30.10.2014 Views

Downloading - Microfinance Information Exchange

Downloading - Microfinance Information Exchange

Downloading - Microfinance Information Exchange

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

BULLETIN HIGHLIGHTS<br />

perspective, this information can help donors make<br />

more informed investment decisions and formulate<br />

realistic expectations as they evaluate their partner<br />

institutions’ sustainability. The same holds true for<br />

private investors. As support institutions, networks<br />

and technical service providers can begin to place<br />

their affiliate and partner institutions on a spectrum<br />

of sustainable growth. The institutions themselves,<br />

as they plan for self-sufficiency, can build strategies<br />

that learn from the road already traveled by their<br />

predecessors and peers.<br />

This first Trend Lines data set offers a glimpse at<br />

the answer to this question, but presents certain<br />

limitations. The small sample size (60) and the limited<br />

number of institutions that achieved financial<br />

self-sufficiency over the period (17) mean that the<br />

answers may not yet prove robust. Moreover, the<br />

narrow window (1999-2002) limits the scope of<br />

study for this time sensitive question. Interpretations<br />

of ‘time to sustainability’ are limited to institutions<br />

that break through the 100% financial selfsufficiency<br />

barrier over the period, without knowledge<br />

of those that might have done so before or will<br />

do so after. A true answer to this question will<br />

eventually require data from inception, on a broad<br />

range of institutions, and over a long time horizon.<br />

Yet, analysis of this data set already yields some<br />

striking results.<br />

On average, the 17 Trend Lines MFIs that became<br />

sustainable during this period took eight years to<br />

cover full, adjusted costs. Not surprisingly, this<br />

number does not fall too far from the oft quoted ‘five<br />

to seven’ years to sustainability. In fact, as Figure 2<br />

illustrates, the median age of seven years better<br />

represents the norm for these institutions. In other<br />

words, half of all MFIs that became sustainable<br />

over the period did so by the age of seven. Quick<br />

observation points out that these MFIs fall into two<br />

distinct groups: a significant number (8) reach selfsufficiency<br />

in three to five years, while the rest<br />

cover all costs between seven and 11 years of age.<br />

4<br />

3<br />

2<br />

1<br />

0<br />

Figure 2: Average age at sustainability<br />

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19<br />

Source: MicroBanking Bulletin no. 10 data. Data represent 17<br />

MFIs that became sustainable over the period 1999-2002.<br />

From many angles, the data yield few insights into<br />

how certain factors might impact an institution’s expected<br />

course towards sustainability. This holds for<br />

charter type, profit status, level of financial intermediation.<br />

Indeed, where the results do seem exceptional—<br />

a mere three years for banks or more than<br />

a decade for institutions mobilizing significant deposits—<br />

they are more likely the product of a single<br />

outlier. In these instances, the small sample size<br />

does not allow for a refinement of the eight year<br />

average.<br />

Figure 3: Average age at sustainability by<br />

characteristic<br />

Characteristics<br />

Nb<br />

of<br />

MFIs<br />

Avg.<br />

age at<br />

FSS<br />

Avg. Yearly<br />

Growth in<br />

FSS<br />

Avg. age<br />

over the<br />

period<br />

Total n = 17<br />

Charter Type<br />

Bank 1 3 9.9% 4<br />

Credit Union 1 5 3.0% 5<br />

NGO 10 9 25.9% 8<br />

NBFI 5 9 15.2% 9<br />

(FI)<br />

High FI 1 11 3.5% 12<br />

Low FI 2 12 21.7% 9<br />

Non FI 14 8 23.2% 7<br />

Methodology<br />

Individual 1 3 4.4% 3<br />

Individual/Solidarity 9 8 21.3% 8<br />

Solidarity 4 8 21.8% 8<br />

Village Banking 3 12 25.2% 12<br />

Outreach<br />

Small 7 6 26.4% 5<br />

Medium 5 11 22.8% 10<br />

Large 5 9 11.4% 10<br />

Profit Status<br />

Non-profit 13 8 22.6% 7<br />

Profit 4 9 13.5% 11<br />

Region<br />

Africa 3 6 32.5% 5<br />

Asia 3 14 9.3% 14<br />

ECA 6 4 23.1% 4<br />

LAC 3 15 13.3% 14<br />

MENA 2 6 24.7% 5<br />

Scale<br />

Small 4 8 28.4% 6<br />

Medium 13 8 18.7% 9<br />

Target Market<br />

Low 9 10 18.3% 9<br />

Broad 8 7 23.4% 6<br />

Source: MicroBanking Bulletin no. 10 data. Data represent 17<br />

MFIs that became sustainable over the period 1999-2002. This<br />

table does not present breakouts by Age or Sustainability because<br />

of redundancy with the observations presented (age to<br />

sustainability). For more information on peer groups, refer to<br />

pages 59 to 66 of this Bulletin.<br />

A casual observer might point out one striking, but<br />

deceptive, result from the following figure. Age at<br />

sustainability seems to vary greatly by region.<br />

Asian and Latin American MFIs would seem to require<br />

nearly three times the number of years to be-<br />

MICROBANKING BULLETIN, MARCH 2005 25

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!