Australian buy now, pay later provider Zip Co suffered its steepest intraday share-price decline on record on Friday after disclosing that an external fraud incident in the United States had disrupted transaction volumes and new customer growth during its fiscal first quarter, raising fresh concerns about its account-opening controls and operating costs.
Shares in Zip (ZIP.AX) fell as much as 50.5% to A$1.025 by 2322 GMT, their lowest level in more than two years. The selloff wiped approximately A$1.30 billion ($912.08 million) from the company’s market value in early trading before the stock recovered some of its losses.
The scale of the decline was seen as an indication that investors were concerned about more than the immediate financial cost of the incident. The disclosure raised questions about how the fraud occurred, if existing controls were sufficient to prevent similar attacks and if the resulting expenses and credit-quality pressures could persist.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Citi analysts said the incident “raises concerns on Zip’s onboarding controls”, while Jefferies said investors needed greater clarity on whether the increase in operating expenses would continue and what measures the company would implement to prevent a recurrence.
UBS analysts also pointed to a sharper-than-expected increase in Zip’s net bad debts ratio, which reached 1.97%, compared with their estimate of 1.8%. The fraud incident contributed to the miss by temporarily slowing total transaction value growth in July and August.
Zip said it identified and contained an external fraud incident involving coordinated actors who opened new accounts using legitimate credentials to execute transactions that were not paid for.
The company said the incident affected total transaction value (TTV) and new customer growth in July and August, while generating A$10.1 million in cash operating expenses. Zip has notified the relevant authorities and lodged an insurance claim, although the disclosure did not establish how much of the losses, if any, would ultimately be recovered through insurance.
The use of legitimate credentials adds a layer of concern because the activity involved accounts that could appear genuine during the onboarding process. For a buy now, pay later provider, the ability to verify customers, detect suspicious account activity, and limit unpaid transactions is key to managing credit losses while expanding its customer base.
Zip’s response also illustrates the trade-off between containing fraud and sustaining growth. Measures introduced to restrict the incident temporarily moderated transaction volumes, affecting the denominator used to calculate the company’s net bad debts ratio. That made the reported ratio more difficult to interpret as a straightforward measure of underlying credit performance, even as the increase remained a concern for analysts.
Net bad debts amounted to 1.93% of TTV in the quarter ended September 30. UBS’s estimate of 1.8% was lower than the 1.97% figure cited in its assessment, while Zip’s reported quarterly ratio was 1.93%. The figures point to pressure on credit performance, although the company attributed part of the impact to the temporary moderation in transaction activity caused by its fraud-containment measures.
Investors need to determine whether the deterioration reflects a temporary disruption or a broader weakening in the economics of Zip’s lending activity. Further clarity on the nature of the transactions, the effectiveness of its controls and the duration of additional costs will be important in assessing the incident’s longer-term effect.
Despite the disruption, Zip reported growth in its underlying business during the quarter. TTV rose 18% to A$4.6 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortization (EBTDA) increased 3.4% to A$65 million.
The figures indicate that transaction activity continued to expand, but earnings growth lagged the increase in TTV. The A$10.1 million in additional cash operating expenses also represents a direct cost of the incident, adding pressure to the company’s ability to convert higher transaction volumes into stronger earnings.
The contrast between 18% growth in TTV and 3.4% growth in cash EBITDA is likely to attract scrutiny as investors assess Zip’s operating leverage and the extent to which the fraud-related expenses affected quarterly profitability. The available figures do not isolate the incident’s full effect on earnings, making it difficult to determine how the quarter would have performed without the disruption.
The market reaction highlights the sensitivity of financial technology companies to weaknesses in fraud prevention and customer verification. Rapid customer acquisition and transaction growth can support expansion, but they also increase the importance of controls that distinguish legitimate activity from coordinated abuse. When those controls fail, companies can face direct losses, higher operating expenses, and slower growth as they tighten verification procedures.
Zip’s immediate priority is to demonstrate that the incident has been contained and that the measures introduced will prevent similar activity without materially constraining customer acquisition. Investors will also want to understand whether the A$10.1 million expense was largely one-off, how much insurance may cover, and whether the elevated bad-debt ratio will normalize as transaction volumes recover.