MICROBANKING BULLETIN - Microfinance Information Exchange

COMMENTARYDG: The most important challenge is developing afinancing strategy that would allow for optimumgrowth of outreach to the poor. None of ourmembers have been able to attract sufficientfunding to enable them to grow at optimum levels—and I don’t just mean grant funding. Certainly thereis a need for subsidized funds during the start-upphase, but once MFIs develop sufficient capacity,then they can move toward soft loans, and theneventually to loans at commercial rates.Ultimately, the key constraint will be the MFI’sability to access equity funding, since that willdetermine how much institutions can leverage.Now that several CASHPOR members haveachieved operational self-sufficiency, we arebeginning to help them identify equity investors,both locally and internationally. While the expectedreturn on investments in MFIs may not be sufficientto attract venture capitalists, well-run institutionscan generate levels of performance that will attractsocially responsible investors.There is also a crucial need to create anappropriate regulatory environment in Asia, whichwill allow for the commercialization of microfinance.In this regard, the biggest issue is the minimumcapital requirement to create regulated financialinstitutions, which is too stiff for NGOs to meet. Weare making some headway on improvingmicrofinance regulations in India, but it is neededelsewhere, especially China and Vietnam, whereCASHPOR members could really take off if theregulatory environment was more accommodating.But it isn’t all about money. There is also the needfor continual upgrading of management to have thecapacity to absorb increasing amounts of funds.Many Asian MFIs need help improving otheressential systems as well, like computerized MISand planning with Microfin, so as to givemanagement the tools they need.MBB: The Asian peer groups in the Bulletin aredramatically more efficient than their counterparts inLatin America. How do Asian MFIs achieve suchimpressive efficiency ratios?DG: The efficiency of Asian MFIs is based on theirsignificantly lower personnel costs and significantlyhigher loan portfolio quality. One of the reasons forthe higher repayment rates is precisely becausethey are serving a poorer market. While it mayseem counterintuitive that poorer people are betterrisks, our experience has generally been that if youreach down far enough, you’ll find a market that willbecome extremely faithful with its repayments. Thepoorest clients value the services more than theirbetter-off peers, and they are extremely keen tomaintain access to their line of credit. As shown inFigure 1, most CASHPOR members have excellentloan portfolio quality problems. But when they doexperience problems, it is usually with their moreaffluent clients.On a related note, MFIs in Asia also have a lowercost of funds due to the widespread availability ofsubsidized funds. I am not placing a valuejudgment on the availability of subsidized money; itis just a reality in some Asian countries. Over time,I am afraid that it will distort the market. In themeantime, it is necessary to take a pragmaticapproach. As long as these sources are available,such as 6.5 percent loans from NABARD in Indiawhen the market rate is 13 to 14 percent, we wouldbe silly not take advantage of them. But we alsoneed to prepare ourselves for the day when thesesources dry up.MBB: Another Bulletin observation is that AsianMFIs are generally less profitable than their LatinAmerican counterparts because of low portfolioyields. What are the barriers to charging higherinterest rates in Asia?DG: The barriers to charging appropriate interestrates are mainly political and exist primarily in SouthAsia, China and Vietnam. The increasingimportance of populist politics in these countriesmakes governments want to say they are limitinginterest rates to the poor. The result of course is alimiting of their access to microfinance. Some ofour MFIs are making headway, however, inshowing to their governments that significantnumbers of rural poor women are prepared to payappropriate interest rates in order to get continuingaccess to microfinance. I feel we need a couplemore years to demonstrate this with sufficientnumbers; but I am confident the governments willbe convinced by that time. The Microcredit Summitcampaign is playing a vital role here.Sustainability and the PoorestMBB: Why do you believe it is necessary to targetand exclusively serve the poor, instead of managinga diversified portfolio whereby larger loans cancross-subsidize the smallest loans?DG: If I can reach and maintain institutionalfinancial sustainability within a reasonable time (say5 years) while reaching significant numbers of thepoorest, the people with the greatest need for thisopportunity, why should I waste my time and otherresources on the non-poor? I have seen thishappen with MFIs in the Philippines that havemultiple product lines for different segments of themarket. When push comes to shove, managementMICROBANKING BULLETIN, SEPTEMBER 2000 15