2010 Funder Survey Highlights ECA Nov 5

1,005 views
902 views

Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,005
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2010 Funder Survey Highlights ECA Nov 5

  1. 1. Cross-Border Funding for Microfinance Eastern Europe and Central Asia Results of the CGAP Cross-border Funding Surveys 2010
  2. 2. About the surveysThe CGAP surveys focus on cross-border funding for microfinance.Over 150 institutions and funds have participated in CGAP’s 2010 surveyson microfinance funding, representing 85 to 95% of the total estimatedcross-border funding to microfinance.CGAP collects data from major funders (bilateral and multilateral agencies,development finance institutions, foundations) and from microfinanceinvestment intermediaries (MIIs) such as Microfinance Investment Vehicles(MIVs) and holdings.All data is as of December 2009. For any questions or data requests please contact Barbara Gähwiler at bgahwiler@cgap.org.
  3. 3. At a Glance Commitments to Microfinance for ECA as of December 2009: $6.2 billion* 28 Public Donors and Private Donors and Investors Investors (Foundations, Institutional and (Multilaterals, Bilaterals, DFIs) Retail Investors) $4.2 billion $2 billion 53 Microfinance $2.9 bln $1.3 bln Investment $1.98 bln $0.02 bln Intermediaries (MIIs) Apexes Apexes $3.2 bln Microfinance (Support for microfinance at all levels of the financial system: retail, market infrastructure, and policy) * CGAP surveys capture 85 to 95% of the total cross border f unding to microfinance
  4. 4. Commitments growing faster than in other regions Committed Amount (million USD) +17% 21,313 (100%) Annual Growth Rates for 2008 to 2009 +22% +21% 6,188 (29%) +1% 4,724 (22%) +22% 4,064 (19%) +38% +19% +4% 2,544 (12%) 1,546 (7%) 787 (4%) 1,461 (7%) Total East Asia & Eastern Europe Latin America Middle East South Asia Sub-Saharan Multi-Region the Pacific & Central Asia & the Caribbean & North Africa (SA) Africa (SSA) (EAP) (ECA) (LAC) (MENA) Number of respondents: 61 and CGAP estimates based on 90 MIVs• As in previous years, ECA receives the largest share of cross-border funding to microfinance, with $6,188 million committed as of 2009, representing 29% of total funding.• Largest growth in commitments, together with SSA, with a rate of 22% compared to 17% globally.• 28 public funders (bilateral and multilateral agencies and development finance institutions - DFIs), 11 foundations/NGOs and 53 Microfinance Investment Intermediaries (MIIs) are active in ECA.
  5. 5. Public funding dominant and growing faster than private funding Commitments by Type of Funder 13% 16% 25% 31% 32% 37% 87% 40% 46% 84% 75% 69% 68% 63% 60% 54% Total EAP ECA LAC MENA SA SSA Multi-Region Public Funders Private Funders Number of respondents: 61 and CGAP estimates based on 90 MIVs• Public funders provide 68% of total commitments (compared to 69% globally). Private funders (foundations, institutional investors and individual investors) account for 32%.• ECA is the only region were public funding grew faster than private funding in 2009. Public funding grew by 26% (against 12% globally), while private funding grew by 14% (33% globally). DFIs are driving this growth, with $900 million of net new funding in 2009; the 14 DFIs active in the region represent 64% of total commitments to ECA; KfW and EBRD alone represent 42%.• ECA is the second region, after LAC, in terms of private funding and number of active MIIs. ECA receives 30% of total private funding.
  6. 6. Funding focused on refinancing retail financial service providers Commitments by Purpose 1% 12% 9% 12% 33% 24% 17% 99% 16% 88% 91% 88% 83% 84% 76% 67% Total EAP ECA LAC MENA SA SSA Multi-Region Onlending Capacity Building Number of respondents: 58 and CGAP estimates based on 90 MIVs• 99% of commitments to ECA are used to refinance retail financial service providers, directly or indirectly, compared to 88% globally. Russia and Bulgaria are two large recipients of public funding for on-lending, with each more than $350 million committed for this purpose.• ECA ranks last in terms of funding for capacity building, with only $82 million committed. 38% of these funds are used at the market infrastructure and policy levels. 6 countries (Tajikistan, Moldova, Kyrgyz Republic, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Ukraine) represent ~70% of total capacity building funds to ECA - Tajikistan alone 25%.• Funding for on-lending increased by 23% in 2009 while funding for capacity building decreased by ~7%.
  7. 7. More sophisticated instruments than in other regions Commitments by Type of Commitments by Type of Direct Funding by Direct Funding by Instrument Funding (TOTAL) Funding (ECA) Instrument (TOTAL) (ECA) 4% 10% 4% 4% 21% 3% Other 8% Other 5% Guarantee 45% Guarantee 55% 45% 55% Grant Grant 66% Equity 75% Equity Debt Debt Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Number of respondents: 58 and CGAP estimates based on 90 MIVs • 55% of commitments to ECA are channeled via intermediaries such as MIIs; the remaining 45% are provided by funders directly or channeled through local governments. • Debt is the main financial instrument used by funders. Structured finance is more widely used than in other regions: it represents 10% of direct commitments compared to less than 2% in other regions. • ECA ranks first in terms of equity investments. DFIs invested $560 million in equity in ECA: 60% in MIIs, ~20% in network affiliates, ~20% in banks, and a small % in transforming NGOs.
  8. 8. Funders active in 22 countries Commitments by Country as of Dec. 2009, and 2008/2009 Trend Country allocation is available for 46% of ECA commitments 2009 2008/2009 2009 2008/2009 Commitments Growth Commitments GrowthAlbania $50 to 100 mln → Moldova $50 to 100 mln ↑Armenia $100 to 300 mln ↑ Montenegro $2 to 50 mln ↑Azerbaijan $100 to 300 mln ↑↑ Poland $2 to 50 mln ↑↑Belarus $50 to 100 mln → Romania $100 to 300 mln →BiH $100 to 300 mln ↑↑ Russia $300 to 500 mln ↑↑Bulgaria $300 to 500 mln → Serbia $100 to 300 mln ↑Georgia $100 to 300 mln ↑↑ Tajikistan $100 to 300 mln ↑ ↑↑ increases, more than 20 mln <$2mlnKazakhstan $50 to 100 mln ↓↓ Turkey $100 to 300 mln ↑↑ ↑ increases, 5 to 20 mln $2 to 50 mlnKosovo $50 to 100 mln ↑↑ Turkmenistan <$2 mln → → same or change less than 5 mln $51 to 100 mlnKyrgyz Republic $50 to 100 mln ↑↑ Ukraine $100 to 300 mln ↑↑ ↓ decreases, 5 to 20 mln $101 to 300 mlnMacedonia $2 to 50 mln → Uzbekistan $50 to 100 mln ↑↑ ↓↓ decreases, more than 20 mln $301 to 500 mln• Funders are active in 22 countries in ECA. Commitments increased or remained stable in all countries except for Kazakhstan (due to the termination of one large deal).• Russia and Bulgaria remain the two most funded countries. More than 90% of funding to Bulgaria is actually participation in ProCredit Bulgaria’s securitization; to the opposite, funding to Russia comprises of debt and equity investment in a wide range of downscaling banks and MFIs.Country breakdown is available only for direct funding
  9. 9. Active Funders in ECA Active Funders in ECATop 5 Funders in ECA% of Commitments to ECA Multilateral & UN Agencies Bilateral Agencies Microfinance Investment Intermediaries (MIIs) KfW 21% EBRD 20% AsDB CIDA Access Holding MF Enhancement Facility St Honore IFC 9% EC DANIDA ASN-Novib MFLO-LC Symbiotics DRF EIB 4% IFAD Finland MoFA BFSEF MFLO-Opportunity Triodos FSF FMO 3% ILO GTZ BOLD I MFLO-SubDebt Triodos MF IsDB MCC BOLD II MicroAccess2007 Triodos-Doen World Bank Norad BOMS I MicroCredit Wallberg GMF SDC Consorzio Etimos MicroVest I XXEB Development Finance USAID DBMDF MicroVest II Institutions (DFIs) DBMF-1 Minlam AECID Dignity Oikocredit AFD Proparco DMCF Opportunity LGF BIO Foundations & NGOs DWM MF OTI CDC Citi Foundation EFSE OXUS DCA USAID Cordaid EMF Planet MicroFund EBRD DOEN Foundation FINCA MF Procredit Holding EIB ICCO Finethic respA GMF Finnfund Gates Foundation GCMC respA MF FMO Grameen Foundation Grameen CAMF respA MLF ICDF Mastercard Foundation Hivos-Triodos Rural Impulse IFC Omydiar Network I&P ShoreCap KfW Oxfam Novib Impulse SIDI OPIC Rabobank Foundation Incofin SNS SIFEM Whole Planet Foundation KCD Global SNS MF II
  10. 10. Method and Definitions• Method: Figures are based on data reported by 61 funders and 90 microfinance investment intermediaries. CGAP used data provided by microfinance investment intermediaries to estimate funding from individual investors and institutional investors. All data is as of December 2009. Growth rates are based on a subset of respondents for which data is available for all years covered by the surveys. Country breakdowns are based on funding for which country allocation is available. ***• Cross-border funding for microfinance: Like other development sectors, microfinance receives funding from public and private funders in developed countries. Depending on local capital markets and the regulatory environment, microfinance institutions in developing countries can also access local funding sources, such as client deposits or loans from local commercial banks. The CGAP surveys focus exclusively on foreign, or cross-border, funding for microfinance.• Commitments: A common way to measure funding for microfinance is to look at funders’ commitments. Total commitments represent the total amount of all currently active investments and projects, whether the funds have been disbursed or are yet to be disbursed during the remaining lifetime of a project. As such, total commitments describe the stock of funds set aside for microfinance at a given time (i.e. December 2009 for the data above). To understand the actual flow of money to the microfinance sector, it is also necessary to look at annual disbursements.• Microfinance Investment Intermediaries: Microfinance Investment Intermediaries (MIIs) are investment entities that have microfinance as one of their core investment objectives and mandates. MIIs can provide debt, equity or guarantees (directly or indirectly) to microfinance service providers. The main types of MIIs are Microfinance Investment Vehicles (MIVs), Holding Companies and others such as peer-to-peer lending platforms.
  11. 11. Survey Participants Public funders Multilateral and UN N=8 AfDB, AsDB, EC, IFAD, ILO, IsDB, UNCDF, World Bank agencies N=15 AusAID, CIDA, DANIDA, DFID, Finland MoFA, GTZ, Italy MoFA, Bilateral agencies JICA, Lux Dev, MCC, Netherlands MoFA, NORAD, SDC, Sida, USAID N=18 AECID, AFD Proparco, BIO, CAF, CDC, DCA USAID, EBRD, EIB, Development finance Finnfund, FMO, ICDF, IFC, IIC, KfW, MIF IADB, Norfund, OPIC, institutions (DFIs) SIFEM Private funders N=16 Foundations: Citi, Doen, Ford, Gates, Grameen, Grameen Jameel, Mastercard, MSDF, Rabobank, Stromme, Whole Foundations and NGOs Planet; NGOs: Cordaid, HIVOS, ICCO, Omidyar Network, Oxfam Novib Individual Investors n/a CGAP estimates* N=4 + CGAP ABP, ING, PGGM, TIAA Cref, and CGAP estimates* Institutional Investors estimates* *CGAP estimates are based on data from 90 MIIs. For more information on MIIs see http://www.cgap.org/p/site/c/template.rc/1.11.142715/
  12. 12. Advancing financial access for the world’s poor www.cgap.org www.microfinancegateway.org

×