This is a great article and reinforces a lot of the same information in the recently released RESULTS Education Fund USA Microcredit Summit Campaign report for 2007.
I wish to point out where it said in the article “...no single MFI, to our knowledge, currently implements all of the practices we recommend…” that the authors and readers may wish to learn of the work of Jamii Bora in Kenya.
Jamii Bora was initiated when 50 street beggars families were given loans in 1999. It has now grown to over 170,000 savers and 60,000 borrowers. When borrowers were struggling to make their payments, investigation revealed that most clients had a family member in hospital and were using their loans to make medical payments, so they started their own health insurance that costs a family of four $12/year. They also introduced life insurance for members which provides payments that are double the amount borrowed to the family of the deceased member.
Jamii Bora also has a business academy, a counselling program, a program to help alcoholics and their families, is in the process of building their own housing community with their own utilities company. They work with their clients to ensure that there is not a concentration of any one type of business, helping everyone to recognize that a diverse business community is a successful business community.
All staff at Jamii Bora are graduates of Jamii Bora, therefore those who have pulled themselves out of poverty are the ones out there encouraging others just like them with their own examples of success.
Perhaps the greatest reason that the Jamii Bora model is so incredibly effective relates back to the main premise of your article. It is Client-Centered. The request for help came from the poorest of Nairobi and has been built by people who can now say there were formerly the poorest of Nairobi.
It is a model that many can learn from and that may have already benefitted from.
This is a great article! I like the fact that the authors emphasized on measuring the social impact of Microfinance instead of just focusing on repayment rates as indicators of “success”. I certainly agree with the authors’ main point which states that, “if the goal of microfinance is to alleviate poverty, then all MFIs should focus on helping their clients build successful enterprises.” The success of Microfinance should not be based on the size of the loan portfolio or the number of clients that an MFI has; instead the emphasis should be on creating sustainable life change by helping clients build strong and resilient businesses. So, I commend the authors for the great work!
forgive me, many places, I lost myself, missed to register, but the comment from Margo Purcell was assuring on Jamii Bora model; as an NGO and a honorary principal of a community college, my responsibilities are many fold now, micro finance, credit and enterprise are always attractive; attended few months back on a bankers meet on micro finance, the theme was that the SSHGs shall graduate from good saving to small investments, which is not happening; are we not born entrepreneurs or are we defeated and beaten up to an end of seeking employment; Margo’s “diverse business community is successful business community” gives us much more than the old story of not putting all our eggs in one basket… the situation in India in our parts, looks bit tricky, the SSHGs have good savings record, but no money for investment
I’m just wondering if the authors studied the Grameen Bank model extensively? From what I’ve read it seems to me that the Grammeen approach is very much client centered, while at the same time being economically viable. In order for a micro credit program to attain sustainability and stand the test of time I think it’s critical to also be viable. Hence, the challenge would be to balance a client centred approach with sensible economic practices.
The article covers many of the aspects important to MED’s (micro enterprise development). There are three legs to any economic stool. Not in order, capital to make a business work. This is well understood in the industry. The second is the social capital which is clearly dealt with in the article. At this point the authors say they see very little to conclude about the value of MED and thus focus more on the social aspects: skill, knowledge, etc. This is also part of the answer. They correctly conclude many of the poorest of the poor are not ready to do business as the social captial is not in place. This must be dealt with. I discuss this in my book: God is at Work: Transforming People and Nations through Business.
They completely ignore the most important part of economic development. It is Spiritual Capital which I discuss extensively in the book. Simply put, spiritual capital is a critical third component of success. What is Spiritual Capital? I cannot do the subject justice here but it is the fundamental fabric which makes the relations and business environment work for the good of the whole. There is not spiritual capital in the efforts of the Grameen Bank on in any of the efforts in Bangladesh. As a result, while more microloans have been given per capita in Bangladesh than in any other nation in the world, their economy and therefore well being has not move one iota in 30 years.
Sadly enough, most MED programs do not spend much time in this third are as a part of their teaching. They don’t even know it exists, Nobel (Prize awarded to the contrary.) and fail to embrace it. When they do, the confusion alluded to in the article is cleared up and results begin to happen.
Ken Eldred
It would appear that many of the comments lean towards developing a more practical methodology of measuring success in this field. And obviously, if one were to do that, it does help to have definitive objectives in mind. Ken Eldred’s comment hits the mark as every human and all human endeavors have a spiritual component. This is especially true in most 2/3rds world cultures as the spiritual side of man is better understood. I would especially be interested in hearing from others who can point to solid examples and stories of community transformation through the use of these types of loans. Are there many out there? What would be the best resource to tap in order to gather this information?
At Washington CASH we’ve agreed as a board that we do not measure our success by loans outstanding, because we don’t want to pressure clients to take inappropriate loans. We have a training-centered program. For us, a client who realizes that starting a business is quite difficult and they’d rather work harder at their job and get promoted (one client told just such a story in our December graduations) is a success. We’ve also begun to incorporate aspects of “life skills training” into our program because we truly aim to reach out to the poor, and our recent MicroTest results affirm that we are doing that.
Common sense is not common practice. If the emphasis is on building a program or a model - then you’re building a program or a model. If the emphasis is on building people - then you’re building people. And building people will always be more valuable than building programs. But, I must say that even if a microfinance model was stripped of all it’s people building and client centered services it would beat any other social program stripped of its people building qualities. Why? Because of it’s inherent principles: it creates ownership of a loan, responsibility to pay it back, it often requires that borrowers become entrepreneurial and to create a vision for how the money will be spent, etc. I guess you could say that it is impossible to totally strip microfinance of its people building qualities. Compare worst case scenarios and best case scenarios - microfinance will likely come out on top every time.
This leads me to my other thought - one thing that always makes me cringe as I read commentaries that question whether or not microfinance is alleviating poverty is the fact that there is no recognition that these things take time. Microfianance has been around for centuries, and it only became a “popular” development tool in the 90s, and really didn’t come of age until Muhammad Yunus & Grameen won the Nobel Peace Prize not even 2 years ago. Microfinance is only in the beginning of the first quarter of a four quarter game. Ask yourselves - if Microfinance is given a full 4 quarters (4 generations: each generation = 20 years) what do you predict the result will be? I truly believe that 80 years from now you will find countries where governments allowed markets to work, that microfinance has alleviated poverty. Mothers invest in education and health of children. Then those children invest in their children’s education and health, and those children’s children invest in their children’s education and health with the education and health care being progressively better each generation. By the 3rd generation there will be a marked improvement in the number of successful Small and Medium enterprises, etc. If countries can achieve America rates of poverty in 80 years I would consider that a great success. Is it doable? Never mind statistics and academic talk; look at the excitement and the growing interest and number of educated and innovative entrepreneurs getting into this space and look what it is based on - an idea that makes use of a model that has inherent people building qualities. Will it be hard and messy - of course. Building people can be extremely difficult and hard. But that’s a good thing not a bad thing.
I invite readers to consider another approach to microenterprise that is entirely client-centered and that DOES measure the change in standard of living of its business leaders. This is the program offered by Village Enterprise Fund (VEF - http://www.villageef.org). This organization (where I serve on the board) decided at its inception 20 years ago that it would target the rural poor, and would do so NOT with loans but with a program of training, mentoring, and grants. As the authors correctly identify, rural poor—often subsistence farmers—do not have the education, background or experience to run a small business. The VEF program targets the extremely poor (below $1 a day) and links them with a trained business mentor in or near their village community. That mentor helps the group choose a business to start based on their skills and the markets they can access, and provides training on basic record keeping, sales, profits, and group decision making (as the businesses all have 5 or more people involved). VEF collects baseline data on each business started on socioeconomic measures like children’s school enrollment, the number of meals eaten per day, type and quality of housing, livestock owned, etc. The organization just released the results of a longitudinal study, assessing the same measures 2 to 5 years later, and found significant improvements in nutrition, school enrollment, savings (in the form of livestock), and various household assets (beds, mattresses, tin roofs rather than thatch, etc.). This study will be posted on their website shortly. Check it out!
We couldn’t agree more with “In Microfinance, Clients Must Come First,” by Datar, Epstein and Yuthas. Microfinance aims to alleviate poverty by providing access to credit to the world’s poorest entrepreneurs. But, as the authors allude, if merely giving money to entrepreneurs will propel them out of poverty, microlenders must be smarter than every investor in the world. That logic clearly is flawed. The assumption is that lending alone will achieve successful results. We know that’s incomplete. But lending, combined with business education, may be the key to propelling the world’s poorest entrepreneurs out of poverty.
Just as venture capitalists provide to their entrepreneurs to improve their chances of success, MFIs should provide additional, non-monetary resources for their borrowers. We recognize that the scope and scale of microfinance don’t make that a resource-efficient practice.
That challenge, presented to us by the chairman of a Thai MFI in January 2007, energized us to search for, and ultimately to create, a tool that could help entrepreneurs and MFIs begin conversations that would result in better business decisions – and better outcomes.
We created a tool, the Barefoot MBA, to meet that challenge. The Barefoot MBA seeks to give the world’s smallest business owners knowledge and concepts to empower them to make better business decisions and provide better lives for themselves, their families and their communities. The Barefoot MBA is intended to be used by existing organizations that have resources, relationships and infrastructure. It is a free, open-source tool, supported by us, available to all at http://www.barefootmba.org.
The Barefoot MBA’s lessons are taught through storytelling, the simplest, most time-tested method of teaching. Because they require no literacy, props or technology, they are accessible to anyone, anywhere. The stories are modular, their examples context-specific but adaptable; we include in our materials a guide to adapting the Barefoot MBA to other cultures and norms.
Microfinance debt is more useful with services that help entrepreneurs make effective, successful decisions with their new money. We hope to work with others in the field to help those trying to make ends meet bring those ends a little closer together.
The article has succintly captured the difference between banking in the historical sense and microcredit.
Customer centred lending is the only way to really ensure that the poor and marginalised have “real “, as opposed to “nominal “access to resources . The hard part of Microcredit is creating that customer centred culture. The article creates a model which can shape the future of microcredit, and hence influence the economic prosperity of many.
One organisation that has done that very successfully in India is Sewa,in Ahemdabad. The distinction between a consumption and production loan is analysed- surprisingly , the loans that we would usually consider consumtion loans - for piped water in a home or a cement floor for the house, are treated as production, because analysis has shown that these improve health and productivity- the benefit of piped clean water is self explanatory, but the cement floor leads to a more stable platform for the sewing machine, and hence improves productivity and earning capacity.
This type of close identification with the customer is waht has made Sewa so successful.
I missed seeing references to this and other work being done in this area in India.
This is the strong message.most of mfi are mostely interested in making profit than them helping in redusing poverty.I am working for Small Entreprise Foundation and through dedication we managed to target poor people in different communities where we aproach village leaders,civics,churches,women forums and schools to assist us in doing poverty wealth ranking.And this had possitive results as we now have more than 65 000 clients.
I think that this is a well written article and very informative. Microfinance is explained very well along with the ramifications of it’s use. I wonder if the repayment of small loans will out weigh the debt service of the lending institutions?
i think most projects that are aiming at poverty eradication are failing.lets look at small enterprise foundation where mr. malungana is working.they are giving loans to woman but they dont teach them business skills.all their business are failing.another factor is their criteria to qualify.a group of five,pay for one another.they even give a loan to 90 year old.what is this mama going to do with loan.the truth is the company is not fighting poverty but increasing it.their main aim is to generate money.they are just using the name enterprise foundation but nothing is happening.
It is indeed true that clients must absolutely be prioritized when it comes to microfinance because of the huge difference of the industry as compared to the regular financial market. This is because the main aim of the microfinance industry is to help alleviate the dire state of the clients involved which is poverty and other issues that it ignites. If the MFI still has profit in their minds, then the whole situation is just completely messed up.
I am a student of finance and I need to know that how can I get the customers in case I am going to start an MFI ,how will I know who my target group is,how will I
convincemy target group,how will I distribute the credit and on what basis will I target my customers?please I need help,if anyone can.
COMMENTS
BY Margo Purcell
ON December 20, 2007 10:30 PM
This is a great article and reinforces a lot of the same information in the recently released RESULTS Education Fund USA Microcredit Summit Campaign report for 2007.
I wish to point out where it said in the article “...no single MFI, to our knowledge, currently implements all of the practices we recommend…” that the authors and readers may wish to learn of the work of Jamii Bora in Kenya.
Jamii Bora was initiated when 50 street beggars families were given loans in 1999. It has now grown to over 170,000 savers and 60,000 borrowers. When borrowers were struggling to make their payments, investigation revealed that most clients had a family member in hospital and were using their loans to make medical payments, so they started their own health insurance that costs a family of four $12/year. They also introduced life insurance for members which provides payments that are double the amount borrowed to the family of the deceased member.
Jamii Bora also has a business academy, a counselling program, a program to help alcoholics and their families, is in the process of building their own housing community with their own utilities company. They work with their clients to ensure that there is not a concentration of any one type of business, helping everyone to recognize that a diverse business community is a successful business community.
All staff at Jamii Bora are graduates of Jamii Bora, therefore those who have pulled themselves out of poverty are the ones out there encouraging others just like them with their own examples of success.
Perhaps the greatest reason that the Jamii Bora model is so incredibly effective relates back to the main premise of your article. It is Client-Centered. The request for help came from the poorest of Nairobi and has been built by people who can now say there were formerly the poorest of Nairobi.
It is a model that many can learn from and that may have already benefitted from.
BY Microfinance
ON December 21, 2007 02:31 PM
This is a great article! I like the fact that the authors emphasized on measuring the social impact of Microfinance instead of just focusing on repayment rates as indicators of “success”. I certainly agree with the authors’ main point which states that, “if the goal of microfinance is to alleviate poverty, then all MFIs should focus on helping their clients build successful enterprises.” The success of Microfinance should not be based on the size of the loan portfolio or the number of clients that an MFI has; instead the emphasis should be on creating sustainable life change by helping clients build strong and resilient businesses. So, I commend the authors for the great work!
BY purushothaman pillai
ON December 23, 2007 06:56 AM
forgive me, many places, I lost myself, missed to register, but the comment from Margo Purcell was assuring on Jamii Bora model; as an NGO and a honorary principal of a community college, my responsibilities are many fold now, micro finance, credit and enterprise are always attractive; attended few months back on a bankers meet on micro finance, the theme was that the SSHGs shall graduate from good saving to small investments, which is not happening; are we not born entrepreneurs or are we defeated and beaten up to an end of seeking employment; Margo’s “diverse business community is successful business community” gives us much more than the old story of not putting all our eggs in one basket… the situation in India in our parts, looks bit tricky, the SSHGs have good savings record, but no money for investment
BY Suji Upasena
ON January 6, 2008 03:40 PM
I’m just wondering if the authors studied the Grameen Bank model extensively? From what I’ve read it seems to me that the Grammeen approach is very much client centered, while at the same time being economically viable. In order for a micro credit program to attain sustainability and stand the test of time I think it’s critical to also be viable. Hence, the challenge would be to balance a client centred approach with sensible economic practices.
BY Ken Eldred
ON January 15, 2008 12:02 PM
The article covers many of the aspects important to MED’s (micro enterprise development). There are three legs to any economic stool. Not in order, capital to make a business work. This is well understood in the industry. The second is the social capital which is clearly dealt with in the article. At this point the authors say they see very little to conclude about the value of MED and thus focus more on the social aspects: skill, knowledge, etc. This is also part of the answer. They correctly conclude many of the poorest of the poor are not ready to do business as the social captial is not in place. This must be dealt with. I discuss this in my book: God is at Work: Transforming People and Nations through Business.
They completely ignore the most important part of economic development. It is Spiritual Capital which I discuss extensively in the book. Simply put, spiritual capital is a critical third component of success. What is Spiritual Capital? I cannot do the subject justice here but it is the fundamental fabric which makes the relations and business environment work for the good of the whole. There is not spiritual capital in the efforts of the Grameen Bank on in any of the efforts in Bangladesh. As a result, while more microloans have been given per capita in Bangladesh than in any other nation in the world, their economy and therefore well being has not move one iota in 30 years.
Sadly enough, most MED programs do not spend much time in this third are as a part of their teaching. They don’t even know it exists, Nobel (Prize awarded to the contrary.) and fail to embrace it. When they do, the confusion alluded to in the article is cleared up and results begin to happen.
Ken Eldred
BY Bill Sunderland
ON January 15, 2008 02:54 PM
It would appear that many of the comments lean towards developing a more practical methodology of measuring success in this field. And obviously, if one were to do that, it does help to have definitive objectives in mind. Ken Eldred’s comment hits the mark as every human and all human endeavors have a spiritual component. This is especially true in most 2/3rds world cultures as the spiritual side of man is better understood. I would especially be interested in hearing from others who can point to solid examples and stories of community transformation through the use of these types of loans. Are there many out there? What would be the best resource to tap in order to gather this information?
BY Shaula M.
ON January 22, 2008 09:52 PM
At Washington CASH we’ve agreed as a board that we do not measure our success by loans outstanding, because we don’t want to pressure clients to take inappropriate loans. We have a training-centered program. For us, a client who realizes that starting a business is quite difficult and they’d rather work harder at their job and get promoted (one client told just such a story in our December graduations) is a success. We’ve also begun to incorporate aspects of “life skills training” into our program because we truly aim to reach out to the poor, and our recent MicroTest results affirm that we are doing that.
BY John M.
ON January 23, 2008 06:55 PM
Common sense is not common practice. If the emphasis is on building a program or a model - then you’re building a program or a model. If the emphasis is on building people - then you’re building people. And building people will always be more valuable than building programs. But, I must say that even if a microfinance model was stripped of all it’s people building and client centered services it would beat any other social program stripped of its people building qualities. Why? Because of it’s inherent principles: it creates ownership of a loan, responsibility to pay it back, it often requires that borrowers become entrepreneurial and to create a vision for how the money will be spent, etc. I guess you could say that it is impossible to totally strip microfinance of its people building qualities. Compare worst case scenarios and best case scenarios - microfinance will likely come out on top every time.
This leads me to my other thought - one thing that always makes me cringe as I read commentaries that question whether or not microfinance is alleviating poverty is the fact that there is no recognition that these things take time. Microfianance has been around for centuries, and it only became a “popular” development tool in the 90s, and really didn’t come of age until Muhammad Yunus & Grameen won the Nobel Peace Prize not even 2 years ago. Microfinance is only in the beginning of the first quarter of a four quarter game. Ask yourselves - if Microfinance is given a full 4 quarters (4 generations: each generation = 20 years) what do you predict the result will be? I truly believe that 80 years from now you will find countries where governments allowed markets to work, that microfinance has alleviated poverty. Mothers invest in education and health of children. Then those children invest in their children’s education and health, and those children’s children invest in their children’s education and health with the education and health care being progressively better each generation. By the 3rd generation there will be a marked improvement in the number of successful Small and Medium enterprises, etc. If countries can achieve America rates of poverty in 80 years I would consider that a great success. Is it doable? Never mind statistics and academic talk; look at the excitement and the growing interest and number of educated and innovative entrepreneurs getting into this space and look what it is based on - an idea that makes use of a model that has inherent people building qualities. Will it be hard and messy - of course. Building people can be extremely difficult and hard. But that’s a good thing not a bad thing.
BY Debbie Hall
ON February 7, 2008 11:05 PM
I invite readers to consider another approach to microenterprise that is entirely client-centered and that DOES measure the change in standard of living of its business leaders. This is the program offered by Village Enterprise Fund (VEF - http://www.villageef.org). This organization (where I serve on the board) decided at its inception 20 years ago that it would target the rural poor, and would do so NOT with loans but with a program of training, mentoring, and grants. As the authors correctly identify, rural poor—often subsistence farmers—do not have the education, background or experience to run a small business. The VEF program targets the extremely poor (below $1 a day) and links them with a trained business mentor in or near their village community. That mentor helps the group choose a business to start based on their skills and the markets they can access, and provides training on basic record keeping, sales, profits, and group decision making (as the businesses all have 5 or more people involved). VEF collects baseline data on each business started on socioeconomic measures like children’s school enrollment, the number of meals eaten per day, type and quality of housing, livestock owned, etc. The organization just released the results of a longitudinal study, assessing the same measures 2 to 5 years later, and found significant improvements in nutrition, school enrollment, savings (in the form of livestock), and various household assets (beds, mattresses, tin roofs rather than thatch, etc.). This study will be posted on their website shortly. Check it out!
BY Katherine Boas and Scott Raymond
ON February 11, 2008 03:53 PM
We couldn’t agree more with “In Microfinance, Clients Must Come First,” by Datar, Epstein and Yuthas. Microfinance aims to alleviate poverty by providing access to credit to the world’s poorest entrepreneurs. But, as the authors allude, if merely giving money to entrepreneurs will propel them out of poverty, microlenders must be smarter than every investor in the world. That logic clearly is flawed. The assumption is that lending alone will achieve successful results. We know that’s incomplete. But lending, combined with business education, may be the key to propelling the world’s poorest entrepreneurs out of poverty.
Just as venture capitalists provide to their entrepreneurs to improve their chances of success, MFIs should provide additional, non-monetary resources for their borrowers. We recognize that the scope and scale of microfinance don’t make that a resource-efficient practice.
That challenge, presented to us by the chairman of a Thai MFI in January 2007, energized us to search for, and ultimately to create, a tool that could help entrepreneurs and MFIs begin conversations that would result in better business decisions – and better outcomes.
We created a tool, the Barefoot MBA, to meet that challenge. The Barefoot MBA seeks to give the world’s smallest business owners knowledge and concepts to empower them to make better business decisions and provide better lives for themselves, their families and their communities. The Barefoot MBA is intended to be used by existing organizations that have resources, relationships and infrastructure. It is a free, open-source tool, supported by us, available to all at http://www.barefootmba.org.
The Barefoot MBA’s lessons are taught through storytelling, the simplest, most time-tested method of teaching. Because they require no literacy, props or technology, they are accessible to anyone, anywhere. The stories are modular, their examples context-specific but adaptable; we include in our materials a guide to adapting the Barefoot MBA to other cultures and norms.
Microfinance debt is more useful with services that help entrepreneurs make effective, successful decisions with their new money. We hope to work with others in the field to help those trying to make ends meet bring those ends a little closer together.
Katherine Boas, MBA ’07
Scott Raymond, MBA ’07
Co-Creators, Barefoot MBA (http://www.barefootmba.org)
BY Anjali Raina
ON April 2, 2008 08:19 PM
The article has succintly captured the difference between banking in the historical sense and microcredit.
Customer centred lending is the only way to really ensure that the poor and marginalised have “real “, as opposed to “nominal “access to resources . The hard part of Microcredit is creating that customer centred culture. The article creates a model which can shape the future of microcredit, and hence influence the economic prosperity of many.
One organisation that has done that very successfully in India is Sewa,in Ahemdabad. The distinction between a consumption and production loan is analysed- surprisingly , the loans that we would usually consider consumtion loans - for piped water in a home or a cement floor for the house, are treated as production, because analysis has shown that these improve health and productivity- the benefit of piped clean water is self explanatory, but the cement floor leads to a more stable platform for the sewing machine, and hence improves productivity and earning capacity.
This type of close identification with the customer is waht has made Sewa so successful.
I missed seeing references to this and other work being done in this area in India.
BY Goodleth Malungana
ON February 22, 2010 01:10 PM
This is the strong message.most of mfi are mostely interested in making profit than them helping in redusing poverty.I am working for Small Entreprise Foundation and through dedication we managed to target poor people in different communities where we aproach village leaders,civics,churches,women forums and schools to assist us in doing poverty wealth ranking.And this had possitive results as we now have more than 65 000 clients.
BY Eric Johnston
ON February 18, 2011 01:38 AM
I think that this is a well written article and very informative. Microfinance is explained very well along with the ramifications of it’s use. I wonder if the repayment of small loans will out weigh the debt service of the lending institutions?
BY noria
ON July 11, 2012 07:09 AM
i think most projects that are aiming at poverty eradication are failing.lets look at small enterprise foundation where mr. malungana is working.they are giving loans to woman but they dont teach them business skills.all their business are failing.another factor is their criteria to qualify.a group of five,pay for one another.they even give a loan to 90 year old.what is this mama going to do with loan.the truth is the company is not fighting poverty but increasing it.their main aim is to generate money.they are just using the name enterprise foundation but nothing is happening.
BY Harry
ON June 28, 2015 04:42 AM
The system timely integrated to web and the complete
process made accessible online.
BY clash of clans gemmes illimité ipod
ON November 19, 2015 08:22 PM
Battle of clans triche est bizarre version entièrement
nouvelle serve générer el nombre illimité de gemmes et or maybe sur
cet compte via jeu.
BY webbrowan
ON December 10, 2015 11:55 PM
It is indeed true that clients must absolutely be prioritized when it comes to microfinance because of the huge difference of the industry as compared to the regular financial market. This is because the main aim of the microfinance industry is to help alleviate the dire state of the clients involved which is poverty and other issues that it ignites. If the MFI still has profit in their minds, then the whole situation is just completely messed up.
BY aiman
ON November 14, 2017 03:47 AM
I am a student of finance and I need to know that how can I get the customers in case I am going to start an MFI ,how will I know who my target group is,how will I
convincemy target group,how will I distribute the credit and on what basis will I target my customers?please I need help,if anyone can.
BY maybank bank
ON November 25, 2017 01:37 AM
nice blog and thanks for the post