Country: Morocco

Providing and improving: learning to measure as an FSD network

Posted on by Kihingu Inc

In August 2017, FSD Africa launched a fresh drive to build measurement know-how across the FSD Network – a family of ten like-minded financial sector development programmes across sub-Saharan Africa funded by UK Aid. These projects – the development of a Value for Money (VfM) framework & the development of a compendium of indicators for financial sector development interventions – are the latest departure in a journey that began just over three years ago. This blog tells its story…

Over the last two decades, the role of Monitoring and Results Measurement[1] (MRM) in the field of international development has become more and more critical. The presence of MRM systems within organisations implementing development projects, irrespective of the strength of such systems, is now more the norm than the exception. Though MRM remains an important accountability tool, what’s more striking is the increasing role it plays in the ways in which interventions are planned, designed and implemented by development practitioners. Thus, MRM systems have many stakeholders – from funders and board members to project managers and delivery partners – and they need to be robust enough to meet their various needs.

While it’s critical to make MRM systems robust and efficient, achieving this is not an easy undertaking. It requires financial investment, commitment at CEO-level and the wider team, and continuous learning and improvement. This has very much been the case for the FSD Network.

Investing in stronger MRM systems began in earnest in July 2014, when FSD Africa began an FSD network-wide consultative process aimed at strengthening MRM processes within individual FSDs, both at project and programme level. The initiative also sought to achieve a more consistent approach to MRM across the FSD Network, one that would spur seamless cross-learning amongst its members. The result of this extensive consultation was publication of the Impact Orientated Measurement guidance paper, or IOM, which was launched in December 2015.

The launch of IOM, was an important milestone; one that was received with mixed feelings – of both excitement and anxiety. A vision of what an effective MRM system looked like was clearly established in theory, but the delivery of one in practice – across the FSD Network – quickly became FSD Africa’s challenge. This has required systematic effort over recent months since its launch.

Here’s what we did…

First, MRM diagnostic clinics were undertaken between April and July 2016, in partnership with Genesis Analytics. The objective of this exercise was to determine the readiness of FSDs to implement IOM. It involved evaluating the status of the different FSD MRM systems, as well as establishing the knowledge and attitudes of staff, senior management and governing bodies towards MRM, and more specifically IOM. Light-touch tailor-made support was also offered during these clinics, benefiting 47 FSD staff. Through this exercise, FSD Africa gained a better understanding of the unique needs of each FSD and their perceptions on how to address these challenges. By and large, it also provided an opportunity for individual FSDs to decipher IOM and define how they could start applying it.

Second, based on findings[2] from the MRM diagnostic clinics, FSD Africa worked with Adam Smith International to develop and deliver a 2.5-day training course christened Results Measurement for Systems Approaches in Financial Sector Deepening. The training, which took place in November 2016, focused on the five principles of IOM[3]. In total, 20 FSD staff drawn from FSD MRM units, intervention teams and programme management benefited.

One unexpected, but positive outcome of the MRM training was an increased appetite for FSD-specific MRM support, delivered through in-country support to staff. Two FSDs (FSD Uganda and FSD Mozambique) have so far benefited from this initiative. The results are evident – FSD Uganda now has an IOM-enabled MRM manual, and staff with a greater understanding of how to plan and execute results measurement initiatives. Its Board of Directors has a better appreciation of the intricacies of implementing and measuring results of projects that utilise the M4P approach, and are willing to support the course. FSD Mozambique has also just embarked on a process of reviewing its own results measurement guidelines and tools.

FSD Africa appreciates that, though IOM is a useful conceptual cornerstone, it is no panacea for measuring the results of complex financial sector development programmes. There is need to augment it with practical tools that can be easily deployed across the FSD Network.

In response, in August 2017, FSD Africa commissioned two other initiatives, which are being delivered in partnership with Oxford Policy Management:

  • the development of a Value for Money (VfM) framework that seeks to strengthen the internal technical and operational capacity of FSDs to assess and manage their programme/projects’ VfM, and
  • the development of a compendium of indicators that enables FSDs to better measure market system changes and how FSD programmes have contributed to these.

Amidst all these developments, is a thriving MRM Working group – an experience-sharing platform for MRM staff across the FSD Network. FSD Africa acts as its secretariat. The Chair rotates between individual FSD MRM leads.

Has this been an easy-to-execute task? Not at all. But, substantial progress has been made. In my next article, I will reflect on the lessons FSD Africa has learned during our work towards a harmonised MRM approach across the FSD Network.

——

[1] Also commonly referred to as Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

[2] A generally poor comprehension of the value of Theories of Change in effective results measurement, as well as insufficient skills in applying the same; widespread desire to understand how to effectively measure systemic change; weakness in assessing causality and building credible ‘contribution’ narratives; infrequent and meaningful engagement between some MRM units, intervention teams, and programme/organizational management.

[3] Aligning monitoring with measuring impact (the ‘sweet spot’); using the ToC as a strategic framework for planning and impact evaluations; focusing on the FSD programmes primary interest (as regards measurement), which is assessing changes in inclusive financial markets; identifying and measuring systemic change; measuring impact from the perspective of both the FSD programme (‘bottom-up’) and the sector/market system (‘top-down’)

 

The art of market facilitation: learning from the FSD network

Posted on by Kihingu Inc

When taking a market systems approach, development organisations such as those in the FSD network act as facilitators of market development—external change agents whose role is to develop actors in the market system to increase financial inclusion.

While facilitators work in a variety of ways, their primary role is to address constraints, in order to allow and facilitate the market system to function more effectively and inclusively. Facilitation is therefore a public role (not a commercial one); it is a temporary role (it is time-bound); and it requires understanding of the market system and the capacity to intervene with appropriate resources (financial, human and political).

The purpose of this paper is to provide guidelines on some key, practical questions facing facilitators, based on synthesised learnings from the FSD Network as captured in seven case studies written by the Springfield Centre. This document explores the art of market facilitation in action through the lens of the FSD network  to bu understanding around the M4P approach. The paper examines the wider lessons and challenges that emerge for organisations addressing the dilemmas of developing financial markets for the poor, and how they differ significantly from other conventional approaches.

We hope that you find the learnings in this synthesis paper useful and that they shed some light on your path to effective market facilitation.,

Reaching the mass insurance market: where to start when going digital

Posted on by Kihingu Inc

For insurers to serve a new type of client at scale they must change their modus operandi. The high costs associated with conventional insurance cannot be absorbed by low premium products. This means that existing structures need to be adapted to serve the low to middle-income mass market.

One key to success lies in digitization, which can be used to automate existing (often paper-based) processes. Going digital has obvious benefits: minimising expenses, reducing the scope of human error, improving efficiency and achieving scale. But, how can insurers begin to make this shift?

Working with our partner Britam in Kenya, we have seen one route to becoming a digitally-driven insurer: start with strategic process mapping.

So what does a strategic approach to process mapping look like? Process mapping involves creating a flow chart to capture every step in a process. This is then analysed to see how the process could be redesigned. Process mapping can both reveal opportunities for automation and help manage the internal change required to put it into action.

The strategic element of process mapping lies in identifying how new processes can achieve greater efficiency and also help improve the client’s experience. The ILO’s Impact Insurance Facility advocates human-centred design, which focuses on integrating the experience of the target group into product design and delivery. To improve the client’s experience, we have found that careful analysis is needed both of client interactions and back-end processes.

To illustrate, let’s take a simple example. At Britam, one of the team’s many tasks was to redesign the member information gathering process at enrolment to cut data entry and courier costs. The team started by looking at the systems and resources in place to capture data, and the experience of internal and external stakeholders interacting with the system. Careful analysis from both “outside-in” and “inside-out” uncovered pitfalls and opportunities for automation of members’ enrolment data gathering, such as customers processing their own data through an automated platform.

However, there are limits to automation, including limited client access to internet and smart phones. This problem extends to partner organisations, who are in many for automated processes. For example, the mission hospitals who work with Britam prefer paper claims submission.

Furthermore, there may be initial teething problems with automation, especially when it is only partial and still relies on a degree of human intervention. For example and as illustrated by the graph, after making significant reductions in claims processing times through process automation, Britam found that the processing time started to increase again due to staff constraints. This highlighted the need to support process changes with training or new staffing structures.

Our change management projects have repeatedly shown that digitization success does not lie solely in introducing technology, but in how people are placed to handle this change. Understanding what it takes to encourage and sustain behavioural change, both internally and externally, is key to change management and to reaping the rewards of going digital.

This blog is part of a joint series between the ILO’s Impact Insurance Facility and FSD Africa. The series explores practical solutions to manage change within insurance providers.

Anti-money laundering, know your customer, and curbing the financing of terrorism

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) obligations are complex issues that require concerted action across all market participants; including banks, supervisory authorities, payment schemes and the international community. They all have a role to play in addressing the issues that have given rise to the phenomenon known as ‘de-risking’, which has seen banks closing accounts and exiting markets in order to reduce their exposure to regulatory enforcement action, in preference to managing the risk.

This is according to a new report, entitled “Anti-Money Laundering, Know Your Customer and Curbing the Financing of Terrorism”, published today by the Financial Sector Deepening Africa (FSD Africa) in partnership with Consult Hyperion. The report concludes that the need for financial service providers to pursue a comprehensive approach to due diligence (of both customers and of commercial partners) and AML is greater than ever.

It recommends that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) -defined Risk-Based Approach (RBA) should be embraced in collaboration with national regulatory authorities.  Without full backing for the RBA from these authorities, and – in most cases – their counterparts in the US, there is a risk that financial institutions will continue to withdraw their services from particular markets and take refuge in ‘de-risking.’

Commenting on the report, Paul Makin, the Head of Financial Inclusion at Consult Hyperion, says: “The areas of money laundering and KYC are complex and multi-faceted, with many interlinking issues and unexpected consequences. This report demystifies the subject, and presents a coherent view of how we got here; why banks choose to withdraw from markets for particular groups of customers, how this came to be characterised as ‘de-risking’, and what can be done about it.”

The report concludes that with the continuing terrorism threat, attention should be paid to anonymous transactions which disburse cash. Robust Customer Due Diligence (CDD) processes at banking or mobile money agents must be enforced. Whilst some elements are technical (for example, biometrics, transaction limits, bearing down on cash, etc.), others will be in the areas of organisation and co-operation, particularly around the sharing of transaction and registration data.

Catalysing investment finance for SMEs

This case study looks at FSD Tanzania’s (FSDT) initiative to establish an effective alternative investment channel of the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange (DSE) for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME), the Enterprise Growth Market (EGM). The EGM aims to supply long-term equity capital for growth oriented SMEs in various areas such as agribusiness, agro processing, mining, tourism, manufacturing, banking and financial services.

FSDT sought to catalyse investment finance in MSMEs through the DSE’s EGM. Providing approximately USD1,360,000 to CMSA and DSE in 2011, FSDT supported the operationalisation of the EGM and stimulated take up by firms and investors. This work included public awareness campaigns, providing technical support to MSMEs and nominated advisers and building the regulator’s ability to supervise the EGM segment.

The establishment of the EGM has demonstrated that the stock exchange can provide an investment finance channel that’s relevant to medium-sized companies that do not meet the requirements to list on the main market segment. The potential for growth remains huge due to the large number of MSMEs in Tanzania but will rely on ongoing information dissemination, awareness raising and support to firms, in order to increase both the number and type of companies listing, and attract more investors.

All stakeholders in the EGM have stated that MSMEs and ‘well-researched start-ups’ are worthy of, and able to handle, increased investment, so long as they receive additional technical assistance. The CMSA and DSE have shown support for the EGM by changing regulations and practices. Members of both agencies report that “we have more capacity and increased confidence to supervise and run the EGM. But it’s a nascent market and we will continue to need technical and financial support”.

Getting ahead of the curve: how the regulatory discourse on M-insurance is changing

Posted on by Kihingu Inc

Nearly a year ago, we joined the A2ii in Abidjan to sit down with a roomful of regulators to discuss the challenges and imperatives CIMA faces in regulating mobile insurance at the CIMA-A2ii Workshop on Mobile Insurance Regulation. In the CIMA context, as with most countries in Africa, mobile network operators (MNOs) and the technical service providers (TSPs) that support them are emerging as key players in extending the reach of insurance. The discussions at the workshop focused on how insurance regulators can broaden their focus to include these MNOs and TSPs, as well as how to cooperate across different regulatory authorities.

A year on, these considerations remain as valid as ever, but we have come to realise that there is more at stake than m-insurance. Digital technology is changing the insurance landscape as we know it by paving the way for new players and business models with the potential to rapidly expand coverage. This is causing a re-think of how insurance is traditionally delivered. In addition, while m-insurance remains important, looking beyond m-insurance to the broader insurtech field is important to truly understand the opportunities technology provides to change the game in inclusive insurance and the associated risks.

Thus far, the insurtech debate has largely focused on developed country opportunities. But the tide is turning. My colleagues and I recently scanned the use of insurtech in the developing world to see what the potential is for addressing challenges in inclusive insurance. We found more than 90 initiatives in Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa that fit the bill. What we saw is that the “insurtech effect” is happening in two ways.

Firstly, digital technology is a tool to make insurance as we know it better: it is being used as a backbone to various elements of the insurance life cycle, in an effort to streamline processes, bring down costs and enable scale. Examples include new ways of data collection, communication and analytics (think big data, smart analytics, telematics, sensor-technology, artificial intelligence – the list goes on), as well as leveraging mobile and online platforms for front and back-end digital functionality (such as roboadvisors, online broker platforms, mobile phone or online claims lodging and processing, to name a few!).

It also allows for more tailored offerings: on-demand insurance initiatives are covering consumers for specific periods where they need that cover, for example for a bus ride, on vacation or when borrowing a friend’s car for one evening, while advances in sensor technology mean that insurers can adapt cover and pricing based on usage, for example allowing customers to only pay car insurance for the kilometres they actually drive every month.

In all of the above, digital technology, including the application of blockchain for smart contracting and claims, makes the process seamless.

Secondly, digital technology is a game changer. In many ways, it is changing the way insurers do business, design and roll out their products, and, importantly, who is involved in the value chain. Peer to peer platforms (P2P) are a much-discussed example of these next generation models. They are designed to match parties seeking insurance with those willing to cover these risks. The revolutionary element lies in the ability to cover risks that insurers usually shy away from due to the lack of data to adequately price the risks – all now enabled by digital technology. But these platforms are often positioned in regulatory grey areas: if all the platform does is match people to pool their own risks, does it then need a licensed insurer involved? And if advice is provided by a robot powered by an algorithm, who is ultimately accountable?

No wonder insurance supervisors are sitting up straight when you mention the word “tech”. As Luc Noubussi, microinsurance specialist at the CIMA secretariat, said at the 12th International Microinsurance Conference in Sri Lanka late last year: “Technology can have a major impact on microinsurance, but change is happening fast and regulators need to understand it”.

So, how do they remain on the front foot in light of all of this, what different functions, systems and players do they need to take into account and what are the risks arising? In short: how can they best facilitate innovation while protecting policyholders? Front of mind is how current regulatory and supervisory frameworks should accommodate new modalities, functions and roles – many of them outside the ambit of “traditional” insurance regulatory frameworks – and what cooperation is required between regulatory authorities to achieve that.

Two weeks from now we’ll again be sitting down with regulators from sub-Saharan Africa for the Mobile Insurance Regulationconference hosted in Douala, Cameroon, from 23 – 24 February 2017 by the A2ii, the IAIS and the 14 state West-African insurance regulator, CIMA, supported by UK aid, FSD Africa and the Munich Re Foundation. This conference will delve into the opportunities that mobile insurance present and the considerations for regulators and supervisors in designing and implementing regulations to accommodate it. The imperative to find an m-insurance regulatory solution remains, but it is clear that the horizon has broadened: at play is the way that insurance is done across the product life cycle, who the players are in the value chain and, at times, the very definition of insurance.

As we suggested in an earlier blog, this could be microinsurance’s Uber moment, but then regulators need to be on-board. We look forward to taking part in the discussions to see how supervisors plan to do just that.

Five reasons why capital markets matter in Africa

Posted on by Kihingu Inc

The significance of developing domestic capital markets as a means of financing priority sectors and driving economic development is increasingly being acknowledged by policy makers in Africa.

For instance, the African Union (AU), Agenda 2063, prioritises the development of capital markets on the continent to strengthen domestic resource mobilisation and double its contribution to development financing. Similar support is found in several national visions including Nigeria (FSS2020), Zambia (Vision 2030), Rwanda (Vision 2020), Uganda (Vision 2040) and Kenya (Vision 2030). About US$1 trillion in assets are currently held by pension, insurance and collective investment vehicles across sub-Saharan Africa. These funds have a serious problem finding enough investments that meet their risk and return requirements – there just isn’t enough “product” for them.  It means that there are projects today – e.g. in infrastructure – that are not getting financed. But this also has implications for the long-term ability of pension funds to produce adequate incomes for pensioners.

While central to facilitating SSA economic development, there has been little focus on understanding precisely why capital markets matter in Africa.

So why does Africa need capital markets? This article identifies five reason reasons:

  1. Providing long-term financing for priority sectors

Africa faces huge long-term financing needs for the real and social sectors.  FSD Africa (FSDA) estimates the funding gap for SMEs, infrastructure, housingness at over US$300 billion per year. The World Bank estimates that Africa’s infrastructure deficit reduces per capita GDP growth by 2 percentage points each year, delaying poverty reduction efforts. Equally, the Centre for Affordable Housing in Africa, estimates a housing deficit of at least 25 million units in Nigeria, Kenya, Angola, Ethiopia, Cameroon and Cote d’Ivoire. Local currency capital markets can contribute to narrowing the financing gap across these sectors. Capital markets provide long-term funds to growing businesses, infrastructure and housing. Capital markets can also support the financing of social sectors, including health and education.

  1. Complementing reductions in concessional funding

About half of the countries in sub-Sahara Africa are classified as middle income according to the World Bank. In the last decade, 10 countries in sub-Saharan Africa including Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana and Zambia, have joined this middle-income rank. This implies that these countries will gradually be weaned off the World Bank Group’s concessional lending window, International Development Association (IDA). In addition, they can expect to receive less concessional funding from bilateral donors. This implies that many of these countries will need to access commercial funding sources. The Eurobond market, one of such sources, exposes countries to significant foreign currency risk, because these bonds are denominated in hard currencies, leading to higher chances of defaulting on this debt. Local currency capital markets can ideally complement external funding to meet developmental challenges.

  1. Financing global challenges

According to the African Development Bank (AfDB), the share of Africans living in urban areas is set to rise from 36% in 2010 to 50% by 2030. Urbanisation at this rate can cause significant stress to infrastructure, social services and proliferation of slums. According to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), Africa is projected to bear the greatest impact of climate change with the costs of adaption being estimated between 5-10% of GDP. Capital markets can contribute to financing of climate change investments through green bonds. Capital markets can also support urban development by financing urban infrastructure and housing projects. Capital markets instruments including Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS), incorporating so-called Social REITS, can support affordable housing finance.

  1. Managing foreign currency and re-financing risks

The income streams associated with key infrastructure and housing investments are often denominated in local currency. By funding these investments in long-term local currency instruments, governments and the private sector avoid foreign exchange and refinancing risks. The Asian financial crisis in the 1990s and the crisis in Latin America in the 1980s powerfully demonstrated the importance of developing local currency markets. In Asia, overexposure to foreign currency loans led to economic collapse in several countries. On the other hand, refinancing risk arises where short-term debt is used to fund long-term projects. Failure to roll over this debt in the short term can lead to high financing costs and potentially defaults. Numerous examples exist where this has resulted in collapsed companies and job losses.

  1. Diversifying the financial sector

The financial sector in Africa is relatively small and bank-dominated. There have been significant advances in the banking sector over the last decade with increasing access to previously excluded populations, especially using mobile technology. However, the banking sector remains characterised by high interest rate margins and high returns on equity and assets. This implies that the sector is not playing its intermediation role effectively. By developing capital markets, countries can facilitate the diversification of the financial sector, providing a useful complement to the banking sector (at times competing with the banking sector, at other times encouraging it, e.g. through risk sharing instruments, to play a bigger role in new areas) and providing the public and private sectors access to long-term financing which is so hard to come by in SSA.  Capital markets can also help create new kinds of institutions through equity investment, tus broadening the sources of supply of finance.

As a strategic response, FSDA aims to transform capital markets in Africa into a credible source of funding for the real and social sectors. The priorities over the next five years include the bond markets (both government and non-government), alternative finance (including fintech and crowd funding, REITs and Islamic Finance), and equity (public and private) market development. Support for non-government bonds will focus on green bonds and issues in both the real and social sectors.

FSDA will leverage technical assistance interventions on the regulatory front with transactions support, aimed at developing a pipeline of potential issuers, and catalytic investments through development capital (DevCap). FSDA also aims to build the information base around long term finance – databases currently are scarce and incomplete – and will work closely with institutional investors to build their capacity to invest in the newer asset classes. FSDA will actively forge perships to implement its long-term finance agenda.,

Harbingers of doom? bank failures in Africa – how to interpret these

Posted on by TIMOTHYRADIER

Yesterday, Zambia’s central bank announced it had taken over a commercial bank, Intermarket, after the latter failed to come up with the capital it needed to satisfy new minimum capital requirements. Three weeks ago, a Mozambican bank – Nosso Banco – had its licence cancelled, less than two months after another Mozambican bank, Moza Banco, was placed under emergency administration.

At the end of October, the Bank of Tanzania stepped in to replace the management at Twiga Bancorp, a government-owned financial institution which was reported to have negative capital of TSh21 billion.  A week before that, just over the border in Uganda, Crane Bank, with its estimated 500,000 customers, was taken over by the central bank, having become “seriously undercapitalised”. In DR Congo, the long-running saga of BIAC, the country’s third largest bank, continued in 2016, forced to limit cash withdrawals after the termination of a credit line from the central bank. And in Kenya, Chase Bank collapsed in April, bars after the failure of Imperial.

How are we to interpret this? It seems that 2016 is the year in which latent fragility in Africa’s banking sectors is being laid bare.  After years in which observers have favourably contrasted the relative stability of African banking with the financial sector chaos in Europe and the US, it seems that three critical perils – mismanagement, political interference and economic woes – are conspiring to transform the landscape of African banking into a decidedly treacherous place for depositors and investors.

We have had remarkably few bank failures in Africa in recent years and yet this sudden uptick in stories like Crane and Chase, against a backdrop of economic challenges in many places, raises the question as to whether there is worse to come.

Mismanagement and/or political interference have been at the root of most bank collapses over the past few decades. Martin Brownbridge’s grimly fascinating analysi”https://fsdafrica.org/knowledge-hub/blog/harbingers-of-doom-bank-failures-in-africa-how-to-interpret-these/#_ftn1″ name=”_ftnref1″>[1] on this subject from 1998 concluded that “moral hazard, with the adoption of high-risk lending strategies, in some cases involving insider lending” was behind most of the bank collapses in the 1990s. This certainly resonates today. Catastrophic lapses in governance rather than economic malaise are alleged to be behind the recent Kenyan bank failures (although their shareholders and directors vigorously refute this) – but how else can you explain why a small number of banks fail when the sector as a whole has been returning well over 20% on its equity for the past several years?

There are some excellent programmes like “http://www.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/programs-a-projects/abf” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Accions’s Africa Board Fellowship Program, which aims to strengthen capacity at financial institutions because their promoters understand that weak governance undermines trust in the financial system and is therefore very bad for financial inclusion. But it is one thing to know what you’re supposed to do as a bank board director – quite another to actually do it.

Each bank failure seems to have its own special story – and we derive comfort from this. It is somehow reassuring to think that that might be the case because the prospect of a system-wide failure is so awful.

And each country context has particular features that impinge on the stability of the financial system. There are deep concerns in Kenya, for example, that the recent imposition of interest rate caps is going to result in a very messy period of bank failures and/or consolidation.

But are there common patterns that we should be taking note of?  Is there a system-wide issue that we should be facing up to?

Well, one pattern might be positive – that central banks are intervening more, and more quickly, to weed out the miscreants, less cowed by the politicians than they might have been in the past and more concerned to protect their well-earned professional reputations. Another is that central banks are finally implementing the increases in minimum capital requirements which many have been talking about for years with the inevitable intended consequence that some banks will be forced to get out of the market.

These might be two good reasons why we are seeing more collapses. You could say that’s excellent news for the future of African banking. But perhaps only to a point. There is still the risk that the cumulative effect of bank failures as a result of zealous supervisory action causes a loss of faith in the entire system resulting in mass panic and the withdrawal of deposits and credit lines.

Also, the inevitable result of this would be fewer, bigger banks which may have negative consequences for competition and access – altht worth pointing out that Tanzania, which has 55 commercial banks, still only manages to bank around 12% of its adult population (FinScope).

The more concerning issue is the impact of underlying economic weakness. Leaving aside the paradox that some of these bank failures are taking place in economies that are growing quite fast (Kenya and Tanzania forecasting 6-7% GDP growth), lower commodity prices and their pervasive impact across African economies are going to make life much tougher for banks – especially if they are poorly managed and have political skeletons in their cupboards.

One problem we have, especially when economic conditions are changing fast and for the worse (as in Mozambique), is that data is often out of date and is not sufficiently disaggregated. So, when we look at Africa as a whole, or even the banking system of one country as a whole, the averages we tend to look at create a blithely benign picture which masks dramatic variations.

So, non-performing loans (NPLs) across Africa up to014 were a little over 5% but NPLs in Ghana were more like 11-12%. NPLs in Tanzania are currently a little over 8%, yet Twiga Bancorp’s NPL’s were – unbelievably – at 34% in early 2015, according to media reports.

We think the African banking sector is in for a rocky ride in 2017 and 2018 and, in the short term, this is not good news for the real economy. However, one industry that is set to grow, surely, is central banking supervision.

“https://fsdafrica.org/knowledge-hub/blog/harbingers-of-doom-bank-failures-in-africa-how-to-interpret-these/#_ftnref1” name=”_ftn1″>[1] Brownbridge, M (1998): “Financial distress in local banks in Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia: Causes and implications for regulatory policy” Development Policy Review, vol. 16, no.

Crowdfunding in motion: seven things we learned about P2P markets in East Africa

Posted on by TIMOTHYRADIER

Less than a month ago, on 15 June 2016, the crowdfunding industry in East Africa came together for the first time in Nairobi. This East African Crowdfunding Indaba & Marketplace was co-hosted by FSD Africa and the Kenya Capital Markets Authority, and attended by 65 representative from across the crowdfunding industry in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.

But, what did we learn? We boil it down to seven key points:

  • East African crowdfunding markets are on the move. Crowdfunding markets in East Africa remain nascent, but are growing. According to forthcoming research by Allied Crowds and FSD Africa, crowdfunding platforms (donation, rewards, debt and equity) raised $37.2 million in 2015 in Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. By the end of Q1 2016, this figure reached $17.8 million – a 170% year-on-year increase. Today, there are no platforms located in Tanzania, 1 in Rwanda, 1 in Uganda, 3 in Kenya, 10 in South Africa, with a further 55 located beyond these countries, but doing business within them. Ths platform landscaping report is scheduled for publication in July 2016.
  • East Africa’s platforms report promising progress. Since its launch in September 2012, M-Changa has raised $900,000 through 46,000 donations to 6,129 fundraisers. Popular uses of M-Changa donations include: medical expenses (24%), business activities (24%), education expenses (12%), and funeral expenses (7%). The platform also reports 100% year-on-year growth rates. Since the launch of its pilot phase in December 2015, Pesa Zetu has dispersed c.1,200 loans via mobile phones to low income Kenyans – of loan sizes between $20 and $100 – to test its credit models, processes and technology platform. So far, Pesa Zetu has dispersed c.$59,275 in total. Scale-up in Kenya is planned for Q4 2016. Since its inception in March 2015, LelapaFund has screened over 350 SMEs in East Africa and beyond, and engaged over 30 in due diligence and investment readiness processes in Kenya. Pending regulatory approval, it hopes to open access to its first deals on the platform in 2016. During the event, each platform reported regional ambitions.
  • Global crowdfunding markets are growing fast but also evolving. According to primary and secondary research by CGAP, the finance raised by crowdfunding platforms worldwide increased from $2.7 billion in 2012 to an estimated $34 billion in 2015. This figure is expected to reach $96 billion by 2025 in developing countries alone. Today, there are approximately 1,250 active platforms globally. They typically fall into four typologies (donation, rewards, debt and equity), but hybrids are fast emerging. In the UK, up to 40% of the capital raised by P2P platforms is institutional in its origin.
  • East Africa’s MSMEs express a demand for alternative finance, but they’re not always investment-ready or able to locate financiers. According to LelapaFund research, c.45% of Kenyan start-ups sampled require between $10,000 and $50,000 growth capital, while c.40% require between $50,000 and $250,000 for expansion/export (22%), marketing (23%) and product development (29%). For Kenyan SMEs, c.50% of firms sampled require between $100,000 to $500,000 for expansion/export (40%), marketing (21%) and product development (29%). Both start-ups and SMEs received more capital from friends and family than banks. Vava Coffee reported difficulties locating and accessing sources of non-bank finance, especially as a female entrepreneur. The firm also highlighted the importance of data and evidence when raising finance because it demonstrates a track record. LelapaFund has committed significant resources to identify investment-ready SMEs for its platform. Of 350 Kenyan SMEs screened, less than 10% proceeded to due diligence phase. Financial literacy training for SMEs, low cost due diligence models, improved signposting of SMEs to sources of investment and the use of Company Registry data were suggested as means to address a lack of investment-ready SMEs in the region.
  • There are both commercial and development opportunities for crowdfunding platforms in East Africa. Through their use of technology, crowdfunding platforms have the potential to mobilise and allocate capital more cheaply and quickly than the banking industry and development agencies. This could lead to the disintermediation of both through increased efficiency and competition, as well as increased access to finance for low income individuals and growing companies. Where mobile phone technology is currently used to provide micro-savings and micro-credit in East Africa, interest rate spreads remain significant – c.3% p.a. for saving, and c.90% p.a. to lend. This presents a market opportunity, particularly for P2P debt finance platforms.
  • Crowdfunding risks and the regulatory environment. Globally, many crowdfunding markets are not yet regulated. The unique nature of crowdfunding models means that they straddle traditional payments, banking and securities laws. In jurisdictions where financial industry regulators are not consolidated into a single unified authority, platforms may also straddle regulating departments. In some countries, such as the New Zealand, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States, crowdfunding is subject to special tailored regimes. In the UK, for example, the Financial Conduct Authority has developed a Regulatory Sandbox, which provides a safe space for innovative firms to test products and services with real consumers in a real environment, without incurring all of the normal regulatory consequences of engaging in this activity. In East Africa, there is no specific regime for crowdfunding regulation. Instead, sections of existing banking and securities legislation are used, but are open to interpretation. However, there is evidence of innovation. In Kenya, for example, Section 12A‪ of the Capital Markets Act provides a safe space for innovations to grow before being subject to the full regulatory regime. During the event, the Kenya Capital Markets Authority, Rwanda Capital Markets Authority, Uganda Capital Markets Authority, and CGAP’s consumer protection specialist expressed cautious optimism about the future of crowdfunding markets in East Africa, noting particularly risks around: inexperienced borrowers and investors, digital fraud, data protection and non-performing loans/investments.
  • There’s appetite to do business and to learn more from across East Africa. A total of 65 participants attended the Indaba & Marketplace from all corners of the East African market: a) supply-side (crowdfunding platforms, impact investors and micro-finance institutions such as Pesa Zetu, M-Changa, LelapaFund, Novastar Ventures, Letshego Holdings), b) demand-side (SMEs and consumer protection specialists such as Vava Coffee, EcoZoom, Burn), c) business service providers (data analytics firms, law firms, market intelligence firms and technology providers such as Anjarwalla & Khanna, IBM, Zege Technologies, Allied Crowds, Digital Data Divide, Open Capital Advisors, Genesis Analytics, Intellecap), d) rule-makers (regulators and policy makers such as the Kenya Capital Markets Authority, Rwanda Capital Markets Authority, Uganda Capital Markets Authority, UK Financial Conduct Authority), and e) donor agencies (market facilitators, think tanks and aid agencies such as Access to Finance Rwanda, CGAP,  FSD Kenya, FSD Tanzania, FSD Uganda, UN Women).

So, what’s next?

First of all, for more facts and figures, please find all the presentations delivered during the crowdfunding indaba and marketplace here.

Second, we’re keen to move beyond discussion towards new partnerships and deal-making. With this in mind, please find a full list of participants here. If you’d like specific contact details then email Fundi Ngundi (fundi@fsdafrica.org), who will ask permission from the counterpart before connecting you.

Third, through partnership, FSD Africa will continue to support the development of crowdfunding markets in East Africa. The Allied Crowds platform landscaping research is scheduled for publication in July 2016. A regulator support exercise has been launched and will conclude in September 2016. It will be led by Anjarwalla & Khanna and the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. Where beneficial to the poor and the wider crowdfunding market, FSD Africa will also provide light touch support to platforms themselves. If there’s demand, there could be scope for a follow-up Indaba and Marketplace in early 2017. If you’d like to collaborate then please be in touch.

Lastly, thank you to all the speakers, panelists, facilitators and participants for your lively contributions last week. Albeit steadily, crowdfunding markets are on the move in East Africa!