* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Kiútprogram – A Social Microcredit Program for the Roma in Hungary
Financialization wikipedia , lookup
Yield spread premium wikipedia , lookup
History of pawnbroking wikipedia , lookup
Peer-to-peer lending wikipedia , lookup
Interest rate ceiling wikipedia , lookup
Continuous-repayment mortgage wikipedia , lookup
Syndicated loan wikipedia , lookup
With support from the EU György Molnár Kiútprogram – A Social Microcredit Program for the Roma in Hungary A Way Out – and a Possible Way Forward Social Microcredit, Financial Inclusion and Self-Employment Kiútprogram Closing Conference 4 September, 2012 Brussels Motto With adequate social opportunities, individuals can effectively shape their own destiny and help each other. They need not be seen primarily as passive recipients of the benefits of cunning development programs. Amartya Sen: Development as freedom The vision of the program Enable people living in deep poverty, primarily Roma, to become self-employed, by providing social assistance and financial services Promote social mobility and Roma inclusion Microcredit as a tool Social impact vs. business profit Benchmark: job creation, employment expansion programs Aim: to create sustainable micro-enterprises 3 Why we choose microcredit? High employment level before system change, also for Roma The Roma are the main losers of system change Low education and employment level Social exclusion, strong prejudice against Roma, segregated Roma areas No investment in underdeveloped areas and for poorly educated Failure of state initiated job creation programs Low share of services and micro-enterprises in the whole economy, especially in underdeveloped areas In this situation development of micro- and small businesses could be a viable step national Roma strategies 4 The subject of the pilot – what can we learn? To test the adaptation possibilities of the Grameen Bank model Significant differences in the environment: • Premature welfare state • The capital demand of a new business is higher • High level of taxes • High level of bureaucracy • Lower density of the poor • Distrust in lending financial institutions 5 The launch of Kiútprogram Initiated by Polgár Foundation in 2008 Feasibility study in 2009 Contracts with the Hungarian government Kiútprogram became a pilot project of Pan-European Coordination of Roma integration Methods – Roma inclusion: self-employment and microcredit, EU DG Regio, 2010-2012. Field workers’ training started at the beginning of 2010 Three areas • collapsed heavy industry • agricultural • crisis area of Budapest First loans: September 2010 6 EU DG Region Institutional structure Roma integration pilot project Finance (1.43 mill. Euros) Control POLGAR Foundation RAIFFEISEN BANK EU connections Main owner Civil connections Analysing social impact Loans and savings Loan guarantee IT system World Bank/UNDP KIÚTPROGRAM PLC EXPERTS, Advocacy Feedback Networking SHAREHOLDERS Field work Accepting business plans Client and program administration Loan agency Monitoring & evaluation Quality control Impact evaluation Monitoring support Advocacy Government Financing welfare bridge and other related costs Regulation, laws 7 Main features of the Kiútprogram model Unsecured loans of relatively small amounts (max. 3500 EUR) Real interest rate around 10% (yearly), weekly repayment, 1 year loan period Encouraging saving Groups of 5 loan recipients, sequential lending (2 – 2 – 1) In the formal economy: sole proprietors or licensed primary producers. Important difference from other models in the region. Field workers play a much bigger role than in the original model – Support in preparing business plans, administration. – Support in the bureaucratic process reduces discrimination – Support in debt management. Financial and business education. Free of cost book-keeping Welfare bridge We provide not only financial, but also social capital. The role of trust. 8 The correction of the model Target group • more attention to entrepreneurial capabilities ("entrepreneurial dream") • previous informal business acitivities • social connections more self-confident and optimistic clients More flexible group formation Shorter waiting time in sequential lending More flexible loan period – but not enough, institutional constrains by the bank Decrease in the amount of the loans Introduce network building activities good examples 9 Base performance indicators Settlements screened 202 Persons screened (personal connection with field workers) 900 Number of intake questionnaires 447 Pre-groups 60 Groups formed 44 Settlements with formed groups 38 Group-members 192 Number of loan recipients (clients) 138 Entrepreneurs 75 Licensed primary producers 63 Number of loan disbursements a Value of total portfolio 153 252 000 EUR 10 Performance indicators by batch 1st batch 2nd batch 3rd batch Total/average Groups formed 12 26 6 44 Loan recipients 41 74 23 138 13 59 23 95 49 81 23 153 2 528 EUR 1 832 EUR 550 EUR 1 825 EUR 52 weeks 43 weeks 26 weeks Still operates as entrepreneur Loan disbursements Average loan per person Average duration 11 Repayment indicators for clients who received the loans before March 2012 Arrears per payments due, % Currently At the 120th day after borrowing At the 180th day after borrowing 13 62 28 33 39 31 39 12 20 80 44 (95)a 52 20 27 Persons Still operates as entrepreneur 1st batch 41 2nd batch Total a All clients of the 2nd batch not listed here and clients of the 3rd batch still operate their businesses. Estimated survival rate: 60-70% 12 Estimated costs in the case of continuous operation o o o o o 300 clients 20 field agenst and 5 other staff members continuous tranining, legal support, external communications bookkeeping for the clients transportation, communication, etc. gross operation costs: 210 euros per month per client net operation costs (without taxes): 130 euros/month/client o estimated lending loss 30%, average loan 1800 euros total net cost of continuous operation: 175 euros/month/client The cost per client is basically equal to the cost per person in the public work programmes. 13 Thank you for your attention! [email protected] 20