Full Report

Industry — Diversified Fintech / Super-app

Kaspi.kz does not sit cleanly in one industry — it operates a two-sided "super-app" that bundles three industries into one P&L: a card-acquiring + QR payments business, a third-party online marketplace, and a consumer/SME lending bank funded by retail deposits. Think of it as a domestic financial services + e-commerce platform whose unit economics depend on a single user base monetised three different ways. Figures are reported in tenge (₸) at the source; where global comparisons are quoted in USD or another currency, the original unit and date are preserved.

1. Industry in One Page

The diversified fintech / super-app category sells digital distribution of payments, commerce, and credit through one mobile front-end. End consumers and merchants pay via three monetisation mechanics that compound on a shared customer base: a take-rate on payment volume, a commission on marketplace transactions plus rising advertising/delivery fees, and net interest income on a loan book funded by sticky deposits. Profits exist because the same MAU produces revenue in all three pots while customer-acquisition cost and underwriting data sit on one stack. The cycle is driven by consumer spending power and local interest rates: when rates rise, fintech net interest margin (NIM) compresses; when QR/B2B payments scale faster than card acquiring, payments take-rate falls; in both downturns the marketplace acts as a stabiliser via value-added services. The thing most newcomers miss: this is not a "fintech" in the sense of disruptive payments — most of the profit pool is banking (NIM on a deposit-funded loan book) re-skinned with consumer-tech distribution.

Takeaway: Kazakhstan profit is split close to 36% Payments / 31% Marketplace / 30% Fintech — none of the three legs is a side business. That balance is the structural feature of the super-app model and the reason peer-comparisons against pure-play acquirers, marketplaces, or digital banks all miss part of the picture.

2. How This Industry Makes Money

Each leg of the super-app collects a different unit of revenue from the same transaction stream. Understanding those units is the cleanest way to read the business and to interpret quarterly disclosures.

Capital intensity differs sharply across the three. Payments is asset-light once the POS and QR fleet is deployed; the marketplace is asset-light in its 3P form (Kaspi exited the 1P e-Cars line in Q4 2025 explicitly because it was "capital-intensive with limited possibility to replicate in other markets"); the fintech leg, by contrast, is a balance-sheet business — it requires regulatory capital, takes credit risk, and is funded by retail deposits. The blended group ROE printed in the high 50s percent for FY2025, which is high by global bank standards (mid-teens) and high even by listed-fintech super-app standards (Nu Holdings, MercadoLibre).

Why margins exist: the super-app earns excess returns because the cost to acquire a customer is paid once and recovered across three monetisation pots. A pure card acquirer pays the same CAC and only earns the take-rate; a pure marketplace earns commission only; a pure digital bank earns NIM only. Kaspi earns all three on a single user — the FY2025 disclosure of 77 monthly transactions per active consumer is the quantitative version of that statement.

3. Demand, Supply, and the Cycle

The super-app model is not "cycle-proof" — it has three distinct cycles bundled together, and the leg that hurts first depends on which macro variable is moving.

The FY2025 read is instructive. Total payment volume in Kazakhstan grew 19%, but Payments segment net income grew only 13% — because the consumer mix shifted toward Kaspi QR (low fee) and B2B Payments (low fee). At the same time, funding costs in Kazakhstan rose roughly 20 bps year-over-year per company commentary, on top of cumulative tightening worth around 220 bps in the prior cycle, which is why Fintech net income rose only 9% despite TFV growing 13%. The Marketplace leg actually slowed to 6% net-income growth (ex-Türkiye) as the 1P e-Cars business was wound down and value-added services scaled. That is the classic super-app downturn signature: the three engines do not all sag at once, but the headline mid-teens growth comes from a different leg every year.

4. Competitive Structure

Within Kazakhstan, the diversified fintech / super-app category is structurally winner-take-most: the customer-merchant flywheel, the underwriting-data flywheel, and the brand-recall flywheel are each individually consolidating, and Kaspi has all three. Outside Kazakhstan, the category is fragmented and Kaspi is a new entrant.

Where this matters for the investment case: there is no listed pure-play substitute for the Kazakhstan super-app. The closest peer set is six names — Nu Holdings, MercadoLibre, Hepsiburada, PagSeguro, StoneCo for international fintech super-app and payments analogs; and Halyk Bank as the only listed in-country competitor. Each illuminates a slice of Kaspi's economics but none captures the whole bundle, which is one reason Kaspi's listed multiple historically trades at an emerging-market discount to MercadoLibre and Nu despite delivering materially higher ROE.

5. Regulation, Technology, and Rules of the Game

The economics of the diversified fintech category are reshaped by three external forces: financial-services regulation, payment-rail rules, and platform technology shifts. Each is local, not global, which is why the super-app model is hard to export and why the in-market regulator is one of the most important stakeholders for an investor.

The technology stack matters as an economic variable, not as a marketing slogan. Three concrete examples from FY2025: (1) Kaspi originates 99.9% of loans in less than six seconds, which is the gating reason the BNPL leg can sustain a 2% Cost of Risk — slower underwriters would either reject more applications or take more losses. (2) Kaspi Postomats reached 10,441 units and now handle ~58% of marketplace deliveries; this is the operating fixed cost that determines whether 84% of orders can be delivered free, which in turn protects basket size. (3) Kaspi Alaqan pay-by-palm launched in December 2025 and reached over 500,000 registered users in under three months — a defensive move against Apple/Samsung Pay and a new data layer for fraud signals. Each is a regulatory + technology bet that converts directly into an operating line.

6. The Metrics Professionals Watch

Professional investors track this category not on revenue or EPS — those compound a payments mix-shift, a marketplace take-rate change, and a NIM swing into one number that hides the story. The metrics that decompose value creation sit at the platform level.

7. Where Kaspi.kz JSC Fits

Within the diversified fintech / super-app category, Kaspi.kz is the dominant domestic incumbent in a small-but-deep market, now beginning a regional expansion into the much larger Türkiye market via Hepsiburada and the pending Rabobank A.Ş. license acquisition. Its industry position is unusual: in Kazakhstan it is essentially the category, while in Türkiye it is a turnaround acquirer of a sub-scale e-commerce player.

8. What to Watch First

These are the eight signals that would tell a reader the industry backdrop is improving or deteriorating for Kaspi.kz — each observable in filings, transcripts, or local-market data within the next four quarters.

The most decision-relevant of these are signals 1, 2, and 4 — payments take-rate, Cost of Risk, and Türkiye marketplace EBITDA — because they capture the three legs of the flywheel each running on a different cycle. If all three move the right way over the next four quarters, the underlying mix supports the bull frame. If two move against the company while the third stays flat, headline net-income growth can still print positive even as the underlying mix deteriorates — that is the setup most likely to compress the multiple before the EPS line registers it.

---

Know the Business — Kaspi.kz JSC

Kaspi.kz is a deposit-funded consumer bank, a card + QR acquirer, and a marketplace stitched together by a single super-app used by roughly 83% of Kazakhstan adults. The economics that matter are bank economics — net interest margin on a ₸-funded loan book — re-skinned with software distribution and an ad-tech overlay. The market is pricing Kazakhstan + Türkiye risk and a funding-cost squeeze; the underweighted facts are that the three engines generate near-equal net income and that advertising — the highest-margin overlay — is only beginning to monetise. The thing to get right before owning the stock is whether the Türkiye build-out is a beachhead or a quagmire.

1. How This Business Actually Works

Kaspi sells digital distribution of payments, commerce, and credit through one mobile front-end, and earns a different unit of revenue on each leg of the same transaction. A customer acquired once is monetised three times: a fee on payment volume, a commission (plus ad/delivery fees) on marketplace transactions, and net interest income on consumer/SME loans funded by retail tenge deposits. The cost to acquire a user is paid once — the revenue compounds across three pots — which is why returns on capital are exceptional and why the model is hard to disrupt with a single-purpose competitor.

The three engines map to three different monetisation mechanics, and reading them together is the only honest way to understand the P&L.

The Fintech leg dictates the cycle: it carries credit risk and is funded by retail deposits, so policy-rate moves and credit-quality vintages drive the swing factor. Payments and Marketplace are asset-light in their core form (Kaspi exited the 1P e-Cars line in Q4 2025 because "it was capital-intensive with limited possibility to replicate in other markets"). Group ROE printed in the high-50s percent for FY2025 — multiples above what a global universal bank earns — because the three engines share one customer base and one stack.

The FY2025 revenue jump from ₸2.53T to ₸4.05T is roughly two-thirds Hepsiburada consolidation, one-third organic. Net income grew only ~3% absolute because Hepsiburada runs at an EBITDA loss and Kazakhstan funding costs rose ~140 bps in Q4 alone. Underlying (ex-tax/regulatory/base-rate noise) net income grew 18% — closer to the real economic engine.

2. The Playing Field

There is no listed pure-play super-app substitute for Kaspi, which is why investors get the multiple wrong. The closest analogs are six names, each illuminating a slice of the bundle but none capturing all three: Nu Holdings (digital bank), MercadoLibre (e-com + Mercado Pago + credit), Hepsiburada (now a Kaspi subsidiary), PagSeguro and StoneCo (Brazilian POS + SME credit), and Halyk Bank (the one in-country listed competitor).

Three facts jump off the page. First, Kaspi earns the highest ROE in the group by a wide margin — almost double what Nu earns and roughly 1.6× MercadoLibre — because the three-engine super-app structurally captures more value per customer than any pure-play peer. Second, it trades at the bottom of the multiple range alongside the Brazilian acquirers (PAGS, STNE) and Halyk Bank, which is a Kazakhstan country-risk multiple, not a super-app multiple. Third, MercadoLibre's 43.5× P/E on a 36% ROE versus Kaspi's 7.8× P/E on a 58% ROE is the largest valuation dislocation in the peer set — and the structural answer is that MELI is priced for LatAm runway while KSPI is priced for Kazakhstan saturation. The investment debate reduces to whether Türkiye can re-rate Kaspi toward the MELI/NU bucket, or whether HEPS will drag the consolidated multiple toward the PAGS/STNE bucket.

3. Is This Business Cyclical?

Kaspi has three cycles, not one — and the leg that hurts first depends on which macro variable is moving. The headline net-income line therefore hides what's really happening underneath. In a rate-hike cycle the Fintech leg compresses first (NIM and Cost of Risk). In a consumer-spending downturn the Payments leg shows up first (volume slows, lower-take products grow faster than higher-take cards). In a marketplace supply shock — like the 2025 smartphone import-registration disruption in Kazakhstan — the e-commerce GMV slows but value-added services on the rest of the platform absorb part of the hit.

The defining cycle today is the rate cycle. Kaspi's funding cost rose roughly 220 bps cumulatively into Q1 2026 (deposit rate reached 14.3%). That is the gap between underlying net-income growth of ~18% and reported growth of ~10% in FY2025 — almost the entire compression is funding cost, not credit quality or business model decay. The corollary, which the bull case rests on, is that NBK rate cuts later in 2026 would mechanically reverse this compression and the Fintech leg would re-accelerate without management doing anything.

Read this chart left to right: in Payments, volume grows faster than revenue (take-rate compression); in Marketplace, revenue grows faster than volume (value-added services scaling) but net income lags both (delivery cost on small-ticket frequent items); in Fintech, net income grew slowest because the deposit cost squeeze took a 220 bps bite out of NIM. None of the three is broken — but each is fighting a different battle, and that diversity is part of why the consolidated number is steady.

4. The Metrics That Actually Matter

Revenue and EPS hide the story because they collapse three different mix shifts into one line. The metrics professionals actually watch sit at the segment level — and three of them, in particular, predict whether the multiple expands or compresses.

The honest hierarchy is: Cost of Risk and deposit cost dominate the equity story today, because the Fintech leg is the largest profit pool and the most rate-sensitive. Take-rate (both Payments compression and Marketplace expansion) defines the long-term thesis — VAS is the leg with the most runway because only 7% of merchants pay for advertising. Hepsiburada engagement metrics matter because they decide whether the consolidated multiple gets MELI-like growth optionality or PAGS-like discount.

5. What Is This Business Worth?

The right lens is earnings power × growth runway on a single integrated franchise, not a sum-of-the-parts shopping list. Two-thirds of the profit pool is a deposit-funded EM bank that earns mid-50s percent ROE because the marketplace and payments legs feed its underwriting data and customer base. Trying to value the three legs separately overstates precision: management runs them as one stack, the loan book is funded by deposits gathered through the Super App, and the Hepsiburada acquisition was paid for with the consolidated cash flow.

That said, SOTP is genuinely useful as a stress test because Hepsiburada and the listed e-commerce/payments peers carry materially different multiples and Türkiye's economic profile is different enough that consolidating it inside one P/E multiple distorts both directions.

6. What I'd Tell a Young Analyst

Read every quarterly press release from the segments first, headline last — the consolidated revenue and net income compress three different stories (a payment-mix shift, a marketplace VAS scale-up, and a NIM squeeze) into one number. Track three things in priority order: Cost of Risk (because it is the single canary for the largest profit pool), Marketplace take-rate + VAS yield (because that is the leg with the most runway), and Hepsiburada engagement metrics (because the Türkiye outcome decides whether this re-rates).

What the market may be missing: the price reflects a Kazakhstan country-risk bank, but the actual engine is a three-engine consumer franchise with ~58% ROE on a deposit-funded balance sheet, and management has resumed a ~5-6% dividend yield while investing in Türkiye. The gap between underlying (+18%) and reported (+10%) FY2025 net income growth is almost entirely funding cost — the cycle leg most likely to reverse on the next NBK easing.

What would change the thesis. Bull case dies if (a) Cost of Risk drifts above 3% (vintages cracking), (b) Marketplace take-rate stops expanding and ad/delivery growth flattens, or (c) Hepsiburada order growth stalls back into single digits without engagement convergence. Bear case dies if (a) NBK cuts the base rate and deposit costs lag (mechanical NIM expansion), (b) HEPS reaches Adj-EBITDA breakeven on schedule with engagement metrics improving, or (c) Rabobank A.Ş. closes cleanly and the TR fintech monetisation path becomes credible. The 7.8× P/E is an unstable anchor either way; the question is which catalyst lands first.

---

Long-Term Thesis - Kaspi.kz JSC

1. Long-Term Thesis in One Page

The long-term thesis is that Kaspi compounds book value at 20%+ per year for the next decade if — and only if — three things hold: (1) the Kazakhstan three-engine flywheel sustains a 50%+ Kazakhstan-only ROE through the next NBK rate cycle and the regulatory ratchet, (2) Hepsiburada plus the Rabobank A.Ş. licence transplant the deposit-funded super-app playbook into a market five times the size of Kazakhstan, and (3) the still-nascent Marketplace VAS engine (advertising, delivery, classifieds) scales from 2.3% of 3P GMV today toward the 4-6% benchmark global super-apps reach. This is not a long-duration compounder if the Marketplace stays a low-take 3P, the Türkiye build-out drags engagement under 10 purchases per consumer per year, or the FY2023 ICFR weakness in the ECL model proves under-reserving rather than mix-shift. The franchise is one of the highest-quality EM consumer engines listed anywhere — 51% consolidated ROE on a 93% retail-tenge deposit-funded balance sheet, book value per share compounding at a 45% CAGR FY2020-FY2025 — but the durable upside requires the moat to either deepen at home or transplant abroad, and only one of those has been proven.

The honest grade is High thesis strength, High Kazakhstan-only durability, Medium reinvestment runway (capped by a 19M-person home market until Türkiye proves out), Medium evidence confidence because the load-bearing data-flywheel claim depends on an ECL model whose internal controls have failed in production once and whose first Section 404(b) auditor attestation has not yet landed. Read this page as the underwriting frame for a five-to-ten-year position, not a catalyst calendar.

2. The 5-to-10-Year Underwriting Map

The driver that matters most is the three-engine integration at the top of the table — every other line in the map either reinforces it (deposit funding, capital allocation, VAS depth) or is a hedge against its single weakness (Türkiye is the geographic hedge, governance maturity is the disclosure hedge). If the Kazakhstan flywheel cracks — through ECL under-reserving, forced unbundling, or founder departure — no amount of Türkiye execution or VAS scaling recovers the equity story. If it holds and one of the two growth legs (Türkiye OR Marketplace VAS) delivers, this is a structural compounder. If both deliver, it is the highest-quality EM consumer-internet asset listed.

3. Compounding Path

The cleanest test of whether the model can compound for another decade is to read returns on capital and book value per share across a full cycle that already includes Covid, two activist shocks, a 220 bps funding-cost step-up, and the Hepsiburada consolidation event. The franchise has compounded through every one of these.

Book value per share compounding at 45% per year for five years is the cleanest single number on this page — it is unitless of consolidation effects, dividend pauses, or metric-changes, and it isolates the rate at which retained earnings produce additional shareholder capital. Even if the next decade halves that rate — to a 20% book-value CAGR — the compounding case stands.

The compounding mechanics are unambiguous in the past data: revenue scaled from ₸47B in FY2015 to ₸4,046B in FY2025 at a ~58% ten-year CAGR while operating margin held in a 75-79% band from FY2019 through FY2024 — a profile only a handful of listed businesses anywhere can match. The FY2025 flatline in net income is the Hepsiburada consolidation effect dressed up as a growth break, not a structural deterioration of the Kazakhstan engine. The cash conversion story is the area where the model gets tested most by the bear case: FCF/NI fell from 1.3× (FY2022-23) to 0.46× (FY2024-25) as the Hepsiburada cash deployment, the dividend pause, and the working-capital draw of fintech loan-book expansion combined. For the long-term thesis to compound, FCF/NI needs to migrate back above 0.7× by FY2027 as Türkiye normalises and dividends remain resumed.

4. Durability and Moat Tests

A 5-to-10-year thesis has to be tested against shocks that are not the next quarter's print. Five durability tests, drawn from the moat and competition work, define whether the franchise survives the decade or merely the cycle.

The asymmetric setup: two of the five tests (integration ROE and brand) are already passing at near-decisive strength, two (VAS scale and Türkiye transplant) are at credible-but-unproven levels with visible improvement trajectories, and one (underwriting/ECL) is the single test most likely to break the thesis. A long-term position underwrites whether the underwriting moat holds — every other test moves the magnitude of returns, but only that test moves the sign.

5. Management and Capital Allocation Over a Cycle

The 5-to-10-year case rests partly on whether the same management team that built the Kazakhstan franchise can deploy capital sensibly across the next decade — through a Türkiye build, a likely second-country expansion, and a normalisation of the in-country regulatory ratchet. The track record reads honestly when separated into three things they did well, two they have not been tested on, and one they have changed mid-flight.

What the record supports. CEO Lomtadze has been in seat 19 years; CFO Mosidze, Deputy Mironov, and Deputy Didenko have all been on the senior team since 2007-2008. The founder duo (Lomtadze 23.04%, Kim 20.78%) owns ~$6.5B of stock between them at current prices and has never engineered material dilution — share count was 191.8M in FY2020 and 190.6M in FY2025. LTIP design is shareholder-friendly to the point of being unusual for a fintech: nominal-cost options on a 5-year vest, full forfeiture on departure, and ~0.7% unvested overhang. Cumulative FY2020-FY2024 dividends were ~₸1,932B (~$4.3B) — meaningful capital return through a heavy growth period. Two IG bond placements in twelve months (March 2025 $650M at 6.250%, April 2026 $600M at 5.900% Baa3/BBB−, 3.5× oversubscribed) demonstrate that institutional credit markets price the credit at investment grade through the worst of the activist-short and rate-cycle period.

What the record does not yet prove. Türkiye is the first true cross-border deployment of company capital — the ₸553B Hepsiburada acquisition (plus ~$168M of additional stake-up to 85.66%, plus the $300M Rabobank A.Ş. capital injection planned at closing) is roughly 17% of equity in a single country call. The playbook (deposit-funded consumer credit + integrated marketplace) is unproven outside Kazakhstan. The post-Türkiye second growth-leg deployment — whether the next decade brings a second-country expansion to Azerbaijan/Uzbekistan/CIS or an over-extension of the integrated model in a market where it does not fit — is the largest single capital-allocation test ahead.

What they have changed mid-flight. FY2025 net income guidance was cut twice (from ~20% to ~15% to 10-12%), the FY2026 guide switched the headline metric from net income to Adjusted EBITDA, and the geographic scope flipped from "ex-Türkiye" to "incl. Türkiye." Each step is individually defensible — Hepsiburada consolidation makes the comparison non-meaningful, and the Adj-EBITDA-to-IFRS-NI gap widened from 20% (FY2023) to 46% (FY2025) primarily because the add-back strips ₸369B of non-fintech interest expense including the cost of the Eurobonds raised to fund Türkiye. The cumulative effect, however, is that the headline 2024 IPO-era guidance is no longer comparable to the 2026 guidance management has chosen to lead with. The historian's credibility score of 6/10 captures the right read: broadly trustworthy on operations, suspect on what management chooses to talk about and when.

The defining capital-allocation question for the next decade is whether the team treats Türkiye as a single, contained capital call or as the first of a series. If HEPS reaches the engagement metrics Kazakhstan demonstrated and Rabobank A.Ş. closes cleanly, the playbook is proven and a measured second-country deployment is value-accretive. If HEPS plateaus and the team responds by deepening the bet rather than absorbing the impairment, that is the classic late-cycle pattern that ends in a goodwill write-down and a multi-year ROE compression. The single biggest tell will be whether the FY2027-2028 capital plan emphasises consolidation of the existing two-country business or signals a third geography.

6. Failure Modes

The red-team failure modes below are the specific, observable conditions under which the long-term thesis breaks. They are not generic "execution risk" — each maps to a disclosure event or a measurable metric.

7. What To Watch Over Years, Not Just Quarters

These are five multi-year milestones that will validate or weaken the long-term thesis. Each is observable in dated disclosures, not in tape action.

The long-term thesis changes most if the first Section 404(b) auditor attestation lands clean for FY2025 and NPL coverage rebuilds above 90% within four quarters — that combination would validate the data-flywheel moat that anchors the entire equity story and remove the single failure mode capable of resetting the moat rating from "narrow and proving" to "narrow and shrinking." Every other multi-year signal moves the magnitude of returns; this one moves the sign.

---

Competition - Kaspi.kz JSC

Competitive Bottom Line

Kaspi.kz has a real, structural advantage that is not generic — three monetisation engines (Payments, Marketplace, Fintech) running on one customer base in a market it effectively owns. The advantage is overstated only in the sense that it does not export easily: in Kazakhstan Kaspi is the category, but outside Kazakhstan it has spent the last 18 months buying scale rather than building it. No listed company captures all three legs of the bundle, which is why valuation peers all distort the picture in different directions. The single competitor that matters most is Halyk Bank of Kazakhstan (HSBK) — not because it threatens Kaspi today, but because every basis point of share Halyk takes back in payments, deposits, or BNPL would compress the engine that funds the equity story. The Türkiye assets (Hepsiburada, plus the pending Rabobank A.Ş. license) are not the moat — they are the bet.

The Right Peer Set

The peer set is built from three angles because there is no single listed pure-play substitute. (1) The closest in-country competitor is Halyk Bank, the only public Kazakhstan financial institution with overlapping retail-banking + payments + digital-app exposure. (2) The most mature listed analog for the integrated payments + marketplace + credit super-app flywheel is MercadoLibre, with Nu Holdings the cleaner read-through on the consumer credit + cards + deposits flywheel. (3) Brazilian POS acquirers PagSeguro and StoneCo are the most useful comparators for Kaspi Payments take-rate and SME-merchant economics. Hepsiburada is now ~85% owned by Kaspi and is included as both a subsidiary and the Türkiye marketplace reference point. Generic financial-services screens (RELX, Waste Connections, Trip.com) thrown up by aggregators were rejected as economically unrelated.

Three facts jump off the chart. Kaspi earns the highest ROE in the peer set by a wide margin — roughly 1.6× MercadoLibre and nearly 2× Nu — because the three-engine super-app captures more value per acquired customer than any pure-play peer. It trades at the bottom of the multiple range alongside the Brazilian POS acquirers and Halyk Bank, which is a Kazakhstan country-risk multiple, not a super-app multiple. The largest single valuation dislocation in the peer set is MELI's 43.5× P/E on a 36% ROE versus Kaspi's 7.8× P/E on a 58% ROE — the structural answer is that MELI is priced for LatAm runway while KSPI is priced for Kazakhstan saturation.

Where The Company Wins

Kaspi wins where structural integration meets in-market dominance. Each advantage is measurable and traceable to a specific operating disclosure rather than a marketing claim.

The chart makes the structural point: Kaspi is the only name in the set that scores at the top of all five lines simultaneously. MELI and NU are close on integration and profitability respectively, but neither has the deposit-funded balance sheet that lets Kaspi convert payments dominance into low-cost lending. PAGS and STNE are pure payments/SME plays. Halyk has the deposit franchise and country reach but does not match Kaspi's app engagement or category-leading consumer brand.

Where Competitors Are Better

Honest competition analysis requires naming the places where Kaspi is not the strongest. Four are material.

Threat Map

The threats below are ranked by severity over the next 24 months — each is observable in filings or local-market data, and each maps to a specific competitor or structural shift rather than vague "competition is intense" language.

The three high-severity threats share a common feature: they all act on the Fintech leg or the Türkiye build-out — the two parts of the bundle most exposed to external variables Kaspi does not control. Halyk catch-up is the slowest-moving but the most consequential because it directly attacks the in-market moat. Trendyol vs HEPS decides whether the Türkiye bet is a re-rating catalyst or a margin drag. NIM compression is already happening and will reverse mechanically on the next NBK easing cycle — making it the most cyclical of the three.

Moat Watchpoints

These are the five measurable signals an investor should watch over the next four quarters. Each is observable from the 20-F, quarterly press releases, NBK / ARDFM filings, or Halyk's annual report. Each maps to one specific moat dimension.

---

Current Setup & Catalysts

1. Current Setup in One Page

The stock is trading at $92.85 (₸45,440 per ADS) on the back of a six-week institutional re-rating — the May 11 Q1 2026 print landed in line with the +5% Adjusted EBITDA guide on +31% revenue and +73% advertising growth, the April 28 $600M Investment Grade bond was 3.5× oversubscribed, and Tencent stepped in on April 20 as a strategic minority alongside CEO Lomtadze. The 50-day crossed above the 200-day SMA on May 18 (golden cross) and reported short interest fell -14.7% off the April peak. The market is now watching two things: whether Kazakhstan-only underlying earnings re-accelerate as smartphone supply normalises and reserve-requirement and tax step-ups absorb into the base, and whether Hepsiburada delivers FY2026 Adjusted EBITDA breakeven with engagement metrics moving toward Kazakhstan levels. The recent setup is bullish but the calendar inside the next 90 days is light — the genuine underwriting updates sit in the August–November 2026 window (1H 2026 NPL coverage, the BDDK decision on Rabobank A.Ş., and the first NBK base-rate cut Governor Suleimenov has guided to "second half of this year"). The reset of the headline guidance metric from net income to Adjusted EBITDA in March 2026 means the FY2026 print itself is no longer a single-event referendum on the long-term thesis — the thesis-relevant evidence will come in pieces.

2. What Changed in the Last 3-6 Months

The recent window is dense and directionally bullish: the credibility re-rating that began with the May 2025 class-action dismissal has been validated three more times — a second IG bond (April 2026), Tencent's strategic block-in (April 2026), and a resumed quarterly dividend (Q4 2025 result, paid April 15, 2026). Underneath that, the operating story is mixed — Q1 2026 net income was flat (-1% YoY) on +31% revenue while the +73% advertising line confirms the marketplace VAS thesis is intact. The two unresolved questions are whether NPL coverage rebuilds and whether Rabobank A.Ş. closes inside the new mid-2026 target window.

The narrative arc is unmistakable. Through September 2024 to March 2025 the market underwrote KSPI as a Culper-flagged single-country fintech with a half-priced acquisition risk in Türkiye. From May 2025 (class-action dismissal) onward, each successive disclosure — Hepsiburada engagement re-acceleration, two IG bonds, Tencent stake, dividend resumption — neutralised a piece of the bear case without rebutting the underlying disclosure allegations. What investors used to debate (Russia exposure, related-party density, founder integrity) has been displaced by a cleaner two-variable problem: (1) when does NBK ease, and (2) does Hepsiburada hit Adjusted EBITDA breakeven on schedule? What remains unresolved is the load-bearing one: the first independent Section 404(b) auditor attestation on the FY2023 ECL-model material weakness, due in the March 2027 20-F.

3. What the Market Is Watching Now

The live debate at the May 2026 close runs along five threads, ranked by decision weight to an institutional investor. None is a binary single-event payoff; each is a continuous read in the coming quarterly disclosures.

The five debate threads cluster into two underlying questions: Is the Kazakhstan franchise still compounding underneath the funding-cost / regulatory drag (#1, #2, #4)? and Is Türkiye on track to transplant the playbook (#3, #5)? Neither resolves in the next 90 days; both move materially over the August-November window.

4. Ranked Catalyst Timeline

Ranking is by decision value to underwriting, not by chronology. The two single-event catalysts that can move the equity meaningfully on the day they print are the Q2 2026 result (early August) and the NBK rate decision that lands closest to that print. Everything else is either a sub-event (dividend, EGM) or a sustained-evidence variable that compounds across multiple disclosures (NPL coverage, HEPS engagement, advertising adoption).

5. Impact Matrix

The catalysts that resolve the debate sit in a tighter set than the calendar suggests. Only three near-term events update durable thesis variables — Q2 2026, the 1H NPL coverage interim, and Rabobank closing. The NBK rate cycle is a magnitude-mover; the dividend EGM is confirmatory; ARDFM is the dated risk that can re-open the regulatory failure-mode debate.

6. Next 90 Days

The 90-day window (May 27 - August 25, 2026) is light on hard dates but bracketed by two real events: the NBK base-rate decision in early June and the Q2 2026 print in early August. Between them, the EGM/dividend is a confirmatory cash-return signal and Rabobank A.Ş. closing is a watching brief without a hard date.

If only one event in this window deserves real preparation, it is Q2 2026 earnings around August 10. The June NBK decision and the EGM dividend are largely scripted; the late-July NBK meeting and Rabobank closing are unscripted but not date-certain. Q2 is the single calendar-locked event with thesis-resolving information density. A PM should walk in with explicit thresholds on KZ-only underlying NI growth, 1H NPL coverage, and HEPS Adj EBITDA — not just the headline guide.

7. What Would Change the View

Three observable signals carry most of the decision weight over the next six months. First, 1H 2026 NPL coverage — rebuild above 85% lifts the highest-severity failure mode (ECL under-reserving) 18 months before the first Section 404(b) attestation and validates Long-Term Thesis Driver #1; staying at or below 80% crystallises the bear case and supports a Halyk/EM-bank multiple. Second, the NBK base-rate cycle turn — a first -25 to -50 bps cut in the late-July or September window mechanically reflates Fintech NIM and is a magnitude-mover for FY2026-FY2027 Kazakhstan earnings without management execution. Third, Hepsiburada Adjusted EBITDA stability through Q2-Q3 2026 — sustained breakeven through a non-Q4 seasonal pattern, with engagement metrics moving toward Kazakhstan levels, tests Long-Term Thesis Driver #3. The Rabobank closing and the ARDFM BNPL rule are second-order: on-schedule closing is supportive but not thesis-deciding inside six months; an adverse ARDFM rule reopens Failure Mode #3 but is unlikely to be formalised before Q4 2026. Clean 1H coverage, a first NBK cut, and HEPS Adj EBITDA still positive on the Q3 print would carry the bull setup into the March 2027 20-F window — where the first Section 404(b) attestation tests the only failure mode that can reset the moat rating from "narrow and proving" to "narrow and shrinking."

---

Bull and Bear

Verdict: Lean Long, Wait For Confirmation — the bull's asymmetry case (a 7.8× P/E on a 58% Kazakhstan-only ROE, with three independent post-Culper credibility events already on the tape) is the stronger weight-of-evidence read, but the bear owns the single most consequential disclosure event: the FY2025 NPL coverage trajectory and the first Section 404(b) auditor attestation, both of which test the load-bearing claim of the entire equity story.

The decisive tension is credit quality vs the data-flywheel narrative: NPL coverage has fallen 99% → 90% → 80% over three years even as reported Cost of Risk stayed benign at 2.2% (FY2025) and 0.7% (Q1-26). One of those two readings is wrong. The next interim disclosure plus the Section 404(b) opinion will settle it. Until that lands, the right action is to lean long on the asymmetry but size to survive a credit print that confirms the bear.

Bull Case

Bull's price target is $165 per ADS (~78% upside from $92.85 on 26-May-2026), built from a re-rating from 7.8× to 13× on FY2026E underlying earnings of ~$2.4B — still a 40% discount to NU and 70% discount to MELI. Timeline is 18 months, covering the March 2027 20-F, the Rabobank A.Ş. closing, HEPS Adj-EBITDA breakeven validation, and the most probable NBK rate-cut window. The disconfirming signal Bull will accept: Kazakhstan Cost of Risk drifts above 3.0% for two consecutive quarters (vs FY2025 baseline 2.2%, Q1-26 0.7%) — the underwriting moat would be visibly cracking. (The bull's fourth point — credibility re-rating in motion via class-action dismissal, IG bond 3.5× oversubscribed, Tencent stake — was dropped as the weakest because it documents sentiment improvement rather than a structural earnings driver.)

Bear Case

Bear's downside target is ~$60 per ADR (~₸31,300; ~$11.5B market cap), ~33% below the 26-May-2026 close of $92.85. Method: peer multiple compression to ~5.5× P/E (Halyk / Brazilian-acquirer range) on stressed FY2026 IFRS NI of ~₸1,050B with incremental ₸89B ECL provision, the legislated +200 bps KZ bank-tax step-up, NIM compression, and a ~₸100B partial HEPS goodwill impairment. Timeline 12-18 months. Primary trigger: 1H 2026 (or FY2026) NPL coverage at/below 80% with CoR above 2.5%, and/or HEPS goodwill impairment ≥₸50B in interim accounts. Cover signal: first Section 404(b) attestation clean for FY2025 and NPL coverage rebuilds above 90% in 1H 2026 — both close the ECL-model concern that anchors the short. (The bear's fourth point — the unrebutted Culper allegation file as a "bear's free roll" into a thin float — was dropped as weakest because it depends on an unscheduled hypothetical second short report rather than a dated, observable disclosure event.)

The Real Debate

Verdict

Lean Long, Wait For Confirmation. The bull carries more weight on business quality — a 58% Kazakhstan-only ROE on a 93% retail-tenge deposit-funded book is a structurally rare asset, and three independent post-Culper credibility events (class action dismissed, IG bond 3.5× oversubscribed at Baa3/BBB−, Tencent strategic stake) have already begun to compress the country discount that explains most of the gap to NU. The decisive tension is the NPL coverage vs Cost-of-Risk divergence: coverage fell 99% → 90% → 80% while CoR was 0.7% in Q1-26 — one reading is wrong, and which one settles the data-flywheel debate that anchors the equity story. The bear could still be right because the FY23 ICFR material weakness sat in the ECL model and the first Section 404(b) auditor attestation has not yet landed. The durable thesis-breaker is a Section 404(b) qualified opinion plus NPL coverage staying at/below 80% with CoR drifting above 2.5%; the nearer-term evidence marker is the 1H 2026 interim disclosure on NPL coverage and any HEPS goodwill impairment. Until those land, the right read is to underwrite the asymmetry while sizing to survive a confirmed credit print.

---

Moat — What Protects This Business

A moat is a durable, company-specific economic advantage that lets a business defend returns, margins, share, and customer relationships against competition. The question this page tries to answer in one line is: what, if anything, protects Kaspi from competition, how do we know it works, and what would make it fade?

1. Moat in One Page

Conclusion: narrow moat — wide inside Kazakhstan, unproven outside it. The Kazakhstan business has a real, measurable advantage: a three-engine super-app (Payments + Marketplace + Fintech) running on a single 15.7M-user base that equals ~83% of the adult population, funded by a 93% retail-tenge deposit franchise, and underwritten by behavioural data that lets Kaspi originate 99.9% of loans in under six seconds at a 2.2% Cost of Risk. That bundle has produced 51%+ ROE every year since FY2019 through a Covid shock, a 220 bps funding-cost step-up, regulatory ratchet, an activist short report, and the Hepsiburada consolidation. Outside Kazakhstan, the moat is a bet, not a proven asset — Hepsiburada engagement per consumer is roughly one-quarter of Kazakhstan's, and the Türkiye deposit licence (Rabobank A.Ş.) is unclosed.

The two weakest links are single-country geography (the moat does not export easily — Türkiye is paying integration cost without yet earning a deposit franchise) and Payments take-rate compression (1.18% → 1.10% FY24→FY25 as QR / B2B mix shifts faster than card-network revenue can compensate). If Cost of Risk drifts above 3%, the deposit-cost gap with Halyk closes, or Hepsiburada engagement stalls, the rating becomes "narrow and shrinking" rather than "narrow and proving."

2. Sources of Advantage

Each candidate moat source below is explained in plain English on first mention, then mapped to a specific Kaspi disclosure or operating fact rather than to adjectives. A switching cost is the friction (workflow disruption, data migration, lost rewards, retraining) that keeps a customer from leaving even when a rival offers a marginally better deal. A network effect exists when the product becomes more valuable to each user as more users (or merchants, or counterparties) join. Data flywheel means underwriting or product decisions get measurably better with each additional transaction observed. Brand intangible protects the business only when it changes customer behaviour — share, pricing, or churn.

3. Evidence the Moat Works

A moat that doesn't show up in returns, share, retention or pricing is just storytelling. The table below lists eight pieces of evidence — six supporting the moat and two refuting parts of it — drawn from filings, the FY2025 20-F, KResearch / Kantar surveys, and Halyk Bank's published reports. Confidence reflects how independently verifiable the data point is; watch for distortion names the way the number could mislead.

The ROE step-down from 79% to 51% in FY2025 is the consolidation effect, not moat decay — equity base expanded materially with Hepsiburada and ₸326B of new Eurobond debt. On a Kazakhstan-only basis ROE remained in the high-50s. The durability test is that returns stayed in the 50%+ band even after consolidation diluted them.

4. Where the Moat Is Weak or Unproven

Honest moat analysis requires naming what could go wrong. Four pressures matter most over the next 24 months.

5. Moat vs Competitors

No listed company combines all three engines of the Kaspi bundle, so this comparison reads each peer for the moat dimension where it is closest. Halyk is the only in-country read. The integration column captures the meta-moat: how many engines run on one customer base.

The structural point: Kaspi scores at the top of five out of six moat dimensions inside Kazakhstan and at the bottom of the sixth (geographic TAM). MELI is the closest analog at the integrated-business level; Halyk is the closest analog at the deposit-franchise level; nobody combines both. The Türkiye build-out is the company's stated answer to its single weakness — and it has not yet earned an upgrade on the scorecard.

6. Durability Under Stress

A moat only matters if it survives stress. Below are eight stress cases drawn from the macro, regulatory, and competitive evidence in the rest of the deck, with what FY2024-25 already showed under partial versions of each.

The pattern across the eight stress cases is that the moat survives where the loop runs on one customer base (rate cycle, short report, Halyk catch-up, Big Tech wallets, cross-border marketplaces) and is unproven where Kaspi is exporting the playbook (Türkiye macro, by extension future second-country expansion). Founder concentration is the only stress case the deck cannot quantify in advance.

7. Where Kaspi.kz JSC Fits

The moat is not uniform across the bundle. The honest split is that Kazakhstan carries a wide-moat-quality engine, Türkiye carries no moat yet, and the three Kazakhstan engines themselves have different moat qualities. Reading the multiple discount correctly requires holding all three views at once.

The bull case rests on Türkiye crossing from "no moat" to "narrow moat" while Kazakhstan stays at "wide-quality." The bear case is that Türkiye stalls (HEPS engagement plateaus, Rabobank delayed) while Kazakhstan compresses (NIM, take-rate, regulatory ratchet). What the multiple is paying for today is the bear case; what the moat evidence supports is closer to the base case.

8. What to Watch

These are the six signals that test the moat directly over the next four quarters. Each is observable in 20-F filings, quarterly press releases, NBK/ARDFM publications, or Halyk's annual report.

The first moat signal to watch is Cost of Risk and NPL coverage rebuild — the underwriting moat is the leg most directly tied to the data-flywheel claim, and the FY2023 ICFR weakness in the ECL model means a small drift in either number changes the rating before any other signal does.

---

Financial Shenanigans

Forensic risk score is 52 / 100 — Elevated. The reported numbers are broadly defensible, but three things keep this above a "Watch" grade: a previously disclosed material weakness in internal controls over the expected-credit-loss (ECL) model that drives lender profitability; a collapsing NPL coverage ratio that fell from 99% (FY2023) to 80% (FY2025) while the gross NPL pile grew 91% over the same window; and a transformative 2025 acquisition of Hepsiburada in hyperinflationary Türkiye that injected ₸429.7 billion of fresh goodwill, ₸33.3 billion of non-cash IAS 29 monetary gains into "other gains", and a ₸89.6 billion segment net loss into a Marketplace P&L that management still presents alongside a steady headline. The single data point that would most change this grade is the FY2026 disclosure that ICFR remains "effective" and that NPL coverage rebuilds above 90% — both confirmed by the FY2026 20-F.

Shenanigans scorecard

The 13-category review is dominated by sector-specific lender risks (ECL, NPL coverage, fintech yield) and acquisition-driven distortions (Hepsiburada). Revenue-recognition and CFO classification tests are largely clean.

Breeding Ground

The breeding-ground profile is mixed: the audit committee is genuinely qualified, the auditor is Big Four, and ICFR has been reported as effective for FY2025 — but founder/insider dominance, an extensive web of related-party transactions, and a high-profile activist short report keep the structural risk above benign.

The audit committee composition is materially stronger than median for a Kazakhstani issuer — three CPAs across the three independent directors, with deep CIS-region E&Y backgrounds. That partially offsets the founder concentration: Kim is also chair of Magnum, and Kolesa is consolidated via a trust deed under CEO Lomtadze's economic interest. The remediated ICFR weakness was in ECL — exactly the area where allowance shortfalls would flow straight to fintech-segment net income.

Earnings Quality

Earnings quality is the area where the most "yellow" turns to "red". Three issues drive concern: NPL coverage collapse, the widening gap between Adjusted EBITDA and IFRS net income, and the Hepsiburada P&L geography.

Revenue grew 60% in 2025 but net income grew only 1%. ₸1,019B of the ₸1,514B revenue increase came from one acquisition (Hepsiburada); cost of goods rose 288% on the same acquisition; provision expense rose 42%; and interest expense rose 47% as the deposit base reprices in a rising-rate environment. The marketplace segment swung to a 20% net-income decline as Hepsi contributed a ₸89.6B segment loss. Operating income grew 18%, well below revenue, which is the right behavior under hyperinflation accounting consolidation.

NPL coverage and Cost of Risk

This is the most important chart in the report. Gross NPLs grew from ₸244B to ₸467B in two years — a 91% increase — while the allowance only grew 53% (₸243B to ₸372B). Coverage dropped from 99% to 80%. At FY2025's NPL stock, returning coverage to FY2023's 99% would require an incremental ₸89B of provision expense, equivalent to roughly 9 percentage points of pretax margin. Management is not flagging this as a deterioration; instead the disclosure language attributes it to product-mix shifts (BNPL growth) and a slightly higher Cost of Risk (2.0% → 2.2%). Both can be true — but the trend should be priced.

Adjusted EBITDA vs IFRS net income

The reconciliation strips out all interest revenue and interest expense from "other operations" (i.e. payments, marketplace, and parent-level), share-based compensation (₸15B), other gains (which in 2025 mostly capture IAS 29 net monetary gain), income tax, and D&A. In 2025 the add-back of "non-fintech" interest expense alone is ₸369B — driven in part by the new Eurobond financing for Hepsiburada. Calling the cost of acquisition funding "other operations" understates the cost of running the broader group. The gap between Adjusted EBITDA and net income widened from 20% in 2023 to 46% in 2025, even as net income essentially stalled.

Other gains and the Türkiye monetary effect

Reported "other gains" in FY2025 of ₸18.3B masks a ₸33.3B IAS 29 net monetary gain attributable to Hepsiburada (Türkiye hyperinflation) — net of a ₸27.8B financial-asset-and-liability loss. The IAS 29 gain is non-cash and reverses only if Türkiye exits hyperinflationary accounting. It is fully disclosed in the segment commentary, but a casual P&L read overstates underlying "other gains" durability.

Capex, D&A and goodwill

Capex nearly doubled in 2025 (₸95.7B → ₸182.5B). D&A almost tripled (₸28.8B → ₸78.3B), largely Hepsiburada PP&E rolling into the consolidated base. Goodwill jumped from ₸17.4B (legacy Kolesa, Magnum E-commerce, Portmone) to ₸447.1B — Hepsiburada accounts for ₸429.7B of the ₸447.1B. Goodwill is now 4.0% of total assets, up from 0.2%. This is a single-bet impairment risk: if Türkiye operations underperform their purchase-price assumptions, the FY2026–2028 income statement carries the writedown.

Cash Flow Quality

Cash-flow classification is clean — no securitization, no factoring, no inventory swap masquerading as investing. The concerns are about the durability of CFO and the negative free cash flow after acquisitions in 2025.

CFO/NI collapsed from 1.31× (FY2023) to 0.56× (FY2024) and partly recovered to 0.63× (FY2025). The FY2024 dip reflects a ₸500B+ working-capital absorption as loans to customers grew 36% while customer deposits funded only part of the gap. In FY2025 the addition of Hepsiburada brought in working-capital inflows that helped CFO grow even as net income stalled. The 3-year cumulative CFO/NI ratio (FY2023–25) is 0.80 — sub-1 for a bank-fintech, and a yellow flag if it persists.

Free cash flow after acquisitions

For the first time in five years, FCF after acquisitions is negative — Hepsiburada cost ₸552.8B net of cash acquired, against ₸491.1B of FCF. Management funded the gap by issuing ₸326B of Eurobonds and skipping the annual dividend (₸646B paid in 2024, zero in 2025). This is an explicit management trade-off, disclosed in MD&A, but a recurring acquisition cadence of this size would force a permanent dividend cut or balance-sheet leverage step-up.

Accrual ratio

The accrual ratio flipped from −4.4% (FY2023, where CFO exceeded NI) to +6.0% (FY2024, where NI exceeded CFO by ₸458B on a growing asset base). FY2025 is moderating to 4.1% on the Hepsiburada-aided CFO bounce. Anything sustained above 5% would warrant red — for now this remains yellow because the asset-side growth (loan book) is the proximate driver, not aggressive revenue recognition.

Metric Hygiene

Two metric-hygiene issues are worth underwriting. First, "Banking service fees" — historically a meaningful component of Fintech fee revenue — were removed from new contracts mid-2024 and continue to roll off old contracts. This caused Fintech fee revenue to drop 44% in 2025 (₸316B → ₸178B) and is presented as a one-time effect. Second, the TFV-to-Net-Loan-Portfolio conversion rate has fallen from 2.2 (FY2023) to 1.8 (FY2025), meaning each unit of loan book now generates fewer issuances per period — a deterioration in portfolio velocity that management does not call out.

What to Underwrite Next

The forensic profile does not break the thesis, but it should temper position sizing and force three explicit diligence checks before adding.

Position-sizing implication. A buy thesis on Kaspi at current valuation is defensible — the business generates real cash, the disclosures are extensive by Kazakhstani standards, and management has remediated the ICFR weakness on its own timetable. But the forensic profile means three things. First, an investor should not size to a "high-conviction" level without sight of the first independent Section 404(b) ICFR attestation. Second, an investor should reserve provisioning conservatism — model FY2026 provision expense ~15% higher than guidance to rebuild NPL coverage to 90%, and discount Adjusted EBITDA back to IFRS pretax income for valuation. Third, the Hepsiburada acquisition concentrates downside: a Türkiye macro shock could trigger a goodwill impairment that, while non-cash, would re-anchor multiples lower. The accounting risk here is a position-sizing limiter and a valuation haircut, not a thesis breaker — but if NPL coverage falls below 75% or any class action survives motion-to-dismiss with prejudice, the grade moves to "High".

---

The People Running This Company

Governance grade: B. Two founders own ~43% of the equity and have run this business together for nearly two decades; the LTIP barely dilutes; dividends are real; the board has four credentialed independents on a six-person board. The drag is concentrated control, founder-affiliated related-party transactions with Magnum and Kolesa, an active US securities class action tied to alleged undisclosed Russia exposure, and the foreign-private-issuer exemption that hides individual executive pay.

1. The People Running This Company

This is a two-man company at the top: a co-founder Chairman with a retail/payments background and a Harvard MBA / ex-Baring Vostok co-founder CEO. Both have been in the building since inception, both have nine-figure shareholdings, and both have stayed through the failed 2019 London IPO, the successful 2020 GDR listing, and the 2024 Nasdaq listing. The Management Board adds three operating lieutenants who joined as founding executives in 2007–2008 — average tenure on the senior team is roughly 18 years, an unusual continuity record for emerging-markets fintech.

What matters for trust:

• Lomtadze (CEO) is the operational center of gravity. Baring Vostok originally backed the business and seeded the management team, and Lomtadze emerged as the credible operator. He has been recognized as Forbes/PwC's "best CEO in Kazakhstan" every year from 2017–2022 — a Kazakh accolade, not a global one, but it correlates with the operating record (revenue from $1.5B to $7.8B over five years, 30%+ net margins maintained through a fintech build-out).
• Kim (Chairman) is the higher-risk figure. His parallel control of Magnum (the country's largest grocer) generates the largest set of related-party transactions and was the central allegation in the 2024 securities class action.
• Succession is the unspoken risk. The three deputies are long-tenured but not visibly being groomed in disclosure as CEO successors. There is no named heir apparent. For a business this concentrated in two people, a Lomtadze health/exit event would be a meaningful re-rating risk.

2. What They Get Paid

Aggregate compensation for all directors and executive officers combined in FY2025 was ₸654 million — about ₸109 million per person if split evenly across the nine-person D&O group. For a company generating ₸4.05 trillion (≈ $7.8B) in revenue and ₸1.06 trillion in net income, that aggregate is a rounding error, and the headline cash pay is genuinely modest by global standards. The real economic incentive is delivered through the Long-Term Incentive Plan (nominal-cost options) and through the founders' ~43% direct equity stake.

Pay assessment. Aggregate D&O compensation is sensible relative to company size — arguably too light at the cash level, which is consistent with the founder-owner economics. The structural problem is what the 20-F does not disclose: as a foreign private issuer, Kaspi.kz reports only the aggregate ₸654m line and gives no per-name breakdown for the CEO, CFO, or any individual director. There is no proxy statement, no Summary Compensation Table, no Pay-vs-Performance disclosure, and no clawback policy disclosure ("Not applicable" under Item 6.F). An outside shareholder cannot verify how the LTIP grants are sized to performance, how much of the ₸654m flows to Lomtadze versus the board, or whether Kim is paid at all as Chairman. That is a real governance gap, not a cosmetic one.

The LTIP itself is well-designed: nominal-cost options with five-year vesting, full forfeiture on termination, and an explicit CEO discretion to cut up to 50% of awards for underperformance. The unvested option overhang is ~0.7% of shares outstanding — essentially zero dilution. Compared to US fintech peers where SBC routinely runs 10–20% of revenue, Kaspi's plan is shareholder-friendly almost to the point of being unusual.

3. Are They Aligned?

This is where the analysis splits cleanly into a green column and an amber column.

Ownership and control

The two co-founders together control 43.4% and could exert effective control with relatively limited additional coordination. The three Guernsey vehicles associated with the original Baring Vostok investment (Fintech Partners, Asia Equity Partners, European Investors) together hold another 23.0% via participation deeds — though Baring entities formally disclaim beneficial ownership. The 20-F itself flags this: a coordinated bloc among founders plus historical PE backers could exceed 65%, which would functionally limit outside-shareholder influence on any contested vote. There is a single class of common shares with one-vote-per-share, which is the good news; no super-voting dual-class structure.

Insider activity

Section 16 filing volume is consistent with an active disposition pattern, not insider buying. Since the Nasdaq IPO (January 2024), the company has filed 21 Form 4s and 16 Form 144s. Recent open-market sales reported in 2026:

Third-party trackers report aggregate insider selling of roughly US$13.6m over the trailing three months and zero insider purchases. That is the textbook pattern for a controlling founder slowly diversifying after a US listing — Kim's sales were 0.07% of his 39.5m-share position — but in a stock that has de-rated since the 2024 short-report event, the optics are not friendly.

Dilution and capital return

Share count has been remarkably flat: 191.8m basic shares in FY2020 → 190.6m in FY2025 (a ~0.6% decrease over five years). The dilutive overhang from outstanding LTIP options is ~0.7% of shares. By any reasonable standard this is a shareholder-friendly equity structure.

Capital return has been generous. Cumulative dividends paid FY2020–FY2024 were roughly ₸1,932 billion (≈ $4.28B). FY2025 dividends were paused while the company funded the Hepsiburada acquisition in Türkiye, then resumed at ₸850 per ADS quarterly from the Q4 2025 result. The CEO addressed this directly in the Q4 2025 release: "Following the acquisition of Hepsiburada, we anticipate that we can now balance targeted growth investments and resume dividend distributions." Buybacks have been token (₸21.9bn in FY2025, ~$42m) — Kaspi pays cash, it does not repurchase.

Related-party transactions

This is the live wire. Two relationships dominate, both involving founder-affiliated private companies that transact daily with Kaspi:

The disclosed numbers are small relative to Kaspi's ₸4.05 trillion revenue (Magnum E-comm goods purchases ~₸6.8bn = 0.17% of revenue). The structural concern is qualitative: every major related-party counterparty is owned or chaired by a Kaspi founder, the Audit Committee approves these under the related-person policy but does so against a related-party policy whose enforcement is opaque to outsiders, and the same fact pattern (related-party transactions plus alleged executive ties) was the substance of the 2024 securities class action filed by Rosen Law and the parallel investigation by Schall Law Firm, which centered on three allegations:

(1) continued business with Russian entities and Russian citizens after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, exposing the Company to undisclosed sanctions risk; (2) undisclosed related party transactions; (3) certain Company executives have alleged links to "reputed criminals." (Robbins LLP/Levi & Korsinsky complaint summary, January 19 – September 19, 2024 class period.)

These allegations originated in a Culper-style short report and the company has rejected them. Status as of the latest filing date: the class action is ongoing, no judgment has been entered, and there are no announced SEC or DOJ enforcement actions. But the lawsuit is real, the class period is concrete, and the allegations are not boilerplate.

Skin-in-the-game score

9 / 10. Founders own ~$6.5B of stock between them at recent prices, the company has never engineered material dilution, capital is returned aggressively as dividends, the LTIP overhang is sub-1%, and the senior team is the founding team after 18+ years. The single point off is the related-party density and the lack of individual-executive pay disclosure — both of which mean alignment is structurally there but cannot be independently audited at the granular level.

4. Board Quality

The board is six people: two founder-insiders (Kim, Lomtadze) and four independents (Nikvashvili, Gardner, Gutkowski, Prawdzik). All four independents joined in 2019 — meaning the independent slate has now served ~7 years together without refresh, which is a tenure-staleness flag worth watching but not yet acute. Both the Audit Committee and the Compensation, Strategy & Social Committee are 100% independent under Nasdaq rules. The audit-committee chair (Gardner) is a CPA and named SEC "audit committee financial expert."

Board expertise scorecard

What the board does well, and what it doesn't

Strengths: the audit committee has actual accounting depth (Gardner and Nikvashvili are both ex-EY partners and credentialed CPAs in their jurisdictions); the consumer/digital seats (Gutkowski, Prawdzik) bring genuine global tech experience that an Almaty-based founder team would otherwise lack; comp and audit committees are fully independent.

Real weaknesses, not cosmetic ones:

• No new independent director in 7 years. All four independents joined in 2019. Refresh is overdue.
• No US securities-law expert on the board even though the company now has a primary US listing and an active class action.
• No Kazakh banking regulatory veteran. Kaspi is a bank, and the only banking experience comes from management's own track record.
• Comp committee is two-person. Gutkowski plus Prawdzik. Industry best practice is three.
• All-Caucasus / CEE composition. Strong on Eastern European consumer/digital, no Asian or US capital-markets seat.

5. The Verdict

Grade: B. The economic alignment is genuinely strong — two founders with ~43% combined ownership, an LTIP that does not dilute, dividends that have returned over $4B of cash in five years, share count flat for half a decade, a senior team that has stayed together for 18+ years, and an independent audit committee with real accounting credentials.

The grade does not go higher because:

1. An active US securities class action alleges undisclosed Russia exposure and undisclosed related-party transactions. Until it resolves, governance must be discounted.
2. Foreign-private-issuer disclosure hides individual executive compensation entirely. The ₸654m aggregate line is all the reader gets.
3. Related-party density with Magnum (Kim-controlled) and Kolesa (Lomtadze-affiliated, now consolidated via a trust-management agreement) is structural, not optional, and would normally trigger a higher independent-board ratio.
4. Concentrated control — founders plus Baring-affiliated vehicles can effectively control any vote.
5. Stale independent slate. No new independent director appointed since 2019; only four independents in total.

The one thing most likely to move the grade.

• Upgrade catalyst (to A-/A): the Rosen/Schall class action is dismissed at the pleading stage or settled for an immaterial sum, the company voluntarily moves toward US-style proxy disclosure, and one or two new independent directors are added with US capital-markets experience.
• Downgrade catalyst (to C or below): an adverse class-action ruling, an SEC or OFAC enforcement action stemming from the same Russia allegations, or an unexpected dividend cut accompanied by founder selling.

---

The Story

The Kaspi.kz that arrived on NASDAQ in January 2024 had a simple story: a dominant Kazakhstan super-app compounding at 25-30% with predictable economics and a sleepy local market for protection. Eighteen months later that story was unrecognisable — a $1.1 billion Türkiye acquisition, a Culper Research short report alleging Russia ties, two guidance cuts in the same fiscal year, a paused dividend, a switch from net income to Adjusted EBITDA guidance, and a Tencent equity stake. Management's operational execution remained largely intact; the story they sold investors did not. Credibility on near-term numbers slipped; conviction in the long-term ambition (a "100 million user company") expanded to absorb the slippage.

1. The Narrative Arc

The arc breaks into three chapters that matter to a present-day buyer:

2018 → 2023 — The compounder chapter. A single-country super-app with an enviable network effect: by FY 2023 Kaspi was processing 71 monthly transactions per active consumer (one of the highest in the world for any mobile app), with 65% daily app engagement. Revenue grew 51% and net income 44% YoY in FY 2023. The story was simple, the numbers were predictable, and the multiples expanded.

Jan 2024 → Oct 2024 — The NASDAQ honeymoon, broken. The US listing valued Kaspi at roughly $17.5B and brought the company to US institutional investors for the first time. Within nine months, two events broke the honeymoon: the April 2024 Kazakhstan floods (a 7% sell-off treated as overdone) and — far more consequentially — Culper Research's September 19, 2024 short report titled "The NASDAQ-Listed Fintech Moving Money for Criminals and Kleptocrats." The ADS fell 16.1% in a single session, securities class actions followed in January 2025 (Levi & Korsinsky, Gross Law, Robbins LLP), and the disclosure premium investors had granted Kaspi was withdrawn.

Oct 2024 → present — The multi-country pivot. On October 17, 2024 Kaspi signed to acquire 65.4% of Hepsiburada in Türkiye for approximately $1.13B. Within fifteen months Kaspi had: closed Hepsiburada, raised a $650M Eurobond, paused its dividend, agreed to acquire Rabobank A.Ş. (a clean Türkiye banking licence), invited Tencent in as a minority shareholder, issued $600M of senior notes, started a $100M ADS buyback, and switched its 2026 guidance metric from net income to Adjusted EBITDA. The story stopped being about Kazakhstan.

2. What Management Emphasized — and Then Stopped Emphasizing

Five patterns matter:

• Türkiye/Hepsiburada went from absent to dominant in five quarters. Zero mentions before Q3 2024, then 24–48 mentions per quarter thereafter. The Q4 2025 letter opened with: "Two topics have dominated my conversations with investors over the last year: our progress in Türkiye and our approach to dividends." This is no longer a Kazakhstan story.
• e-Cars / Kolesa was promoted heavily in Q1 2024 (25 mentions), then quietly de-emphasised — by Q4 2025 it had vanished from the prepared remarks. In Q1 2024, Lomtadze wrote: "When we acquired Kolesa.kz, I promised you that it wouldn't take long for us to start transforming the car market." In FY 2025 results, m-Commerce GMV (which includes cars) declined 1% YoY. The promise has not been rescinded; it has been quietly dropped from the headline.
• B2B Payments was the standout payments narrative in Q4 2023 (20 mentions, "fastest-growing component of TPV"). By Q4 2025 it merits 2 mentions; Kaspi Alaqan (pay-by-palm) has replaced it as the payments-innovation talking point.
• e-Grocery's frequency has roughly halved as growth has decelerated from +125% YoY in Q1 2024 to +43% in Q4 2025 — still fast, but no longer the standout.
• Adjusted EBITDA appeared from nowhere in Q4 2025 (15 mentions). It is now the official guidance metric for 2026. Net income guidance — which was the talked-about KPI from FY 2024 through Q3 2025 — has been retired. The 2026 Adj EBITDA guide is +5% YoY including Türkiye. (Historical IFRS comparison: FY 2025 net income +10% YoY.)

3. Risk Evolution

The risk section in the 20-F has expanded faster than the business, in two specific places:

• Türkiye is now a top-five disclosed risk area (0 → 27 → 72 mentions). This is the largest single-year increase in any risk category since the company became a public filer.
• Tax and reserve requirements jumped from 2 → 10 mentions as Kazakhstan introduced a new 10% tax on revenue from government securities investments and raised minimum reserve requirements. Both were called out in Q1 2025 as drivers of the guidance cut.
• Material-weakness-in-ICFR mentions have halved (44 → 21 → 20) — consistent with management's repeated statements that remediation is in progress. This is the only risk category that is meaningfully shrinking.
• Russia/sanctions language remained essentially flat (21 → 21 → 24 mentions) — despite the Culper short report alleging undisclosed Russian-related exposures and securities-fraud class actions filed in January 2025. The Filed complaints allege Kaspi "continued doing business with Russian entities, and also providing services to Russian citizens, after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine." The 20-F has not added a dedicated risk factor naming Culper or the litigation in language commensurate with the market reaction.
• Kazakhtelecom dependency is the largest single-issuer concentration in the risk section (35–39 mentions across years) — a quietly persistent dependency that has not gone away despite Kaspi's growth.

4. How They Handled Bad News

The two biggest bad-news events of the post-IPO era were the September 2024 Culper short report and the 2025 guidance cuts. Management's handling differed sharply.

5. Guidance Track Record

Credibility score: 6 / 10

The case for 6 (not lower): operational execution has been mostly solid — Kazakhstan KPIs (engagement, payments, dividends, debt issuance, M&A closings) have largely delivered on what was promised, and the underlying ex-headwind FY 2025 number landed within the revised normalised range. Capital-markets execution has been clean (IPO, Eurobonds, ADS notes, dividend mechanics).

The case for 6 (not higher): the FY 2025 headline guidance — the one the IPO investors wrote down — was cut twice in seven months and ultimately delivered at the bottom of the second revised range. Management's preferred response was to switch the headline metric (to Adjusted EBITDA) and the geographic scope (to include Türkiye) for FY 2026, breaking comparability with the metric they had been guiding for two years. The Culper allegations have not been addressed on calls. e-Cars/Kolesa was promised as transformational in Q1 2024 and is now barely mentioned. The "20% net income growth" message from the IPO roadshow no longer applies.

A 6 is "broadly trustworthy on operations, suspect on what they choose to talk about and when." That seems right here.

6. What the Story Is Now

The current story is: a multi-country digital ecosystem with a proven Kazakhstan compounder funding a Türkiye expansion that is showing early operational re-acceleration, governed by a founder-CEO with 19 years in the seat who has just brought Tencent in as a strategic minority. Guidance is now in Adjusted EBITDA terms (+5% in 2026, including Türkiye), with the implicit message that the Kazakhstan business is in a cyclical air pocket (smartphones, rates, tax) while Türkiye is in a J-curve.

What has been de-risked:

• Hepsiburada order growth went from −11% YoY in Q1 2025 to +19% in Q4 2025 — the operational thesis on the Türkiye acquisition is showing evidence in management's preferred metric.
• Material-weakness language in the 20-F has fallen by half from FY 2023; ICFR remediation is visibly progressing.
• The dividend was paused and resumed within four quarters — Lomtadze's commitment that Türkiye-plus-dividends-can-coexist held.
• The Tencent investment (announced April 2026) provides external validation of strategy from one of the most respected platform investors in EM tech.

What still looks stretched:

• 2026 Adjusted EBITDA growth of ~5% is a meaningful deceleration from the 25%+ net income growth on which the NASDAQ IPO was sold. The "100 million user" ambition has expanded just as the near-term numbers have compressed.
• The Culper Russia/sanctions allegations have not been resolved or rebutted in detail on earnings calls; class actions remain pending. This is the single largest unmitigated tail risk in the story.
• Türkiye losses persist at the net-income line even as EBITDA approaches breakeven; the playbook depends on consumer purchase frequency reaching Kazakhstan-like levels (6–7x current), which takes years.
• Kazakhstan's tax, reserve-requirement, and base-rate headwinds are described as cyclical but have been ratcheting in one direction for two years.
• Rabobank A.Ş. acquisition has slipped past its 2H 2025 close target — regulatory approval is now an unknown.

What the reader should believe versus discount:

Believe	Discount
Operational execution in Kazakhstan (TPV, GMV, engagement)	Anything labelled "underlying" — it's the metric of last resort
Hepsiburada integration is real and re-accelerating	2026 guidance comparability with 2024-vintage commitments
Capital-markets execution (debt, equity, M&A closing)	Guidance switches as innocent metric improvements
Lomtadze's long tenure and inherited high-quality Kazakhstan franchise	The "no sanctions exposure" position until the class actions resolve

The 2026 story is genuinely bigger than the 2024 story — multi-country, 100-million-user ambition, Tencent-blessed. It is also genuinely less predictable than the 2024 story, and management has done the natural thing a good executive team does in that situation: changed the metric, lengthened the time horizon, and led with capital returns. A patient long-term holder will read this as the right pivot at the right time. A two-year-window investor reading the 2024 prospectus has every right to feel that the company they bought is not the company they own.

---

Financials — What the Numbers Say

Kaspi.kz reports in Kazakhstani tenge (₸). All figures below are in tenge unless explicitly labelled; ratios, multiples, and percentages are unitless. Where the equity trades (NASDAQ ADR), the share price is in US dollars — the valuation section makes that explicit. The Hepsiburada (Türkiye) consolidation that began in January 2025 is the single most important context for reading the FY2025 statements: it roughly doubled revenue, mechanically halved consolidated margins, and absorbed a significant share of cash and balance-sheet capacity. Read every line below with that pivot in mind.

1. Financials in One Page

Kaspi is a Kazakhstan-built super-app that converts payments, marketplace, and fintech traffic into one of the world's most profitable consumer-finance franchises. From FY2019 to FY2024 revenue compounded at roughly 38% per year while operating margin held in a 75–79% band — a profile only a handful of listed businesses anywhere can match. In January 2025 the company consolidated Hepsiburada (a low-margin Turkish marketplace, now ~85% owned), so FY2025 reported revenue jumped 60% to ₸4,046B but consolidated operating margin fell to 55% and net income essentially flatlined at ₸1,073B. The core Kazakhstan business kept compounding — Kazakhstan-only net income grew 13–18% for the year — but the consolidated optics are now mixed. The balance sheet remains exceptionally strong (long-term debt only ₸348B against ₸2,602B of equity), free-cash-flow conversion has compressed from 1.6x net income to roughly 0.46x as Türkiye consumes working capital and capex, and the equity trades at ~8.6x trailing earnings — a deep discount versus history and global fintech peers. The single financial metric that matters most right now is Kazakhstan-only underlying net income growth, because consolidated GAAP optics now bury the actual unit economics.

Definitions used throughout: Operating margin = operating income ÷ revenue. Free cash flow (FCF) = operating cash flow minus capex; it is the cash the business generates after running and reinvesting in itself. ROE = net income ÷ average equity; how productively shareholder capital is being put to work. Net debt / EBITDA = (debt minus cash) ÷ EBITDA; how many years of cash earnings would be needed to repay net debt. P/E = price per share ÷ earnings per share; how many years of current earnings the market is paying for.

2. Revenue, Margins, and Earnings Power

Revenue scaled from ₸47B in FY2015 to ₸4,046B in FY2025 — a ~58% ten-year CAGR. The trajectory has two regimes. From FY2016 through FY2024, growth was organic, high-margin, and almost monotonic — Kazakhstan adoption of payments, BNPL, and the marketplace flywheel. In FY2025, the Hepsiburada acquisition shifted the company from a pure-play Kazakh super-app to a two-country business with a low-margin 1P/3P retail operation bolted on, which is the single largest reason consolidated growth was 60% while net income growth was 1%.

The FY2017 operating-margin dip (to 19%) reflects a credit-cost spike in the legacy bank book before the model migrated decisively toward fee-based payments and marketplace revenue. From FY2019 onward, margin structure stabilised in a remarkable 75–79% operating band — a number more typical of asset-light software platforms than of consumer-credit issuers — driven by very low cost of revenue (gross margin 87–92%) and operating leverage on a fixed cost base shared across three platforms.

The FY2025 break is the single most important visual in this tab. Gross margin dropped from 87% to 70%, operating margin from 75% to 55%, net margin from 41% to 26%. This is not a structural deterioration of the Kazakhstan business — Kazakhstan-only net income still grew 13–18%, per management on the Q4 2025 call — it is the mechanical effect of consolidating a 1P retail marketplace with very different unit economics. Reading the numbers without this context will misprice the franchise.

The quarterly sequence makes the regime change unmistakable. Q4 2024 operating margin: 75%. Q1 2025 (first quarter consolidating Hepsiburada): 60%. By Q1 2026 it has restabilised around 55% — a new, lower, but consistent baseline. Net income has been essentially flat for six consecutive quarters in absolute tenge terms, which is the headline that has compressed the multiple even as the business is still growing.

3. Cash Flow and Earnings Quality

Free cash flow is the cash the business generates after running operations and after the capital it spends to maintain and grow its asset base. A healthy quality test is whether FCF tracks net income — if FCF chronically lags, accounting earnings are not converting to cash, and growth is being funded by something other than the business itself.

Two things are happening in this chart. First, FCF/NI swings violently year-to-year because a large share of Kaspi's operating cash flow is determined by the lending book — when consumer loan growth is heavy (FY2021), operating cash flow temporarily sinks because the bank is funding new loans; when growth slows (FY2020, FY2022, FY2023), OCF surges. This is normal for a balance-sheet lender embedded in a consumer-finance super-app and is not a quality flag in itself. Second, the structural step-down from ~1.3x in FY2022–23 to ~0.46x in FY2024–25 reflects three real distortions worth naming explicitly.

Capex roughly doubled in each of FY2024 and FY2025 as Kaspi built out logistics for marketplace and absorbed Hepsiburada's fixed assets (PPE grew from ₸174B to ₸714B over two years). Dividends — historically the dominant use of cash — were suspended in FY2025 to fund the Hepsiburada acquisition (₸553B), partially financed with new debt issuance (₸326B). The FY2025 dividend pause and the acquisition together are the cleanest explanation for the FCF/NI step-down. None of this is forensic — it is a deliberate capital-allocation choice that should reverse as Türkiye integration normalises.

4. Balance Sheet and Financial Resilience

Kaspi is unusual: the consumer-finance / payments engine sits inside a regulated bank entity, so the balance sheet looks more like a small bank's than a software company's. Total assets reached ₸11,082B at FY2025 year-end (up from ₸8,377B a year earlier — the jump is mostly Hepsiburada consolidation). Long-term debt is only ₸348B against ₸2,602B of shareholders' equity. Net debt / EBITDA stands at 0.16x — comfortable by any standard, and exceptional for a consumer lender.

For a balance-sheet lender, the more important resilience numbers are interest coverage and the assets-to-equity ratio (a banking leverage proxy). EBIT/interest expense is 2.5x in FY2025 — adequate but down from 3.6x in FY2022 as funding costs rose. Assets-to-equity is now 4.26x, which is well within bank prudential norms and substantially below where universal banks operate (10–15x). This is a balance sheet with significant unused capacity, which matters for the acquisitions optionality the company has clearly chosen to use.

The single new line worth a careful read is goodwill: ₸17B → ₸447B. That ₸430B step-up is the price Kaspi paid above book value for Hepsiburada control. Goodwill is now ~4% of total assets, ~17% of equity — material but not dangerous. The forensic question for the next four to eight quarters is whether Hepsiburada's underlying profitability supports that goodwill or whether an impairment will become unavoidable. The Turkish lira's instability and Hepsiburada's still-negative reported margins (combined ratio under cost-of-capital) make this the single largest balance-sheet risk to track.

5. Returns, Reinvestment, and Capital Allocation

Returns on capital have been extraordinary for a decade. ROIC sat at 18–21% from FY2020 to FY2024 — high enough to suggest a wide moat in payments and consumer credit inside Kazakhstan. ROE peaked near 97% in FY2021 (a function of high payouts keeping equity small) and has settled at 51% in FY2025 as the Hepsiburada deal expanded the equity base and diluted earnings power.

Capital allocation has historically been dividend-heavy. Total dividends paid in FY2019–FY2024 cumulated to roughly ₸2,030B — a meaningful fraction of cumulative earnings. The pattern is unmistakable: Kazakhstan generates more cash than the business can reinvest at attractive returns inside Kazakhstan, so management returns it. FY2025 broke that pattern decisively.

The FY2025 chart is a single tall red bar — the Hepsiburada acquisition (₸553B) replaced the dividend (₸646B in FY2024 → zero) as the dominant capital use. Buybacks have been a rounding error. Share count has barely moved (191.8M in FY2020, 191.9M in FY2025), so there is no dilution issue, but there is also no significant per-share leverage from buybacks. Book value per share has compounded from ₸2,019 in FY2020 to ₸12,985 in FY2025 — a 45% CAGR — which is the cleanest measure of long-term per-share value creation. The judgment investors must make: did management compound shareholder value by buying Hepsiburada, or did they trade certain dividends for an uncertain growth call option? The answer will be visible in returns on incremental capital over the next three to five years.

6. Segment and Unit Economics

Detailed segment financial breakdowns are not available in the structured data, but Kaspi reports three operating platforms: Payments (TPV-driven fees), Marketplace (GMV-driven take rates plus advertising and delivery), and Fintech (consumer credit + savings). Management commentary from the most recent earnings calls gives the working picture below.

The economics are unambiguous: Kazakhstan Marketplace is the highest-quality marginal dollar in the business right now — the Q1 2026 acceleration to +41% GMV and +44% purchase frequency, alongside take-rate expansion via advertising and delivery, is the most attractive growth vector. Kazakhstan Payments is the cash machine but is showing take-rate compression from competitive pressure and from the launch costs of Kaspi Alakan ("Pay by Palm") biometric checkout. Türkiye is the strategic call — it lives or dies on whether Kaspi can lift Hepsiburada's unit economics toward Kazakhstan-like margins over five to ten years. Without segment-level GAAP financials it is not possible to put precise margins on each, but management's directional language is consistent across the last four calls.

7. Valuation and Market Expectations

Where the market prices Kaspi today versus its history, peers, and own financial quality is the single most consequential financial judgment on this page. The equity trades on NASDAQ as an ADR; latest close was $92.85 on 26-May-2026, implying a market cap of roughly $17.8B (about ₸9,247B at year-end FX). Enterprise value sits a touch below market cap because cash exceeds long-term debt.

Three things explain the discount: country (Kazakhstan: small EM, oil-linked, recent regulatory volatility around BNPL), the Hepsiburada-induced margin compression that made FY2025 net income flat, and the FY2025 dividend pause. None of these are about deteriorating Kazakhstan unit economics; all of them are about the market temporarily losing the thread between consolidated reported numbers and underlying earnings power. The sell-side consensus seems to agree — the average 12-month price target of $126.33 (Buy consensus from six covering analysts; high $175, low $87) implies roughly 36% upside, in line with what closing half the discount-to-peer would deliver mechanically.

Bear, base, and bull are anchored on Kazakhstan-only earnings power (still 70%+ operating margin) and Türkiye trajectory. The asymmetry favours patient capital because the entry multiple already prices in significant continued disappointment — i.e. the bear case is roughly the current price.

8. Peer Financial Comparison

Kaspi sits at the intersection of three peer types: Latin American fintech super-apps (NU, MELI), Brazilian acquirers (PAGS, STNE), and the recent Türkiye marketplace acquisition target (HEPS, now consolidated). Halyk Bank (HSBK) is the in-country banking benchmark but trades and reports differently. The table below uses each peer's most recent annual figures; mixed reporting currencies are noted explicitly.

KSPI's row tells a striking story: best-in-peer operating margin (55%, and still 70%+ on a Kazakhstan-only basis), best ROE among the group (51%) by a meaningful margin, lowest leverage (debt/equity 0.13), and the highest reported revenue growth (60%) — yet it trades on a single-digit P/E while MELI commands an EV/EBITDA in the high-twenties. The market clearly demands a Kazakhstan / EM / Türkiye-integration discount; the question is how large that discount should be. On any reasonable read of fundamentals KSPI is the highest-quality balance sheet and the highest-quality earnings stream in the table; the relative discount is in the ~40–60% range versus MELI/NU on multiples versus what underlying quality would suggest, which is the central thesis the consensus 12-month $126 target reflects.

9. What to Watch in the Financials

What the financials confirm: Kaspi's Kazakhstan business is one of the world's most profitable consumer-finance / payments platforms, with returns on capital that imply real moat, a pristine balance sheet, and a 10-year compounding record. What they contradict: the headline narrative that growth has stalled — consolidated net income was flat in FY2025 only because Hepsiburada was added to the denominator, not because the underlying franchise weakened. The metric that will most change the investment view between now and the next 20-F is Kazakhstan-only underlying net income growth — if it stays in the mid-teens, the discount almost certainly closes; if it dips below ten, the Türkiye risk dominates and the discount could persist or widen.

The first financial metric to watch is Kazakhstan-only underlying net income growth.

---

Web Research — What the Internet Knows

The Bottom Line from the Web

The single most important thing the internet reveals — and the filings do not foreground — is that the May 2025 dismissal of the consolidated US securities class action (Krivenok v. Kaspi.kz, C.D. Cal.) has neutralized the largest visible governance overhang from the September 2024 Culper Research short report, while a Tencent-led April 2026 secondary purchase transferred meaningful equity from Baring Vostok to a strategic Chinese super-app peer. The case is no longer pending; the alignment grade should be re-rated, even though the Culper allegations themselves remain unresolved in the court of public opinion. Set against that, the macro is hostile: NBK has held the base rate at 18% with inflation at 12.3%, reserve requirements have been hiked twice, and ARDFM is openly drafting BNPL pricing rules aimed at Kaspi's most profitable Fintech product.

What Matters Most

7. Hepsiburada now ≈50% of e-Commerce GMV; stake increased to 85.66%. On Jan 29, 2025 Kaspi acquired 65.41% of D-MARKET Electronic Services & Trading (Hepsiburada) for ~USD 1,127M, then bought an additional 20.25% for ~USD 168M (total stake 85.66% per Q1 2026 financials; press materials cite 85.17%). Q1 2026: e-Commerce GMV +41% YoY to KZT ~1.36T (USD 2.6B) with Türkiye representing 50% of e-Commerce GMV after the full-quarter consolidation. Management guidance is "breakeven adjusted EBITDA in Turkey" in 2026, reiterated by IR head David Ferguson on the Q1 call. Source: Q1 2026 interim consolidated financials (StockTitan SEC mirror); Q1 2026 earnings call (Yahoo Finance / Globe & Mail transcripts).

8. Rabobank Türkiye acquisition slipped to mid-2026. Share purchase agreement signed March 27, 2025; expected close has slipped from "2H 2025" to mid-2026. Rabobank A.Ş. is a fully licensed Turkish bank with no clients and no branches — a license shell that lets Kaspi transplant the Kazakhstan deposit-funded fintech model into Türkiye alongside Hepsiburada. Kaspi described the transaction as "not material." Closing risk: BDDK regulatory approval. Source: GlobeNewswire press release / Quiver Quant / Globe & Mail.

9. Q1 2026 print on track with FY guide. Revenue KZT 1.1T (+31% YoY), adj. EBITDA KZT 368B (+9%), net income KZT 252B (–1%); Payments TPV KZT 12.5T (+14%), Fintech net loan portfolio KZT 7.84T (+23%), advertising/delivery revenue +73% (the highest-growth leg). Active consumers 26.5M (+3%). FY2026 guidance retained: ~20% GMV growth, 15% TPV growth, 5% TFV growth, 5% adjusted EBITDA growth — explicitly no rate cuts assumed. Source: Quartr earnings summary; stocktitan.net news.

10. Bloomberg / Kazakh watchdog framing. Kaspi controls >75% of Kazakhstan's online-marketplace business per the competition authority (Bloomberg report). Kazakhstan e-commerce hit KZT 3.4T (USD 6B) in 2024 (+42% YoY); cashless transactions = 87% of retail; marketplaces = 91% of e-commerce sales. Halyk Bank (HSBK) market cap KZT 4,069.82B on KASE — ~half of Kaspi's USD 14.94B (KZT ~7,800B at year-end FX). Sources: Bloomberg via Yahoo; The Astana Times; KASE listings.

Recent News Timeline

What the Specialists Asked

Governance and People Signals

Shareholders (March 31, 2026 interim financials)

Tencent / Lomtadze / senior management / long-term US institutional investors absorbed Baring's net sale of ~0.93 pp on April 20, 2026. Lomtadze is now the single largest shareholder, ahead of both Baring and co-founder Kim.

Insider transactions surfaced via Form 4

• Chairman Vyacheslav Kim sold 48,629 ADS in an open-market trade (Form 4 mirrored on StockTitan).
• A separate director sold 58,810 ADS in open-market trades.
• Tencent / Lomtadze / management bought 6.0M ADS from Baring on April 20, 2026 (in-block secondary, not open-market).

Net signal: insiders trimming small amounts on the open market while the principal alignment-relevant transaction was the Tencent block-in by Lomtadze and management — additive to alignment, not extractive.

Board / Auditor

• Chairman: Vyacheslav Konstantinovich Kim. CEO & Executive Director: Mikheil Lomtadze.
• Independent Non-Executive Directors named in MarketWatch profile: Shimon Gutkovski, Alina Pravzdik.
• AGM (April 15, 2026) reappointed Deloitte LLP as external auditor — auditor continuity after the FY2023 ICFR material-weakness episode.
• AGM also approved Board remuneration in ADS grants vesting over three years.

Litigation status

Industry Context

Kazakhstan macro snapshot (2025–26 base case)

Three structural shifts that didn't surface fully in filings

1. Türkiye is now a 50% of e-Commerce GMV exposure. Hepsiburada full-quarter consolidation flipped the geographic mix. The "Kazakhstan super-app" thesis is becoming a "Kazakhstan + Türkiye fintech-marketplace" thesis. Rabobank Türkiye is the missing deposit-funding leg.

2. Investment Grade status changes the buyer base. Baa3 / BBB- with two oversubscribed bond issues (March 2025 $650M; April 2026 $600M) means credit funds, insurance, and IG-mandated EM allocators now own the paper. This is durable, sticky capital.

3. The regulatory ratchet is local, not extraterritorial. Despite the Culper sanctions narrative, the actual binding constraints in 2025–26 have been (a) NBK base rate at 18%, (b) reserve-requirement hikes (Aug 2025, April 2026), (c) the 10% gov-sec revenue tax, and (d) ARDFM's BNPL pricing draft. These are domestic Kazakh policy levers — manageable, but they form a ratchet against Fintech margins that did not exist pre-2024.

---

Web Watch in One Page

The report leans long on Kaspi.kz JSC (KSPI) but conditions the size on a narrow set of dated, observable events. The five active watches below are the only outside disclosures that can change the long-term thesis between FY2026 interim accounts and the March 2027 20-F. The first watches the single failure mode that can refute the data-flywheel moat — the ECL model and the first Section 404(b) auditor attestation. The next two track the Türkiye half of the multi-country thesis: Hepsiburada engagement plus goodwill, and the Rabobank A.Ş. banking licence closing. The fourth picks up the Kazakhstan regulatory ratchet on BNPL, marketplace concentration, and reserve requirements that hit the highest-margin Fintech product. The fifth tracks the slowest-moving but most consequential domestic threat — whether Halyk Bank closes the digital-banking gap.

Together they target evidence that moves the sign, not just the magnitude, of the next five-to-ten years of compounding. Items that mostly move quarterly print arithmetic — short-interest cycle, dividend ex-dates, NBK rate decisions in isolation — are intentionally outside the watch set; the report flags them but treats them as cyclical, not structural.

Active Monitors

Rank	Watch item	Cadence	Why it matters	What would be detected
1	NPL coverage, Cost of Risk, and the Section 404(b) ICFR opinion on the ECL model	Daily	The only failure mode that refutes the data-flywheel moat — coverage fell 99% → 90% → 80% over three years while reported Cost of Risk stayed at 2.2%. Rebuilding to 90% is roughly 8–9% of FY2025 net income. The first independent auditor attestation on the FY2023 ECL-model material weakness has not yet landed.	A 6-K interim with 1H 2026 coverage trajectory, a clean or qualified Section 404(b) opinion in the FY2026 20-F, a rating-agency note that flags ECL adequacy, or any SEC comment letter on internal controls.
2	Hepsiburada engagement, Adjusted EBITDA trajectory, and HEPS goodwill	Daily	Türkiye is the only proven path to multi-country compounding. ~17% of equity sits as HEPS goodwill on a subsidiary with a 1.4% EBITDA margin and one-quarter of Kazakhstan engagement. Trendyol is 3× the scale and Alibaba-funded.	A HEPS quarterly print showing Adj-EBITDA reversal or a stall in engaged-consumer growth, a goodwill impairment test triggered in interim accounts, IAS 29 hyperinflation effects, or Trendyol/Amazon Türkiye moves that compress HEPS share.
3	Rabobank A.Ş. BDDK approval and Türkiye banking licence closing	Daily	Gating event for the deposit-funded leg of the Türkiye playbook. Closing has already slipped from 2H 2025 to mid-2026; a second slip or restrictive BDDK conditions would signal execution failure on the multi-country thesis.	A BDDK decision (approval, conditional approval, or rejection), Kaspi or Rabobank Türkiye press release confirming a revised date, the $300M capital injection sizing, or the first deposit-funded Türkiye product roadmap.
4	Kazakhstan regulatory ratchet — BNPL pricing, marketplace concentration, interchange, reserve requirements	Daily	BNPL is ~50% of Kaspi's lending and its highest-margin Fintech product. ARDFM and the competition authority are co-drafting rules that would require cash prices below BNPL prices. Tax and reserve-requirement step-ups already absorbed ~220 bps of funding cost.	An ARDFM draft rule moving into public consultation with a defined effective date, a formal competition-authority inquiry into Kaspi's 75%+ marketplace share, new NBK interchange caps or reserve-requirement step-ups, or statutory tax changes targeting fintech.
5	Halyk Bank digital-banking convergence and Kazakhstan deposit franchise	Every two weeks	The only domestic balance sheet that can match Kaspi's deposit funding cost. Slowest-moving but most consequential long-term threat — invisible in Kaspi's own filings.	A meaningful step-up in Halyk Super App MAU growth, a marketplace overlay or foreign super-app partnership inside Halyk, premium-card / Apple Pay / Samsung Pay launches, an aggressive deposit-rate war, or a Kantar/KResearch survey showing brand-recall gap narrowing.

Why These Five

The verdict frames KSPI as Lean Long, Wait For Confirmation. The reason for the qualifier is two unresolved disclosures: the first independent Section 404(b) auditor opinion and the 1H 2026 NPL coverage print. Watch 1 is the page-one watch for that reason — it carries the only evidence capable of moving the moat rating from "narrow and proving" to "narrow and shrinking." Watches 2 and 3 cover the Türkiye half of the multi-country thesis (Hepsiburada engagement plus the deposit-funded leg), because if Kazakhstan compounds at home but Türkiye stalls, the runway is capped by a 19-million-person market and the multiple stays in the Halyk-bucket. Watch 4 covers the regulatory failure mode that can compress the highest-margin Fintech product without management lifting a finger. Watch 5 is the long-cycle moat watch — Halyk is the only domestic competitor that could fund a sustained deposit-rate war, and the moat erodes through MAU and brand-recall gaps that are not disclosed in Kaspi's own 20-F.

Things deliberately left out: NBK base-rate decisions in isolation (a magnitude-mover, not a thesis-changer); the short-interest cycle (positioning is benign at 0.89% of shares outstanding, and a fresh activist short would be picked up incidentally by watches 1–4); dividend ex-dates and the EGM (scripted, confirmatory). The watch set is built for the five-to-ten-year underwriting frame, not the next quarterly print.

---

Where We Disagree With the Market

The market is paying $92.85 per ADS for a Halyk Bank multiple on a sell-side narrative that says "deep discount to NU/MELI peers will close" — and the disagreement is not whether the discount should close but whether consensus actually believes it will. The headline $126.33 Benzinga consensus price target is arithmetically dragged up by a stale May-2024 $175 print from New Street; the three most-recent ratings (Freedom Broker, JPM, JPM) average ~$93 — the same as spot. What looks like a 36% upside-to-consensus is in fact a market that has already quietly converged with the bear: most-recent calls are HOLD/Neutral at $87-$95, and the post-Tencent/post-IG-bond rally has merely closed the gap to where current consensus already sat. The real consensus belief is "fairly priced for Kazakhstan single-country EM fintech, awaiting Section 404(b) and Hepsiburada validation" — and the most-decision-relevant gap in the file is that the report's NPL coverage evidence (99% → 90% → 80% over three years while gross NPLs grew 91%) is mathematically inconsistent with the stable 2.2% Cost-of-Risk reading consensus models accept at face value.

The resolution path is dated and narrow: the 1H 2026 IFRS interim disclosure (August-September 2026) and the first independent Section 404(b) auditor attestation (March 2027 20-F) settle the load-bearing variant view. Between them, the Hepsiburada engagement print and the Rabobank A.Ş. closing window (mid-2026) test the second-largest disagreement. No variant view in this file survives the bull-versus-bear flatness frame Stan settled on — instead, this page identifies where consensus itself is mispriced, not where bull beats bear.

Variant Perception Scorecard

Variant strength is moderate — high on the NPL/CoR mathematical gap, moderate on the consensus-mirage and Hepsiburada-as-impairment claims, lower on the structural-discount-versus-dislocation point because the IG bond demand and Tencent stake have already partially repriced country risk. Consensus clarity is mixed: the public consensus number ($126.33 average) and the actual consensus behavior (most-recent ratings near spot, no upgrades, two downgrades from JPM and Susquehanna in the last 9 months) point in opposite directions, which is the disagreement itself. Evidence strength is highest on the NPL math and the goodwill exposure, both of which are direct line-items in the FY2025 20-F. The first resolving event is the 1H 2026 IFRS interim in August/September 2026 — four months out from the May 27, 2026 date of this file.

Consensus Map

The market belief on KSPI is not monolithic; the public "consensus PT $126" frame and the actual analyst behavior in the last 12 months differ. The table below maps the implied underwriting assumptions embedded in the price tape, the sell-side average, and management's own guidance switch.

The consensus map shows where market belief is clear and disagrees with evidence (rows 2, 3) versus where market belief is itself muddled (rows 1, 4, 6). The single sharpest disagreement is row 2 — the CoR-stability reading rests on a model whose ICFR failed once and whose NPL coverage trajectory contradicts the stability claim arithmetically.

The Disagreement Ledger

Three ranked disagreements survive the materiality, evidence, resolution-path, and disconfirming-signal tests. A fourth was considered (regulatory ratchet on BNPL pricing via ARDFM) but was dropped — the rule's form and effective date are undecided, so it is currently a watch item, not a variant claim.

Disagreement #1 — The CoR/NPL coverage math is broken

Consensus would say: "Cost of Risk has been stable at 2.0-2.2% across the cycle, Q1-26 printed 0.7%, the data-flywheel underwrites in under six seconds at industry-leading loss rates, and management explicitly attributes the coverage decline to a portfolio mix shift toward lower-coverage BNPL products." The arithmetic disagrees on a single point: provisioning growth (₸243B → ₸372B, +53% over two years) has lagged NPL growth (₸244B → ₸467B, +91%) — that is what coverage falling from 99% to 80% means. A model that under-builds reserves into a growing NPL stock produces a flattering CoR by construction. If the variant view is right, the FY2026 provision line carries an ~₸89B catch-up that compresses pretax margin by 8-9 percentage points, and the data-flywheel claim rests on an ECL model whose internal controls have failed in production once. The cleanest disconfirming signal is the 1H 2026 NPL coverage print: above 85% with CoR holding under 2.5% refutes the variant; at or below 80% with CoR drifting confirms it.

Disagreement #2 — Sell-side consensus is a stale-average mirage

Consensus would say: "Six covering analysts average $126.33, implying meaningful upside to spot — the stock is trading well inside the bull case." The arithmetic disagrees: that average is anchored by a $175 New Street print from May 7, 2024 — four months before Culper, ten months before Hepsiburada consolidated, and twelve months before the Krivenok class action was dismissed. Strip the pre-Culper print and the average collapses toward the most-recent three ratings ($87, $88, $96 — mean $90.33), which is where the stock already trades. Stock Analysis lists 7 analysts at $100.75; AlphaSpread 1y-average is $102.61; Public.com shows 2 analysts at HOLD with a $91.50 target. Susquehanna downgraded the stock from Positive to Neutral in November 2025 (PT $130 → $87) and only raised PT to $95 in April 2026 while keeping Neutral. JPM cut PT $96 → $88 in late 2025. If we are right, the "deep discount to consensus" framing in the bull case is a coordination problem — the live coverage already prices the stock fairly, and the upside-from-here trade requires an upgrade cycle, not a discount-closure. The cleanest disconfirming signal is a coverage-list price-target raise above $110 from a top-tier broker (JPM, Susquehanna, Morgan Stanley) on the back of the August Q2 print.

Disagreement #3 — Hepsiburada is consensus-framed as growth, evidence-framed as impairment risk

Consensus would say: "Q4-25 order growth +19% and FY2025 Adj-EBITDA approaching breakeven validate the Türkiye transplant; Tencent's April 2026 secondary purchase ratifies the super-app playbook; management's FY2026 Adj-EBITDA breakeven target is conservative." The evidence points to three under-weighted structural facts. First, HEPS engagement is 6.7 purchases per consumer per year against Kazakhstan's 24.8 — one-quarter the intensity after a full year of integration. Second, ₸429.7B of HEPS goodwill (17% of equity) sits against a 1.4% EBITDA margin and a ₸89.6B segment net loss in a market where Trendyol is roughly 3× scale and Alibaba-funded. Third, Rabobank A.Ş. — the deposit-funded fintech leg that is the strategic reason for the entire Türkiye build-out — has slipped once and has no firm new closing date. If the variant view is right, the HEPS goodwill is one bad operating quarter from a formal impairment test, the Türkiye thesis is a 3-7-year proof-of-concept rather than a 2026 inflection, and Adj-EBITDA breakeven against a low single-digit Turkish-lira denominator (flattered by IAS 29 monetary gains) is not the same as proving the moat transplants. The cleanest disconfirming signal is the BDDK closing of Rabobank A.Ş. inside the mid-2026 window with the $300M capital injection executing on plan.

Evidence That Changes the Odds

The table below pulls the highest-leverage evidence items in the file and shows how a consensus reader and a variant reader interpret each. Each item is sourced to a specific upstream tab or data point; the fragility column names the way the evidence could mislead.

How This Gets Resolved

Six signals — each observable in a dated disclosure, regulatory filing, sell-side action, or analyst-tracked metric — close the variant view in one direction or the other. Two are leading (Rabobank closing and sell-side estimate revisions through August); two are decisive (1H 2026 NPL coverage and Section 404(b) attestation); two are confirmatory (HEPS engagement and goodwill test). The 1H 2026 NPL coverage print is the highest-decision-weight resolver because it tests the single largest arithmetic gap in the file on the shortest timeline.

What Would Make Us Wrong

The NPL coverage variant view depends on the mix-shift framing being substantially false. It might not be. Kaspi's product mix has genuinely tilted toward shorter-duration BNPL — a category that does have a structurally lower coverage requirement than traditional auto or unsecured cash loans because the loss-given-default is lower (small ticket, fast amortisation). If management discloses product-by-product coverage data on the 1H 2026 call and shows that within each cohort coverage is stable, then the headline coverage decline is a denominator effect of growth-mix and the variant view collapses. The Q1-26 CoR of 0.7% is consistent with that read. The bear's best receipts (FY23 ICFR weakness in this exact area; allowance growth lagging NPL growth on the consolidated number) survive the test only if the disclosed cohort data shows coverage falling within at least one product line.

The "consensus mirage" variant view depends on no new bullish coverage initiation in the August window. A buy-side initiation from a top-tier broker at a $130-150 PT post-Q2 print would re-anchor the average meaningfully — coverage lists this small (6-7 analysts) are unstable, and a single high-conviction Buy with high target rebuilds the discount-closure narrative. The Tencent strategic stake is the most plausible catalyst for such an initiation (asian-coverage broker picks up the name on the back of the WeChat-heritage connection). If that lands, the "actual consensus is HOLD at spot" framing dies inside a single broker-research note.

The Hepsiburada-as-impairment variant view depends on Türkiye's order trajectory continuing to decelerate or the Rabobank close slipping again. Both are unknowable today. If Q2-26 HEPS prints sustained +20%+ order growth, engagement crosses 8+ purchases per consumer, and BDDK approves Rabobank inside the mid-2026 window with the $300M injection executing on plan, the impairment-risk frame loses analytical bite — the table grows into the goodwill at the rate the bull case assumes. The variant survives only if the engagement gap is structural (Trendyol's lead is too entrenched) rather than transitional.

The honest red-team summary: variant #1 (NPL math) has the strongest evidence; variant #2 (consensus mirage) has the most observable resolution; variant #3 (Hepsi impairment) has the most distant and noisy resolution path. A PM should weight conviction in that order — and accept that all three could be refuted by a clean 1H 2026 print and a clean Section 404(b) attestation, in which case the bull case re-emerges and the multiple has room to migrate from 7.8× toward the 12-15× range. The asymmetry is real but the burden of proof is on the variant view, not on the market.

The first thing to watch is the 1H 2026 NPL coverage disclosure in the August-September 2026 IFRS interim 6-K — coverage above 85% with product-by-product mix detail closes the largest arithmetic gap in the file; coverage at or below 80% with CoR drifting above 2.5% validates the highest-conviction variant view in this report.

---

Liquidity and Technical

KSPI trades exclusively in US dollars on NASDAQ since its January 2024 IPO; figures on this page are translated to tenge at the 2026 average rate (1 USD ≈ 489.4 ₸) so that capacity, market value, and price levels remain coherent with the rest of the deck. Unitless indicators — RSI, MACD, returns, volatility, ADV-share counts, portfolio percentages — are unchanged by translation.

1. Portfolio implementation verdict

By the strict institutional rule that a 0.5%-of-issuer position must clear in five trading days at 20% ADV, KSPI does not yet pass: the runway file labels the name "Illiquid / specialist only" because issuer-level blocks require multi-week patient execution. The technical setup is, in contrast, decisively constructive — the 50-day SMA crossed above the 200-day on 18 May 2026 (golden cross), price sits 16% above the 200-day, and the three-month rally is up 29% on expanding momentum.

2. Price snapshot

3. Price + 50/200 SMA — full trading history

Regime read: the chart tells a three-act story. Act I (Jan-Jul 2024) is the IPO surge from 47,000 ₸ to an all-time high of 67,900 ₸ on enthusiasm. Act II (Jul 2024 — Mar 2026) is a 20-month grinding downtrend that took price down 48% to a 33,700 ₸ low. Act III began in early April 2026: price ripped 30% in eight weeks, reclaimed both moving averages, and triggered the golden cross. This is an uptrend — and a young one.

4. Relative strength — data not available

The pipeline did not stage a benchmark series for KSPI (broad-market ETF SPY is referenced in the manifest but the comparison file is empty; no Kazakhstan-listed sector ETF exists, and the peer basket is zero). Without a clean rebased curve we will not fabricate one. Absolute return context: KSPI is +19.7% YTD 2026 and +14.8% over the trailing twelve months, both above typical EM fintech tape but below the +30% three-month sprint — meaning most of the relative-strength signal is concentrated in the recent eight weeks.

5. Momentum — RSI(14) and MACD histogram

Momentum read: RSI sits at 67.6 — extended but not yet overbought (threshold 70). The MACD histogram flipped positive in mid-April and has expanded for six consecutive weeks, with the line at +2.57 and signal at +2.35. Both signals point the same direction: short-term momentum is strong and accelerating, not exhausted. The risk is that a stretched RSI prints a 1-2 week pullback before the next leg, not that the trend reverses.

6. Volume, volatility, and sponsorship

Sponsorship read: the two heaviest volume days in the entire two-year tape (Sep-2024 at 17× and 6.7×) were down days, sized like institutional unloads. Through 2025, the heaviest days continued to print on red candles — distribution. The character changed in March-April 2026: the two most recent 3×-or-greater spikes (2 March and 20 April) were both up days of +10.5% and +8.1%. That is the volume signature of a new buyer base, not a dead-cat bounce.

Realized 30-day volatility is 38.3% — between the p50 reading of 35.2% and the p80 band of 45.2%. Normal regime, mildly elevated. Bands: calm under 28%, normal 28–45%, stressed above 45%. The recent rally has not yet pushed vol into the stressed zone, which is consistent with a controlled buy-side accumulation rather than panic short-covering.

7. Institutional liquidity panel

A. ADV and turnover

B. Fund-capacity matrix

For a fund that defines "position" as % of its own AUM:

A fund with AUM up to ₸477B (~USD 975M) can build a 5% KSPI position over five trading days at 20% participation. At 10% participation (the more conservative limit most institutional trade desks prefer), the same five-day window supports a fund up to ₸238B (~USD 488M).

C. Liquidation runway — issuer-level positions

For a fund that defines "position" as % of issuer market cap:

A half-percent issuer block (≈ ₸43.6B / USD 89M) takes 10 trading days to exit at 20% participation — two trading weeks. A 1% block takes about a month. This is why the runway file calls the name "specialist only" — it is not a liquid block-trade tape.

D. Execution friction

Median daily trading range over the last 60 sessions: 1.43%. That is below the 2% threshold that typically signals elevated impact costs on patient block execution. Zero zero-volume sessions in the last 60 days; full volume coverage. Intraday range is moderate.

Bottom line: the largest issuer-level position that clears within five trading days at 20% ADV is under 0.3% of market cap (~₸23.9B / USD 49M); at 10% ADV it is under 0.15% (~₸12B / USD 24M). Funds measuring in AUM terms, not issuer terms, can take a 5% position up to roughly ₸477B AUM.

8. Technical scorecard and stance

Net technical score: +4 of a possible +6 (one dimension unscored).

Stance — 3 to 6 month horizon: bullish

KSPI just completed a clean trend-reversal: a 20-month downtrend bottomed in March 2026, the 50-day crossed above the 200-day on 18 May, momentum is expanding without yet being overbought, and the last two heavy-volume days were buys. Cross-referencing the fundamental tape: if Quant's read flags re-acceleration in consumer-finance or marketplace economics in FY2025/2026 prints, the technical evidence is consistent with smart money already positioning for it.

Two price levels frame the next move:

• Upside confirmation: 47,820 ₸ (USD 97.71). This is the 52-week high set in August 2025. A weekly close above re-opens a path to the all-time high zone near 67,900 ₸ (USD 138.72).
• Downside invalidation: 39,150 ₸ (USD 80.00). This is the 200-day SMA neighborhood and the breakout pivot. A weekly close below would void the golden cross and put price back inside the downtrend.

Liquidity is the constraint, not the conviction. A fund up to ~USD 975M AUM can build a 5% position over five days; larger funds must build slowly over multiple weeks or accept a smaller weight. The tape says add or build; the runway says do it patiently.

---

Short Interest & Thesis

Reported short interest is not material to the investment case. As of the April 30, 2026 FINRA bi-monthly settlement, 1.70 million KSPI ADS were sold short — 0.89% of shares outstanding and 2.4 days to cover — and the position fell −14.7% from the prior settlement. But the six-month trend is more interesting than the latest print: short interest roughly doubled from 854K shares (Nov 14, 2025) to a peak 1.99M shares (Apr 15, 2026) before the late-April cover — a real, if small, build during the run-up to the Q1 2026 earnings call and the April 28 IG bond placement. The thesis-risk story is the opposite of the positioning story: the September 2024 Culper Research short report opened a credible 30-page allegation set on Russia exposure, undisclosed related parties (Magnum, Kolesa, ALSECO, Portmone), and executive ties — and although the consolidated US securities class action was dismissed in C.D. California on May 16, 2025, the underlying allegations themselves were never independently adjudicated and remain live disclosure risk into the next 20-F. The reader's main question is not "is KSPI crowded?" — it isn't — but "would another Culper-style report move the stock again?" Probably yes; the structural setup is fragile because the float is thin, the borrow is presumably easy, and a single source-quality short report has already cleared a 19% one-day drop in this name.

Reported positioning (FINRA bi-monthly)

KSPI is a NASDAQ-listed ADS, so the only official aggregate short-interest source is the FINRA bi-monthly Short Position Report filed by member firms under Rule 4560. The pipeline's deterministic fetcher did not have an official Kazakhstan/NASDAQ-foreign-issuer adapter configured, so reported short interest was retrieved from the MarketBeat short-interest mirror of the FINRA NASDAQ feed — twelve bi-monthly settlements from November 14, 2025 through April 30, 2026.

Three things in the six-month series. First, the position more than doubled from 854K shares (Nov 14, 2025, 0.45%) to a peak of 1.99M (Apr 15, 2026, 1.05%) — a real build, even if small in percent-of-float terms. The acceleration tracks the Q4 2025 results window (early March 2026) and the run-up to the Q1 2026 print on May 11, 2026. Second, the build was capped at 1.0% — at no point did SI cross into "crowded" territory. Third, the −14.7% fortnightly fall to 1.70M (Apr 30, 2026) coincides with the April 28 $600M IG bond pricing (3.5× oversubscribed) and is the cleanest tape-level evidence yet that the post-class-action institutional re-rating is taking hold. Shorts have been covering into strength, not pressing.

Note: MarketBeat's "% of float" is computed against shares outstanding, not the true free float; KSPI insiders own ~46.2% (CEO Lomtadze 22.62%, Chairman Kim 20.78%, directors/officers as group), so adjusted against the free float of roughly 103M ADS, the latest short stands at ~1.6% of true float and the April peak was ~1.9% — still benign.

Crowding vs. liquidity

Days-to-cover screens the more interesting frame: with 20-day ADV of 524,888 shares (per internal liquidity calc) and 1.70M short, the calculated DTC is ~3.2 days; MarketBeat reports 2.4 days using a wider-window ADV. Either way, the cover-out is easily absorbable in a normal market, but KSPI's tape is structurally thin (liquidity verdict: "Illiquid / specialist only" per the technicals tab), and the converse is the more interesting risk — a thin float means a single fresh allegation-driven push lower could move price disproportionately, not that existing shorts would have trouble exiting.

Verdict on crowding: KSPI is not a crowded short. There is no positioning evidence consistent with squeeze risk. The asymmetric tape risk runs the other way — fresh allegation-driven selling, not short-cover-driven buying — because the float is thin and a credible new short thesis would land into a market with no positioning offset.

Short-thesis ledger — Culper Research and the dismissed class action

The dominant thesis risk in this name is not positioning — it's a single credible public short report and the litigation it spawned. Culper Research's September 19, 2024 report, "Kaspi.kz (KSPI): The NASDAQ-Listed Fintech Moving Money for Criminals and Kleptocrats," is the only publicly known activist short campaign and remains the canonical bear narrative.

The price tape confirms the asymmetry. KSPI's 2024 high of $131.76 (July 18, 2024) preceded the Culper drop; the May 2025 dismissal began the rebuild; the April 2026 Tencent-led secondary purchase from Baring Vostok and the 3.5× oversubscribed IG bond have anchored the recovery, but the ADS at $92.85 (May 26, 2026) remains ~30% below the pre-Culper peak. The market continues to discount some residual probability of disclosure repricing.

Borrow pressure and public net-short disclosures

Neither of these channels yields useful evidence on KSPI:

The absence of borrow-stress evidence is itself a signal. A 0.89%-of-outstanding short position on a $17.8B market-cap NASDAQ name with ~525K-share ADV would normally be trivially easy to borrow. The pipeline did not surface any public hard-to-borrow designation, fee-spike commentary, or locate-difficulty mentions. If the borrow were tight, it would show up in Ortex/S3-style commentary that none of the search runs captured.

Market setup — how positioning interacts with catalysts

The implication for a portfolio manager: the positioning data tells you almost nothing; the thesis-risk ledger tells you everything. Sizing should be calibrated to the probability and impact of a Culper-style follow-on or an ICFR re-failure, not to short-interest-driven squeeze potential. A new credible short report into 0.89% short interest, thin ADV, and 46% insider ownership is the bear's free roll — there is no positioning offset.

Peer context

Peer short-interest data was not staged and the search runs did not return reliable cross-name reported short-interest numbers, so the peer comparison is qualitative only. The point is structural rather than numerical: emerging-market fintech ADSs with founder-controlled boards and concentrated single-country exposure are a natural target set for activist short campaigns, but Kaspi is the only name in this peer set carrying an active, unrebutted activist allegation file.

Evidence quality and limitations

Bottom line for a PM

Positioning is not the story; thesis-risk is. The April 30, 2026 FINRA print of 0.89% / 2.4 days to cover sits inside "noise" range for a $17.8B mid-cap fintech ADS — not crowded, not stressed, not squeezable. The investment-case risk lives in the unrebutted Culper allegation file (Russia exposure, Magnum daughter-management, Portmone, Kolesa, ALSECO) plus the load-bearing 2026 disclosure events (FY2026 20-F related-party note, first Section 404(b) ICFR attestation). Size to the tail of a new short report into a thin float, not to a squeeze that the data does not support.