Finance

ID Finance finally released their audited 2018 financial statements. Our overall score fell slightly from 81 to 78. Their score fell slightly due to higher leverage and slightly lower profits than their previous presentations had disclosed. Overall though ID Finance is still performing well.

Express Credit

Express Credit has operations in 2 countries. We have combined the results of both for our tables above. Both countries made substantial losses in 2018 and now have negative equity positions. We have cut rating from 53 down to 22.

Extra Finance

Extra Finance experienced a sharp fall in profits in 2018 - from €9.1m to €0.3m. This has been the main reason for the fall in score from 60 to 52.

Credit Star

Slight upgrade from 77 to 79 on the basis of record profits for Q1 2019 and stable balance sheet structure.


The last time Danish lender Simbo reported results it disclosed a loss of €1m. In 2018 it managed to achieve a profit of €0.8m. It continues to have a weak balance sheet, but the improved profit situation has led to a score increase from 24 to 43.


Minor downgrade of score from 70 to 68 due to a fall in profits in the most recent report. However the business continues to be strongly capitalised.

Ratings re-affirmed:

The following companies had no changes to their scores following their latest financial disclosures: Agrocredit, Credissimo, Credilikeme, Placet Group, Kredo, Efaktor, Cashwagon


Slight upgrade from 39 to 43 following publication of first year results.


Most loans on Mintos are from the Polish subsidiary of the 'Supernova JV'. However no results have been provided for this business since 2016. The latest group presentation for Supernova suggests the group is performing very poorly due to problems with their Finland subsidiary and is experiencing funding issues. There is insufficient information to support remaining invested in Aasa Poland and have withdrawn any rating due to lack of information.

Our views on the new lenders

In June 2018 Mintos introduced a British lender – Novaloans. The business is extremely small, but has a good profit history over the last 2 years. If it was much larger we would be very positive about the business but its initial rating is only 51. Mintos also introduced Ukrainian lender Alex Credit. The business is extremely small, with a loan portfolio of only €3 million, however it is profitable. Its initial rating is 41. Another new lender is a Polish lender called Dziesiatka Finanse.  Unlike many lenders on Mintos it has been operating for 8 years. The main downside again is that it is very small. It is however part of a larger group (although it does not receive a guarantee from the group). Our initial score is 62. In June Spanish auto lender called Lendrock also joined. The business model seems promising however it is currently extremely small with a limited track record. Our initial score is 41. In May a tiny lender from Mexico called Dineria joined Mintos. We are really not sure how they qualified to join Mintos given that they have less than €2m of loans, and have negative equity. We awarded them a score of only 12/100, and Mintos has awarded a rating of only B-.

A recent lender to join that has scored well is Indonesian Fintech lender Kredit Pintar. Kredit Pintar reports that it had a very profitable first year of operations (which is a little surprising for a new business) and a strong capitalisation (equity is much higher than its loan book). We note that it is backed by some well known investors and its app is highly rated by customers on the Google Play store. It has achieved an initial score of 66, which should increase in the future as it builds a longer track record and provides more financial information about its business. Mintos gave it a B+ rating.

In February 2019 a profitable lender from Spain joined Mintos – Dineo. Dineo achieved an initial score of 60. Once it publishes its 2018 financials, and improves its financial disclosures, we think this score will improve. The most recent lender to join was Mikro Capital from Russia. Mikro has good capital ratios and a reasonable size, however its earnings have been weak in the last two years, barely breaking even. Its initial score is 47.

In January 2019 Mintos introduced a company from Kosovo, called Monego. It was similar to many other lenders who have joined the platform recently, being a new lending business with next to no track record, operating in a small country. It achieved a score of 39, which is slightly higher than may be expected, but it currently has strong capital ratios. We also like that it has been described as a ‘related party’ of Mintos as we think Mintos is less likely to allow its investors to suffer a loss in this situation if the company is not successful.

Now you’ve reviewed our latest Mintos lender ratings – what’s the fastest way to choose the best loans on the  Mintos Primary Market? Check out our new Mintos Loan Scanner page, which allows you to compare very quickly the current interest rates, loan availability, and ratings for each lender on the platform. We will keep it updated, so check it next time you are thinking of buying more loans, or adjusting your auto-invest settings.

Next step: consider adding these sites to your portfolio

EstateGuru logo

EstateGuru is an excellent site that offers loans secured on real estate. Rates are high - around 11%. Currently mainly focused on the Baltic region of Europe but with plans to expand into other countries.

Viventor logo

Viventor is a similar site to Mintos, just smaller. Some secured loans are available. We also provide Viventor lender ratings.

Bulkestate logo

Bulkestate is a small but growing site focused on loans secured on real estate. It offers loans secured by real estate. Their rates are the highest in Europe for secured loans currently (11-14%)

October P2P logo

October is focused on lending to small businesses in France, Spain and Italy. Rates are often a little lower than the other sites we list here, but some investors will like October due to the countries it operates in.

PeerBerry logo

Peerberry offers loans from multiple lenders. Rates are usually around 12%, and most loans have buyback guarantees. The site is easy to use and has a great design.

Lenndy is another multi-lender P2P investment site. It is much smaller than Mintos, but it has an interesting range of loans. Many have high rates, with buyback guarantees

294 thoughts on “Who are the most solid lenders on Mintos? Our Mintos lender ratings

  1. Christian Reply

    Regarding ID Finance in Spain, news from Mintos today: https://blog.mintos.com/id-finance-spain-reports-solid-financial-results-in-may/

    I however also agree that the ratings for ID Finance, or generally all companies operating in different countries without group guarantees, should be rated independently, because they are somewhat independent entities. On the other hand, it would be very bad for the reputation if one country fails and investors lose money, I guess investors would then withdraw money for all other countries also because of this, so even without a group guarantee there might be a motivation to prevent a crash as much as possible.. Thoughts?

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      All good points raised by everyone here surrounding ID Finance. We’ve only had a couple of days since the disclosure of the split of the company into different regions. We’ve been hesitant to provide intra-group ratings up to now but it appears that the 3 different ID Finance geographies have differing risk profiles as the implicit group guarantee does not seem to exist any longer. We will consider how best to reflect this. The Spanish results seem to have improved very significantly in Q1 2019 according to their latest report, so the situation seems stronger than reported as of 31 Dec.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      We have now split ID Finance into 3 separate units (Holding/Kazak, Spain, Mexico) to reflect the different risk profiles following the demergers of the different companies recently announced. Thanks for suggestion.

  2. The South Sea Company Reply

    That’s correct, and this is a big oversight on the part of Oscar and his team. The Spanish and Mexican operations never had a group guarantee, so it was never fair to give them the same rating, and indeed Mintos itself gives them different ratings. Worse, if you read the financial statements carefully, you’ll find they are no longer even in the same group! The shares of the EU/LatAm business have been distributed to ID Finance’s shareholders; in other words, the two ID Finance groups are now unrelated. (You can also see that the original parent retained most of the cash, making it clear which side is the risky one.)

    To be fair, Mintos provides financials for all of the separate companies: all links are on the loan originator page. Both the Spanish and the Mexican company have negative equity. The latter one is particularly precarious due to its large losses and huge negative equity. Financially, these two companies are maybe on par with Metrokredit or Tengo, yet a cursory look at ratings on this page would make you think they are among the safest on Mintos. Ouch!

    The loans issued in Kazakhstan do have a group guarantee by the “real” ID Finance, which has very solid financials. Note however that it is now a smaller company, having shed its “Western half” in the split.

    I think the rating for ID Finance Spain and Mexico should be withdrawn or very dramatically reduced.

    • The South Sea Company Reply

      Note, my comment above was in response to Thomas about ID Finance. For some reason it is not shown indented properly.

  3. Pingback: Crowdlending comparison (update July 2019) - Investing small

  4. Thomas Reply

    Do I understand this right
    On Mintos ID Finance has loans in Spain – IDFinance Spain, S.L., Kazakhstan – MFO OnlineKazFinance LLP (Kazakhstan) and Mexico -IDF CAPITAL, S.A.P.I DE C.V., SOFOM E.N.R.

    In the audit report I find that ID Finance Spain S.L. is mentioned as “Discontinued operations”. In Note 4 there is Discontinued operations – EULATAM with the financial statement.
    The operating loss is pretty huge. Only due to “Gain on revaluation of non-cash assets distributed to shareholders ” there is finally in income instead of a loss.

    As there is no Group Guarantee for Spain/Mexico shouldn’t there be a different Rating for ID them?

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Thanks Roddy we’ve been waiting a long time for those ones now… We’ve updated the page.

  5. Janis Reply

    Great article! Could you please give a brief explanation why Peachy is rated so low in your ranking?

      • Janis - investingsmall.eu Reply

        Thanks, Hugo, I got a reply from Mintos when asking for a comment on this:

        “In the framework of cooperation with Cash On Go Ltd, company’s other funding source’s security was ranked as second tier (or “claim rights over the security of the company’s other funding source were ranked as second tier”), prioritizing claim rights of Mintos investors. This way “subordinated” debt could be treated as quasi capital which in turn positions company in line with B Mintos rating.”

        Do you have any comments on this? Sounds like they have more info on securities than there is on the balance sheet.

  6. Gian Piero Reply

    Hi Oscar,
    Thank you for your quick answer. You say that you have audited financial statements instead of a company presentation.
    Yes, the numbers are not as great, but they are audited.
    The great news is that EBV is now audited, I would have thought that this should improve their rating, not reduce it.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Hi Pietro & Gian. Rating change followed receipt of EBV’s 2018 figures. The company is slightly more levered, and is less profitable than the previous figures we had available which came from a company presentation rather than audited financial statements.

  7. Gian Piero Reply

    Hi Oscar, thank you for this great work you do. It helps me a lot. Could you perhaps make some comment on EBV that appears to have been slightly downgraded?

  8. Pingback: Mintos meets Data Science #3 — The Coin Magnet

  9. The South Sea Company Reply

    What’s your source for, or what method did you use to calculate, the equity value for Monego? Your table shows 4.8 while my numbers are at 0.4, a very significant difference. Thanks.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Thanks for pointing this out – it looks like Mintos have just uploaded the audited 2018 financials. We had previously relied on figures contained in a presentation provided, it is not clear why there is a discrepancy in the equity figure. Regardless we have updated the tables with the audited figures.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Thanks for the question – agree with the 0.4 figure, and we have updated table. It may have simply linked to the wrong data source, apologies.

  10. Rimvydas Reply

    There is new load originator – Alexcredit, please update your table. It seems that financials of this loan originator are also not bad. Please, update your table.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Thanks for finding this Michael – we’ve updated the tables. Seems to be performing much better, one to keep an eye on…

  11. Julio Reply

    I would like to be notified by email every time there would be an update of this article. I find it very useful. Is there a way to suscribe or something to be notified when updated?

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Great idea. We will look into this, it should be possible.

  12. Pedro Reply

    Hi Oscar.

    Kredo has published its financial statements. bad news

    Kind regards,

  13. Pingback: How to Invest 10.000 EUR in P2P? 15 Bloggers Reveal Their Best Ways!

  14. Petr Reply

    Hi, as Christian wrote, your time and effort is greatly appreciated.

    ExpressCredit also published financials for Botswanian entity https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/mintos-prod-public-files/8F87750E-F73C-580F-FC3B-BECF750B655A.pdf

    Also two presentation published:
    Botswanian: https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/mintos-prod-public-files/F5A6222B-F21C-C5E8-C460-9CB41E1BC0B8.pdf
    Zambian: https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/mintos-prod-public-files/0B456298-1D1A-B96C-8231-CC2D79DAF123.pdf

    Its weird, that Zambian entity is profitable durign 2018 in presentation, however it’s loss making in financials.

    Also little side note, this thread is too long. Isn’t there any more practical solution?

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Thanks Petr. We always try and use the financial statement numbers if they are available. Often the numbers in the presentations are better than the financials, or don’t tie out at all…. Both ExpressCredit companies had poor numbers for 2018 as you saw, and negative equity. We’ve updated the tables and ratings today to take this into account. Regarding the size of comment thread we will try and address it.

      • Petr Reply

        Yes, agreed, that is alwat better to use numbers from FS. Just wanted to point that out.

  15. Christian Arnold Reply

    Could you please take a look for the December 2018 audited Credius report, which can be found here: https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/mintos-prod-public-files/26A87D3F-2B09-E216-52B0-088B90B0A47B.pdf.
    Temporary troubles or alarm signs, what do you guys think?

    Also, AASA seems to be in trouble, see https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/mintos-prod-public-files/1D5CE6F5-BBDC-8D2B-FC89-EE6A0A161216.pdf for a presentation for the Q4 reports in 2018. Why they are still rated as A is beyond my understanding in light of this, particularly after the Mintos Rating update from today (please also update this, see https://blog.mintos.com/upcoming-mintos-rating-update-on-4-july-2019/). Thanks!

    • Roddy Reply

      The AASA report indeed does not look well, but the report focus is on AASA business in Finland and Estonia, whilst the loans issues on Mintos are from Poland and Sweden. Would need to get figures from that though to make an assessment.

      • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

        Roddy & Christian – we decided today to remove rating for Aasa. The disclosures about the Poland subsidiary are just not good enough. Combined with the big problems you are referencing with other entities in the group and we just don’t feel it’s possible to understand what’s really going on.

  16. Marc Reply

    Hi Oscar. Would it be possible to add a column to your table stating the date of the last change of scores for every loan originator? For my investments I’m maintaining an Excel sheet that uses your data as well so I would be happy if i could see at first glance which loan originator was last updated so i can update my list too.

    • Osmium Reply

      Yes! A proper changelog at the bottom of the post like “20.06.19 Varks 58 -> 62” would be nice to notice changes at first glance. Keep up the excellent work.

    • Peter Reply

      Hi Oscar, Marc and Osmium,

      I agree. It would be really helpfull not to have to go through the whole list to see, if something has changed.

      Keep up the good work.

      • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

        Hi Peter – we’ve just added a new section below the tables highlighting latest rating changes following several rating updates today. Hope this helps!

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Thanks Hugo we have updated. Car crash results. Loan losses were somehow 10 times the interest income. Really find it difficult to understand on what basis companies like Tigo qualify to receive public funding on Mintos. It is more suitable for Angel / startup / VC style funding given the risks.

  17. Steven Reply

    Hi Oscar,

    I noticed that the scores are wrong for CashCredit and for PimPay. For CashCredit it should be 37 instead of 35 and for PimPay it should be 15 instead of 18 according to the individual points given by you.

    I also spotted that the declared Mintos ratings are wrong for Mogo, Aasa and Placet Group. For Mogo it should be A instead of A/B, for Aasa it should be A/B instead of B and for Placet Group it should be A/B instead of A-.

    Another minor difference is that Varks.am is only called Varks and Cream is called Creamfinance on Mintos.

    Would cherish it if you could update the table.
    Anyway, I appreciate the effort you’ve put into this site!

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Hi Steven. We’ve actually just removed Pimpay because they have no loans on Mintos any longer. The Cashcredit score of 35 is correct as we reduced the profit score from 6 to 4. We have updated that field now. Will update the ratings – those were not announced but we’ve now implemented some monitoring of key Mintos pages to try and pick up these changes quicker.

  18. Ian Reply

    Thanks for that that Oscar,
    Another question, if I may, I don’t fully understand the risk difference, if any, between the ‘Direct and Indirect’ investment structure. If there is a BuyBack guarantee on the loan will it make any difference?

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Ian that is quite a complex topic to discuss. Best you chat with Mintos support. Direct is considered more secure. There will be no difference to you under either structure unless a lender defaults. Recoveries are likely to be more complex and uncertain under the indirect structure.

  19. Ian Reply

    Hi Oscar, do you have any info on Dziesiatka?, it’s not on your list.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Hi Ian – we’ve now added it, thanks for picking it up. Main downside is that it is very small, but similar to many other lenders on Mintos

    • Hugo Reply

      I’ll leave the translations here. Starting from page 6, you have numbers associated to each account. 15 – total assets 23 – total liabilities 30 – total capital (all of which grew). On page 8 you have the P&L, 1 is turnover and 61 is net results which was 40kk rubles ~ 500k€, little less than the last year. Sales doubled but profit stayed the same, which might be considered a “not that good” sign.

      • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

        Thanks Hugo and Pedro – we’ve updated the Lime Zaine figures.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Agree Pedro. We’ve updated table now, Gracias.

  20. Vitek Reply

    I would like to thank you for amazing job.
    I would have a proposal, would you consider changing names in Lender column to match names on Mintos page (https://www.mintos.com/en/loan-originators/#overview) in loan originator combobox?
    You can remove “Leaselink (Pragma)” no longer available among mintos loan originators.
    You can add data for “CashCredit”, “Dziesiatka Finanse”, “Eurocent”, “VIZIA”

    This would simplify comparison Mintos and your statistics.

    • Oscar Harrington Post authorReply

      Hi Vitek. Check out the updated table – hopefully you will be happy. Note – we exclude Eurocent because it is insolvent. We combine Vizia and Banknote as they are part of the same group.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *