Acom

Company history

Financial history 2006–2025 — revenue, cost structure, balance sheet, cash flow and key ratios, year by year →

Founded
1978 (origins 1936)
Head office
Tokyo, Japan
Listed
1994
Founder
Kinoshita Masao
Revenue · FYE Mar 2025
$2.1B (¥318bn)
Net profit · FYE Mar 2025
$214.5M (¥32bn)
Acom: long-term performance & turning pointsSales (revenue) and profit-margin ratio
Sales (¥ bn)Net margin (%)

1936Cloth, pawn tickets, and the salaryman’s wage

  1. 1936Kinoshita Masao opens the Maruito kimono-cloth shop in Kobe
  2. 1948The Nada branch is converted into a pawnshop
  3. 1951Renamed Maruito Shoten
  4. 1960Trial “salaryman finance” counter in Kobe’s Motomachi
  5. 1961Dedicated unsecured-loan branches open in Osaka
  6. 1978Acom Co., Ltd. founded in Tokyo; 69 branches transferred in

Acom began in April 1936 as a kimono-cloth shop. Kinoshita Masao, raised in Akashi and apprenticed to a Kobe draper, opened Maruito in the city’s Sannomiya district to wholesale and retail bolts of cloth; the name — maru-ito, “round thread” — was taken from the way warp and weft bind together, and carried the founding idea of trusting people and being trusted in return. Twelve years later, in July 1948, he converted the Nada branch into a pawnshop. Wartime destruction had left Kobe short of goods and long on demand for cash, while the banks lent only to companies and the wealthy; the pawnshop was where ordinary people raised money, and the collateral of a pawned object made that safe to do. In March 1951 the firm was renamed Maruito Shoten.

Traders turning pawnbroker in the post-war confusion was common enough. What was not common was the next step. In March 1960, in a corner of the Motomachi shop in Kobe, Maruito began trial operation of what it called “salaryman finance” — small unsecured loans advanced against nothing but a wage-earner’s future pay. It was neither banking nor pawnbroking, and by 1961 it had its own dedicated branches in Osaka. Cloth was a physical good; a pawned object was a physical good; credit was not. In three moves the founder had abstracted his merchandise down to trust itself, and the modern unsecured consumer loan in Japan took its shape here.

The shift of weight from pawnbroking to lending took most of two decades, in a country where wages were still paid in cash and city workers routinely ran short before payday. Kinoshita Masao brought his eldest son back into the business in the 1970s to prepare the succession, and separated the two trades into separate companies. In October 1978 Acom Co., Ltd. was incorporated in Nihonbashi, Tokyo, with capital of ¥500m — the name assembled from Affection, Confidence and Moderation, an English restatement of the founder’s “customer first” creed. That December it took over the consumer-finance operations of the affiliated firms Maruito and Joy, absorbing 69 branches and their loan books in one transfer. The founder moved up to chairman; his son became Acom’s first president.

Read the full history in Japanese →


1979The unmanned branch

Revenue (¥ bn, bars) · net margin (%, line)
Source: securities reports
  1. 1979Industry-first 24-hour, 365-day ATM at the Ginza branch
  2. 1983Registers under the Money Lending Business Control Act
  3. 1992Absorbs NSK Shinpan, adding instalment credit
  4. 1993Mujinkun automated contract machines; OTC share registration
  5. 1994Lists on the TSE Second Section (First Section, 1996)
  6. 1996Bangkok joint venture SIAM A&C — later EASY BUY
  7. 1999Begins issuing MasterCard
  8. 2004Capital alliance with Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group

Acom’s customers were office workers, and office workers cannot easily borrow money during the hours a bank is open. So the company set out to earn on the hours and places banks did not cover. In December 1979 it installed the industry’s first round-the-clock, 365-day ATM at its Ginza branch, at a time when bank cash machines shut in the evening and stayed dark all weekend. Differentiating on operating hours rather than on rate or location was a modest-sounding idea with a long tail: it was the first appearance of the automation instinct that would define the company. In December 1983, as the Money Lending Business Control Act took effect in response to the social damage done by the loan-shark boom, Acom registered with the Kanto Local Finance Bureau — the industry’s first move from laissez-faire into supervision, and confirmation that the pawnshop offshoot was now a national lender in its own right.

The instinct became an invention in July 1993, when Acom put the first automated contract machines — Mujinkun — into Shinjuku and Hakata. A customer fed identity documents into a scanner, exchanged a few words with an operator over the screen, and walked out with a signed contract in about five minutes. Branches that had signed roughly forty contracts a month were now signing on the order of a hundred, the machines ran at night and on holidays, and running costs fell to something like 30% of a staffed branch. President Kinoshita, judging that the industry as a whole would grow faster if the technique spread, chose not to patent it — and the competition duly copied it. Acom had already broadened its range the year before by absorbing NSK Shinpan, adding instalment credit, golf-membership-secured lending and corporate loans to the unsecured book.

Capital followed. Acom registered its shares over the counter with the Japan Securities Dealers Association in October 1993, moved to the Second Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange in December 1994 and to the First Section in September 1996 — three steps in two and a half years, which funded the national roll-out of Mujinkun. The same month it opened abroad, forming the Bangkok hire-purchase joint venture SIAM A&C (renamed EASY BUY in 2005 and still the core of the overseas business). In 1998 it became a MasterCard principal member, issuing cards from 1999. And from 2001 it began circling the banks: a jointly owned loan company, Tokyo-Mitsubishi Cash One, then in March 2004 a strategic capital and business alliance with Mitsubishi Tokyo Financial Group — the opening of the relationship that would decide the company’s fate.

Read the full history in Japanese →


2006The grey zone collapses

Revenue (¥ bn, bars) · net margin (%, line)
Source: securities reports
FY2006 · unconsolidated
Revenue$3.8B
Net income$564M
Net margin14.7%
FY2012 · consolidated
Revenue$2.6B
Net income$269M
Net margin10.2%
  1. 2006Supreme Court voids grey-zone interest; the lending law is revised
  2. 2007Ceiling rate cut to 18.0%; net loss of $3.7B (¥438bn)
  3. 2008MUFG takes 40.04%; Acom becomes a consolidated subsidiary
  4. 2009DC Cash One absorbed into Acom
  5. 2011A second billion-dollar-scale loss: $2.5B (¥203bn)

In January 2006 the Supreme Court ruled that the “grey-zone” interest consumer lenders had charged for decades — the band between the 15–20% ceiling of the Interest Rate Restriction Act and the 29.2% ceiling of the Capital Subscription Act — was void. That December the revised Money Lending Business Act settled the consequence: interest collected in the band became overpayment, repayable on demand. Acom cut its own ceiling rate from 27.35% to 18.0% in June 2007 and provisioned for the refunds in a single stroke. The year to March 2007 carried about ¥350bn of extraordinary losses and a net loss of $3.7B (¥438bn) — a swing of more than ¥400bn from the previous year’s profit. The rate the whole business had been priced against no longer existed.

The rebuild was structural: roughly 700 staff cut, 135 staffed branches closed, and the cost base pushed further onto the unmanned channels — the ATMs, the Mujinkun machines, the cards. The automation Acom had built for convenience in 1979 and 1993 turned out, twenty years on, to be its survival mechanism, because it was the only shape in which a lender could still earn at 18%. But refund claims did not stop. When Takefuji, the largest of the old consumer lenders, collapsed in September 2010, claims surged across the industry, and Acom had to top up its provisions again: a net loss of $2.5B (¥203bn) in the year to March 2011. Two losses on that scale is an extraordinary thing for a listed company to absorb.

The answer to the second problem was capital. In September 2008 Acom agreed to deepen the Mitsubishi alliance, and MUFG raised its holding from about 15% to 40.04% through a tender offer at ¥4,000 a share; in December 2008 Acom became a consolidated subsidiary of the group. The logic on the bank’s side was funding — in a market where the legal ceiling had been cut, the only way to keep a margin was to borrow more cheaply than an independent lender could — and MUFG designated Acom the group’s core consumer-finance company, concentrating its small unsecured loan guarantees there. DC Cash One was folded into Acom in May 2009. Notably, the listing survived: unlike the rival Promise, taken private by Sumitomo Mitsui three years later, Acom stayed on the exchange under its own name.

Read the full history in Japanese →


2013Guarantees, and Southeast Asia

Revenue (¥ bn, bars) · net margin (%, line)
Source: securities reports
FY2013 · consolidated
Revenue$2.0B
Net income$213M
Net margin10.8%
FY2025 · consolidated
Revenue$2.1B
Net income$215M
Net margin10.1%
  1. 2013MU Credit Guarantee established — guaranteeing banks’ card loans
  2. 2017Philippine joint venture; a final ¥72.2bn provisioning loss
  3. 2021Kinoshita Masataka becomes president; Malaysian subsidiary formed
  4. 2022GeNiE launched for embedded finance
  5. 2025Operating revenue back above ¥300bn for the first time in 16 years

If lending at 18% could no longer carry the company alone, the credit judgement behind it could be sold to someone else. In September 2013 Acom set up MU Credit Guarantee, a dedicated business that underwrites the card-loan books of regional banks and credit unions — Acom’s screening expertise, earned as fee income rather than as interest spread, and far less exposed to the cycle. Acom bought in the remaining shares in December 2015, and the arithmetic has since inverted: in FY2024 the loan and credit-card business booked ¥169.4bn of revenue against the guarantee business’s ¥76.3bn, but only ¥14.0bn of profit against the guarantee business’s ¥23.6bn. The unit that guarantees other banks’ lending now earns roughly 1.7 times what the original trade does.

The refund problem took longer to die than anyone expected. The year to March 2017 brought another ¥93.3bn segment loss on the loan book, a ¥70.2bn consolidated operating loss and a ¥72.2bn net loss, almost all of it further provisioning — more than a decade after the Supreme Court ruling before claims could be called past their peak. From that same year, Acom redirected resources abroad, adding a Philippine joint venture in July 2017 and a Malaysian subsidiary in July 2021 to the Thai operation begun in 1996. In FY2024 the overseas financial business turned ¥65.4bn of revenue into ¥19.3bn of profit — a third pillar alongside the domestic loan book and the guarantees.

In April 2021 Kinoshita Masataka, the third generation of the founding family, became president. His father, Kinoshita Shigeyoshi, had held the post for twenty-one years, through the grey-zone crisis and the MUFG deal — the hardest stretch in the company’s history. The son’s stated view is that “digital is only a tool”: the automated contract machine, the card and the smartphone application are changes of medium, not of business. In 2022 Acom launched GeNiE to push into embedded finance, and as of May 2025 it had completed its 2022–24 medium-term plan with ¥2.7tn of consolidated loans outstanding and operating revenue of $2.1B (¥318bn) — back above ¥300bn for the first time in sixteen years. Cloth, pawn tickets, wages, cards, guarantees: the merchandise keeps changing form, and for ninety years the thing actually being sold has been someone’s credit.

Read the full history in Japanese →


Key decisions — the author’s view

Revenue (¥ bn) · net margin % · around FY2007

The end of grey-zone interest and the refund burden — rebuilding a broken earnings model (2007)

A rebuilt way of earning, and capital’s answer

The weight of this decision lies in how a company conducts itself when the law removes the premise of how it earns. With the grey-zone rate — the source of its spread — gone, and past lending now demanding repayment as overpaid interest, choosing to cut its own rate and provision for the whole burden at once was a decision to acknowledge the pain rather than defer it. The swing from the previous year’s profit to a loss of ¥438.0bn in a single year measures the blow, but it was precisely because the estimate of what had to be repaid went onto the books early that the ground for the rebuild was settled. Closing staffed branches and shifting cost onto unmanned operations was, in the same way, the work of drawing in advance the shape of a profit that would survive at a low rate.

Even so, refunding overpaid interest was not something one company could finish by its own effort. As Takefuji gave out and claims washed over the industry, Acom carried losses on the order of ¥100bn twice over. Bearing that decade-long repayment of profits once swollen by high rates was more than an unsecured loan spread could stand. Capital’s answer was the 2008 consolidation into Mitsubishi UFJ. By becoming part of a group that could raise money cheaply, Acom secured a way to keep a profit in a world capped at 18.0%. A rebuilt way of earning and a recapitalisation that brought a backer were two answers to the same crisis.

Revenue (¥ bn) · net margin % · around FY2008

Becoming a consolidated subsidiary of MUFG — the listing an independent lender would not give up (2008)

Under a megabank, with the independent’s sign still up

The heart of this decision is that the bank took hold of a consumer lender not by absorbing it whole but at the distance of a consolidated subsidiary. The high returns of consumer finance were wanted. But taking in completely a trade whose reputation had been damaged — by the wiretapping scandal among others — snagged on the bank’s brand and on public opinion. Consolidating at 40.04% of the voting rights, while leaving the listing and the separate identity in place, was a compromise that took in the earnings while keeping a distance. Acom kept the independent lender’s sign above its door and gained a megabank’s funding power.

The compromise had its price, and it showed in the numbers that followed. Overpayment refunds after the revised lending law were still heavy, and Acom posted a net loss of ¥202.6bn for the year to March 2011. Even so, the group’s funding strength, and the bank-loan guarantee business gained through the DC Cash One merger, later grew credit guarantees into one of Acom’s main pillars. Unlike Sumitomo Mitsui, which three years later made Promise a wholly owned subsidiary and erased its listing, MUFG and Acom chose to keep the listing alive. At what distance should a bank hold a consumer lender — here is one answer to that question.

Each heading links to the full Japanese analysis — background, decision and outcome, with sources.


References & sources

This is a condensed English edition. The full, source-by-source history — with the detailed narrative, financial tables, shareholders and executives — is maintained in Japanese: 日本語版(詳細)— Acom full history in Japanese →

  1. Acom Co., Ltd. — 有価証券報告書 (annual securities reports), including segment disclosures for FY2024.
  2. Supreme Court of Japan, January 2006 judgment on grey-zone interest; the revised 貸金業法 (Money Lending Business Act) and 利息制限法, December 2006.
  3. Acom Co., Ltd. — 決算説明資料 (earnings briefing materials), medium-term plan 2022–24 results, May 2025.
  4. BRAND TIMES — interview with Kinoshita Masataka.

Yen amounts are converted at the average rate of each figure’s own year — not today’s rate; revenue charts are shown in yen. Exchange rates & sources — the full ¥/US$ table →


Disclaimer


Data API

Acom’s history, financials, executives and shareholders are published as static JSON — no key, plain GET.

Method Endpoint Returns
GET /api/companies.json All companies
GET /api/8572/manifest.json Resource index
GET /api/8572/history.json History overview
GET /api/8572/timeline.json Chronology
GET /api/decisions.json All management decisions (index)
GET /api/8572/decisions.json Management decisions (index)
GET /api/8572/decisions/{slug}.json One decision (full dossier)
GET /api/8572/executives.json Executives
GET /api/8572/shareholders.json Major shareholders
GET /api/8572/financials.json Financial statements
GET /api/8572/financials-longterm.json Long-term results
GET /api/8572/segments.json Business segments
GET /api/8572/regions.json Sales by region
GET /api/8572/workforce.json Workforce