- Joined
- 27 December 2010
- Posts
- 1,729
- Reactions
- 48
Isn't most of it from the increase in provisioning for estimated bad debts due to the bigger receivables balance at 30 June 2014? Check note 9 I think it is... fairly sure the movement in that provision is expensed (ie. CR provision DR expenses).
I don't follow this company very closely... btw.
Yeah its more of the same for CCP.
Looks like they are confident in lending taking over the growth for the next few periods while PDL market continues to remain highly priced.
Good to see they now will have a multi-pronged approach in the coming years (importantly with equal target returns) and don't rely on one segment alone.
Been having a bit of a look with an eye to buying back in (would have to be a swap with TGA for me)
Looks like I get to play devils advocate again.
I'm a bit dubious on the same target return claim - yes they may target 16-18% on each pdl purchase but the collections / PDL balance is closer to 2 then 1 which increases the per-annum return.
Gross loan book of 63.6 Million and provisioning of 16.6 Million. Either they are over provisioned or they are going after the lowest of the subprime market – Not hard to increase the loan book to that market, can they get it back?
Writing off 26% as bad loans means they have to make an interest rate of 42-44%paon the good ones to get the net 16-18% they are after.
Has anybody got their head around the quality of the loans they are making and whether the provisioning is likely to be accurate? The numbers are not going to reveal the picture until the loan book growth slows by which time the goose will be cooked one way or the other.
Has anybody got their head around the quality of the loans they are making and whether the provisioning is likely to be accurate? The numbers are not going to reveal the picture until the loan book growth slows by which time the goose will be cooked one way or the other.
5K loan over 36 months cost you 23-24% pa which is comparable to credit card cash advance ... Most other lender cant do it at this rate for credit impair customers but credit corp can
Actually
$5,000 over 36 Months = Comparison rate of 38.47%
How did you end up with 38.7% ?
$5000 over 36 months total repayment of $8497
$8497 - 5000 = $3497 (interest)
3497/5000 = 70%
70% / 3 = 23.3% p/a
Curious myself. So played around a bit to see if I could re-create the numbers.I used their figures – see link in post.
Besides repayments of $236.03 over 36 months on $5,000 is an annuity calculation. Which comes out to 3.2% per month or 38.4% per year. The comparative rate also needs to take into account one off and ongoing fees and charges.
edit
As an aside - the comparative rate which is a legal requirement to show was quite tricky to find on their site. right down the bottom on a non- highlighted link.
Second edit - that link to the table is now gone and it now says in small print at the bottom that the comparison rate is 41.77% based on $2,500 over two years
Curious myself. So played around a bit to see if I could re-create the numbers.
To find the interest rate open up Excel and use the RATE function. Rate(nper,pmt,pv,fv,type,guess)
Nper = number of periods. 36 in this case.
Pmt = Monthly repayment. $236.03
PV = Present value. $5000
FV = Future value. $0 since it will be paid out by end of 36 months.
Type = type of loan, 0 for payment at beginning of month, 1 for end. I assume it is the end in this case.
Guess = what you think the Interest rate is. Just type in 38%, if you leave it blank it starts at 10% by default.
Excel spits out 3.4354% for me. Which is 41.225% annualised.
If I change type to 0, it comes out as 3.2036% or 38.4435%.
You could alternatively try to use algebra to figure out the interest rate based on the annuity payment formula. But I wouldn't recommend it.
Yep, just realised I got the beginning (type 1) and end (type 0) of period payments the wrong way around.except you got your 0 and 1 around the wrong way for beginning and end of period - [or I have been doing it wrong all this time]. Pmt needs to be entered as a negative - but you must have done that to get the right result.
Hi Craft,
Thanks for raising the points. I hold shares in both TGA and CCP.
Having a look at TGA's latest presenation provision for the loan book is at 11.2% of net receivables. On a gross basis that should be a bit lower so probably closer to 10%.
On the face of it, it looks like CCP is provisioning at a rate of 26%. This is just another testament of how wonderful this result actually is. TGA has had a couple years of no growth due to the ramping up of it's lending businesses. CCP seems to have been able to maintain profit growth thanks to their main debt collecting business and with the lending side set to be profitably next year, things are looking very good. TGA is also looking very good to deliver profit growth soon.
A 3 year loan that generates 38.4% pa for 3 years is very profitable even if you only receive 74% of those payments. This is a basic assumption based on their provisioning ratio and might be wrong, depending on how the amortised cost of the receivables was calculated. Looking at collections/receivables doesn't show the true picture as collections are only received over time. If all your loans were written on the last day then u would have a very low ratio. With rapid growth in the loan book, we don't really get a meaningful comparison.
I agree that it is a little concerning contrasting how fast CCP has generated it's loan book compared to TGA which may mean they are accepting lower quality borrowers. It does seem that they are provisioning conservatively enough though. There are other factors involved as well though, I think CCP taps into it's database of debtors to offer loans to.
Management have a record of being conservative with forecasts over the recent years so I hope this is the case here as well and actual impairment losses are less than the provisioning. If lending produces the same returns on capital as debt collecting and they maintain this level of growth in the loan book then it it might be the main business soon.
Hi Hidden Cow...
Hope you don’t stay to hidden in the future
Cheers
Ps
I understand radio rentals or cash converters cross sell but who goes to a debt collector for a loan? I suppose the answer is the same people that are happy to pay 40%pa for loans. I guess you have to be in their shoes. CCP certainly haven't had any trouble finding customers to lend the money too.
I think where my opinion difers from yours is CCP's capability to assess risk in the sub prime space. I think the businesses are all very similar at the core, that is being able to collect revenue which exceeds the cost of obtaining the receivable. Whether that receivable comes from providing the loan to begin with, providing a tv or buying the receivable it all involves an assessment of risk and likely returns.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?