Originally Posted by
beacon
Should FMA renew Harmoney's P2P license for a further 5 years or longer term?
While returns to date from Harmoney have been comparatively good for all investors - big and small, Harmoney is showing a growing propensity to sideline the core peers so it can play with the big fish. Retail investors have recently become increasingly forced to withdraw their invested capital, as it has been repaid and has sat idle for months while wholesalers were being filled. In a P2P theatre, why is institutional money being prioritized over retail? While Harmoney's loan securitization may be good for NZ Debt sector, how is it good for the kids if their pocket money has to be choked off so Mama Harmoney can send a packet over to affluent Uncle Benz?
If Harmoney wants to behave like a Non Banking Financial Institution, ignoring its loan volume and loan quality obligations to its core peers while paying lip service to them, perhaps it is time it operated and fulfilled its obligations under a more appropriate license. If I were FMA, I would NOT renew Harmoney's P2P license UNLESS it committed to:
1. Directing at least 51% of its loan volume to retail peers, keeping within the spirit of its license
2. Maintaining at least loan quality equanimity between its retail and institutional investors
I would also certainly NOT renew Harmoney's P2P licenses for terms any longer than annually for the time being, until I was satisfied that Harmoney had learnt to respect its P2P license terms.