NOTE 4: ON SAVINGS MOBILIZATION (Final):
In the first three notes I detected
trends and savings needs of MFIs, as always, and based on my experience I will
try to present solutions to the problems of attracting savings. First I will
discuss the possibilities of MFIs to take deposits from the public. Under no
circumstances you should receive deposits if the IMF is not allowed to do so, it
would not only be illegal and it is also considered a felony. As discussed in
Note No. 3, 80 % of MFIs are authorized to receive deposits from the public. The
best way to receive savings from the public, but not necessarily the simplest
or the most economical is to be supervised by the banking authority; MFIs in
many countries are supervised by special laws. If we talk about Savings and
Loan Cooperatives this can receive money through voluntary contributions from its
members, which is another way to save. This condition allows that if a person
is interested only in saving his/her money in a cooperative, it only needs to affiliate
to it paying the mandatory contributions, but also making voluntary
contributions that can be done according to the cooperative’s by laws. You see
this type of equity allows this as it operates under the Cooperatives Law in
each country. There is the figure of Credit Unions or Associations that can
receive money from the public because this are supervised, but can only provide
loans to its members.
NGOs are not allowed to receive
money from the public, so that their funds come from equity, grants and loans.
However, if they make an strategic alliance with a supervised institution their
customers can make savings through the second. The mechanics are very simple: (1)
An strategic alliance is made with a supervised institution, (2) The supervised
institution creates a sub-account for each of the NGO clients who use a passbook
or card and have access to complementary services (Debit card, access ATMs,
etc.). (3) The NGO negotiates with the supervised institution on the account’s
requirements, the costs, the fees, the legal reserve, etc., (4) The supervised
institution agrees with the NGO on how to lend funds based on the average
savings deposited by the NGO’s customers, (5) Together the NGO and the supervised
institution will assess the risks and provide the means to control them and (6)
Quarterly the NGO undersigned loans with the supervised institution according
to the average balance of customer deposits and the amounts are disbursed to
the NGO. Under this scheme, a source of scaled funds is generate, which produces
a partial maturity and avoids a staggering total, so the NGOs can synchronize the
payments with the recoveries of Microcredit portfolio. Borrowing costs will be
higher than if the NGO received directly the deposits, which it can not do so. The
NGOs have to pay higher costs for the service of the supervised institution to
cover the services, the interest rates and the legal reserve. Many NGOs operate
and have operated this way without problem. Finally, the other solution is to
create at federation or union level a financial system, constituting or
acquiring the federation a bank that would serve the member MFIs, this has been
the case in Brazil of SICREDI (See link at the end of the Note), in the latter
case the federation or union has to bear the full financial control of its
affiliates, define credit policies and manage the risks of its members by
centralizing all in one computer system, leaving the affiliates with the
necessary freedom of action in the non-financial aspects, that is to say
cooperative issues.
We have seen that there are
different solutions for NGOs and Cooperatives to receive legally, directly or
indirectly, deposits from the public, but there is something essential: If the MFIs
that can receive savings or contributions do not present an strong and trustful
corporate image, and does not makes an effective marketing, it will not attract
savings, because in the case of savings mobilization the decision of the
customers (Regulated or NGOs) or members (Cooperatives) on where to take their
money is theirs and not of the institutions, unlike as it is in the case of the
Microcredit. Without a proper image and a successful marketing effort, MFIs will
not attract sufficient funds, since they must also attract deposits from people
who do not need credit, because they are pure savers; in fact the ratio of the
number of savers is always higher than of the borrowers, and the difference is
what allows the MFI to obtain funds to give Microcredits.
Now let us talk about the clients or
members: usually it is assumed that Microfinance’s clients only look for the Microcredit,
my experience indicates that it is not so, that many customers prefer to save
and turn to credit only when it is absolutely necessary. My experience is that MiF’s
clients prefer to save in a supervised institution with a strong image before
doing it in the IMF that gives them the Microcredit. The problem is that the
regulated institutions usually impose very high minimum requirements for
opening savings accounts, so many poor people do not have access to these
instruments, therefore they remain in the informal savings systems, the (ROSCAS)
Rotating Savings and Credit schemes, the pasanaku, the san, the tontine,
consortiums and other names that are given to informal savings systems that are
very popular all over the World. The important thing about these systems is
that they are a mechanism of programmed savings with a loan payment when they
win the pot, in which no interest is paid on the “deposits" and no
interest charged for "loans". In my work I have often researched the
market to identify the needs of MiF’s clients and have developed savings
products for many of these based on their user needs, some of my observations
point to the following main reasons for making savings: (1) To attend
emergencies, (2) To meet monthly obligations and reach month’s end, (3) provide
more security for the money than having it in cash (Theft ), (4) to address
unforeseen expenses, (5) To avoid spending easily money if it is in cash, (6)
To engage in productive activities, (7) To have better control over expenditures
and (8) To serve as collateral for Microcredit. The main barriers to saving
include: (1) Do not have much money to save, due to the high opening amounts and
minimum balances required, (3) The service fees, (4) Having to go somewhere to
deposit and withdraw money (Low rural presence), (5) To receive low interests
(On term deposits) and (6) It depends on the image of the savings institution. The
reality is that not being able to save money by not having much money is due to
the lack of savings products tailored to the needs and realities of the
customers and not on the convenience of the financial institutions. I want to
share some thoughts with you on the issue of the requirements and fees: I remember
in the 70s financial institutions in Latin America did not charge any fees to
the savings accounts and everything had to be done manually; I am of the
generation of the machine with cardboard legers, the NCR 80, which had a crank
if electricity failed. Transactions were kept in ledgers files and at simultaneously
printed on the passbook and the ledger, interest were calculated manually: Account
by account!. The cost of the operation was high and institutions lived with the
differential between the interest rate between loans and deposits. The information
technology came in the 90s. At that time I worked with La Vivienda EAP, in
Venezuela, which was perhaps one of the first institutions in the World to
mount an online processing: We were connected to a computer that was in the IBM’s®
offices, we had 100,000 savings accounts that could be opened with $ 2.30 and we
were still able to give a free Life and Accidents Insurance to all our savers
(U.S. $ 697 for life and the same for accidents). Suddenly other financial
institutions claimed that the spread between lending and deposit was not enough
and had losses and to have many savings accounts with low balance was also a
loss. One moment!, if you are using a computer to manage accounts; we are
talking about fixed costs; because the investment in computing equipment, like
industrial machinery, grows by leaps; That is, when the limit is reached in a
computer, it is replaced with a cheaper and possibly 3 or 4 times bigger and
faster hardware, the staff in financial Institutions has not grown to infinity,
by contrast it has been reduced thanks to computer processing and distant
banking. Today the processing costs are falling; abiding with Moore's Law, and
the capabilities have multiplied by thousands. The variable costs of managing
savings accounts are limited to the legal reserve, the interests, the cost of passbooks
or cards, these last having reach great advances and become even cheaper, the
stationery, etc, that represent a fraction of the investment in technology, staff,
depreciation of premises, electricity, communications and all the other fixed
costs. But the number of customers, accounts and loans has not stopped growing.
So the big question is: If in the 70s doing everything by hand, blood, sweat
and tears, we managed many accounts with low opening amounts and balances, no
fees and even gave away a Collective Life and Accident Insurance to the savers
and La Vivienda EAP was still profitable; How come today the financial
institutions are not profitable, with larger volumes of customers, operations, using
technology, and charging for everything, I think the answer is well reflected
in the credit crisis of 2008: Because they were wrong, ignoring the risks
attracted by high profitability and fell in the moral hazard by counting on
governments as sources of last resort, to take over their mistakes, as in fact it
happened. Nobody can convince me that operating many accounts with an small
opening amount and with low balances is not profitable, given the use of technology,
remote banking and reduced staff, if this expenditures are divided by the
growing number of accounts, it is clear that the cost of managing each account
should fall rather than rise. Moreover the evidence of the growth of a
significant number of governments paying subsidies with rechargeable cards and using
ATMs as a means of payment, show that governments are not fools to continue to pay
directly by hand, as before, because this would demand a huge and growing
bureaucracy. I think the problem is that many MFIs are on a traditional financial
institution’s point of view which assumes that it is a bad business to open
accounts with small amounts and to manage accounts with low balances, and that
the poor need more Microloans and cannot save; this is to ignore the reality of
the needs of lower-income customers and put up barriers to financial inclusion.
There is evidence in a study conducted in 2011 by TECNOCOM and I quote:"
In Mexico, Oportunidades beneficiaries are offered a standard savings account
in public bank, Bansefi. Approximately 30 % of the beneficiaries decide to
accept the account (1.5 million out of 5 million beneficiaries) and end up
saving on average 12% of their transfer", I would like to know: How many
inclusion programs have reach 1,5 millions of new people included with savings
accounts in any country?. I think that it has been generated the idea of
financial inclusion programs can only be based on better means of payment, that
will eventually be more used in consumption, when only a savings account can
ensure effective financial inclusion which involves: Designing savings products
with easy opening amounts, low balances and no fees. Because these products would
motivate a voluntary act of separating and accumulating money, create financial
discipline and financial assets and reinforce the regular payment habit,
fundamental in the Microloans; that would never be given by any means of payment
only.
Jose Linares Fontela
Comment: Visit SICREDI in this link and chose English or Portuguese http://www.sicredi.com.br/conheca.html
Report: TECNOCOM at link: http://www.afi.es/afi/libre/pdfs/remex/Informe_Tecnocom_ING12.pdf
(Te link is for a short English version. The Spanish version has 40
pages the English version only 10 pages) the link of the Spanish version is: http://www.afi.es/afi/libre/PDFS/Grupo/Documentos/Informe_Tecnocom12.pdf
this is the link for the Spanish version in case you want to download it.
No comments:
Post a Comment