Why do microcredit interest rates vary so dramatically around the world?

by Richard Rosenberg : Friday, June 20, 2008

The global average is about 35 percent, but the average in Mexico is above 60 percent and in Sri Lanka is below 20 percent. Small loan sizes are the most commonly cited reason why microcredit rates are higher than normal bank rates: microcredit is a “high-touch” business, and MFIs have to process thousands of tiny transactions. But here’s a graph of MFIs in 33 countries, showing pretty clearly that loan size by itself doesn’t explain the differences between their average interest rates.

We see several other dynamics at work:

  • Operating costs can be pushed up by factors other than loan size, such as geographic dispersion of rural borrowers, or an unusually expensive labor market, both of which affect costs in Mexico. Age of the MFI is another factor. Surprisingly, scale doesn’t seem to make much difference: statistical analysis by the MIX shows that economies of scale tend to level off after the MFI gets its first 2,000 or so clients.
  • Political pressure can make a difference. Some countries impose a legal cap on interest rates to keep them “affordable,” even though this may restrict the availability of microloans. In other countries (like Ethiopia), the government provides a lot of microfinance at very low rates, and MFIs feel political pressure to do the same.
  • Management objectives differ. In countries like Bangladesh, managers felt that high interest rates were inconsistent with their social mission, and consequently set rates at levels that would produce very little profit, at least in the early years. In Latin America, many MFIs thought that attracting commercial capital was the best way to expand their social outreach, and wanted higher profits to attract such capital. We are now seeing players in microfinance—only a few so far—whose objective is profit, pure and simple: of course, such investors want interest income to be as high as possible.
  • Competition gives borrowers choices, which puts downward pressure on interest rates, forcing MFIs to become less profitable and/or more efficient. This is clearly happening in some places—e.g., Bolivia, where interest rates have dropped from 60 percent in the early 1990s to about 17 percent now. But competition doesn’t produce this result everywhere: rates have not dropped very much in Bangladesh.

What do you think? Are there other explanations for interest rate differences that we’ve overlooked?

Comments: Comments and trackbacks are open.

11 Comments RSS 2.0

  1. June 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm, Ruth Goodwin-Groen ()

    Hi Rich I guess not many people have found this new blog yet! So here are a few additional factors which affect interest rates which (based on my experience). 1. Accountability to funders/clients: When there are ‘rewards’ for reductions in costs and interest rates (or penalites for lack of action) I have seen this issue become a focus of management attention (when they have the capacity to do so). I have seen this happen both donor funds and with clients (when they are financially literate). But when there are no consequences – why would a CEO bother? 2. Lack of Management Capacity: This includes capacity to understand options to reduce costs (e.g. methodlogy, product design etc.) and capacity to effectively implement any of those options. 3. Financial Literacy of clients: When clients understand the costs for the product they are in a much better position to compare and better rates are the result. 4. Cultural factors to do with the relationship with the financial service provider – other than the loan: Some clients receive benefits that are not calculated in loan terms (some research has been done on this is Bangladesh). This is an important issue so I hope more people jump in!! Cheers Ruth

  • July 1st, 2008 at 9:20 pm, Janice Takyi-Appiah ()

    MFIs have difficulties accessing cheap funds for on lending and some of them have to borrow at very high interest rates. Also MFI clientele are varied and consist of high risk borrowers due to the nature of their core business eg Primary Exporters, thus consequently their facilities have associated high interest rates which supposedly serve as a means of protection for the MFI.

  • July 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm, Richard Rosenberg ()

    Ruth’s suggestions about additional causes for interest rate variations make sense to me. The one that I’m unsure of is financial literacy. The studies I’ve seen reported so far seem to leave some doubt as to how much financial education actually changes borrower behavior. Janice mentioned the high cost of funds that many MFIs face. MIX data confirms that funding costs are a substantial component of MFI interest. In 2006, for example, the weighted average interest yield for 564 sustainable MFIs was 27.6 percent of loan portfolio. The weighted average cost of funds was 8.3 percent of portfolio. That is, a little less than a third of all the interest that borrowers pay went to pay for the MFI’s own borrowings. Commercial banks raise funds more cheaply, but the difference is not as great as we might have expected: The weighted average funding cost for commercial banks in the same countries as these sustainable MFIs was 6 percent (as opposed to 8.3 for the MFIs), and that figure doesn’t include the administrative costs associated with raising retail deposits–which banks use much more than MFIs do, so far at least. Rich

  • July 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pm, Christoph Kneiding ()

    Recently, I came across the same graphic as in the post, but broken down on a country level. The distribution of interest rate vs. loan size tends to become considerably tighter, which suggests that country differences are substantial drivers of interest rate variations. Rich and Ruth already addressed this issue on several levels (competition, political pressure, cultural factors). Perhaps it makes sense to classify interest rate drivers into “generic” and “country-specific” types.

  • July 19th, 2008 at 9:29 pm, Michel Cermak ()

    Would it be possible to have the references of the MIX statistical analysis mentioned (about scale economies) and of the original source of the graph showed here? Thanks in advance for that and thanks for the first answers you already brought to this key question. (I’m writing a master thesis about Competition among MFIs and the impact on clients’ welfare and microfinance’s mission, if anyone has a key reference I should know about, it is very welcome). Thanks PS: I don’t know if it helps but couldn’t be the existence of MFIs specialised only in group lending or individual lending another factor of difference in interest rates? (since individual lending is considered riskier and often more expensive). It would be supported by the example of Fundusz Mikro in Poland, which simply charges higher interest rates for individuals loans than for group loans. Tell me if this makes no sense

  • November 20th, 2008 at 9:31 pm, Christoph Kneiding ()

    Michel, thanks for your comments and questions!
    With regard to the sources: The scale economies paper was written by Adrian Gonzalez from the MIX and can be found in the MicroBanking Bulletin No. 15, pp. 37-42 (http://www.mixmbb.org/Publications/001-IND/01-IND.ANLS/01-IND.ANLS.MBB/MBB15%20Final.pdf). You will see that the analysis also takes account of different lending methodologies that you have mentioned, but doesn’t find any significant effects on operating efficiency of MFIs. In general, though, your argument that individual lending is more costly makes perfectly sense to me.

    The graph that is shown in the initial blog post is based on an extraction of (publicly available) MIX data for sustainable MFIs (i.e. with a non-negative ROA). If you have more specific questions on the dataset, feel free to drop me a line: ckneiding@worldbank.org.
    Your thesis touches a very important topic, which has not seen a lot of research in the past. Competition data for MFIs is not available in a format that allows for meaningful empirical evaluations; as to anecdotal evidence, Bolivia is definitely the best example of a market where competition led to a significant drop in interest rates. Several studies have looked at clients’ welfare, especially over-indebtedness.
    I would like to highlight some studies that draw contradictory conclusions on the effects of competition on clients’ welfare: http://www.microfinancegateway.org/files/31544_file_14.pdf http://www.microfinancegateway.org/content/article/detail/3544 Karuna Krishnaswamy, Competition and Multiple Borrowing in the Indian Microfinance Sector, Institute for Financial Management & Research, Centre for Micro Finance, Working Paper Sept. 2007. Ulrike Vogelsang, Microfinance in Times of Crisis: The Effects of Competition, Rising Indebtedness, and Economic Crisis on Repayment Behavior, World Development, Vol. 31(12), pp. 2085-2114. Let us know about the progress of your thesis, this is an important research question! Best, Christoph

  • March 12th, 2009 at 7:52 am, Rick ()

    Would a high inflation rate affect the loan rates?

  • March 29th, 2009 at 12:01 pm, B S Suran ()

    I have seen this now …after abt 9 months …nevertheless, it enticed me to writing a few points on the subject. As a part of my sabbatical , i did wok on this issue for me -Interest pricing has a three-dimensional viewpoint viz; the borrower, the institution that offers the product as also the external environment that facilitates or stifles the growth of the sector. This triad at its sub-components factors many of which are interlinked; determine the way the loans are priced by mFIs. It may not be true to assume that any change in one factor could lead to upward or download fixation of interest rates. There are obviously many predominant and dominant factors that could influence a shift in loan price ie; high cost of resources(funds), high competition, client credit history ( info on this), security offered for loan, loan sizes etc.

  • April 17th, 2010 at 4:28 pm, 10 Determinants of Interest Rates in Microfinance « Microfinance Hub ()

    [...] greater competition among MFIs in many countries has lowered interest rates, a recent study by Financial Access Initiative shows the opposite to be true in Uganda. Greater [...]

  • June 15th, 2011 at 5:02 am, Is ______ an impact investor? | Sasha Dichter's Blog ()

    [...] take on BRI is a little different: 25% p.a. interest rates are in line with global microfinance interest rates (so I have trouble arguing that they should be lower); limiting itself to collateralized lending [...]

  • June 22nd, 2011 at 4:40 am, Is ______ an impact investor? « Acumen Fund Blog ()

    [...] take on BRI is a little different: 25% p.a. interest rates are in line with global microfinance interest rates (so I have trouble arguing that they should be lower); limiting itself to collateralized lending [...]

  • Leave a Reply