Who Carries the Risk? OPay’s Loan Losses and the Borrowers Behind the Numbers

When OPay filed its registration statement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on 9 October, it gave Nigerians something rare from a fintech: a detailed look at what its lending business costs. In the first half of 2026, OPay wrote off $113.15 million in loans it judged uncollectible. At an illustrative rate of ₦1,500 to the dollar, that is roughly ₦170 billion, comfortably above the ₦150 billion mark now attached to the story.

The number alone tells us little. A lender that grows fast will lose money on some loans. The sharper question, and the one a responsibility lens forces, is this: when a lender absorbs losses on this scale, who actually carries the risk?

The numbers behind the headline

The filing, as reported shows a business transformed by credit:

• Revenue rose 136.5% to $467.06 million, and profit after tax rose to $90.87 million from $21.71 million.
• Lending income of $236.12 million overtook payments ($130.55 million) and now makes up just over half of revenue.
• New Nigerian loans more than tripled to $927.63 million, while quarterly unique borrowers rose from 3.5 million to 6.7 million.
• Expected credit-loss expense rose 210.3% to $118.36 million, equal to about 25.3% of revenue, up from 19.3% a year earlier.
• Write-offs rose 520.5% to $113.15 million, more than the $69.95 million written off across all of 2025.
• At 30 June, $113.80 million was overdue, about 27.4% of the $415.33 million owed to OPay. The share improved from 34.2% in December 2025, but the amount overdue grew.

OPay says it has since tightened consumer lending and shifted towards merchant loans it considers lower risk, after temporarily increasing loan sizes and repayment periods for certain borrowers.

Growth was a choice

These losses did not arrive by accident. Loan volumes tripled in six months, and the borrower base nearly doubled. That is a strategy, and strategies carry known trade-offs. OPay uses payment data to assess credit risk, which is a legitimate innovation, but it also means lending decisions were made at speed, at scale, and largely to people with thin formal credit histories.

The company’s response, tightening consumer lending after the losses, is sensible. For an accountability publication, the question is the order of events: the controls followed the damage, not the other way round.

Investors: informed, diversified and paid

Investors do carry risk here, but they carry it by choice and with information. The credit-loss expense was already deducted before the $90.87 million profit was reported. The prospectus sets out the write-offs, the overdue balances and the concentration of revenue in Nigeria, which accounts for about 89.5% of the total. Investors can read the numbers, price them, and diversify across other holdings.

The listing is also a reward for taking this risk. OPay is reportedly seeking around $500 million in New York, with media reports placing its potential valuation near $4 billion, though the company has not confirmed a price range. Rapid lending growth is part of the story that supports that valuation.

Borrowers: the risk without the prospectus

Millions of borrowers carry a different kind of risk, and they have no prospectus. Several questions sit in the gaps of the public record:

• Pricing. The filing acknowledges relatively high interest rates on certain Nigerian credit products. How are those costs disclosed to a first-time borrower on a phone screen?
• Cross-subsidy. Lenders price expected losses into the interest they charge. Are borrowers who repay on time paying more because others default?
• Larger loans, longer terms. OPay temporarily increased loan sizes and repayment periods for some borrowers. How many people took on more debt as a result, and how did they fare?
• What a write-off means. A write-off is an accounting decision. It does not tell us whether a borrower was released from the debt, referred for recovery, or reported to credit bureaus.
• Collections. What recovery methods are used, and how are complaints handled and resolved?

None of these questions allege wrongdoing. They are the questions a responsible lender should be able to answer plainly, because the people on the other side of the ledger are the ones with the least bargaining power and the least information.

The listing question for Nigerian investors

OPay has board and shareholder approval for a secondary listing on the Nigerian Exchange after its New York debut. Its filing warns that Nigerian-listed shares may not be exchangeable for the American depositary shares traded in New York, which could limit liquidity.

That matters because the business draws almost 90% of its revenue from Nigeria. If local investors are to take part, they deserve disclosure on credit quality, write-offs and borrower outcomes that matches what US investors receive. Nigerian customers fund the business, and Nigerian shareholders should not see a thinner version of the story.

What accountability would look like

The test of a responsible lender is not whether it avoids losses. It is whether the people who bear the consequences of its risk-taking can see, understand and challenge it. For OPay and its peers in digital lending, that would mean:

1. Publishing the effective annual cost of each consumer product in plain language, in the app and in reports.
2. Reporting not just defaults but borrower outcomes: repeat borrowing, over-indebtedness and complaint resolution.
3. Disclosing recovery practices and the number of complaints received and resolved.
4. Matching Nigerian listing disclosure to the US prospectus on credit quality.
5. Subjecting affordability checks to independent review, rather than relying on the company’s own account.

Regulators have a role too. Digital lending at this scale is no longer a niche, and supervision has to keep pace with a sector now reaching millions of Nigerians.

Right of reply

CSR Reporters has put questions to OPay on the definition of the loss figure, the exchange rate used, underwriting changes, borrower affordability, pricing disclosure and collection practices. [Editor: insert OPay’s response, or note that none had been received at the time of publication.]

The real accountability test is not the size of OPay’s losses. It is whether the people behind the numbers can see who carries them.