1 / 16

Balancing Financial and Social Returns

Explore the importance of microfinance ratings and the challenges of balancing financial and social returns in a case study.

sstokes
Download Presentation

Balancing Financial and Social Returns

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Balancing Financial and Social Returns Frances Sinha, Director, EDA Rural Systems (India) and board member of SPTF AlokMisra, CEO, M-CRIL December 2, 2014

  2. Agenda • Introduction to Microfinance Institutional Rating and Social Rating • Case Study: Balancing Financial and Social Returns • Q&A

  3. Introduction to microfinance rating • Frances Sinha • MD, EDA Rural Systems • Co-promoter M-CRIL • SPTF Board member

  4. The purpose and benefits of rating • Provided mostly by specialist rating agencies created to bridge a market and technical gap left by corporate credit rating agencies • Recognise essential features and potential viability of microfinance – as a service to the BOP • Respond to emerging market requirements, debt and equity funding, and need for responsible practice

  5. Evolution Start: Late 1990s 2005 2012 • 4 microfinance specialist rating agencies • ‘Financial ratings’ • Convergence for 2 types of rating: Social rating Microfinance institutional rating-MIR Organisational and financial analysis Aligned to USSPM Includes Client Protection Principles

  6. MIR an opinion on long term institutional viability and credit-worthiness, based on comprehensive assessment of risks Social Rating. An opinion on capacity to achieve social mission and goals in line with social values

  7. Details in the Rating Guides Published by the Rating Initiative, with contributions by M-CRIL, Microfinanza Rating, Microrate, Planet Rating

  8. Useful for • Investors – as a second opinion in the investment decision-making process; providing transparent and objective information on risks and performance • Financial institutions – a tool not only to access capital but to improve operations, by benchmarking, and identifying areas for improvement

  9. Balancing Financial & Social Performance –Time to Walk the Talk Alok Misra, CEO, Micro-Credit Ratings International Ltd 602 Pacific Square, 32nd Milestone NH8, Gurgaon 122001 INDIA alokmisra@m-cril.com Tel: +91 124 405,0739, 426 8707

  10. Context of MFI • Geographical focus: The MFI operates in relatively less developed districts of South India • Model: Self Help Group model; 10-20 women form a group. Balanced development approach, microfinance as a catalyst • Services: A range of client-centric products and services • Credit • Savings – as a Business Correspondent of banks • Insurance – innovative insurance product at very low cost to clients • Pension – aggregator for Pension Regulatory authority • Development activities – sustainable farming, education, etc. • Outreach: Microfinance programme focuses on low-income women in less developed rural areas.

  11. Comparison of financial performance • Low CAR • Service oriented staff, and efficient model, has resulted in a low OER. • Low cost fund from lenders owing to MFI’s goodwill • Low Yield, owing to low rate of interest charged

  12. Social Performance aspects • Diverse services to suit low-income, financially excluded client segment – Credit, Savings (as a BC), Micro-insurance, Pension (Govt scheme), other development activities • Good client retention – Low client dropout (8% as against ~25% for peers) as diverse needs of clients are met from single source • Good performance in Client Protection – Appropriate products, good performance in transparency and prevention of over-indebtedness – Service oriented staff, clients treated with respect. – Responsible pricing - APR of 20%, against 26% by peers • Satisfied staffwithhigh mission orientation. Management highly approachable and sensitive to personal needs of staff.

  13. Points to consider for funders-Will you fund it or prefer peers? Positive Negative • Good social performance as seen in mission orientation, responsibility to staff and clients • Low interest rates • Good portfolio quality • Profitable – Not loss making • Committed Board • CEO to LO salary ratio 1:15 • Low profitability • CAR low as retained surplus the main source • Board does not have “professionals” but social workers • Committed to pass gains to clients- not interested in increasing profitability

  14. The real picture • Being a “real” case (with some changes to mask identity), the facts are • Private lenders (Commercial banks in India and International funders) have kept away • Still, it has grown big and has very diversified debt sources from 13 Public sector commercial banks and 2 social investors • Are funders more concerned about profitability than social performance – even in debt funding? • Do “normal” financial numbers give more confidence?

  15. Social Aspects Ignored in Peers • High LO productivity – 650 borrowers per staff • HR stress (80% staff) • LO:CEO compensation 1: 40 • High staff turnover (~25%) • Risk mitigation through plain vanilla products and keeping loan size low • Pricing focused on regulatory cap • Not focused on providing complete suite of financial services (pensions, savings through BC)

  16. Q&A

More Related