On Tuesday, I participated in a dinner event sponsored by the Seattle International Foundation featuring Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank and author of Banker to the Poor.

Professor Yunus shared a number of updates and answered questions. Here are some of my notes…

On Grameen Bank in Bangladesh:

• Now serving 7.5 million clients (avg. family size of 5 => 35M+ people)
• 27,000 staff
• Now 80% of poor in Bangladesh are offered microfinance (all MFIs) and targeting 100% coverage by 2012
• Most poor countries have 5-10% with the best being 15% coverage of microfinance for poor, so lots of work still to do
• Bank is owned by borrowers
• All capital loaned out comes from savings of the poor (and bank staff)
• Each branch must drive their own savings for capital to loan out … require that each branch become profitable and capital self-sustaining within 1 year
• Microfinance is very empowering for women … often first time in their lives that they have anything of their own. Borrowers (women only) decide who will inherit their savings if they die. Interestingly, most women choose their youngest daughter as she has the least opportunity.

On other Grameen-spawned businesses:

• Grameen Phone is largest mobile operator in Bangladesh with 16M subscribers
• Grameen Energy is focused on bringing solar energy solutions to the poor … reached 100,000 households so far and now aiming for 1M. Cost of solar panels continues to slow down growth of this business. There is great hope that some technology breakthroughs will substantially lower the cost and enable them to accelerate deployment.

On social businesses:

• Yunus continues to be a strong proponent for social businesses … that is, businesses which exist as commercial entities AND have a mission to have a strong positive social impact
• I think he is right and this is a great new opportunity for entrepreneurs

On microfinance in China:

• China has very little supply for microfinance and, next to India, has the largest unmet demand for microfinance
• Yunus recently met with senior people in China’s central bank on their request to hear about his ideas on microfinance
• Central bankers were initially quite defensive … holding up their cooperative model as being quite effective in channeling financial services to the poor
• Yunus said that that was quite interesting and that China must be doing something quite differently as in Bangladesh there was also a long-term cooperative system which was widely promoted by the government, but is completely ineffective due to corruption, bureaucracy and lack of relevance.
• This caught the central banker leader off guard and she surprisingly agreed with his assessment and said that they would no longer rely on cooperative model as the cornerstone of China’s financial services provision for the poor.

Additionally, Grameen America was formally announced. See my earlier posting.

In a previous post on for-profit microfinance, I summarized some of the benefits that I see for the poor in the trend for microfinance institutions (MFIs) to become for-profit entities rather than the traditional non-profit entity model. One of the key aspects of a for-profit entity is the ability to sell ownership shares to investors to raise capital.

I caught up (via email) with Geoff Woolley, a very experienced venture capitalist (Dominion Ventures, European Venture Partners, MACC Private Equity and more) and an early pioneer in microfinance equity. Geoff currently chairs the Capital Markets Committee on the board of Unitus, an innovative global microfinance accelerator. He was very involved in setting up the Unitus Equity Fund … one of the first private-money-only private equity funds exclusively focused on investing in start-up MFIs.

Dave: Geoff, first, what is your background related to investing equity capital in companies?

Geoff: I have been a venture capitalist all my professional career and founded both a US and European private equity firm. Through myself and my firms, I have invested in hundreds of growth companies … both start ups and expansion stage companies.

Dave: What experience have you had in making equity investments in MFIs?

Geoff: Investing direct equity rather than making grants or giving loans to MFI’s is relatively new. My experience has been over the last few years with assisting in structuring the financing of the Unitus partners. With the new Unitus Equity Fund, we work exactly as most private equity firms. My “non profit job” and my regular job are almost alike except with Unitus I know my efforts help thousands of poor women and their families in a small way.

Dave: It seems like there is still a lot of confusion about why MFIs need equity investments. Why not just give them donations/grants or give them loans?

Geoff: The key word is sustainability. Essentially, if an MFI does not learn to become profitable, most donors will grow tired over time of supporting their financial needs. The best way to think about MFI’s are as small start up banks. If a wealthy bank founder provided all initial capital and continues to support the bank without taking equity or a loan note, potential new lenders or investors would not be able to assess the banks profitability or sustainability. This “free capital” would never appear on financial statements. By treating an MFI like most start up companies, lenders and new investors will more easily understand the MFI and its progress. With MFI’s, profitability is a measure of effectiveness rather than strictly making money. Capitalism and social purpose are well aligned.

Dave: How do MFIs grow their equity base?

Geoff: The same way as banks do. They raise more equity (by issuing and selling shares) or reinvest profits from their operations. In MFI’s that are licensed to collect savings from clients, these saving accounts help increase the MFI’s capital base which enables it to borrow less from outside lenders.

Dave: There is talk about some MFIs reaching the limit of how much they can borrow. What are those limits and how does equity impact lifting those limits?

Geoff: Reaching borrowing limits could relate to either market saturation or an inadequate capital base. In most microfinance markets, the need of the poor for capital is far from saturated. I hope someday to see the “problem” of oversupply of capital for the poor since it means poverty will be reduced significantly. Most MFI’s reach limits based upon their equity or capital base. Both banking regulators and an MFI’s lenders set limits in terms of the amount of debt that a MFI can have outstanding in proportion to the amount of equity they have built up on their balance sheet. For example, if an MFI wanted to borrow $5,000,000 from a state bank to make its small $100 loans, the lending bank might require $20 of equity for every $100 of loan it will provide to the MFI. This would be a 5-to-1 capital base requirement and the MFI would need $1,000,000 in equity or capital to borrow the requested $5,000,000. With many MFI’s expanding their number of borrowers by more than 100% per year, more borrowing and proportionate equity is required.

Dave: What are some of the additional benefits to MFIs of having equity infusions?
Geoff: The most important positive factor for a MFI is independence and being the masters of their own destiny. Management can plan for the future without outside factors such a grants being cut or reduced. Being able to plan and understand your resources is key to the success of any growth companies including MFIs.

Dave: Are there any downsides to MFIs in taking outside equity capital?

Geoff: Even in the US, we practice a “modified” capitalist economy where regulators, investors, voters and many other constituents impact and constrain the market system. Similar “guardrails” are required in microfinance to ensure it keeps its focus on the unbanked sector. Social guidelines and priorities need to be prioritized against pure profit decisions. For example, the cost to transact a $100 loan versus a $500 loan is the nearly the same. Therefore, a MFI could become more profitable if it moved to making $500 loans to increase profits. In such a case, the social benefit of making loans to the poorest women should be prioritized before maximizing profits. For instance, these social safeguards are outlined and documented in Unitus Equity Fund’s equity investments to ensure MFI management keeps their focus on the targeted unbanked poor. A balanced approach of social good and sustainable operations is key to the Unitus mission.

I had the opportunity to hear Muhammad Yunus, founder and director of The Grameen Bank, earlier this week speaking at an event in Seattle.

Yunus is very much an activist for practical solutions to defeating poverty. He recounted his story of starting The Grameen Bank, now one of the largest banks in Bangladesh with now over 5M micro-credit borrowers. They also launched a mobile phone company in Bangladesh called Grameen Phone targeting the rural poor which has now become not only the largest phone company in the country, but also the largest company and tax payer! More than 200,000 micro-entrepreneur “phone ladies” are now operating in villages all over Bangladesh renting out phone minutes to fellow villagers. This is a significant service to the rural communities, a profitable business for the phone ladies and a profitable business for the phone company — a triple win.

The Bonsai People

Yunus is very much an advocate for the potential of the human spirit in every person. He believes that people are poor not because of their own actions but because of the systems that have denied them the ability to reach their potential. Yunus provided the analogy of the bonsai tree. He said that you can take a seed from the largest tree in the forest and put it in a small pot, limit its water and it will grow up as a dwarf tree. Yunus said that this is a good analogy for how potential is not realized by poor people.

Dream Your World

Yunus was asked about how he would talk with well-off children about poverty. He said that we should encourage our children to dream about the world they want. Then we should encourage our children to pursue making that world. Wow!

Social Entrepreneurs

Yunus was asked about what he saw as the next major movement. He talked about a new kind of business person who was building a business to make a profit (for no business will survive without profit) but also to equally value providing a social return. This contrasts with the Wall Street approach of focusing exclusively on maximizing profitability. He envisions an industry developing around social capitalism to run alongside the traditional profit-only focused industry.

Previous post on Grameen and beggars