Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pakistan Microfinance
Review 2014
Annual Assessment
of the Microfinance Industry
Editorial Board
PMR Team
ii
Acronyms and
Abbreviations
iii
AC &MFD
ADB
AMRDO
AML
Anti-Money Laundering
BPS
Basis Points
CAR
CIB
CDD
CGAP
CNIC
CPP
CPI
CPC
DFI
DFID
DPF
ECA
ESM
EUR
Euro
FATF
FIP
FMFB
FSS
FY
Financial Year
G2P
Government to Person
GBP
GDP
GLP
GNI
GoP
Government of Pakistan
IAFSF
IFAD
IFC
JIWS
KBL
KF
Kashf Foundation
KIBOR
KMFBL
KP
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
MCGF
MCR
MENA
MFB
Microfinance Bank
MFCG
MF-CIB
MFP
Microfinance Providers
MFI
Microfinance Institution
MIS
MSME
MIV
MO
Micro-Options
NADRA
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
NFLP
NMFB
NPLs
Non-Performing Loans
NRDP
NRSP
OPD
OSS
P2P
Person to Person
PAR
Portfolio at Risk
PBA
PKR
Pakistan Rupee
PMN
PO
Partner Organization
PPAF
PRISM
PRSP
PTA
ROA
Return on Assets
ROE
Return on Equity
RSP
SBP
SC
SDS
SECP
SPTF
SME
SRSO
SRDO
SVDP
iv
TMFB
UBL
USD
USSPM
VDO
WPI
PMN VISION
Frontiers of Formal Financial Services
reach out to all
MISSION
Pakistan is ranked among the top 10
countries to have an enabling
environment for financial inclusion by
the Economist Intelligence Units
Global Microscope report
Core Values
Collaboration
Innovation
Diversity
Empowerment
Transparency
Pakistan Microfinance industry now
has assets over PKR 100 billion
MACRO-ECONOMY
Number
of Active
Borrowers
14
0.6
Percentage
2014
USD
Billions of GLP
12
2.5
6 Months
KIBOR
10
Discount
Rate
Consumer
Price
Inflation
(Avergae)
08
06
2010
2011
2012
2013
03
02
1.5
3.5
16
2014
> 3 MILLION
active borrowers
3x
projected growth
Historical and Projected Growth of
Access to
Clearing House
Turnaround
Time
Active Borrowers
Amount in Millions
Retails
Deposits
Confidence
of Regulator
Availability of
Funds for
Mid-Sized MFPs
Microfinance Credit
Guarantee Facility
9.84
Yr 2019
Increase in
Growth
7.87
Yr 2018
Investor
Confidence
Draft NBMFI
Regulations
Mitigate External
Interference
6.30
Yr 2017
4.20
Yr 2015
Mainstreaming
Non-Bank MFPs
5.04
Yr 2016
3.14
Yr 2014
2.35
Yr 2012
2.83
Yr 2013
2.05
Yr 2010
2.07
Yr 2011
CLIENT
PROTECTION
100%
Appropriate
Product Design & Delivery
Channels
100
80%
Mechanism for
Complaint Resolution
CAPITAL
STRUCTURE
5.3
Million Depositors
in 2014
Prevention of
Over-Indebtedness
60%
40%
80
20%
44%
60
Deposits
0%
Transparency
40
Debt
33%
Responsible Pricing
20
% of indicators that are not met
23%
Equity
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Center of
Excellence
Urban
10
20
30
40
50
60
Funding
58%
female borrowers
42%
Regulatory
framework for NBMFIs
male borrowers
Disaster
Risk Management
Highlights
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1.6
1.7
2. 0
2.4
2.8
PKR 20.2
PKR 24.8
PKR 33.1
PKR 46.6
PKR 61.072
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.6
1,405
1,550
1,460
1,606
1,747
12,005
14,202
14,648
17,456
19,881
Total Assets
(PKR billions)
35.8
48.6
61.9
81.5
100.7
Deposits
(PKR billions)
10.1
13.9
20.8
32.9
42.72
Total Debt
(PKR billions)
27.5
38.3
24.9
26.9
31.1
Total Revenue
(PKR billions)
7.5
10.1
12.5
17.3
24.3
99.7
108.4
109.5
118.1
120.6
81.7
100.5
107.5
116.5
119.6
4.1
3.2
3.7
2.5
1.1
Active Borrowers
(in millions)
Gross Loan Portfolio
(PKR billions)
Active Women
Borrowers
(in millions)
Branches
Total Staff
OSS (percentage)
FSS (percentage)
xi
Contents
01
10
INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE
01
11
02
27
04
Conclusion
07
50
ANNEXURES
41
42
59
42
103
Impact Investment
43
43
Regional Benchmarks
140
44
Sources of Data
141
45
152
155
46
46
51
40
xii
Section 1
The Year in
Review
Section 1
The Year in
Review
The year 2014 saw the industry achieve a major milestone by crossing the 3 million active borrowers mark
for the first time. Overall, the industry witnessed
double digit growth in not only credit but also in savings and insurance.
Although the national economy grew at a modest
rate, the macroeconomic stability ensured a favorable environment for the players. Despite the persistent energy crisis and security challenges, positive economic indicators like lower inflation, falling
interest rates and uptake on private credit led to a
positive impact on the sector in terms of growth and
sustainability.
On the policy and regulatory side, the microfinance
banks (MFBs) have been allowed to become members of the national clearing house which will greatly
enhance their ability to mobilize their retail deposits. In addition, to facilitate mid-tier players to raise
funds from commercial sources, risk coverage under
the Microfinance Credit Guarantee Fund (MCGF) was
The year 2014 was a better year for Pakistans economy as it witnessed lower than expected inflation,
reduction in fiscal deficit and improvement in private
sector credit. In addition, the overall economy grew
by 4.1 percent compared to the 3.7 percent in 2013.
However, this was less than the target of 4.4 percent
for the year 2014.
Inflation for the year clocked at 8.6 percent - higher than the previous years 7.4%, but lower than the
expected rate of 11-12 percent. However, despite
the lower inflation, the central bank took a cautious
approach to monetary policy with the policy rate remaining constant for the better part of the year.
The end of the year saw the policy rate cut by 50 bps
taking it from 10 percent to 9.5 percent as shown in
Exhibit 1.1. This trend which continued in early 2015,
would likely result in the lowering of borrowing costs
of Microfinance Providers (MFPs).
Another positive for the year was the uptake in private sector credit growth which registered a double
digit growth of 11.4 percent. This increase which was
the highest in the last six years came on the back of
an increased supply of loanable funds, improvement
in business confidence and lower effective cost of
borrowing. This augurs well for MFPs which are witnessing increased dependence upon commercial borrowing to meet their funding needs.
Discount Rate
6 -Months KIBOR
16
Percentage
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Section 1
Since the proposed regulations cater for the establishment of a consultative group with representatives of the sector to review the regulations
and restrictions, limits, requirements, criterion,
etc. it has been proposed that the consultative
group meet with SECP every six months to bring
the regulator and the industry on the same page
Amendments in Microfinance
Credit Guarantee Facility
(MCGF)
MCGF was launched in 2009 under the auspices of
the Financial Inclusion Program (FIP) with the aim of
boosting commercial funding to the industry by offering partial risk coverage to lenders. In order for the
sector to become sustainable and grow into a viable
part of the financial industry, commercial funding is
undeniably important. Initially MFBs and later, MFIs
and RSPs were allowed to utilize the facility to obtain loans from commercial banks and also issue redeemable capital. However, the uptake of the facility
among small and mid-sized MFBs was low as many
had riskier profiles compared to their larger, more established peers.
SBP recently revised guidelines regarding the MCGF
in order to facilitate and promote lending from commercial financial institutions for small to mid-sized
MFPs. In this regard, a tiering criterion has been developed and the risk coverage for the lender has been
enhanced.
Initially under the MCGF, 25 percent first loss guarantee or 40 percent partial guarantee was provided
in case of bilateral loans or redeemable capital to the
lenders. However, now in the case of bilateral loans
to Tier 2 MFPs, 60 percent partial guarantee is now
being provided. Tier 2 MFPs are defined as those entities that have been in business for 3 years instead
of 5 years which is a criterion for Tier 1 MFPs and
have a GLP above PKR 500 million as compared to
PKR 3 billion for Tier 1. Among other conditions, the
Tier 2 MFP needs to have an improving trend in its
return on assets (ROA) for the past three years and
for last year the ROA needs to be greater than -10
percent. In addition, the Portfolio at Risk (PAR) > 30
days also needs to below 10 percent.
These amendments will likely lead to enhancement
in lending to small and mid-sized MFPs which are
largely reliant on funding from the national apex and
have yet to initiate commercial borrowing relationships. This would allow them to not only enhance
but also diversify their funding sources leading to in-
Risk taking is an inherent element of financial services, and like all financial institutions, microfinance
providers (MFPs) face risks that they must manage
effectively to achieve their financial and social objectives. Poorly managed risks can lead to losses endangering the safety and soundness of microfinance
institutions. Hence, it is imperative for microfinance
providers to have a formal risk management structure in place to counter potential threats.
As part of PMNs long term strategy to achieve sustainable growth in the Pakistan microfinance sector,
the Network is taking constructive steps to promote
sound risk management practices among microfinance practitioners. One initiative PMN has underway is the development of a comprehensive risk register for the microfinance sector in Pakistan.
A risk register is a tool widely used by organizations
for the identification and assessment of risks. The
tool is considered a vital component of the risk management process which serves as a central source for
the organizations risk information and acts as a risk
directory. The tool is used by organizations to list various risks, highlighting their probability and severity
of impact, along with possible risk mitigation steps
and strategies.
PMN is of the opinion that such a tool will enable
MFPs (especially those with no existing risk management structures in place) to understand the nature
of risks faced by the institutes at the departmental and strategic level. The risk register will provide
management and key stakeholders with significant
information on various threats, which can be utilized
to design risk management strategies to mitigate
potential threats.
country. Under the scheme, PKR 3.5 billion were earmarked for the poor and destitute segments of the
population. Initially, the industry stakeholders were
apprehensive about the scheme as it could have
distorted the market for conventional microfinance.
However, in order to safeguard the interest of the
MFPs it was decided that the funds for the scheme
would be routed through the national apex, PPAF and
loans will be extended to those individual who fall below 40 on the poverty scorecard. In order to mitigate
the overlap between interest free loans and conventional microloans, the loans under this scheme would
only be extended in Union Councils that have low or
no penetration of conventional microfinance.
Currently, 24 MFPs have partnered with PPAF in extending interest free loans under this scheme. It is
hoped that the scheme would lead to over 1 million
additional active borrowers over the next three years.
Since this scheme is targeted toward those areas
where conventional microfinance has little or no penetration, it provides MFPs an opportunity to expand
outreach in newer geographic markets. Moreover, it
has the potential to allow for borrowers of interest
free loans to graduate to conventional microfinance.
This is ensured as the interest free loan would be
provided only once to an individual and after the
completion of the first cycle he/she would be eligible
only for a conventional microfinance loan. Lastly in
an industry that views funding as one of the key constraints to growth, it is felt that despite the skepticism, this scheme can be useful for the industry with
change in design and understanding that the interest
free loan program can help in graduation of clients
to the next level and mainstreaming them into the
microfinance segment.
Risk Register
Section 1
ering over 70 percent of the market in terms of overall outreach to active borrowers. These assessments
were made possible with funding support from the
SBP through the DFID-sponsored FIP. The assessments provide a unique opportunity for PMN to observe the state of practice in client protection among
member MFPs; for some of the key findings see Box
1.1. For participating MFPs, the assessments provide
an opportunity to evaluate their practices in comparison with globally accepted standards of client protection, and seek recommendations for institutional
improvements to better comply with the standards.
They also indicate whether an institution is ready to
pursue SMART Certification, a designation recognized
across the global market that an institution successfully integrates Client Protection Principles into their
practices. After undergoing an assessment through
the CPI project and acting on its results, one MFP be-
MicrofinanceCredit
Information Bureau (MF-CIB)
The Microfinance Credit Information Bureau (MF-CIB)
was launched nation-wide in 2012, with the support
of SBP, PPAF, Department for International Development (DFID) and International Finance Corporation
(IFC). It was aimed at mitigating the various challenges faced by the microfinance sector ranging from information asymmetry, adverse selection, and moral
hazard to over-indebtedness due to multiple borrowing. The delinquency crisis in Indias Andhra Pradesh
(2009) and Pakistans Punjab (2008-9) also served as
stark reminders for the industry to institutionalize
Box 1.1
State of Practice in Client Protection
In 2014, PMN conducted analysis of the state of sector in client protection. It is based first 10 third-party assessments
of member MFPs, out of which 5 were for MFIs and 5 were for MFBs. To arrive at this summary, an average was taken
for scores against each client protection principle across these MFPs.
This first look at the state of the sector in client protection provides substantial evidence that clients are kept at the
center of microfinance in Pakistan. At the broad level, the results indicate that MFPs are performing well on the client
protection principles of [1] appropriate product design and delivery, [2] prevention of over-indebtedness, [3] transparency, and [4] responsible pricing (see: graph below). At the same time, the results also reflect weakness in certain
areas, particularly CP principles of privacy of client data and mechanisms for complaints resolution. There are opportunities for improvement in these principles, as well as in certain indicators within the principle of fair and respectful
treatment of clients.
Appropriate
Product Design & Delivery
Channels
100%
80%
Mechanism for
Complaint Resolution
Prevention of
Over-Indebtedness
60%
40%
20%
0%
Privacy of Client
Data
Transparency
Responsible Pricing
Enquries in Thousands
160
140
120
110
80
60
40
20
Jan 14
Feb 14
Mar 14
Apr 14
May 14
Jun 14
Jul 14
Aug 14
Sep 14
Oct 14
Nov 14
Dec 14
Attention is also being paid to improve the governance structure of the Bureau and make it more
inclusive and representative. The Credit Bureau Act,
which is expected to be ratified by the Parliament this
year, will also result in increased transparency from
the service providers perspective. The pricing mechanism is being scrutinized and PMN is working with
the Bureau and MFPs to create a framework for determining prices in future.
PMN is also conducting a financial literacy program
aimed at raising awareness amongst the clients vis-vis the Bureaus importance and utilization. Moreover, a grievance addressing mechanism delineating
the rights and obligations of MFPs, Bureau and Clients is also being worked out.
Branchless Banking
Branchless banking is an important tool available to
the microfinance industry to expand outreach by leveraging cellular technology infrastructure. Moreover,
Currently, 70% of the organizations are actively generating enquiries (35 out of 50 members) and it is expected that enquiry numbers would grow even more
after the complete rollout as some MFPs are currently in a partial rollout state.
Section 1
Over 12 microfinance institutions are currently providing disbursement and recovery services to their
clients through digital channels. Some players have
also started extending insurance services to their
clients through branchless banking channels. The
industry is poised to witness accelerated growth in
future in volume and variety of financial services.
Branchless banking can serve as a growth driver owing to its capacity to increase outreach by lowering
delivery cost and aiding profitability of institutions.
Conclusion
The microfinance industry in Pakistan having witnessed continuous growth over the last few years in
not only credit but also savings, insurance and remittances, is ideally positioned to play an important role
in the inclusive finance sphere. It can offer a wide variety of financial services to the unbanked particularly
at the base of the pyramid.
The current macroeconomic stability in the country provides an ideal environment for the sector to
grow and expand. Falling interest rates on the back of
lower inflation and uptake on private credit provides
an opportunity for the microfinance sector to reduce
costs and fund their expansion by borrowing from
commercial sources.
With major policy and regulatory initiatives like clearing house membership for MFBs and enhanced risk
coverage for lenders to mid-tier MFPs being taken,
players are better poised to address funding challenges. Also, the launch of non-bank MFPs regulatory framework will lead to strengthening of these
institutes and provide them with an opportunity to
expand.
Branchless banking continues to gain popularity and
provides opportunities to not only expand outreach
and reduce costs but also expand the variety of financial services on offer. MF-CIB is fully operation
with enquiries being generated by MFPs and remains
a key catalyst for future growth of the industry. In
addition, significant steps towards ensuring responsible inclusive finance, by working towards global
best practices in client protection have been taken.
Establishment of an industry risk register will allow
members to identify risks and take steps to mitigate
their impact.
Section 1
Industry Performance
Section 2
Industry
Performance
10
Section 2
Industry
Performance
The section is divided into two parts. Section 2A covers the financial performance of the microfinance industry
whereas Section 2B deals with the social performance of the industry.
Box 2A.1
Peer Groups
11
Microfinance Institution: A non-bank non-government organization (NGO) providing microfinance services. Organizations in this group are registered under a variety of regulations, including the Societies Act, Trust Act, and the
Companies Ordinance. The MFI peer group includes local as well as multinational NGOs such as BRAC-Pakistan and
ASA-Pakistan.
Microfinance Bank: A commercial bank licensed and prudentially regulated by the SBP to exclusively service the
microfinance market. The first MFB was established in 2000 under a presidential decree. Since then, ten MFBs have
been licensed under the Microfinance Institutions Ordinance, 2001. Eight of them are operating at national level, while
two at the provincial level. MFBs are legally empowered to accept and intermediate deposits from the public.
Rural Support Programme: An NGO registered as a non-profit company under the Companies Ordinance. An RSP is
differentiated from the MFI peer group based on the purely rural focus of its credit operations. As a group, the RSPs
are registered with and supervised by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP).
Industry Performance
RSP, 5%
MFI, 27%
MFB, 9%
Active borrowers
60
2.50
50
2.00
40
1.50
30
1.00
20
0.50
10
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
70
GLP
3.00
12
Section 2
2014
FINCA
TRDP
39
76
71
110
FMFB
130
149
172
194
180
NRSP Bank
ASA-P
2013
198
TMFB
KF
221
227
312
231
409
KBL
469
391
NRSP
100
200
300
492
400
500
600
witnessed the largest increase in GLP (by PKR 8.7 billion) primarily on the back of KBL, FINCA and FMFB as
their loan portfolios increased by PKR 3.4 billion, PKR
2.0 billion and PKR 1.0 billion respectively. Moreover,
the average loan size of MFBs remained the highest
among peer group (PKR 35,699), indicating a greater
RSP
MFI
MFB
100%
90%
80%
28%
27%
25%
27%
28%
34%
35%
31%
40%
44%
39%
40%
42%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
35%
70%
60%
50%
25%
40%
30%
20%
10%
13
GLP. The share of RSPs in the overall gross loan portfolio has increased from 18% to 19% - this too was on
the back of NRSP which contributed PKR 2.1 billion
worth of loan portfolio.
Furthermore, approximately 82 percent of the industrys GLP is accounted for by nine MFPs (Exhibit 2A.6).
KBL continues to dominate the market in terms of
portfolio size by having a GLP of PKR 12.2 billion
depicting an increase of 38 percent compared to the
previous year. This is reflective of the active borrowers of KBL (second highest in the sector) coupled with
a shift towards higher average loan size (PKR 21,600
in 2013 to PKR 26,100). During the year, FINCA Microfinance Bank saw the greatest percentage increase
in GLP (by a remarkable 98%) from PKR 2.0 billion to
PKR 4.0 billion. The growth in portfolio was mainly
Industry Performance
RSP
MFI
MFB
70
PKR in Billions
60
11.4
50
10
5.3
5.0
6.6
3.9
9.8
28.1
18.7
14.6
2010
10.2
6.7
7.6
30
20
12.9
8.4
40
2011
2012
2013
36.8
2014
2014
ASA-P
1.1
1.2
1.9
KF
FINCA
FMFB
NRSP Bank
2.0
2.7
3.5
3.8
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.8
NRSP
5.2
5.6
TMFB
KBL
7.7
8.3
9.0
8.9
12.2
10
15
SRSO
2013
14
Deposits Outstanding
Depositors
50
Depositors in thousands
6,000
5,000
40
4,000
30
3,000
20
2,000
Deposits outstanding
in billions
Section 2
10
1,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2014
POMFB
Ubank
0.03
0.02
0.21
WMFB
0.70
0.65
0.76
AMFB
2013
1.29
1.19
2.74
FINCA
3.62
NRSP-B
4.66
5.16
KBL
7.13
7.81
FMFB
8.68
8.75
10.63
TMFB
12.26
10
15
Deposit-to-GLP
Deposits
45
In PKR Billions
120%
35
100%
30
25
80%
20
60%
15
40%
10
5
20%
2010
2011
2012
2013
Feb 2014
Deposit-to-GLP Ratio
140%
40
15
GLP
Industry Performance
Policy Holders
70
4.20
60
3.70
50
3.20
40
2.70
30
2.20
Sum Insured in
PKR Billions
Sum Insured
20
1.70
10
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Micro-insurance indicators number of policy holders and sum insured both showed a significant
improvement in the year 2014. The number of policy holders grew by 23.8 percent over the year, rising
from 3.0 million to 3.8 million, while the sum insured
increased by 50.0 percent from PKR 40.3 billion to
PKR 60.4 billion (see Exhibit 2A.10).
The greatest increase in micro-insurance came from
the MFB peer group whose policy holders and sum
insured increased by 46 percent and 80 percent re-
Industry
RSP
MFI
MFB
25%
20%
15%
10%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
spectively. During the year, MFBs enhanced the coverage of their insurance products by securing more
credit clients, along with their spouses. However,
among individual institutes, NRSP remained the largest providers of micro-insurance; holding a market
share of 22 percent and 24 percent in terms of policy
holders and total sum insured, respectively. Among
the types of insurance policies, health insurance constituted almost 51 percent of total insurance policies
followed by credit life at 49 percent.
for the past four years. MFBs tend to target the upper
end of the market through relatively larger loan sizes, and hence have a ratio of 20 percent compared to
MFIs and RSPs which have a ratio of 10 percent each.
The ratio of average loan balance to per capita GNI
witnessed a modest increase for MFBs (by 2 percent)
and MFIs (by 1 percent), while the ratio for RSPs remained stagnant at 10.0 percent. This could be interpreted as the sector continuing to target the poor but
also has implications for appropriate loan sizes in the
5%
16
Section 2
context of Pakistans inflationary environment. Erosion in the value of money means that a loan worth
PKR 30,000 in one year would be considerably lower
in value in the following year.
Gender Distribution
Lending Methodology
Group Borrowing
Individual Borrowing
Active Borrowers
in Thousands
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
76%
1,500
1,000
78%
90%
88%
10%
12%
22%
2011
2012
500
2010
73%
24%
2013
27%
2014
Male Borrowers
100%
90%
25%
80%
70%
60%
89%
50%
40%
74%
58%
75%
30%
17
20%
10%
11%
MFB
MFI
26%
RSP
42%
Total
Industry Performance
Manufacturing/Production
Services
Trade
Livestock/Poultry
Agriculture
Housing
Other
100%
90%
08%
0%
07%
08%
0%
09%
80%
11%
07%
09%
0%
09%
09%
70%
60%
15%
15%
0%
09%
0%
09%
08%
08%
36%
38%
35%
14%
15%
16%
16%
16%
23%
23%
22%
22%
23%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
50%
30%
29%
40%
30%
20%
10%
has been encouraged by various donor and regulatory bodies. The national apex PPAF provides funding to MFPs based on a commitment that at least
40 percent of the borrowers will be women. Large
players such as NRSP, ASA Pakistan, and SRSO have
portfolios that mostly constitute of women borrowers, whereas, Kashf Foundation only lends to women
borrowers.
Rural
Urban
100%
90%
80%
70%
52%
46%
48%
54%
56%
58%
57%
44%
42%
43%
2012
2013
2014
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2010
2011
share of 29 percent. The trade sector primarily comprises of general stores, karyana shops, stall hawkers, fruit vendors, etc. Trade was followed by the
60%
18
Section 2
Financial Structure
Asset Base
The asset base for the industry stood at over PKR
100.71 billion in the year 2014, an increase from PKR
81.55 billion in the previous year showing a year on
year increase of 23 percent.
RSP
MFB
MFI
80
PKR in billions
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2014
PRSP
ASA-P
2.0
2.8
2.5
2.8
4.6
Kashf
FINCA
4.0
5.3
6.4
NRSP
7.3
FMFB
9.8
9.5
9.8
NRSP Bank
10.7
11.8
15.2
TMFB
13.3
KBL
19
2013
10
16.4
16.7
15
20
Asset Composition
The asset utilization ratio which had remained range
bound over the last few years showed notable improvement rising to 60.6 percent in 2014 as compared to 54.5 percent in 2013 as shown in Exhibit
Industry Performance
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Africa
East Asia
and the
Pacific
Middle East
and
North Africa
South Asia
Pakistan
Asset composition remained varied across the industry. MFIs accounted for the highest advances to
total assets ratio closely followed by RSPs as shown
in Exhibit 2A.20. Improvement in the ratio for MFIs
and RSPs is largely due to increase in grace period
being offered by the national apex. MFB peer group
has lower advances to total assets as a number of
players have recently been acquired and their credit
business is in formative stages. In addition, one of
the larger players, FMFB, has only been able to deploy
half of its deposit base leading to lower value for the
Funding Profile
The capital structure of the industry continued to witness the trend of increasing deposits and decrease
in debt in 2014 as shown in Exhibit 2A.21. Deposits
now make up 44 percent of the total funding of the
sector as compared to 39 percent in 2013. Debt has
fallen to 33 percent of the funding from 39 percent
in the same time period. Equity witnessed a slight
increase to account for 23 percent of the total funding on the back of increasing profitability among the
practitioners.
The capital structure continues to be differ among
the peer groups with non-bank MFPs relying on debt
and equity for funding as they are prohibited to mobi-
20
Section 2
Fixed Assets
Investments
100%
Proportion of
Total Assets
19%
80%
20%
20%
4%
3%
4%
0%
22%
24%
Advances
18%
16%
14%
3%
0%
5%
4%
7%
9%
60%
40%
55%
53%
2013
2014
76%
79%
2013
2014
75%
70%
20%
MFB
2013
MFI
2014
RSP
Equity, 23%
Deposits, 44%
Debt, 33%
21
source of funds.
64 percent of the MFBs funding is made up of deposits up from 62 percent in the previous year as shown
in Exhibit 2A.22. In case of MFI peer group, debt continues to make up 80 percent of the funding whereas
in the case of RSPs debt accounts for 70 percent of
the capital, slightly up from 69 percent in the preceding year.
The total net income and total revenues for the industry stood at PKR 3.5 billion and PKR 24.3 billion in
the year 2014 respectively. The unadjusted ROA and
ROE for the industry stood at 4.2 percent and 20.7
percent for the year. Out of the total profit for the industry the MFB peer group accounted for 47 percent
of the profit whereas the MFI and RSP peer groups
made up 25 percent and 28 percent.
The industry continues to be sustainable with Operational Self Sufficiency (OSS) and Financial Self Suffi-
Industry Performance
Deposits
Debt
Equity
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2013
2014
2013
MFB
2014
2013
2014
RSP
MFI
ciency (FSS) not only above 100 percent but also show
an improving trend as seen in Exhibit 2A.23. Out of
the 41 reporting organizations 35 have an OSS above
100 percent. Improvement in OSS and FSS is fuelled
primarily by increasing GLP and growth in outreach.
This points towards the increasing maturity of the
practitioners business models. In addition, MFPs are
Compared globally, the yield on gross portfolio (nominal) continues to be on the higher side (see Exhibit
2A.25). However, the higher yield is largely as a result
of high operating costs which are a function of the
relatively smaller loan sizes offered by the industry.
As the loan sizes increase over time especially after
the start of lending to microenterprises it is antici-
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
2011
2012
2013
2014
2010
22
Section 2
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Exhibit 2A.24: Total Revenue Ratio & Yield on Gross Portfolio Trend
Africa
East Asia
and the
Pacific
Middle East
and
North Africa
South Asia
Pakistan
Financial Services
Loan Portfolio
25
PKR in billions
30
20
15
10
5
2010
2011
2012
23
2013
2014
Industry Performance
30%
20%
10%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
15%
10%
5%
Africa
East Asia
and the
Pacific
Middle East
and
North Africa
South Asia
Pakistan
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
24
Section 2
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Risk
Productivity
Credit Risk
Portfolio at Risk (PAR)>30 days decreased to 1.1 percent in 2014 as compared to 2.5 percent in 2013 (see
Exhibit 2A.32). However, write-offs in the same period increased to 2.3 percent from 1.1 percent. The increase in the write-offs was primarily due to increase
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
2010
2011
2012
25
2013
2014
Industry Performance
Cut off
Write Off
7%
6%
5%
1.8%
2.6%
4%
2.3%
1.5%
3%
2%
4.1%
1%
2.9%
3.7%
2.3%
2.5%
1.1%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Conclusion
On the whole 2014 was a good year for the industry. It
witnessed double digit growth in outreach in all areas
including credit, deposits and insurance. The growth
in the number of depositors was more pronounced
due to the opening of a large number of m-wallet
accounts. Female borrowers continued to constitute
a majority of the borrowers and group lending re-
26
Section 2
Target Market
Identifying their target markets helps to focus MFP
efforts and optimize the limited resources available.
Providing services that are relevant, client oriented
and effective in serving an organizations mission requires a clear understanding of the population that
an MFP aims to reach. MFPs target markets by peer
group are highlighted in Exhibit Exhibit 2B.1. All 5 reporting MFBs cited three multiple targets, including
women, clients living in rural areas and clients living
MFB
09
MFI
19
35
RSP
Total
27
50
27
Industry Performance
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
30
No. of Responses
25
18
18
16
Women
Clients living in
rural areas
Clients living in
urban areas
20
15
10
5
2
Adolescents
and youth
Development Goals
These broad themes translate into a range of development objectives for service providers. The most
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
30
3
3
15
19
19
10
13
5
In
cr
fin ea
an se
ci d a
al cc
se es
rv s
ic to
P
es
ov
er
ty
re
du
ct
io
n
1
2
7
2
14
10
5
3
1
1
2
microfinance institutions and multi-dimensional rural support programmes. For example, mission statements of the microfinance banks are relatively more
focused on expanding access to quality financial services to low income population and as a result improve their quality of life, economically and socially.
Themes of poverty alleviation, empowerment of the
20
Em
ge plo
ne ym
ra e
tio nt
st
n
ar D
t- ev
up e
l
en op
te me
rp n
ri t o
se f
G
s
ro
w
th
o
bu f e
si xis
ne ti
ss ng
Yo
es
ut
h
op
po
rt
un
iti
H
es
ea
lth
im
pr
ov
em
w G
en
om e
t
en nd
's er
em eq
po ua
w lity
er a
W
m n
at
en d
er
t
an
d
sa
ni
ta
tio
n
No. of Responses
25
28
Section 2
Poverty Targeting
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
25
2
20
2
15
16
11
10
1
3
Poor clients
While some MFPs employ only one method to measure poverty levels, others use multiple assessment
tools, as shown in Exhibit 2B.4. MFPs report use of
their own proxy poverty index, as well as Grameen
Progress out of Poverty Index (PPI) and per capita
household income and expenditure. While the MIX
SP framework does not cover the poverty scorecard
prescribed by the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund
(PPAF) designed by The World Bank, this is predom-
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
12
8
6
29
1
t
po O
ve wn
rt p
y ro
in x
de y
N
x
on
e
of
th
e
ab
ov
e
te
s
1
1
G
of ra
P me
ov e
er n
ty Pr
In og
de re
x ss
(P o
P
er
P ut
I)
ca
pi
ta
ex ho
pe u
nd seh
P
itu ol
er
re d
ca
pi
ta
ho
u
in seh
co o
m ld
e
w Pa
ea r
lth tic
i
ra pa
nk to
in ry
g
H
ou
si
ng
in
de
Fo
x
od
se
cu
ri
ty
in
de
x
ns
M
ea
No. of responses
10
Industry Performance
Box 2B.1
Poverty Scorecard used by PPAF Partner Organizations (POs)
The Poverty Scorecard for Pakistan developed by The World Bank is a tool to measure change in poverty in an effective
way and to support the management of development programmes that focus on alleviating poverty. It is also a useful
tool for social investors that need to measure results according to the triple bottom line objectives i.e. financial, social
and environmental results. By ranking targeted households relative poverty, it helps managers target the poor, track
changes in poverty, and manage depth of outreach.
One of the ways that the apex lender for microfinance practitioners in the country (PPAF) has ensured incorporation of
SPM into partner organizations is through the use of a standard poverty scorecard. All PPAF partner organizations are
required to complete the poverty scorecard system for new/repeat clients, and submit reports on these scorecards to
the PPAF. While analysis based on poverty research needs to be strengthened, these scorecards provide an important
foundation for the industry to work toward standardized measurement of what is perhaps the most predominant
social goal of microfinance practitioners, i.e. targeting the poor.
Governance & HR
Governance and Human Resource (HR) policies related to social performance allow MFPs to gauge
commitment to their social development goals at the
institutional level. Governance refers to Board members receiving orientation on the social mission of the
MFP, the presence of a SP champion or committee at
the Board level, and Board level experience in SPM.
During orientation, Board members are provided with
an explanation of (or training on) the institutions social mission and goals. Social performance champions are members of the Board of Directors that are
assigned to oversee integration of social performance
management practices within an institution while SP
committees are formal entities within the Board that
meet on a regular basis to discuss topics related to
institutional SP. SP-related work experience should
Exhibit 2B.5 shows all 5 of the reporting MFBs responded positively to Board members receiving SP
orientation on a routine basis and 4 of the 5 MFBs
have Board members with experience in SP management. Moreover, it is primarily MFBs with social
investors on their Board who reported to having a SP
champion or committee, with regular meetings and
updates on the banks progress on SP management.
RSPs
MFIs
No. of responses
25
20
15
16
15
10
1
4
Board orientation
of social mission
SPM champion/committee
at Board
Board experience
in SPM
MFBs
30
Section 2
ner organizations (primarily MFIs) on social performance management, good governance and risk
management for different levels of the institutions
including Board members, senior management and
staff. The aim is to create greater awareness on social performance management, through structured
knowledge sharing and capacity building on various
SPM tools and techniques and ensure effective compliance with the double bottom lines of these institutions. Good governance workshops and corporate
Staff incentives at MFPs relate to the number of clients entertained by the field staff, the quality of interaction with clients based on client feedback mechanisms, quality of social data collected and/or the
portfolio quality maintained by field staff. Exhibit 2B.6
shows that across the Pakistan microfinance industry, portfolio quality is the most cited factor for staff
incentives, both for MFBs and non-Bank MFIs. This
means that MFPs have incentives and/or bonus systems designed to reward staff based (in whole or in
Portfolio quality
52%
Number of clients,
37%
Quality of interaction
with clients based on
client feedback
mechanism
8%
Quality of social
data collected
3%
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
No. of responses
15
12
1
2
Total number
of clients
31
Client retention
Industry Performance
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
30
No. of responses
25
20
2
2
19
15
15
17
1
7
10
11
Social protection
(medical insurance
and/or pension
contribution)
Safety policy
Anti-harassment
policy
Non-discrimination
policy
Grievance
resolution policy
Credit
All reporting organizations offer microcredit services,
including both for income generating purposes and
non-income generating purposes. According to Exhibit 2B.9a, all reporting MFPs offer income generating loans, while a few also offer non-income generating or consumption based loans.
Non-income
generating loans
5%
staff based (in whole or in part) on the number of clients in field officers portfolios. These can be based
on total number of clients, number of clients meeting specific criteria (e.g. new clients, returning clients,
etc.), or both. Exhibit 2.B.7 shows that all MFPs use a
combination of these measures for calculating staff
incentives, with the most common being total number of clients, followed by client retention.
32
Section 2
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
30
No. of responses
25
3
3
20
15
19
14
10
5
5
Microenterprise
loans
SME loans
5
Agriculture/livestock
loans
2
Express loans
Deposits
Only about 37 percent of the reporting MFPs offer
savings products. The ability to offer this service is
largely determined by the legal status of an MFP: all
MFBs, by virtue of being regulated banks, are allowed
to intermediate client deposits, and thus all reporting
MFBs take deposits. Non-bank MFPs can only mobilize deposits. It is important to note that all savings
products reported are voluntary, as none of the reporting MFBs impose compulsory savings on clients.
That is, deposit accounts are not required by MFPs as
collateral for another financial product/service and
instead offered to clients as an independent product.
All MFBs offer both demand deposit accounts and
time deposit accounts, based on the needs of their
clients; though further diversified savings products
and access to these savings products would help
boost uptake among small-holder savers.
Insurance
Savings accounts
37%
33
Industry Performance
with insurance providers, offering life/accident, agriculture/livestock and health insurance products.
Selected partner organizations of PPAF have piloted
agriculture/crop and livestock insurance products for
their clients with explicit monitoring indexes to insure clients losses to crops or livestock in the event
of external risks. While a more diversified range of insurance products is welcome, there is also a need to
create greater awareness around benefits of existing
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
No. of responses
20
3
15
10
10
2
2
1
1
1
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
5
Credit life insurance
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
2
Credit Life Insurance
1
Life/accident insurance
3
1
Agriculture insurance
Health insurance
No. of responses
10
34
Section 2
MFIs
MFBs
8
7
6
5
3
2
1
Debit/credit card
Remittance/money
transfer services
Payment services
Mobile/branchless
banking services
Savings
facilitation services
Nonfinancial enterprise services are any non-financial services aimed at improving either the entrepre-
RSPs
15
12
2
2
13
12
7
6
1
Enterprise services
Womens
empowerment
Education services
35
MFIs
Health services
MFBs
Industry Performance
N/A, 5%
Declining balance
39%
Flat interest
57%
Transparency of Cost
The industry is making a concentrated effort to promote greater pricing transparency using a standard-
RSPs
MFIs
20
No. of MFP
15
10
13
6
3
Declining balance
Flat interest
N/A
MFBs
36
Section 2
Client Protection
Client Protection (CP) principles refer to the minimum
do no harm standards that clients should expect to
receive when doing business with a microfinance institution. These principles help protect clients and
help institutions practice good ethics and smart
business which is good for the industry as a whole.
There are seven all-encompassing principles of client
protection developed by the SMART Campaign, an in-
MFIs
MFBs
30
25
20
15
17
19
19
18
19
19
12
11
10
P
o
re lici
pa es
ym su
en pp
t c ort
a g
an pa oo
co
al cit d
m In
ys y
pl te
is
ia rn
nc a
l
e a
u
w d
ith it
po ve
te
lic rify
rm
ie
P
s
s ri
an c
e
di d c s, i
n
s
A
cl on st
nn
os d a
ed itio llm
ua
to ns en
of l pe
cl fu ts,
lo rc
ie lly
an e
nt
n
s
pr ta
od ge
uc ra
ts te
di s (
sc AP
lo R
se )
d
Co
cl de
ea o
rl f c
y on
de d
fin uc
ed t
V
co iola
nd ti
uc ons
Cl
ts o
ea
an f c
rr
ct od
ep
io e o
or
ne f
tin
d
fo g
s
r
cl co ys
ie m te
nt p m
s la i
at in n
br ts pla
an fr ce
ch om
C
es
da on
ta tra
pr ct
s
iv i
ac nc
y lu
cl de
au a
se
37
For the purpose of self-reporting on social performance indicators, MFPs provided information regarding the presence of various institutional-level
client protection indicators, including policies supporting good repayment capacity analysis, internal
audit compliance, full pricing terms disclosure, APR
disclosure, CP code of conduct, sanctions for code of
conduct violations, clear reporting systems and data
privacy clauses.
Overall, the sector shows positive compliance to CP
Environmental Policies
For the first year, SP reporting to MIX consisted of
MFPs providing information regarding elements of
their environmental policies, often considered to be
the triple bottom-line for microfinance. These environmental policies refer to MFPs promoting awareness on environmental impacts, having tools to evaluate environmental risks of clients activities and
including clauses in loan contracts to ensure mitigation of environmental risks through the clients businesses (see Exhibit 2B.16a).
In addition to this, a few MFPs reported on various
types of environmentally friendly products and/or
practices that they are currently piloting, including
products related to renewable energy, for example
solar panels, biogas digesters and so on. Some MFPs
are also engaged in financing environmentally friendly businesses, for example organic farming, recycling
and/or waste management (see Exhibit 2B.16b).
The strong performance of the MFI peer group in this
area reflects the efforts carried out by the PPAF, to
ensure compliance of all its partner organizations
Industry Performance
RSPs
MFIs
MFBs
2
15
10
3
1
15
10
en
vi
ro r Cl
nm eq au
en uir ses
ta ing in
l
l
en pra clie oa
vi ct nt n c
ro ic s t on
nm es o tr
/ i
en mi mr act
ta tig ov s
l r at e
is e
ks
To
ol
s
to
e
ri val
sk u
s at
of e
cl en
ie v
nt iro
s' n
ac m
tiv en
iti tal
es
en Aw
vi ar
ro e
nm ne
en ss r
ta ai
l i sin
m g
pa o
ct n
s
pr en Sp
od vir ec
uc on ific
ts m lo
an en an
d/ tal s l
or ly ink
pr frie ed
ac n to
tic dly
es
20
RSPs
1
4
1
1
ie Pr
nd od
u
re ly p ct
cy ra s r
cl ct ela
in ic t
g, e ed
w s ( to
as e.g e
te . o nv
m rg ir
an a on
ag nic m
em fa ent
r
en m ally
t e ing
tc ,
)
fr
ro
du
c
en ts
er rel
g a
bi y ( ted
og e. t
as g. s o r
di ola ene
ge r w
st pa ab
er n le
s els
et ,
c)
1
3
P
r
im e odu
pr ffic ct
ov ie s r
ed nc ela
co y (e te
ok .g d t
in . in o e
g s n
st ul er
ov at g
e ion y
et ,
c)
MFBs
6
5
MFIs
38
39
Section 2
Section 3
The Way
Forward
40
Section 3
The Way
Forward
With the industry growing at a double digit rate over the last few years buoyed by an enabling regulatory and policy
environment some of the key challenges and opportunities faced by the practitioners are as follow:
Access to financial services is one of the key challenges faced by the country. Keeping this in view the
State Bank of Pakistan in collaboration with World
Bank (WB) has recently developed the National Financial Inclusion Strategy (NFIS) with an aim of improving access to financial services for the unbanked
population of the country.
41
aim of employment generation and poverty alleviation. The interest-free loan scheme was s source of
concern for the microfinance industry stakeholders
as it had the potential to distort the conventional
microfinance industry. However, the scheme was
structured and designed in such a manner that rather than overlapping with conventional microfinance
it now complements it. The funding for the scheme
has been routed through the national apex, PPAF,
and loans are extended by selected MFPs to clients
Only clients falling below 40 on the poverty scorecard
and belonging to those areas where there little or no
outreach of conventional microfinance.
This successful adaptation of a government credit scheme can work as prelude to how other similar
schemes can be structured and designed in a man-
42
Section 3
Impact Investment
According to Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN),
Impact investments are investments made into
companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact
alongside a financial return. The impact investors
provide funds, both equity and debt, to meet the
worlds most pressing challenges in areas like agriculture, housing, education, renewable energy,
healthcare, clean technology, and access to financial
services. There are over three hundred impact funds
globally. In 2012, over USD 8 billion were committed
by impact investors as compared to USD 2.5 billion in
2010 . More than 70 percent of the impact investing
allocations is to the microfinance industry .
43
Deposits
MFBs have witnessed exponential growth in deposit mobilization in the last few years. The growth has
come at the back of above market rates being offered
to institutional clients and high net-worth individuals. However, opening of national clearing house
membership for MFBs will allow them to mobilize
Debt
Currently, the practitioners are availing debt facilities
primarily from the national apex and funds obtained
under the two loan guarantee schemes. While the
bigger players have been successful is raising funds
from commercial banks which are partially or fully
secured by the guarantee funds but the same cannot be said for the mid and small sized practitioners.
But recent enhancement of risk coverage MFCG to 60
percent for these MFPs will better place them to tap
finances from commercial sources.
In order to meet their increasing funding needs,
MFPs would need to explore options to avail loans
from international lenders and also tap debt capital
markets. A number of international development financial institutions (DFIs) and microfinance investment vehicles (MIVs) have been exploring the market
over the years for possible debt placements. However, the high hedging costs and availability of funds
at competitive rates locally had been the inhibiting
factors. But recent growth in outreach and lowering
of hedging premiums has led to two successful debt
placements by an international lender. With continued investor interest in the sector, there is potential
for players to tap international lenders to meet their
funding needs. Debt capital markets offer microfinance practitioners another avenue to raise funds.
Although, there have been only two instances when
MFPs have issued redeemable capital but their success coupled with the extension of MCGF coverage to
debt capital markets make it an attractive option for
practitioners. In addition as large firms move globally
towards creating shared values which focuses on the
connection between societies and economic progress, microfinance practitioners can tap these shared
value initiatives to meet their funding needs.
With the sector growing at a steady rate, the demand for capacity building initiatives, in terms of the
provision of consistent training opportunities, far
outstripped the supply. Since then the Microfinance
sector has made many strides through an enabling
environment created by the State Bank of Pakistan,
Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund, UK-Aids DFID,
PMN and other stakeholders, but the goal of achieving scale has yet to be realized. It is believed that one
of the major impediments to achieving growth and
sustainability is lack of staff capacities, especially
at the middle and lower management levels at the
MFPs. It is also true that trained human resource is
one of the pre-requisites for a strong, dynamic and
growing Microfinance sector, which would need to
invest in enhancing capacity by imparting the necessary knowledge and skills which will help equip staff
to shoulder their responsibilities effectively in the microfinance organizations they are employed.
Efforts to develop the capacity of the human resource
in the past were primarily focused on undertaking
one-off training programs while the demand for such
trainings has been increasing rapidly. The unavailability of adequate external training facilities has also
minimized the long-term impact of the various training programs carried out arbitrarily by different sector level institutions. With less dependable sources
to provide assistance to help meet the technical and
management training needs for microfinance and for
44
Section 3
visits, corporate governance and international trainings with the primary focus on strategic leadership.
It is also important to know that the industry is comprised of diverse players each having its own different set of requirements. Whereas large for-profit organizations can support in-house training programs
for their mid and lower level staff, medium sized and
smaller organizations which constitute the bulk of
the industry cannot afford similar trainings.
Keeping this in view, the establishment of a Training
Centre of Excellence for the Microfinance Providers
would be the need of the hour, where technical and
managerial trainings can be offered on consistent
basis to the increasing number of mid and operational level staff which will be employed in the coming
years as the sector moves up on the growth trajectory. Consequently, the long term objective of increasing outreach through the development of innovative
products will come to fruition.
Micro and Small enterprises in Pakistan face serious issues with access to formal finance given their
informal nature, lack of documentation and acceptable collateral. Although commercial banks have had
some success with downscaling to meet the needs of
medium sized firms in Pakistan, small entrepreneurs
remain off their radar and it seems highly unlikely
that the mainstream banks will serve this segment in
the near future. However, MFPs, especially the MFBs
and large MFIs, seem well positioned to enter this
market due to its similarities with the microfinance
clientele.
45
Agriculture is the backbone of the economy for majority of the developing countries. The potential of
this segment becomes fully clear if we look at the
value chains that link farm production to rural trading
and other sectors of the economy. These chains show
that farmers do not operate in isolation, but are part
of a wider system which encompasses processors,
traders, transporters, input suppliers and retailers.
However, the lack of financing limits the growth potential of different micro-entrepreneurs at different
parts of the value chain. Private financial institutions
have tended to regard such micro-entrepreneurs as
un-bankable as they lack the kind of collateral and
guarantees banks demand before lending. For bankers it is easier and more lucrative to provide a handful
of large loans to well-established businesses, rather
than lots of small loans to such micro-entrepreneurs.
In Pakistan, the State Bank of Pakistan is taking
commendable steps to ensure the success of value
chains by facilitating various chain actors. A component of these initiatives is the Value-Chain Contract
Farmer Financing scheme to build a link between
banks and small farmers who have no access to formal financing .
The introduction of the Value Chain Contract Farmer
Financing scheme will enable farmers to avail financing from banks backed by a processors guarantee
and in return buyers/processors may get assurance
of getting required quantity and quality of agricultural produce. Under the scheme, banks will be accepting guarantees from a lead firm acting as a bridge
between banks and farmers. The term lead firm applies to the processors of agricultural produce, input
suppliers, stockist, a marketing company, trader or
exporter.
Section 3
47
farmer defaults on the loan. The underlying collateral is usually a soft commodity like wheat, rice, maize,
cotton and other grains .
On the whole, agriculture value chains provide an
ideal platform to extend credit in the rural areas at a
relatively lower cost and reduced risk for the MFPs.
48
49
Section 3
Annexures
Annexures
Annexures
50
Annexures
AI - Performance
Indicators of Industry
2014
Infrastructure
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
35,826,211
48,569,411
61,928,036
81,557,894
105,443,135
1,405
1,550
1,630
1,606
2,026
12,005
14,202
15,153
17,456
21,516
Total Assets
17.6%
35.6%
27.5%
31.7%
29.3%
Branches (Including
Head Office)
15.1%
10.3%
5.2%
-1.5%
26.2%
3.9%
18.3%
6.7%
15.2%
23.3%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
35,826,211
48,569,411
61,928,036
81,557,894
105,443,135
8,359,260
10,314,307
11,679,373
17,049,706
22,873,920
27,466,951
38,255,104
25,876,598
26,913,359
34,682,369
4,910,265
12,332,456
19,361,179
21,662,200
18,679,724
10,132,332
13,908,759
20,840,990
32,925,558
42,715,846
20,295,915
24,854,747
33,877,284
46,613,582
63,531,465
Equity-to-Asset
Ratio
23.3%
21.2%
18.9%
20.9%
21.7%
17.9%
32.2%
74.8%
80.5%
53.9%
3.29
3.41
2.22
1.58
1.52
49.9%
56.0%
61.5%
70.6%
67.2%
Total Staff
Financing Structure
51
Ratios
Debt-to-Equity Ratio
Deposits-to-Gross
Loan Portfolio
*Only MFB deposits included
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Deposits-to-Total
Assets
28.3%
28.6%
33.7%
40.4%
40.5%
56.7%
51.2%
54.7%
57.2%
60.3%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
1,567,355
1,661,902
2,040,518
2,392,874
2,997,868
811,520
917,058
1,275,387
1,442,197
1,692,451
20,295,915
24,854,747
33,877,284
46,613,582
63,531,465
105,300
107,505
118,085
143,808
143,808
Number of Loans
Outstanding
1,547,197
1,661,902
2,040,518
2,401,849
2,998,895
Depositors**
764,271
1,332,705
1,730,823
2,150,675
5,675,437
Number of Deposit
Accounts
764,271
1,332,705
1,730,823
2,998,641
5,675,437
Number of Women
Depositors
64,159
259,104
334,994
837,144
2,503,582
10,132,332
13,908,759
20,840,990
32,925,559
42,715,786
Weighted Avg.
Weighted Avg.
Active Borrowers
Active Women
Borrowers
Gross Loan Portfolio
(PKR 000)
Deposits Outstanding
Proportion of Active
Women Borrowers
(%)
51.8%
55.2%
62.5%
60.3%
56.5%
12,949
14,956
16,602
19,480
21,192
Average Loan
Balance per Active
Borrower/Per Capita
Income
12.3%
13.9%
14.1%
13.5%
14.7%
Average Outstanding
Loan Balance (PKR)
13,118
14,956
16,602
19,407
21,185
Average Outstanding
Loan Balance /Per
Capita Income
12.5%
13.9%
14.1%
13.5%
14.7%
Proportion of Active
Women Depositors
(%)
8.4%
19.4%
19.4%
38.9%
44.11%
Average Saving
Balance per Active
Depositor (PKR)
13,258
10,436
12,041
15,309
7,526
13,258
10,436
12,041
10,980
7,526
Average Loan
Balance per Active
Borrower (PKR)
* Source: http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2012/Feb/EconomicGrowth.pdf
** Only MFB deposits included
Outreach
52
Annexures
Financial Performance
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
6,122,154
7,998,956
10,040,720
13,542,893
18,581,489
870,809
1,203,306
1,774,610
1,742,975
2,051,547
528,457
899,713
816,461
2,093,035
3,707,417
Total revenue
7,521,420
10,101,975
12,631,792
17,378,903
24,340,453
Less : financial
expense
2,016,795
2,905,049
3,974,467
4,767,589
5,451,197
Gross financial
margin
5,504,624
7,196,926
8,657,325
12,611,314
18,889,256
745,660
623,988
643,991
658,812
794,500
4,758,964
6,572,938
8,013,334
11,952,503
18,094,756
Personnel expense
2,819,891
3,345,284
3,784,676
5,032,342
6,557,709
Admin expense
1,961,816
2,446,750
2,886,025
3,880,920
5,951,408
Less: operating
expense
4,781,707
5,792,035
1,342,633
8,913,262
12,509,117
257,651
380,993
1,546,240
1,084,982
2,658,248
4,039,399
(22,742)
780,903
(7,047)
116,314
152,380
503,118
614,684
(15,696)
664,589
932,602
2,155,130
3,424,715
Adjusted Financial
Expense on Borrowings
372,524
205,943
181,422
113,553
Inflation Adjustment
Expense
(3,073)
870
1,152
916
357,688
49,456
18,743
13,625
Total Adjustment
Expense
727,138
256,270
201,317
128,095
(15,696)
(62,549)
676,332
1,953,814
3,296,620
30,399,088
42,282,393
57,182,714
70,192,281
95,494,664
7,854,713
8,719,204
11,594,943
14,513,187
Net income/(loss)
Net Income/(Loss)
After Adjustments
Ratios
53
20,629,780
weighted avg.
Adjusted Return-on-Assets
(0.1%)
(0.1%)
1.2%
3.3%
3.5%
Adjusted Return-on-Equity
(0.2%)
(0.7%)
5.8%
16.1%
16.0%
Operational Self
Sufficiency (OSS)
99.7%
108.4%
109.4%
118.1%
119.9%
81.7%
100.5%
107.0%
116.5%
117.7%
Operating Income
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
6,122,154
7,998,956
10,040,720
13,542,893
18,581,489
Total Revenue
7,521,420
10,101,975
12,631,792
17,378,903
24,821,486
-22,742
5,252
828,712
2,456,931
3,286,779
30,399,088
42,282,393
57,182,714
70,192,281
95,494,664
16,948,466
20,576,342
25,743,757
34,668,730
48,423,008
20,295,915
24,854,747
33,877,284
46,105,712
63,531,465
18,622,190
22,715,544
29,810,520
40,387,221
55,977,237
15.0%
11.2%
10.4%
9.2%
8%
Inflation Rate *
weighted avg.
Total Revenue
Ratio (Total Revenue-to-Average Total
Assets)
24.7%
23.9%
22.3%
24.8%
26.0%
Adjusted Profit
Margin (Adjusted
Profit/(Loss)-to-Total Revenue)
(0.3%)
0.1%
7.0%
14.1%
13.2%
32.9%
35.2%
34.2%
33.5%
34.6%
15.5%
21.6%
21.6%
22.3%
24.4%
* Source: http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2012/Feb/IND.pdf
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Adjusted Total
Expense
7,544,162
10,096,723
11,803,080
14,540,979
20,842,120
Adjusted Financial
Expense
2,016,795
3,304,504
4,181,281
4,950,162
5,742,091
745,660
1,000,184
693,447
677,555
808,125
Adjusted Operating
Expense
4,781,707
5,792,035
6,928,352
8,913,262
14,291,904
Adjustment Expense
775,651
256,270
201,317
453,639
30,399,088
42,282,393
57,182,714
Ratios
70,192,281
95,494,664
Weighted avg.
Weighted avg.
Adjusted Total
Expense-to-Average
Total Assets
24.8%
23.9%
20.6%
20.7%
21.8%
Adjusted Financial
Expense-to-Average
Total Assets
6.6%
7.8%
7.3%
7.1%
6.0%
Operating Expense
54
Annexures
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Adjusted Loan
Loss Provision
Expense-to-Average
Total Assets
2.5%
2.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
Adjusted Operating
Expense-to-Average
Total Assets
15.7%
13.7%
12.1%
12.7%
15.0%
Adjusted Personnel
Expense
9.3%
7.9%
6.6%
7.2%
6.9%
Adjusted Admin
Expense
6.5%
5.8%
5.0%
5.5%
6.2%
Adjustment Expense-to-Average
Total Assets
0.0%
1.8%
0.4%
0.3%
0.5%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Operating Expense
(PKR 000)
4,781,707
5,792,035
6,928,352
8,913,262
12,745,665
Personnel Expense
(PKR 000)
2,819,891
3,345,284
3,784,676
5,032,342
6,794,257
18,622,190
22,715,544
29,810,520
40,387,221
55,977,237
Average Number of
Active Borrowers
1,567,355
1,661,902
2,040,518
2,350,650
2,997,868
Average Number of
Active Loans
1,567,355
1,661,902
2,040,518
2,359,625
2,998,895
weighted avg.
weighted avg.
Operating Efficiency
55
Adjusted Operating
Expense-to-Average
Gross Loan Portfolio
25.7%
25.5%
23.2%
22.1%
22.8%
Adjusted Personnel
Expense-to-Average
Gross Loan Portfolio
15.1%
14.7%
12.7%
12.5%
12.1%
Average Salary/
Gross Domestic
Product per Capita
2.23
2.19
2.12
2.00
2.2
3,051
3,485
3,395
3,792
4,252
3,051
3,485
3,395
3,777
4,250
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Number of Active
Borrowers
1,567,355
1,661,902
2,040,518
2,255,126
2,997,868
Number of Active
Loans
1,567,355
1,661,902
2,040,518
2,263,432
2,997,868
Number of Active
Depositors
764,271
1,332,705
1,730,823
1,897,872
5,675,437
Number of Deposit
Accounts
764,271
1,332,705
1,730,823
2,707,872
5,675,437
12,005
14,202
15,153
15,673
19,281
5,148
7,165
7,541
Total Staff
Total Loan Officers
6,892
8,838
weighted avg.
weighted avg.
131
117
135
144
156
131
117
135
144
156
304
232
271
327
328
304
232
271
328
328
64
94
114
121
294
Deposit Accounts
per Staff
64
94
114
173
294
42.9%
50.5%
49.8%
44.0%
45.8%
Personnel Allocation
Ratio
Productivity
56
Annexures
Risk
57
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
829,314
793,966
1,232,842
1,157,297
659,418
577,972
516,623
1,020,316
932,166
379,637
733,338
623,988
759,621
708,355
1,189,884
335,463
592,429
675,835
615,293
1,222,076
20,295,915
24,854,747
33,877,284
46,105,712
63,531,465
18,622,190
22,715,544
29,810,520
40,387,221
55,977,237
weighted avg.
weighted avg.
Portfolio at Risk
(>30)-to-Gross Loan
Portfolio
4.1%
3.2%
3.6%
2.5%
1.0%
Portfolio at
Risk(>90)-to-Gross
Loan Portfolio
2.8%
2.1%
3.0%
2.0%
0.6%
Write Off-to-Average
Gross Loan Portfolio
1.8%
2.6%
2.3%
1.5%
2.2%
88.4%
78.6%
61.6%
61.2%
180.4%
58
Annexures
AII - Performance
Indicators of
Individual MFPs 2014
Infrastructure
MFB
KBL
TMFB
16,692,434
3,285,461
13,406,972
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
16,393,293
1,114,932
10,674,730
11,797,616
6,380,471
2,843,921
1,069,234
1,237,139
2,126,104
1,263,975
13,549,372
45,698
9,437,591
9,671,512
5,116,495
118
149
16
100
58
100
2,622
2,058
206
1,169
1,429
1,268
MFB
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
1,758,955
2,540,847
1,832,009
69,185,285
542,609
1,036,330
956,749
14,361,522
1,216,346
1,504,517
875,260
54,823,764
17
41
28
627
271
412
338
9,773
OCT
KASHF
SAFCO
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
681,771
5,311,217
611,905
1,331,084
747,631
125,416
MFI
Total Assets (PKR 000)
Total Equity (PKR 000)
283,345
414,033
93,172
251,241
62,629
98,135
398,426
4,897,184
518,733
1,079,843
685,003
27,281
21
178
27
30
17
13
100
2,064
245
228
180
67
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
360,506
59
Personnel
MFI
Total Assets (PKR 000)
350,324
2,810,461
1,238,183
725,716
114,187
17,024
1,140,198
113,310
236,474
90,243
65,249
333,299
1,670,263
1,124,873
489,243
23,914
295,257
MFI
FFO
Branches (including Head Office)
Personnel
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
18
171
68
25
10
176
1,044
610
197
54
70
MFI
Total Assets (PKR 000)
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
938,441
107,524
214,795
115,388
274,208
10,295
321,592
23,072
39,750
31,039
61,005
9,452
616,849
84,452
175,044
84,349
213,203
620
35
15
11
297
46
119
26
158
14
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
DEEP
MFI
Total Assets (PKR 000)
24,429
137,221
83,441
79,728
138,089
1,300
12,048
18,587
20,213
6,260
36,606
-2,336
12,381
118,634
63,229
73,469
101,483
3,636
14
59
25
21
47
15
MFI
BAIDARIE
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
120,480
205,538
56,039
4,048,211
20,963,530
20,713
-121,269
3,352
767,292
4,112,428
99,767
326,807
52,687
3,280,919
16,850,847
17
261
965
56
82
16
1,549
7,579
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
9,777,107
2,522,339
74,496
1,557,256
1,363,123
15,294,320
2,633,849
1,272,129
26,965
387,618
79,409
4,399,970
7,143,258
1,250,210
47,559
1,169,638
1,283,714
10,894,379
161
61
151
52
434
2,572
643
26
589
334
4,164
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
105,443,135
69,185,285
20,963,530
15,294,320
14,361,522
4,112,428
4,399,970
22,873,920
54,823,764
16,850,847
10,894,379
82,568,989
627
965
434
2,026
9,773
7,579
4,164
21,516
RSP
60
Annexures
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
16,692,434
16,393,293
1,114,932
10,674,730
11,797,616
6,380,471
Total Equity
3,285,461
2,843,921
1,069,234
1,237,139
2,126,104
1,263,975
Total Debt
3,729,877
239,211
289,880
4,204,216
201,100
2,182,377
Total Assets
- Subsidized debt*
1,547,500
239,211
289,880
4,204,216
201,100
Total Deposits
- Commercial debt
8,682,473
12,261,354
22,128
8,749,901
5,159,810
4,656,177
Total Liabilities
13,406,972
13,549,372
45,698
9,437,591
9,671,512
5,116,495
12,238,252
8,981,390
223,832
4,479,999
5,192,071
4,028,415
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
19.7%
17.3%
95.9%
11.6%
18.0%
19.8%
41.5%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
2.0
0.2
70.9%
136.5%
9.9%
195.3%
99.4%
115.6%
Deposits-to-total assets
52.0%
74.8%
2.0%
82.0%
43.7%
73.0%
6.5%
6.1%
1.1%
6.5%
8.5%
7.4%
73.3%
54.8%
20.1%
42.0%
44.0%
63.1%
Debt-to-equity ratio
Cost of funds
Gross loan portfolio-to-total assets
*Below market rate
MFB
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
Total Assets
1,758,955
2,540,847
1,832,009
69,185,285
Total Equity
542,609
1,036,330
956,749
14,361,522
8,664,284
- Subsidized debt*
2,182,377
- Commercial debt
6,481,907
Total Deposits
1,193,507
1,287,919
702,579
42,715,846
Total Liabilities
1,216,346
1,504,517
875,260
54,823,764
798,673
500,402
346,493
Total Debt
36,789,528
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
Commercial liabilities-to-total debt
Debt-to-equity ratio
61
30.8%
40.8%
52.2%
20.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
74.8%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
149.4%
257.4%
202.8%
116.1%
67.9%
50.7%
38.4%
61.7%
6.6%
2.3%
2.4%
6.7%
45.4%
19.7%
18.9%
53.2%
MFI
OPP
KASHF
SAFCO
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
125,416
Total Assets
681,771
5,311,217
611,905
1,331,084
747,631
Total Equity
283,345
414,033
93,172
251,241
62,629
98,135
Total Debt
365,663
4,692,724
498,695
1,074,253
515,286
26,028
26,028
- Subsidized debt*
170,333
1,840,000
444,695
1,039,409
396,342
- Commercial debt
195,330
2,852,724
54,000
34,844
118,944
Total Deposits
Total Liabilities
398,426
4,897,184
518,733
1,079,843
685,003
27,281
460,538
3,752,325
422,532
1,003,160
381,000
81,252
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
41.6%
7.8%
15.2%
18.9%
8.4%
78.2%
53.4%
60.8%
10.8%
3.2%
23.1%
0.0%
1.3
11.3
5.4
4.3
8.2
0.3
Debt-to-equity ratio
Deposits-to-gross loan portfolio
Deposits-to-total assets
Cost of funds
Gross loan portfolio-to-total assets
7.5%
11.2%
6.6%
10.4%
8.3%
11.4%
67.6%
70.6%
69.1%
75.4%
51.0%
64.8%
MFI
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
Total Assets
350,324
2,810,461
1,238,183
725,716
114,187
360,506
Total Equity
17,024
1,140,198
113,310
236,474
90,243
65,249
288,353
Total Debt
295,902
1,437,120
918,868
467,359
20,001
- Subsidized debt*
148,853
382,187
584,900
- Commercial debt
147,048
1,054,933
333,968
467,359
20,001
288,353
Total Liabilities
Total Deposits
333,299
1,670,627
1,124,873
489,243
23,914
295,257
263,747
2,733,482
1,224,784
509,994
107,700
315,559
4.9%
40.6%
9.2%
32.6%
79.0%
18.1%
49.7%
73.4%
36.3%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
4.4
17.4
1.3
8.1
2.0
0.2
Debt-to-equity ratio
Deposits-to-total assets
Cost of funds
Gross loan portfolio-to-total assets
7.6%
5.2%
7.4%
8.8%
9.3%
7.4%
75.3%
97.3%
98.9%
70.3%
94.3%
87.5%
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
62
Annexures
MFI
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
Total Assets
938,441
107,524
214,795
115,388
274,208
10,295
Total Equity
321,592
23,072
39,750
31,039
61,005
9,452
Total Debt
577,572
81,467
169,016
84,070
171,352
- Subsidized debt*
527,921
81,467
164,077
78,115
171,302
- Commercial debt
49,651
4,939
5,955
50
Total Deposits
Total Liabilities
616,849
84,452
175,044
84,349
213,203
620
617,401
74,556
114,414
86,663
163,612
9,713
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
Commercial liabilities-to-total debt
Debt-to-equity ratio
34.3%
21.5%
18.5%
26.9%
22.2%
91.8%
8.6%
0.0%
2.9%
7.1%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8
3.5
4.3
2.7
2.8
0.0
Deposits-to-total assets
Cost of funds
10.1%
7.6%
6.8%
6.3%
9.1%
0.0%
65.8%
69.3%
53.3%
75.1%
59.7%
94.3%
DEEP
MFI
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
Total Assets
24,429
137,221
83,441
79,728
138,089
1,300
Total Equity
12,048
18,587
20,213
6,260
36,606
(2,336)
Total Debt
10,036
107,608
52,351
67,990
96,653
3,179
- Subsidized debt*
10,036
107,608
33,800
60,104
87,267
3,179
- Commercial debt
18,551
7,886
9,386
Total Liabilities
Total Deposits
12,381
118,634
63,229
73,469
101,483
3,636
16,264
99,648
55,936
60,477
93,443
825
49.3%
13.5%
24.2%
7.9%
26.5%
-179.7%
0.0%
0.0%
35.4%
11.6%
9.7%
0.0%
-1.4
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
Commercial liabilities-to-total debt
0.8
5.8
2.6
10.9
2.6
Debt-to-equity ratio
Deposits-to-total assets
Cost of funds
63
0.0%
8.7%
11.5%
10.0%
8.4%
274.6%
66.6%
72.6%
67.0%
75.9%
67.7%
63.5%
MFI
BAIDARIE
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
20,963,530
Total Assets
120,480
205,538
56,039
4,048,211
Total Equity
20,713
(121,269)
3,352
767,292
4,112,428
Total Debt
96,088
286,423
27,865
3,248,297
15,680,221
- Subsidized debt*
88,129
286,423
19,084
3,248,297
9,999,558
- Commercial debt
7,959
8,782
5,680,663
Total Deposits
Total Liabilities
99,767
326,807
52,687
3,280,919
16,851,211
56,105
115,659
29,047
2,465,625
15,315,461
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
Commercial liabilities-to-total debt
Debt-to-equity ratio
17.2%
-59.0%
6.0%
19.0%
19.6%
8.3%
0.0%
31.5%
0.0%
36.2%
4.6
-2.4
8.3
4.2
3.81
Deposits-to-total assets
Cost of funds
Gross loan portfolio-to-total assets
7.0%
8.9%
19.7%
35.4%
7.3%
46.6%
56.3%
51.8%
60.9%
73.1%
RSP
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
Total Assets
9,777,107
2,522,339
74,496
1,557,256
1,363,123
15,294,320
Total Equity
2,633,849
1,272,129
26,965
387,618
79,409
4,399,970
10,337,864
Total Debt
6,844,633
1,064,064
34,500
1,124,667
1,270,000
- Subsidized debt*
2,091,544
34,500
974,667
720,000
3,820,710
- Commercial debt
4,753,089
1,064,064
150,000
550,000
6,517,153
Total Liabilities
Total Deposits
7,143,258
1,250,210
47,559
1,169,638
1,283,714
10,894,351
7,653,444
1,149,283
37,519
1,376,726
1,209,504
11,426,476
Equity-to-asset ratio
26.9%
50.4%
36.2%
24.9%
5.8%
28.8%
69.4%
100.0%
0.0%
13.3%
43.3%
63.0%
2.35
2.6
0.8
1.3
2.9
16.0
Debt-to-equity ratio
Deposits-to-total assets
Cost of funds
Gross loan portfolio-to-total assets
*Below market rate
8.3%
9.7%
7.0%
8.5%
7.5%
8.3%
78.3%
45.6%
50.4%
88.4%
88.7%
74.7%
Weighted Avg.
64
Annexures
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
Total Assets
69,185,285
20,963,530
15,294,320
105,443,135
Total Equity
14,361,522
4,112,428
4,399,970
22,873,920
Total Debt
8,664,284
15,680,221
10,337,864
34,682,369
- Subsidized debt*
2,182,377
9,999,558
3,820,710
16,002,646
- Commercial debt
6,481,907
5,680,663
6,517,153
18,679,724
Total Deposits
42,715,846
42,715,846
Total Liabilities
54,823,764
16,851,211
10,894,351
82,569,216
36,789,528
15,315,461
11,426,476
63,531,465
Weighted Avg.
Equity-to-asset ratio
20.8%
19.6%
28.8%
21.7%
74.8%
36.2%
63.0%
53.9%
0.6
3.81
2.35
1.52
116.1%
67.2%
61.7%
40.5%
6.7%
7.3%
8.3%
7.0%
53.2%
73.1%
74.7%
60.3%
Debt-to-equity ratio
Deposits-to-gross loan portfolio
Deposits-to-total assets
Cost of funds
Gross loan portfolio-to-total assets
65
Outreach
MFB
Active Borrowers
Active Women Borrowers
Gross Loan Portfolio (PKR 000)
Annual Per Capita Income (PKR)*
KBL
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
468,638
226,870
6,220
148,776
194,489
75,804
119,925
75,583
1,523
52,212
27,744
3,532
12,238,252
8,981,390
223,832
4,479,999
5,192,071
4,028,415
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
468,638
226,870
6,220
148,776
194,489
76,791
Depositors
900,081
3,481,340
18,301
270,787
327,128
267,913
900,081
3,481,340
18,301
270,787
327,128
267,913
223,286
2,133,294
5,160
73,872
49,281
13,341
8,682,473
12,261,354
22,128
8,749,901
5,159,810
4,656,177
Weighted Avg.
25.6%
33.3%
24.5%
35.1%
14.3%
4.7%
26,115
39,588
35,986
30,112
26,696
53,143
18.2%
27.5%
25.0%
20.9%
18.6%
37.0%
26,115
39,588
35,986
30,112
26,696
52,459
18.2%
27.5%
25.0%
20.9%
18.6%
36.5%
24.8%
61.3%
28.2%
27.3%
15.1%
5.0%
9,646
3,522
1,209
32,313
15,773
17,379
9,646
3,522
1,209
32,313
15,773
17,379
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
Active Borrowers
Active Women Borrowers
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
11,930
11,402
8,786
1,152,915
4,350
1,205
822
286,896
798,673
500,402
346,493
36,789,528
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
11,930
11,402
8,786
1,153,902
Depositors
43,532
311,920
54,435
5,675,437
43,532
311,920
54,435
5,675,437
3,278
2,070
2,503,582
1,193,507
1,287,919
702,519
42,715,786
Weighted Avg.
36.5%
10.6%
9.4%
24.9%
66,947
43,887
39,437
31,910
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/
Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
MFB
66
Annexures
MFB
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
46.6%
30.5%
27.4%
22.2%
66,947
43,887
39,437
31,883
46.6%
30.5%
27.4%
22.2%
7.5%
0.7%
0.0%
44.1%
27,417
4,129
12,906
7,526
27,417
4,129
12,906
7,526
SAFCO
DAMEN
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/
Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
MFI
OCT
KASHF
CSC
GBTI
Active Borrowers
47,486
230,810
38,234
38,063
19,753
8,835
13,296
230,810
19,004
38,063
19,607
8,237
460,538
3,752,325
422,532
1,003,160
381,000
81,252
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
47,486
230,810
38,234
38,063
19,753
8,835
Weighted Avg.
67
28.0%
100.0%
49.7%
100.0%
99.3%
93.2%
9,698
16,257
11,051
26,355
19,288
9,197
6.7%
11.3%
7.7%
18.3%
13.4%
6.4%
9,698
16,257
11,051
26,355
19,288
9,197
6.7%
11.3%
7.7%
18.3%
13.4%
6.4%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
MFI
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
Active Borrowers
20,861
220,606
58,389
28,239
11,559
19,140
20,741
218,097
55,385
27,342
11,599
18,095
263,747
2,733,482
1,224,784
509,994
107,700
315,559
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
20,861
220,606
58,389
28,239
11,599
19,140
Weighted Avg.
Proportion of active women borrowers (%)
99.4%
98.9%
94.9%
96.8%
100.3%
94.5%
12,643
12,391
20,976
18,060
9,317
16,487
8.8%
8.6%
14.6%
12.6%
6.5%
11.5%
12,643
12,391
20,976
18,060
9,285
16,487
8.8%
8.6%
14.6%
12.6%
6.5%
11.5%
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
Agahe
AMRDO
Active Borrowers
41,023
6,826
14,386
4,833
9,121
2,498
37,289
6,679
7,306
2,583
4,998
1,365
617,401
74,556
114,414
86,663
163,612
9,713
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
41,023
6,826
14,386
4,833
9,121
2,498
Weighted Avg.
Proportion of active women borrowers (%)
90.9%
97.8%
50.8%
53.4%
54.8%
54.6%
15,050
10,922
7,953
17,932
17,938
3,888
10.5%
7.6%
5.5%
12.5%
12.5%
2.7%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
MFI
RCDS
68
Annexures
MFI
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
15,050
10,922
7,953
17,932
17,938
3,888
10.5%
7.6%
5.5%
12.5%
12.5%
2.7%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
Active Borrowers
Active Women Borrowers
Gross Loan Portfolio (PKR 000)
Annual Per Capita Income (PKR)*
Number of Loans outstanding
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
DEEP
1,480
7,319
4,309
2,452
4,244
450
1,115
4,472
2,642
874
1,527
450
16,264
99,648
55,936
60,477
93,443
825
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
1,480
7,319
4,309
2,452
4,244
450
Depositors
Number of Deposit Accounts
Number of Women Depositors
Deposits Outstanding (PKR 000)
Weighted Avg.
69
75.3%
61.1%
61.3%
35.6%
36.0%
100.0%
10,989
13,615
12,981
24,664
22,018
1,833
7.6%
9.5%
9.0%
17.2%
15.3%
1.3%
10,989
13,615
12,981
24,664
22,018
1,833
7.6%
9.5%
9.0%
17.2%
15.3%
1.3%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
MFI
BAIDRE
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
Active Borrowers
3,376
5,482
2,787
235,517
1,088,078
1,484
1,864
1,518
89,497
845,939
56,105
115,659
29,047
2,465,625
15,315,461
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
MFI
Annual Per Capita Income (PKR)*
Number of Loans outstanding
BAIDRE
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
3,376
5,482
2,787
235,517
1,088,118
Depositors
Weighted Avg.
44.0%
34.0%
54.5%
38.0%
77.7%
16,619
21,098
10,422
10,469
14,076
11.6%
14.7%
7.2%
7.3%
10%
16,619
21,098
10,422
10,469
14,075
11.6%
14.7%
7.2%
7.3%
9.8%
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
RSP
PRSP
Sub
Active Borrowers
492,338
74,864
4,770
109,688
75,215
756,875
383,814
38,705
4,342
62,383
70,372
559,616
7,653,444
1,149,283
37,519
1,376,726
1,209,504
11,426,476
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
492,338
74,864
4,770
109,688
75,215
756,875
Depositors
Number of Deposit Accounts
Weighted Avg.
78.0%
51.7%
91.0%
56.9%
93.6%
73.9%
15,545
15,352
7,866
12,551
16,081
15,097
11%
11%
5%
9%
11%
10%
15,545
15,352
7,866
12,551
16,081
15,097
10.8%
10.7%
5%
9%
11.2%
10.5%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
NRSP
70
Annexures
RSP
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
Active Borrowers
Active Women Borrowers
Gross Loan Portfolio (PKR 000)
Annual Per Capita Income (PKR)*
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
1,152,915
1,088,078
756,875
2,997,868
286,896
845,939
559,616
1,692,451
36,789,528
15,315,461
11,426,476
63,531,465
143,808
143,808
143,808
143,808
1,153,902
1,088,118
756,875
2,998,895
Depositors
5,675,437
5,675,437
5,675,437
5,675,437
2,503,582
2,503,582
42,715,786
42,715,786
Weighted Avg.
Proportion of active women borrowers (%)
24.9%
77.7%
73.9%
56.5%
31,910
14,076
15,097
21,192
22.2%
10%
10%
14.7%
31,883
14,075
15,097
21,185
22.2%
9.8%
10.5%
14.7%
44.1%
44.11%
7,526
7,526
7,526
7,526
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/Jun/EconomicGrowth.pdf
71
KBL
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
3,483,074
2,934,536
127,903
1,292,267
1,791,295
1,364,494
101,576
124,303
446,494
471,001
127,957
216,810
967,975
5,514
16,621
140,010
16,292
3,824,187
4,349,005
133,418
1,779,889
2,059,262
1,482,362
Total revenue
Less : financial expense
809,557
766,186
250
590,199
793,087
361,258
3,014,629
3,582,819
133,167
1,189,690
1,266,174
1,121,104
157,686
115,582
1,512
109,972
62,231
47,016
2,856,943
3,467,237
131,655
1,079,718
1,203,943
1,074,089
872,220
1,155,631
64,948
479,259
472,418
537,350
Admin expense
1,017,612
1,269,769
64,010
497,463
445,795
505,943
1,889,832
2,425,400
128,958
976,722
918,213
1,043,293
24,701
21,348
1,532
2,817
10,032
942,410
1,020,489
1,165
100,179
275,698
30,796
239,198
311,996
8,437
(9,232)
88,053
(145,350)
Net income/(loss)
703,212
708,493
(7,272)
109,411
187,646
176,146
22,109
42,702
205
142
66
79
99
71
42,907
142
66
22,189
99
71
660,305
708,351
(7,338)
87,222
187,547
176,075
14,991,045
15,791,681
997,014
10,094,386
10,800,815
5,179,667
3,018,975
2,526,673
944,002
1,169,601
1,758,422
1,184,257
Adjusted return-on-assets
4.4%
4.5%
-0.7%
0.9%
1.7%
3.4%
Adjusted return-on-equity
21.9%
28.0%
-0.8%
7.5%
10.7%
14.9%
7.7%
8.9%
0.1%
14.8%
15.8%
11.9%
132.7%
130.7%
100.9%
106.0%
115.5%
102.1%
130.8%
130.7%
100.8%
104.6%
115.5%
102.1%
Annual Assessment of the Microfinance Industry
weighted avg.
72
Annexures
MFB
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
163,101
91,440
64,671
11,312,781
76,317
133,484
95,333
1,576,465
39,483
1,404,855
120,167
2,927,726
15,816,972
Total revenue
278,901
1,629,780
280,170
78,964
30,188
16,533
3,446,223
199,937
1,599,591
263,637
12,370,749
25,550
1,583
1,358
522,490
174,387
1,598,008
262,279
11,848,259
79,992
271,058
197,901
4,130,777
85,673
303,262
201,014
4,390,540
165,665
574,320
398,915
8,521,318
1,172,592
1,233,022
8,722
(148,904)
(136,636)
2,093,920
2,573
(41,850)
(39,671)
414,155
Net income/(loss)
6,148
(107,054)
(96,965)
1,679,765
64,811
36
(3)
83
778
36
(3)
83
65,590
6,112
(107,051)
(97,048)
1,614,175
1,536,169
2,227,122
1,606,760
63,224,661
529,825
1,090,188
997,783
13,219,726
weighted avg.
Adjusted return-on-assets
Adjusted return-on-equity
-4.8%
-6.0%
2.6%
12.2%
1.2%
-9.8%
-9.7%
13.8%
8.9%
8.5%
10.6%
103.2%
91.6%
67.2%
115.3%
103.2%
91.6%
67.2%
114.7%
73
0.4%
MFI
OCT
KASHF
SSF
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
60,661
1,391,408
141,266
325,191
152,759
26,348
11,374
82,582
13,669
39,507
20,179
259
181,435
3,650
3,939
2,114
4,206
30,554
72,294
1,655,425
158,584
368,637
175,052
27,301
526,211
33,080
111,873
42,764
2,965
44,993
1,129,213
125,504
256,764
132,288
27,589
7,833
15,514
21,667
24,664
4,475
37,160
1,113,700
103,838
232,101
127,813
27,589
Personnel expense
18,270
535,866
57,900
80,472
52,923
8,851
Admin expense
12,458
161,031
42,860
50,561
45,008
3,163
30,728
696,897
100,760
131,033
97,931
12,014
125,486
118,478
1,144
(119,054)
298,324
3,078
101,068
29,882
14,431
(119,054)
298,324
3,078
101,068
29,882
14,431
2,178
27
3,224
1,143
(17)
16
2,205
(17)
3,230
16
1,144
(121,259)
298,341
(152)
101,052
28,738
14,425
608,230
4,945,872
579,693
1,191,631
673,544
118,629
141,672
257,513
89,683
228,025
47,687
90,919
Adjusted return-on-assets
-19.9%
6.0%
0.0%
Adjusted return-on-equity
85.6%
115.9%
-0.2%
0.1%
14.4%
7.9%
37.8%
122.0%
102.0%
37.4%
122.0%
FFO
8.5%
4.3%
12.2%
44.3%
60.3%
15.9%
12.8%
12.7%
4.5%
137.8%
120.6%
189.5%
99.9%
137.8%
119.6%
189.4%
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
56,438
959,387
452,081
145,120
36,689
91,667
34
23,153
2,466
5,883
51,391
358,187
4,799
32
3,227
MFI
Income from loan portfolio
Income from investments
Income from other sources
Total revenue
62,321
1,010,778
810,302
173,072
39,187
94,894
22,514
74,082
67,551
41,089
1,860
21,332
39,807
936,695
742,751
131,983
37,327
73,562
1,721
22,153
25,733
11,284
453
441
38,086
914,543
717,018
120,700
36,874
73,121
Personnel expense
19,833
224,027
279,789
66,891
6,361
19,891
Admin expense
16,797
94,213
393,717
33,758
10,485
23,437
weighted avg.
74
Annexures
MFI
Less: operating expense
Other Non operating expense
Net income before tax
Provision for tax
Net income/(loss)
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
36,631
318,240
673,506
100,649
16,846
43,328
1,349
11,926
7,427
173
7,829
106
584,376
36,085
19,878
20,028
21,964
192,569
4,702
106
391,808
31,383
19,878
20,028
21,964
3,402
21,210
2,371
(26)
16
70
3,402
21,185
16
2,445
106
388,406
10,199
19,862
20,023
19,519
288,358
2,388,094
1,291,247
628,067
105,011
308,377
16,998
975,253
43,527
226,535
80,229
54,267
weighted avg.
Adjusted return-on-assets
0.0%
16.3%
0.8%
3.2%
19.1%
6.3%
Adjusted return-on-equity
0.6%
39.8%
1.0%
3.2%
-23.4%
8.8%
-25.0%
36.0%
6.4%
9.9%
0.7%
100.2%
7.8%
237.0%
104.7%
113.0%
204.5%
130.1%
100.2%
235.2%
101.9%
113.0%
204.5%
125.9%
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
213,655
21,113
36,464
27,108
41,651
472
22,253
1,278
2,333
275
MFI
2,024
5,863
4,449
13,083
40,821
32,971
46,100
13,830
58,368
6,168
11,508
5,325
15,616
186,055
19,947
29,313
27,647
30,484
13,830
22,001
1,651
4,117
2,073
4,251
224
13,606
3,725
26,116
75
8,515
244,423
164,054
18,296
25,195
25,574
26,234
Personnel expense
59,196
8,126
15,429
6,908
15,529
3,423
Admin expense
40,358
7,226
8,258
8,513
9,534
10,043
99,554
15,352
23,687
15,422
25,062
13,467
2,656
35
2,944
1,508
7,496
1,171
105
60,294
2,944
1,508
7,496
1,171
105
1,516
14
4,206
60,294
-
MFI
Total Adjustment Expense
Net Income/(Loss) After Adjustments
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
14
1,518
60,280
2,943
1,505
5,979
1,168
104
10,501
851,842
95,714
107,487
100,334
249,777
268,445
21,599
19,896
27,291
57,676
9,399
weighted avg.
Adjusted return-on-assets
7.1%
3.1%
1.4%
6.0%
0.5%
1.0%
Adjusted return-on-equity
22.5%
13.6%
7.6%
21.9%
2.0%
1.1%
11.0%
10.4%
12.0%
7.1%
12.9%
0.0%
132.7%
112.7%
103.8%
129.4%
102.6%
100.8%
132.7%
112.7%
103.8%
122.1%
102.6%
100.8%
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
DEEP
6,966
30,856
16,875
9,844
26,046
10,057
992
2,996
914
406
1,855
6,040
2,636
766
5,304
6,070
10,057
13,999
36,488
18,555
15,554
33,970
2,103
9,342
6,036
6,807
8,143
8,731
11,896
27,146
12,519
8,748
25,828
1,326
341
1,444
1,990
1,326
1,109
11,555
25,702
10,529
7,422
24,718
1,326
3,826
10,582
4,348
2,850
12,231
359
Admin expense
3,633
7,490
4,609
3,127
11,149
1,300
7,459
18,071
8,957
5,976
23,380
1,659
4,106
2,054
(9)
5,577
1,572
1,446
1,336
(333)
2,269
(9)
3,308
1,572
1,446
1,336
(333)
188
663
(185)
58
188
58
666
(185)
(197)
3,307
1,514
1,445
670
(149)
60,132
121,399
72,595
73,285
138,689
1,328
41,132
16,445
14,534
5,630
35,938
(2,170)
weighted avg.
Adjusted return-on-assets
-0.3%
Adjusted return-on-equity
-0.5%
20.1%
10.4%
25.7%
1.9%
6.9%
4.0%
12.2%
15.3%
12.9%
9.7%
1103.8%
99.9%
118.0%
109.3%
110.2%
104.1%
96.8%
98.6%
118.0%
108.9%
110.2%
102.0%
98.5%
2.7%
2.1%
2.0%
0.5%
-11.2%
MFI
76
Annexures
MFI
BAIDRE
Wasil
15,886
43,644
1,333
17,936
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
8,391
32,239
4,380,283
1,482
32,778
229,080
2,491
448,255
698,023
17,220
61,580
12,364
513,272
5,307,386
6,747
25,473
5,477
1,148,463
10,472
36,107
6,887
513,272
4,158,923
1,246
5,322
(1,008)
15,522
197,547
9,226
30,785
7,895
497,750
3,961,376
Personnel expense
4,470
18,874
2,845
236,547
1,540,071
Admin expense
3,374
13,166
2,440
113,168
1,134,877
7,844
32,040
5,284
349,715
2,674,948
677
240
18,792
306,580
705
(1,256)
2,371
129,242
979,849
991
200,530
705
(2,247)
2,371
129,242
779,319
713
254,283
290,893
16
(11)
43
(12)
12,588
12,658
729
(11)
12,588
254,326
303,540
(23)
(2,236)
(10,217)
(125,085)
475,779
101,356
180,945
58,789
3,414,924
18,765,849
19,421
(120,146)
2,166
702,671
3,372,239
weighted avg.
Adjusted return-on-assets
-17.4%
-3.7%
2.5%
14.1%
Adjusted return-on-equity
-0.1%
1.9%
-471.7%
-17.8%
23.7%
24.1%
14.0%
0.0%
8.5%
104.3%
98.0%
123.7%
133.7%
122.6%
99.9%
98.0%
54.8%
80.4%
114.6%
-1.2%
77
0.0%
RSP
Income from loan portfolio
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
2,070,895
230,464
6,901
327,582
252,585
2,888,425
129,953
71,655
23,022
21,371
246,002
19,900
7,616
16,317
24,923
12,912
81,668
2,220,748
309,734
23,218
375,527
286,868
3,216,095
569,281
103,164
2,402
86,526
95,137
856,511
1,651,467
206,570
20,816
289,001
191,731
2,359,584
Total revenue
Less : financial expense
Gross financial margin
Less: loan loss provision expense
Net financial margin
Personnel expense
20,365
1,349
28
2,852
49,868
74,463
1,631,101
205,221
20,788
286,149
141,862
2,285,121
668,229
35,429
6,183
93,189
83,832
886,861
Admin expense
304,717
20,181
6,974
38,280
55,839
425,991
972,946
55,610
13,157
131,469
139,671
1,312,852
3,348
1,860
1,430
6,638
658,155
146,263
7,631
152,820
761
965,631
658,155
146,263
7,631
152,820
761
965,631
12,132
12,132
157
20
16
192
967
967
157
987
12,148
13,291
657,998
146,263
7,631
151,834
(11,386)
952,340
8,551,884
2,678,281
59,970
779,284
1,434,735
13,504,154
2,303,229
1,192,351
27,705
193,936
320,595
4,037,815
Adjusted return-on-assets
7.7%
5.5%
12.7%
19.5%
-0.8%
7.1%
Adjusted return-on-equity
28.6%
12.3%
27.5%
78.3%
-3.6%
23.6%
8.6%
10.1%
6.9%
8.0%
8.3%
8.6%
142.1%
189.5%
149.0%
168.6%
100.3%
142.9%
142.1%
189.5%
149.0%
167.9%
96.2%
142.1%
weighted avg.
78
Annexures
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
11,312,781
4,380,283
2,888,425
18,581,489
1,576,465
229,080
246,002
2,051,547
2,927,726
698,023
81,668
3,707,417
15,816,972
5,307,386
3,216,095
24,340,453
3,446,223
1,148,463
856,511
5,451,197
12,370,749
4,158,923
2,359,584
18,889,256
Total revenue
522,490
197,547
74,463
794,500
11,848,259
3,961,376
2,285,121
18,094,756
Personnel expense
4,130,777
1,540,071
886,861
6,557,709
Admin expense
4,390,540
1,134,877
425,991
5,951,408
8,521,318
2,674,948
1,312,852
12,509,117
1,233,022
306,580
6,638
1,546,240
2,093,920
979,849
965,631
4,039,399
414,155
200,530
614,684
1,679,765
779,319
965,631
3,424,715
64,811
290,893
12,132
367,837
778
(12)
192
959
12,658
967
13,625
65,590
303,540
13,291
382,421
1,614,175
475,779
952,340
3,042,294
63,224,661
18,765,849
13,504,154
95,494,664
13,219,726
3,372,239
4,037,815
20,629,780
weighted avg.
79
Adjusted return-on-assets
2.6%
2.5%
7.1%
3.2%
Adjusted return-on-equity
12.2%
14.1%
23.6%
14.7%
10.6%
8.5%
8.6%
9.7%
115.3%
122.6%
142.9%
119.9%
114.7%
114.6%
142.1%
117.7%
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
3,483,074
2,934,536
127,903
1,292,267
1,791,295
1,364,494
Total revenue
3,824,187
4,349,005
133,418
1,779,889
2,059,262
1,482,362
660,305
708,351
(7,338)
87,222
187,547
176,075
14,991,045
15,791,681
997,014
10,094,386
10,800,815
5,179,667
8,859,405
8,331,554
117,931
3,499,317
4,845,000
2,036,069
12,238,252
8,981,390
223,832
4,479,999
5,192,071
4,028,415
10,548,829
8,656,472
170,882
3,989,658
5,018,536
3,032,242
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
8%
weighted avg.
25.5%
27.5%
13.4%
17.6%
19.1%
28.6%
17.3%
16.3%
-5.5%
4.9%
9.1%
11.9%
33.0%
33.9%
74.8%
32.4%
35.7%
45.0%
22.9%
23.8%
61.6%
22.4%
25.4%
34.0%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
163,101
91,440
64,671
11,312,781
Total revenue
278,901
1,629,780
280,170
15,816,972
6,112
(107,051)
(97,048)
1,614,175
1,536,169
2,227,122
1,606,760
63,224,661
341,838
178,328
41,381
28,250,823
798,673
500,402
346,493
36,789,528
570,256
339,365
193,937
32,520,176
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
8%
weighted avg.
18.2%
73.2%
17.4%
25.0%
2.2%
-6.6%
-34.6%
10.2%
28.6%
26.9%
33.3%
34.8%
18.9%
17.5%
23.2%
24.6%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
MFB
AMFB
80
Annexures
MFI
OPP
KASHF
SAFCO
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
60,661
1,391,408
141,266
325,191
152,759
26,348
Total revenue
72,294
1,655,425
158,584
368,637
175,052
30,554
(121,259)
298,341
(152)
101,052
28,738
14,425
608,230
4,945,872
579,693
1,191,631
673,544
118,629
470,392
3,543,155
413,875
750,530
293,493
50,763
460,538
3,752,325
422,532
1,003,160
381,000
81,252
465,465
3,647,740
418,203
876,845
337,247
66,007
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
weighted avg.
Total revenue ratio (total revenue-to-average total assets)
11.9%
33.5%
27.4%
30.9%
26.0%
25.8%
-167.7%
18.0%
-0.1%
27.4%
16.4%
47.2%
13.0%
38.1%
33.8%
37.1%
45.3%
39.9%
4.5%
27.7%
23.6%
26.7%
34.3%
29.3%
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
MFI
FFO
ASA-P
56,438
959,387
452,081
145,120
36,689
91,667
Total revenue
62,321
1,010,778
810,302
173,072
39,187
94,894
106
388,406
10,199
19,862
20,023
19,519
288,358
2,388,094
1,291,247
628,067
105,011
308,377
125,333
1,896,801
884,295
319,169
89,582
233,715
263,747
2,733,482
1,224,784
509,994
107,700
315,559
194,540
2,315,142
1,054,540
414,581
98,641
274,637
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
8%
weighted avg.
81
21.6%
42.3%
62.8%
27.6%
37.3%
30.8%
0.2%
38.4%
1.3%
11.5%
51.1%
8.4%
29.0%
41.4%
42.9%
35.0%
37.2%
33.4%
19.2%
30.7%
32.0%
24.8%
26.8%
23.3%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
MFI
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
213,655
21,113
36,464
27,108
41,651
472
Total revenue
244,423
26,116
40,821
32,971
46,100
13,830
60,280
2,943
1,505
5,979
1,168
104
851,842
95,714
107,487
100,334
249,777
10,501
444,610
43,725
78,150
64,083
78,601
9,511
617,401
74,556
114,414
86,663
163,612
9,713
531,006
59,141
96,282
75,373
121,106
9,612
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
weighted avg.
Total revenue ratio (total revenue-to-average total assets)
28.7%
27.3%
38.0%
32.9%
18.5%
131.7%
13.6%
6.7%
1.9%
9.3%
1.5%
1.1%
40.2%
35.7%
37.9%
36.0%
34.4%
4.9%
29.6%
25.4%
27.4%
25.7%
24.2%
-3.0%
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
DEEP
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
MFI
BEDF
Revenue from loan portfolio
Total revenue
Adjusted net operating income /
(loss)
OPD
6,966
30,856
16,875
9,844
26,046
10,057
13,999
36,488
18,555
15,554
33,970
10,057
(197)
3,307
1,514
1,445
670
(149)
60,132
121,399
72,595
73,285
138,689
1,328
89,582
53,404
22,907
45,092
74,448
757
16,264
99,648
55,936
60,477
93,443
825
52,923
76,526
39,421
52,785
83,946
791
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
8%
23.3%
30.1%
25.6%
21.2%
24.5%
757.2%
-0.2%
6.2%
6.6%
3.2%
0.9%
-19.6%
13.2%
40.3%
42.8%
18.6%
31.0%
1271.4%
4.8%
29.7%
32.0%
9.7%
21.1%
1167.5%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
weighted avg.
82
Annexures
MFI
BAIDRE
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
15,886
43,644
8,391
32,239
4,380,283
Total revenue
17,220
61,580
12,364
513,272
5,788,419
(23)
(2,236)
(10,217)
(125,085)
720,264
101,356
180,945
58,789
3,414,924
18,765,849
825
96,080
49,194
1,562,109
11,784,181
56,105
115,659
29,047
2,465,625
15,315,461
28,465
105,869
39,120
2,013,867
13,549,821
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
8%
weighted avg.
17.0%
34.0%
21.0%
15.0%
30.8%
-2.8%
-2.3%
-20.8%
-8.0%
12.4%
55.8%
41.2%
21.4%
1.6%
32.3%
44.3%
30.8%
12.2%
1.6%
22.3%
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
RSP
NRSP
PRSP
Sub
2,070,895
230,464
6,901
327,582
252,585
2,888,425
Total revenue
2,220,748
309,734
23,218
375,527
286,868
3,216,095
657,998
146,263
7,631
151,834
(11,386)
952,340
8,551,884
2,678,281
59,970
779,284
1,434,735
13,504,154
5,584,405
903,664
32,174
789,789
1,077,973
8,388,005
7,653,444
1,149,283
37,519
1,376,726
1,209,504
11,426,476
6,618,924
1,026,474
34,846
1,083,258
1,143,738
9,907,240
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
8%
weighted avg.
83
26.0%
11.6%
38.7%
48.2%
20.0%
23.8%
29.6%
47.2%
32.9%
40.4%
-4.0%
29.6%
31.3%
22.5%
19.8%
30.2%
22.1%
29.2%
21.3%
13.2%
10.7%
20.4%
12.8%
19.4%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
11,312,781
4,380,283
2,888,425
18,581,489
Total revenue
15,816,972
5,788,419
3,216,095
24,821,486
1,614,175
720,264
952,340
3,286,779
63,224,661
18,765,849
13,504,154
95,494,664
28,250,823
11,784,181
8,388,005
48,423,008
36,789,528
15,315,461
11,426,476
63,531,465
32,520,176
13,549,821
9,907,240
55,977,237
8%
8%
8%
8%
Inflation rate *
weighted avg.
Total revenue ratio (total revenue-to-average total assets)
25.0%
30.8%
23.8%
26.0%
10.2%
12.4%
29.6%
13.2%
34.8%
32.3%
29.2%
34.6%
24.6%
22.3%
19.4%
24.4%
* http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/stat_reviews/Bulletin/2013/May/IND.pdf
84
Annexures
Operating Expense
MFB
KBL
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
2,881,777
3,328,516
132,253
1,679,710
1,783,563
1,451,566
809,557
766,186
250
590,199
793,087
361,258
157,686
115,582
1,512
109,972
62,231
47,016
1,043,293
1,914,533
2,446,748
130,490
979,539
928,245
Adjustment expense
Operating expense
42,907
142
66
22,189
99
71,289
14,991,045
15,791,681
997,014
10,094,386
10,800,815
5,179,667
Weighted avg.
19.2%
21.1%
13.3%
16.6%
16.5%
28.0%
5.4%
4.9%
0.0%
5.8%
7.3%
7.0%
1.1%
0.7%
0.2%
1.1%
0.6%
0.9%
12.8%
15.5%
13.1%
9.7%
8.6%
20.1%
5.8%
7.3%
6.5%
4.7%
4.4%
10.4%
6.8%
8.0%
6.4%
4.9%
4.1%
9.8%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
1.4%
MFB
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
270,179
1,778,683
416,806
13,723,052
78,964
30,188
16,533
3,446,223
25,550
1,583
1,358
522,490
165,665
1,746,912
398,915
9,754,340
Operating expense
Adjustment expense
36
(3)
83
136,808
1,536,169
2,227,122
1,606,760
63,224,661
Weighted avg.
85
17.6%
79.9%
25.9%
21.7%
5.1%
1.4%
1.0%
5.5%
1.7%
0.1%
0.1%
0.8%
10.8%
78.4%
24.8%
15.4%
5.2%
12.2%
12.3%
6.5%
5.6%
13.6%
12.5%
6.9%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
MFI
Adjusted total expense
OPP
KASHF
SAFCO
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
193,526
1,357,101
158,731
267,570
146,313
16,122
29,479
526,211
36,304
111,873
43,907
2,965
7,833
15,514
21,667
24,664
4,475
13,158
156,214
815,376
100,760
131,033
97,931
Adjustment expense
Operating expense
2,205
(17)
3,230
16
1,144
608,230
4,945,872
579,693
1,191,631
673,544
118,629
Weighted avg.
31.8%
27.4%
27.4%
22.5%
21.7%
13.6%
4.8%
10.6%
6.3%
9.4%
6.5%
2.5%
1.3%
0.3%
3.7%
2.1%
0.7%
0.0%
25.7%
16.5%
17.4%
11.0%
14.5%
11.1%
3.0%
10.8%
10.0%
6.8%
7.9%
7.5%
2.0%
3.3%
7.4%
4.2%
6.7%
2.7%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.4%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
MFI
Adjusted total expense
62,214
429,803
795,428
153,194
19,159
75,372
22,514
77,484
88,762
41,089
1,860
23,703
1,721
22,153
25,733
11,284
453
512
51,157
37,979
330,166
680,933
100,822
16,846
Adjustment expense
Operating expense
3,402
21,185
16
2,445
288,358
2,388,094
1,291,247
628,067
105,011
308,377
21.6%
18.0%
61.6%
24.4%
18.2%
24.4%
7.8%
3.2%
6.9%
6.5%
1.8%
7.7%
0.6%
0.9%
2.0%
1.8%
0.4%
0.2%
13.2%
13.8%
52.7%
16.1%
16%
16.6%
6.9%
9.4%
21.7%
10.7%
6.1%
6.5%
5.8%
3.9%
30.5%
5.4%
10.0%
7.6%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.0%
0.1%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
Weighted avg.
86
Annexures
MFI
Adjusted total expense
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
184,129
23,171
39,313
26,991
44,928
13,726
58,368
6,168
11,508
6,841
15,616
22,001
1,651
4,117
2,073
4,251
224
13,501
103,760
15,352
23,687
18,077
25,062
Adjustment expense
Operating expense
14
1,518
851,842
95,714
107,487
100,334
249,777
10,501
Weighted avg.
21.6%
24.2%
36.6%
26.9%
18.0%
130.7%
6.9%
6.4%
10.7%
6.8%
6.3%
0.0%
2.6%
1.7%
3.8%
2.1%
1.7%
2.1%
12.2%
16.0%
22.0%
18.0%
10.0%
128.6%
6.9%
8.5%
14.4%
6.9%
6.2%
32.6%
4.7%
7.5%
7.7%
8.5%
3.8%
95.6%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
DEEP
14,195
30,911
16,983
14,109
33,298
10,390
2,291
9,342
6,036
6,807
8,806
8,731
341
1,444
1,990
1,326
1,109
1,659
MFI
Adjusted total expense
Adjusted financial expense
Adjusted loan loss provision
expense
11,564
20,126
8,957
5,976
23,383
Adjustment expense
Operating expense
188
58
666
(185)
60,132
121,399
72,595
73,285
138,689
1,328
Weighted avg.
87
23.6%
25.5%
23.4%
19.3%
24.0%
782.3%
3.8%
7.7%
8.3%
9.3%
6.3%
657.4%
0.6%
1.2%
2.7%
1.8%
0.8%
0.0%
19.2%
16.6%
12.3%
8.2%
16.9%
124.9%
6.4%
8.7%
6.0%
3.9%
8.8%
27.0%
6.0%
6.2%
6.3%
4.3%
8.0%
97.9%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.5%
-13.9%
MFI
BAIDRE
Adjusted total expense
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
17,227
62,835
22,581
638,314
4,867,637
7,460
25,473
5,477
254,283
1,439,357
1,246
5,322
11,580
15,522
210,205
Operating expense
3,218,075
8,521
32,040
5,525
368,508
Adjustment expense
729
(11)
12,588
254,326
303,540
101,356
180,945
58,789
3,414,924
18,765,849
Weighted avg.
17.0%
34.7%
38.4%
18.7%
25.9%
7.4%
14.1%
9.3%
7.4%
7.7%
1.2%
2.9%
19.7%
0.5%
1.1%
8.4%
17.7%
9.4%
10.8%
17.1%
4.4%
10.4%
4.8%
6.9%
8.2%
3.3%
7.3%
4.1%
3.3%
6.0%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.7%
0.0%
21.4%
7.4%
1.6%
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
RSP
1,562,593
163,471
15,587
223,674
286,107
2,251,431
569,281
103,164
2,402
86,526
95,137
856,511
20,365
1,349
28
3,819
49,868
75,430
1,319,490
972,946
58,958
13,157
133,329
141,101
Adjustment expense
Operating expense
157
987
12,148
13,291
8,551,884
2,678,281
59,970
779,284
1,434,735
13,504,154
18.3%
6.1%
26.0%
28.7%
19.9%
16.7%
6.7%
3.9%
4.0%
11.1%
6.6%
6.3%
0.2%
0.1%
0.0%
0.5%
3.5%
0.6%
11.4%
2.2%
21.9%
17.1%
9.8%
9.8%
7.8%
1.3%
10.3%
12.0%
5.8%
6.6%
3.6%
0.8%
11.6%
4.9%
3.9%
3.2%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.8%
0.1%
Weighted avg.
88
Annexures
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
13,723,052
4,867,637
2,251,431
20,842,120
3,446,223
1,439,357
856,511
5,742,091
522,490
210,205
75,430
808,125
9,754,340
3,218,075
1,319,490
14,291,904
Adjustment expense
136,808
303,540
13,291
453,639
63,224,661
18,765,849
13,504,154
95,494,664
Weighted avg.
21.7%
25.9%
16.7%
21.8%
5.5%
7.7%
6.3%
6.0%
0.8%
1.1%
0.6%
0.8%
15.4%
17.1%
9.8%
15.0%
6.5%
8.2%
6.6%
6.9%
6.9%
6.0%
3.2%
6.2%
Adjustment expense-to-average
total assets
0.2%
1.6%
0.1%
0.5%
89
Operating Efficiency
MFB
KBL
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
1,889,832
2,425,400
128,958
976,722
918,213
1,043,293
872,220
1,155,631
64,948
479,259
472,418
537,350
10,548,829
8,656,472
170,882
3,989,658
5,018,536
3,032,242
468,638
226,870
6,220
148,776
194,489
75,804
468,638
226,870
6,220
148,776
194,489
76,791
17.92%
28.0%
75.5%
24.5%
18.3%
34.4%
8.27%
13.3%
38.0%
12.0%
9.4%
17.7%
2.3
3.9
2.2
2.9
2.3
2.9
4,033
10,691
20,733
6,565
4,721
13,763
4,033
10,691
20,733
6,565
4,721
13,586
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
165,665
574,320
398,915
8,521,318
79,992
271,058
197,901
4,130,777
570,256
339,365
193,937
32,520,176
11,930
11,402
8,786
1,152,915
11,930
11,402
8,786
MFB
1,153,902
29.1%
169.2%
205.7%
26.2%
14.0%
79.9%
102.0%
12.7%
2.1
4.6
4.1
2.9
13,886
50,370
45,403
7,391
13,886
50,370
45,403
7,385
weighted avg.
90
Annexures
MFI
OPP
KASHF
SAFCO
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
30,728
696,897
100,760
131,033
97,931
12,014
18,270
535,866
57,900
80,472
52,923
8,851
465,465
3,647,740
418,203
876,845
337,247
66,007
47,486
230,810
38,234
38,063
19,753
8,835
47,486
230,810
38,234
38,063
19,753
8,835
weighted avg.
Adjusted operating expense-to-average gross loan portfolio
6.6%
19.1%
24.1%
14.9%
29.0%
18.2%
3.9%
14.7%
13.8%
9.2%
15.7%
13.4%
1.3
1.8
1.6
2.5
2.0
0.9
647
3,019
2,635
3,443
4,958
1,360
647
3,019
2,635
3,443
4,958
1,360
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
MFI
Operating expense (PKR 000)
36,631
318,240
673,506
100,649
16,846
43,328
19,833
224,027
279,789
66,891
6,361
19,891
194,540
2,315,142
1,054,540
414,581
98,641
274,637
20,861
220,606
58,389
28,239
11,559
19,140
20,861
220,606
58,389
28,239
11,599
19,140
weighted avg.
18.8%
13.7%
63.9%
24.3%
17.1%
15.8%
10.2%
9.7%
26.5%
16.1%
6.4%
7.2%
0.8
1.5
3.2
2.4
0.8
2.0
1,756
1,443
11,535
3,564
1,457
2,264
1,756
1,443
11,535
3,564
1,452
2,264
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
99,554
15,352
23,687
15,422
25,062
13,467
59,196
8,126
15,429
6,908
15,529
3,423
531,006
59,141
96,282
75,373
121,106
9,612
41,023
6,826
14,386
4,833
9,121
2,498
41,023
6,826
14,386
4,833
9,121
2,498
MFI
91
MFI
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
weighted avg.
18.7%
26.0%
24.6%
20.5%
20.7%
140.1%
11.1%
13.7%
16.0%
9.2%
12.8%
35.6%
1.4
1.2
0.9
1.8
0.7
1.7
2,427
2,249
1,647
3,191
2,748
5,391
2,427
2,249
1,647
3,191
2,748
5,391
MFI
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
DEEP
7,459
18,071
8,957
5,976
23,380
1,659
3,826
10,582
4,348
2,850
12,231
359
52,923
76,526
39,421
52,785
83,946
791
1,480
7,319
4,309
2,452
4,244
450
1,480
7,319
4,309
2,452
4,244
450
weighted avg.
Adjusted operating expense-to-average gross loan portfolio
14.1%
23.6%
22.7%
11.3%
27.9%
209.8%
7.2%
13.8%
11.0%
5.4%
14.6%
45.4%
1.9
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.8
0.2
5,040
2,469
2,079
2,437
5,509
3,687
5,040
2,469
2,079
2,437
5,509
3,687
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
7,844
32,040
5,284
349,715
2,911,495
4,470
18,874
2,845
236,547
1,776,618
28,465
105,869
39,120
2,013,867
13,549,821
3,376
5,482
2,787
235,517
1,088,078
3,376
5,482
2,787
235,517
1,088,118
weighted avg.
27.6%
30.3%
13.5%
17.4%
21.5%
15.7%
17.8%
7.3%
11.7%
13.1%
0.6
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.6
MFI
BAIDRE
92
Annexures
MFI
BAIDRE
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
2,323
5,845
1,896
1,485
2,676
2,323
5,845
1,896
1,485
2,676
RSP
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
972,946
55,610
13,157
131,469
139,671
1,312,852
668,229
35,429
6,183
93,189
83,832
886,861
6,618,924
1,026,474
34,846
1,083,258
1,143,738
9,907,240
492,338
74,864
4,770
109,688
75,215
756,875
492,338
74,864
4,770
109,688
75,215
756,875
weighted avg.
Adjusted operating expense-to-average gross loan portfolio
14.7%
5.4%
37.8%
12.1%
12.2%
13.3%
10.1%
3.5%
17.7%
8.6%
7.3%
9.0%
1.8
0.4
1.7
1.1
1.7
1.5
1,976
743
2,758
1,199
1,857
1,735
1,976
743
2,758
1,199
1,857
1,735
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
8,521,318
2,911,495
1,312,852
12,745,665
4,130,777
1,776,618
886,861
6,794,257
32,520,176
13,549,821
9,907,240
55,977,237
1,152,915
1,088,078
756,875
2,997,868
1,153,902
1,088,118
756,875
2,998,895
weighted avg.
93
26.2%
21.5%
13.3%
22.8%
12.7%
13.1%
9.0%
12.1%
2.9
1.6
1.5
2.2
7,391
2,676
1,735
4,252
7,385
2,676
1,735
4,250
Productivity
MFB
Number of active borrowers
KBL
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
468,638
226,870
6,220
148,776
194,489
75,804
468,638
226,870
6,220
148,776
194,489
76,791
900,081
3,481,340
18,301
270,787
327,128
267,913
900,081
3,481,340
18,301
270,787
327,128
267,913
2,622
2,058
206
1,169
1,429
1,268
480
982
92
535
743
Total staff
Total loan officers
434
weighted avg.
179
110
30
127
136
60
179
110
30
127
136
61
976
231
68
279
262
175
976
231
68
279
262
177
343
1,692
89
232
229
211
343
1,692
89
232
229
211
18.3%
47.7%
44.7%
45.8%
52.0%
34.2%
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
11,930
11,402
8,786
1,152,915
11,930
11,402
8,786
1,044,993
43,532
311,920
54,435
5,675,437
43,532
311,920
54,435
5,675,437
271
475
338
7,484
62
74
31
2,832
44
24
26
140
44
24
26
140
192
154
283
369
192
154
283
369
161
657
161
758
161
657
161
758
22.9%
15.6%
9.2%
37.8%
MFB
Total staff
weighted avg.
94
Annexures
MFI
OPP
KASHF
SAFCO
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
47,486
230,810
38,234
38,063
19,753
8,835
47,486
230,810
38,234
38,063
19,753
8,835
100
2,064
245
228
180
67
26
935
123
103
55
475
112
156
167
110
132
475
112
156
167
110
132
Total staff
Total loan officers
weighted avg.
1,826
247
311
370
359
1,473
1,826
247
311
370
359
1,473
26.0%
45.3%
50.2%
45.2%
30.6%
9.0%
AKHUWAT
MFI
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC
JWS
SUNGI
20,861
220,606
58,389
28,239
11,559
235,517
20,861
220,606
58,389
28,239
11,599
235,517
176
1,044
610
197
54
1,549
40
634
329
96
41
1,015
119
211
96
143
214
152
119
211
96
143
215
152
Total staff
Total loan officers
weighted avg.
522
348
177
294
282
232
522
348
177
294
283
232
22.7%
60.7%
53.9%
48.7%
75.9%
65.5%
Mojaz
MFI
ORIX
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
19,140
41,023
6,826
14,386
4,833
9,121
19,140
41,023
6,826
14,386
4,833
9,121
Total staff
70
297
46
119
26
158
41
140
27
32
12
15
weighted avg.
273
138
148
121
186
58
95
MFI
ORIX
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
273
138
148
121
186
58
467
293
253
450
403
608
608
467
293
253
450
403
58.6%
47.1%
58.7%
26.9%
46.2%
9.5%
Naymet
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
2,498
1,480
7,319
4,309
2,452
4,244
4,244
MFI
2,498
1,480
7,319
4,309
2,452
14
14
59
25
21
47
17
10
15
Total staff
Total loan officers
weighted avg.
Borrowers per staff
178
106
124
172
117
90
178
106
124
172
117
90
625
247
431
431
409
283
283
625
247
431
431
409
28.6%
42.9%
28.8%
40.0%
28.6%
31.9%
BAIDRE
Wasil
VDO
Sub
450
3,376
5,482
2,787
1,088,078
450
3,376
5,482
2,787
1,099,717
15
56
82
16
7,633
14
44
3,834
weighted avg.
30
60
67
174
144
30
60
67
174
144
150
241
125
348
287
287
150
241
125
348
20.0%
25.0%
53.7%
50.0%
50.2%
MFI
DEEP
96
Annexures
RSP
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
492,338
74,864
4,770
109,688
75,215
756,875
492,338
74,864
4,770
109,688
75,215
756,875
Total staff
2,572
643
26
589
334
4,164
1,842
64
230
30
2,172
191
116
183
186
225
182
191
116
183
186
225
182
weighted avg.
267
1,170
795
477
2,507
348
267
1,170
795
477
2,507
348
71.6%
10.0%
23.1%
39.0%
9.0%
52.2%
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
1,044,993
1,099,637
756,875
2,997,868
1,044,993
1,099,717
756,875
2,901,585
5,675,437
5,675,437
5,675,437
5,675,437
Total staff
7,484
7,633
4,164
19,281
2,832
3,834
2,172
8,838
weighted avg.
140
144
182
150
140
144
182
150
369
287
348
328
369
287
348
328
758
294
97
758
294
37.8%
50.2%
52.2%
45.8%
KBL
TMFB
POMFB
FMFB
NRSP-B
FINCA
112,973
74,381
2,275
37,104
51,109
35,550
35,170
25,176
1,197
21,490
27,490
14,147
132,413
39,631
2,855
63,308
66,894
33,747
127,783
11,429
52,160
128,046
49,981
30,091
12,238,252
8,981,390
223,832
4,479,999
5,192,071
4,028,415
10,548,829
8,656,472
170,882
3,989,658
5,018,536
3,032,242
weighted avg.
0.9%
0.8%
1.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.9%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
1.2%
0.13%
30.5%
3.2%
1.0%
1.0%
117.2%
53.3%
125.5%
170.6%
130.9%
94.9%
AMFB
WASEELA
U-Bank
Sub
101,396
267
415,062
39,561
20
164,251
32,535
2,590
2,366
376,338
15,836
22
415,348
798,673
500,402
346,493
36,789,528
570,256
339,365
193,937
MFB
32,520,176
12.7%
0.0%
0.1%
1.1%
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
32.1%
36160.9%
884.8%
90.7%
weighted avg.
98
Annexures
MFI
OPP
KASHF
SAFCO
DAMEN
CSC
GBTI
7,833
20,878
12,998
7,920
2,333
7,833
17,708
12,244
4,378
2,333
13,248
73,991
21,127
50,158
19,060
601,390
12,419
12,032
316
460,538
3,752,325
422,532
1,003,160
381,000
81,252
465,465
3,647,740
418,203
876,845
337,247
66,007
weighted avg.
1.7%
0.6%
3.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.0%
1.7%
0.5%
2.9%
0.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
16.5%
3.0%
1.4%
0.1%
0.0%
169.1%
354.4%
162.5%
633.3%
816.8%
0.0%
FFO
ASA-P
BRAC-P
JWS
Sungi
ORIX
MFI
Portfolio at risk > 30 days
216
4,985
26,859
2,637
4,422
216
3,838
21,418
2,637
4,342
8,005
29,812
225,884
26,695
1,615
4,162
799
7,579
899
182
11,886
263,747
2,733,482
1,224,784
509,994
107,700
315,559
194,540
2,315,142
1,054,540
414,581
98,641
274,637
weighted avg.
0.1%
0.2%
2.2%
0.5%
0.0%
1.4%
0.1%
0.1%
1.7%
0.5%
0.0%
1.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
4.3%
3710.9%
598.1%
841.0%
1012.5%
100.0%
94.1%
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
1,017
5,494
1,292
27
MFI
Portfolio at risk > 30 days
Portfolio at risk > 90 days
Loan loss reserve
Loan Portfolio written off during
year
924
4,256
903
30,852
5,679
5,277
8,181
224
3,802
1,880
617,401
74,556
114,414
86,663
163,612
9,713
531,006
59,141
96,282
75,373
121,106
9,612
99
MFI
RCDS
Agahe
AMRDO
MO
Mojaz
Naymet
weighted avg.
0.2%
0.0%
4.8%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
3.7%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3033.1%
0.0%
103.4%
100%
100.0%
100.0%
BEDF
OPD
SAATH
SRDO
SVDP
DEEP
MFI
Portfolio at risk > 30 days
146
1,025
1,096
1,885
1,570
137
427
943
858
744
1,216
137
488
2,346
2,797
3,024
4,672
824
512
1,263
339
608
16,264
99,648
55,936
60,477
93,443
825
52,923
76,526
39,421
52,785
83,946
791
weighted avg.
0.9%
1.0%
2.0%
3.1%
1.7%
16.6%
2.6%
0.9%
1.5%
1.2%
1.3%
16.6%
1.0%
1.7%
0.9%
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
200.0%
228.9%
255.2%
160.4%
297.6%
601.5%
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
1,938
7,487
17,241
11,850
143,286
1,398
4,792
15,952
11,850
121,354
3,331
5,120
1,452
24,525
572,548
549
15,647
1,008
6,504
679,613
56,105
115,659
29,047
2,465,625
15,315,461
28,465
105,869
39,120
2,013,867
13,549,821
weighted avg.
3.5%
6.5%
59.4%
0.5%
0.9%
2.5%
4.1%
54.9%
0.5%
0.8%
1.9%
14.8%
2.6%
0.3%
5.0%
MFI
BAIDRE
100
Annexures
MFI
Risk coverage ratio (adjusted loan
loss reserve-to-portfolio at risk
>30days)
BAIDRE
Wasil
VDO
Akhuwat
Sub
171.9%
68.4%
8.4%
207.0%
399.6%
NRSP
PRSP
SRSP
TRDP
SRSO
Sub
101,070
RSP
Portfolio at risk > 30 days
23,148
2,032
22,674
53,216
20,152
1,922
22,425
49,532
94,032
88,494
79,562
28
967
71,946
240,997
81,476
28
45,611
127,115
7,653,444
1,149,283
37,519
1,376,726
1,209,504
11,426,476
6,618,924
1,026,474
34,846
1,083,258
1,143,738
9,907,240
weighted avg.
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
1.6%
4.4%
0.9%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
1.6%
4.1%
0.8%
1.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
4.0%
1.3%
382.3%
3916.2%
0.0%
4.3%
135.2%
238.4%
Sub MFB
Sub MFI
Sub RSP
Total
415,062
143,286
101,070
659,418
164,251
121,354
94,032
379,637
376,338
572,548
240,997
1,189,884
415,348
679,613
127,115
1,222,076
36,789,528
15,315,461
11,426,476
63,531,465
32,520,176
13,549,821
9,907,240
55,977,237
weighted avg.
101
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
1.0%
0.4%
0.8%
0.8%
0.6%
1.3%
5.0%
1.3%
2.2%
90.7%
399.6%
238.4%
180.4%
102
Annexures
AIII - Social
Performance
Indicators of
Individual MFPs 2014
MFPs
Social Goals
1.1
Target market
KBL
TMFB
FMFBP
FINCA
WMFB
Women
Poverty reduction
Development goals
Employment generation
Development of start-up
enterprises
103
Improvement of adult
education
Youth opportunities
Childrens schooling
Health improvement
1.3
Poverty level
Yes
No
Unknown
1.5
Poverty measurement
tool
Governance and HR
2.1
Board orientation of
social mission
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
2.3
Board experience in
SPM
Yes
P
P
No
Unknown
2.4
Number of clients
P
P
Quality of interactionw
ith clients based on client
feedback mechanism
P
P
2.2
104
Annexures
Client retention
2.6
HR policies related
to SP
P
P
P
Safety policy
Anti-harassment policy
Non-discrimination policy
3.2
Microenterprise loans
SME loans
Agriculture/livestock loans
P
P
Express loans
3.3
105
Types of non-income
generating loans
Education loans
Emergency loans
Housing loans
3.4
Types of savings
products
Compulsory sacings
accounts
Voluntary savings accounts
Does not offer savings
accounts
3.5
Types of voluntary
savings products
3.6
Compulory insurance
required
Yes
P
P
No
Unknown
3.7
Types of compulory
insurance required
Agriculture insurance
Voluntary insurance
offered
Yes
No
Unknown
3.9
Types of voluntary
insurance offered
Agriculture insurance
Health insurance
House insurance
Workplace insurance
None of the above
3.10
Yes
Debit/credit card
Mobile/branchless banking
services
No
Unknown
Remittance/money transfer
services
Payment services
P
P
P
P
Microleasing
Scholarship/educational
grants
None of the above
3.12
Enterprise services
offered
Yes
No
Unknown
3.11
106
Annexures
3.13
Types of enterprise
services offered
3.14
Womens enpowerment
services
Yes
No
Unknown
3.15
Types of womens
empowerment services
offered
3.16
Education services
offered
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
3.17
Types of education
services offered
Basic health/nutrition
education
Child and youth education
Occupational health and
safety in the workplace
education
None of the above
3.18
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
3.19
107
Client Protection
4.1
Do policies support
good repayment capacity analysis
No
Unknown
4.2
Yes
No
Unknown
4.3
Yes
No
Unknown
4.4
Yes
No
Unknown
4.5
Yes
No
Unknown
4.6
Yes
No
Unknown
4.7
4.8
Yes
Do contracts include a
data privacy clause
Yes
No
Unknown
No
Unknown
P
P
P
P
Environment
5.1
Environmental policies
in place
4.9
108
Annexures
109
MFIs
Social Goals
1.1
Target market
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
Women
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Women
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
Women
RCDS
Clients living in rural areas
OPD
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Women
P
P
1.2
Development goals
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
Poverty reduction
Employment generation
Development of start-up
enterprises
110
Annexures
Improvement of adult
education
Youth opportunities
Children's schooling
Health improvement
Housing
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Poverty reduction
Employment generation
Development of start-up
enterprises
Improvement of adult
education
Youth opportunities
Children's schooling
Health improvement
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Poverty reduction
Employment generation
Development of start-up
enterprises
Growth of existing businesses
P
P
Improvement of adult
education
Youth opportunities
Children's schooling
Health improvement
Gender equality and women's empowerment
Water and sanitation
Housing
111
P
P
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Poverty reduction
Employment generation
Development of start-up
enterprises
Growth of existing businesses
Improvement of adult
education
Youth opportunities
Children's schooling
Health improvement
Gender equality and women's empowerment
P
P
P
P
Housing
None of the above
AGAHE
Poverty level
AMRDO
ASA Pak
Poor clients
Low income clients
BEDF
P
P
FFO
JWS
Kashf
CSC
DAMEN
Poor clients
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Poor clients
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Poor clients
P
P
1.3
Akhuwat
112
Annexures
1.4
Yes
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
JWS
Kashf
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
AGAHE
1.5
Poverty measurement
tool
Akhuwat
P
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
113
Means test
Own proxy poverty index
P
MOJAZ
P
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
SSF
SVDP
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
AGAHE
2.1
Board orientation of
social mission
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Governance and HR
114
Annexures
RCDS
Yes
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AMRDO
ASA Pak
No
Unknown
P
AGAHE
2.2
Yes
No
Akhuwat
P
P
BEDF
P
P
FFO
JWS
Kashf
OCT
OPD
Unknown
CSC
DAMEN
Yes
No
Unknown
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
Yes
No
Nayment
P
P
RCDS
Sungi
Unknown
Yes
SSF
SVDP
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
No
Unknown
P
AGAHE
2.3
Board experience in
SPM
Yes
BEDF
No
Unknown
Yes
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
No
Unknown
Yes
No
115
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
2.4
Number of clients
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
Quality of interactionw
ith clients based on client
feedback mechanism
Quality of social data
collected
Portfolio quality
None of the above
P
CSC
P
DAMEN
Number of clients
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Quality of interactionw
ith clients based on client
feedback mechanism
Quality of social data
collected
Portfolio quality
None of the above
Number of clients
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Quality of interactionw
ith clients based on client
feedback mechanism
RCDS
Sungi
Number of clients
P
SSF
SVDP
Quality of interactionw
ith clients based on client
feedback mechanism
Quality of social data
collected
Portfolio quality
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
P
FFO
JWS
Client retention
None of the above
Kashf
P
AGAHE
2.5
116
Annexures
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
P
P
SSF
SVDP
P
RCDS
OPD
OCT
Sungi
AGAHE
2.6
HR policies related
to SP
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
Non-discrimination policy
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
P
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Non-discrimination policy
Grievance resolution policy
Safety policy
117
Anti-harassment policy
Non-discrimination policy
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
Safety policy
Anti-harassment policy
SVDP
Non-discrimination policy
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
3.1
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Non-income generating
loans
Does not offer credit
products
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Non-income generating
loans
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
3.2
Microenterprise loans
SME loans
Agriculture/livestock loans
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Express loans
None of the above
Microenterprise loans
SME loans
Agriculture/livestock loans
Express loans
None of the above
Microenterprise loans
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
118
Annexures
SME loans
Agriculture/livestock loans
Express loans
None of the above
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Microenterprise loans
SME loans
Agriculture/livestock loans
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
Express loans
None of the above
3.3
Types of non-income
generating loans
Education loans
Emergency loans
Housing loans
P
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Education loans
Emergency loans
Housing loans
Other household needs/
consumption
None of the above
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Education loans
Emergency loans
Housing loans
Other household needs/
consumption
None of the above
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Education loans
Emergency loans
119
P
P
Housing loans
Other household needs/
consumption
None of the above
AGAHE
3.4
Types of savings
products
Compulsory savings
accounts
Voluntary savings accounts
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Compulsory savings
accounts
MOJAZ
NRDP
Compulsory savings
accounts
Voluntary savings accounts
Does not offer savings
accounts
P
P
RCDS
Compulsory savings
accounts
Voluntary savings accounts
3.5
Types of voluntary
savings products
P
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
3.6
Compulory insurance
required
Yes
No
BEDF
P
P
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
120
Annexures
MOJAZ
Yes
NRDP
No
Nayment
OCT
OPD
P
P
Unknown
RCDS
Yes
Sungi
SSF
No
SVDP
P
P
Akhuwat
AMRDO
Unknown
AGAHE
3.7
Types of compulory
insurance required
ASA Pak
BEDF
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
None of the above
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
P
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
None of the above
Life/accident insurance
P
P
Sungi
SSF
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Agriculture insurance
None of the above
RCDS
Credit life insurance
SVDP
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
AGAHE
3.8
Voluntary insurance
offered
Yes
No
Unknown
CSC
DAMEN
Yes
No
P
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
121
P
P
Yes
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
No
SVDP
Unknown
AGAHE
3.9
Types of voluntary
insurance offered
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Agriculture insurance
Health insurance
House insurance
Workplace insurance
None of the above
P
CSC
DAMEN
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
Health insurance
House insurance
Workplace insurance
None of the above
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
P
OPD
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
Health insurance
House insurance
Workplace insurance
None of the above
P
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
Health insurance
House insurance
Workplace insurance
None of the above
P
AGAHE
3.10
Yes
No
Unknown
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
P
P
122
Annexures
CSC
Yes
No
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
P
P
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Unknown
MOJAZ
NRDP
Yes
No
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
3.11
Debit/credit card
Mobile/branchless banking
services
Savings facilitation services
Remittance/money transfer
services
Payment services
Microleasing
Scholarship/educational
grants
None of the above
P
P
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
OCT
OPD
Debit/credit card
Mobile/branchless banking
services
Savings facilitation services
Remittance/money transfer
services
Payment services
Microleasing
Scholarship/educational
grants
123
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
Debit/credit card
Mobile/branchless banking
services
Savings facilitation services
Remittance/money transfer
services
Payment services
Microleasing
Scholarship/educational
grants
None of the above
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Debit/credit card
Mobile/branchless banking
services
3.12
Enterprise services
offered
Yes
AGAHE
Akhuwat
No
P
AMRDO
ASA Pak
P
P
BEDF
P
P
Unknown
Yes
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
RCDS
Sungi
No
SSF
SVDP
AMRDO
ASA Pak
AGAHE
3.13
Types of enterprise
services offered
Akhuwat
BEDF
Business development
services
P
CSC
DAMEN
Business development
services
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
P
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Unknown
124
Annexures
Business development
services
P
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Business development
services
P
P
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
AGAHE
3.14
Womens enpowerment
services
Yes
No
BEDF
P
P
Unknown
CSC
Yes
DAMEN
No
FFO
JWS
Kashf
OPD
Unknown
Yes
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
No
Unknown
Yes
RCDS
Sungi
No
SSF
SVDP
AMRDO
ASA Pak
Unknown
AGAHE
3.15
Types of womens
empowerment services
offered
Akhuwat
BEDF
125
P
CSC
P
FFO
JWS
Kashf
DAMEN
MOJAZ
Leadership training for
women
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
SSF
SVDP
AMRDO
ASA Pak
OPD
P
P
RCDS
Sungi
AGAHE
3.16
Education services
offered
Akhuwat
Yes
No
BEDF
P
P
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
OCT
OPD
Unknown
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
MOJAZ
Yes
No
NRDP
Nayment
Unknown
RCDS
Yes
Sungi
SSF
No
SVDP
P
P
Akhuwat
AMRDO
AGAHE
3.17
Types of education
services offered
ASA Pak
BEDF
Basic health/nutrition
education
Child and youth education
Occupational health and
safety in the workplace
education
None of the above
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Unknown
126
Annexures
Basic health/nutrition
education
P
MOJAZ
P
NRDP
Basic health/nutrition
education
Nayment
OCT
OPD
P
RCDS
Basic health/nutrition
education
AGAHE
3.18
Yes
Sungi
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
FFO
JWS
Kashf
P
P
CSC
DAMEN
Yes
No
SVDP
No
Unknown
SSF
P
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
Unknown
Yes
No
127
OCT
OPD
P
P
RCDS
Sungi
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
SSF
SVDP
P
P
AGAHE
3.19
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
FFO
JWS
Kashf
P
CSC
DAMEN
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
P
OCT
OPD
P
P
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
Client Protection
4.1
Do policies support
good repayment capacity analysis
Yes
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
P
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
No
Unknown
4.2
Yes
No
Unknown
Unknown
128
Annexures
Yes
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
4.3
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
4.4
Yes
No
BEDF
Unknown
129
CSC
Yes
No
Unknown
MOJAZ
Yes
No
Unknown
P
P
Yes
RCDS
Sungi
No
SSF
SVDP
P
P
Unknown
AGAHE
4.5
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
4.6
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
4.7
Yes
No
Unknown
130
Annexures
Unknown
Yes
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Unknown
4.8
Do contracts include a
data privacy clause
Yes
No
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
Unknown
CSC
Yes
No
Unknown
MOJAZ
Yes
No
P
P
P
P
Unknown
RCDS
Yes
Sungi
SSF
No
SVDP
P
P
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
FFO
JWS
Kashf
Unknown
AGAHE
4.9
131
P
CSC
DAMEN
P
P
MOJAZ
NRDP
P
P
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
P
P
AGAHE
Akhuwat
AMRDO
Environment
Environmental policies
in place
BEDF
P
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
Awareness raising on environmental impacts
Clauses in loan contracts
requiring clients to imrove
environmental practices/
mitigate environmental risks
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
RCDS
Sungi
SSF
SVDP
5.1
ASA Pak
132
Annexures
AGAHE
5.2
Akhuwat
AMRDO
ASA Pak
BEDF
CSC
DAMEN
FFO
JWS
Kashf
MOJAZ
NRDP
Nayment
OCT
OPD
133
P
RCDS
SSF
SVDP
Sungi
P
P
RSPs
Social Goals
1.1
Target market
Women
Development goals
Poverty reduction
Employment generation
P
P
Development of start-up
enterprises
Housing
None of the above
.
Poverty level
Poor clients
Yes
No
Unknown
P
.
1.5
1.3
134
Annexures
Housing index
Food security index
Means test
Own proxy poverty index
None of the above
Governance and HR
2.1
Yes
No
Unknown
P
.
2.2
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
.
2.3
Yes
No
Unknown
.
2.4
Number of clients
P
.
2.5
135
Client retention
P
.
2.6
HR policies related to SP
Safety policy
Anti-harassment policy
Non-discrimination policy
P
P
Microenterprise loans
SME loans
Agriculture/livestock loans
Express loans
None of the above
.
3.3
Education loans
Emergency loans
Housing loans
P
.
3.4
P
.
3.5
3.6
Yes
No
Unknown
3.7
Life/accident insurance
Agriculture insurance
P
P
P
Yes
No
Unknown
136
Annexures
3.9
.
3.10
Yes
No
Unknown
3.11
Debit/credit card
Mobile/branchless banking
services
Savings facilitation services
Remittance/money transfer
services
Payment services
Microleasing
Scholarship/educational grants
None of the above
.
3.12
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
.
3.13
P
P
.
3.14
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
137
3.15
P
.
3.16
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
.
3.17
P
.
3.18
Yes
No
Unknown
.
3.19
Client Protection
4.1
Yes
No
Unknown
.
4.2
Yes
No
Unknown
.
4.3
Yes
No
Unknown
4.4
Yes
No
P
P
Unknown
.
4.5
Yes
No
Unknown
.
4.6
Yes
No
Unknown
138
Annexures
4.7
Yes
No
Unknown
.
4.8
Yes
No
Unknown
.
4.9
P
P
.
Environment
5.1
139
Annexure B - Regional
Benchmarks 2014
Outreach
Number of MFIs
Africa
Asia
EAP1
ECA2
LAC3
MENA4
All Regions
309
179
158
208
374
40
1,268
7,037
9,453
9,661
12,105
35,963
1,125
54,943
4,719
52,871
12,781
2,680
20,558
1,601
87,476
5,017
3,446
46,654
7,298
24,133
22
86,702
16,000
27,348
10,190
4,344
17,977
63
71,373
327
18
1,538
1,490
360
234
392
59%
1.60%
55.80%
53.60%
5.80%
6.70%
17.00%
9,695
1,780
4,605
11,509
7,911
660
70,665
Number of depositors
(in '000)
Funding Structure
Assets (in USD million)
Debt to equity ratio
3.2
6.7
2.5
4.7
3.4
3.7
23.70%
12.90%
29%
18%
23%
51%
21.10%
65.60%
79.40%
69%
67%
90%
76%
77.80%
15.40%
9.10%
5%
11%
15%
16%
10.90%
Operating expense /
assets
15.50%
8.80%
9%
7%
11%
13%
10.30%
147
14
74
295
239
95
86
Profitability
Return on assets
1.10%
0.03%
1.00%
0.90%
0.80%
0.50%
0.80%
Return on equity
4.20%
0.60%
3.20%
5.30%
4.90%
1.40%
4.40%
103.10%
93.30%
122%
109%
103%
105%
106%
1.80%
0.40%
0.00%
1.60%
5.20%
1.50%
1.10%
Risk Profile
Portfolio at risk > 30 days
Portfolio at risk > 90 days
1.10%
0.20%
0.00%
1.10%
3.40%
1.20%
0.70%
Write-off ratio
4.30%
0.10%
0.00%
0.80%
0.60%
0.90%
0.70%
Effeciency
140
Annexures
Annexure C
Sources of data
(2014)
Microfinance Banks (MFBs)
APNA Microfinance Bank Ltd (AMFB)
AMFB provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Riaz
Ahmad and Co. audited the annual accounts of AMFB for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from AMFBs MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii).
Number of staff; iv). Number of credit officers; and v). Number of branches (also available in audited accounts).
141
FINCA provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. M.
Yossuf Adil Saleem and Co. audited the annual accounts of FINCA for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from FINCAs MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii).
Number of staff; iv). Number of credit officers; and v). Number of branches (also available in audited accounts).
KBL provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. A.F.
Ferguson audited the annual accounts of KBL for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is a proper disclosure on
grants in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from KBLs MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii).
Portfolio aging; iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available
in audited accounts).
FMFB provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. KPMG
audited the annual accounts of FMFBL for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from the MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii). Portfolio aging; iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in
audited accounts).
NRSP-B provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports.
M. Yossuf Adil Saleem and Co. audited the annual accounts of NRSP-B for the year ending at 31st December
2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from the MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii). Portfolio aging; iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in
audited accounts).
POMFB reported its audited accounts in newspapers, from whence the accounts were obtained. The numbers
reported in the PMR match these reports. M. Yossuf Adil Saleem and Co. audited the annual accounts of POMFB for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from the MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii). Portfolio aging; iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in
audited accounts).
TMFB provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Ernst
and Young Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder and Co. audited the annual accounts of TMFB for the year ending at 31st
December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from the MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii). Portfolio aging; iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in
audited accounts).
U-bank provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. A.F.
Ferguson audited the annual accounts of FINCA for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
142
Annexures
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from the MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii). Portfolio aging; iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in
audited accounts).
Waseela provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports.
KPMG audited the annual accounts of FINCA for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements there is proper disclosure on grants in
notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from the MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii). Portfolio aging; iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in
audited accounts).
ASA-P provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Ernst
and Young Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder and Co has audited the annual accounts of ASA-P for the year ending at
31st December 2014.
ASA-P prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
Adjustments were not made to loan loss provisioning expense as ASA-P is aggressive in its policies.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; and ii). male-female clients;
There is proper disclosure on the balance sheet of loan portfolio, and loan loss provision; expense charged
during the year is disclosed on the income statement.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
Agahe
143
Agahe provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Uzair
Hammad Faisal & Co. has audited the annual accounts of Agahe for the year ending at 31st December 2014.
Agahe prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to Agahe data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was
made to loan loss provisioning expense as Agahe is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
Akhuwat
Akhuwat provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. M.
Yossuf Adil Saleem and Co. has audited the annual accounts of ASA-P for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
Akhuwat prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
AMRDO provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports.
Hafizullah & Co. has audited the annual accounts of AMRDO for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
AMRDO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
BRAC-Pakistan
BRAC-Pakistan provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. KPMG (Taseer Hadi and Co) has audited the annual accounts of BRAC-Pakistan for the year ending at
31st December 2014.
BRAC prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting policies.
BRAC is an integrated program and, therefore, prepares separate financial accounts for all its programs. The
audit is done and a consolidated audit report is prepared with clear differentiations of both revenue and costs
for each program in light of accounting standards.
Baidarie
Baidarie provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Ale
Imran & Co. audited the annual accounts of Baidarie for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
All necessary adjustments to Baidarie data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was
made to loan loss provisioning expense as CSC is aggressive in its policies.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio (verifiable from audited accounts); iv). Number of
staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of offices.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
CSC provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Riaz
Ahmad & Co. audited the annual accounts of CSC for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
All necessary adjustments to CSC data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was
made to loan loss provisioning expense as CSC is aggressive in its policies.
CSC prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio (verifiable from audited accounts); iv). Number of
staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of offices.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is proper disclosure on grants
in notes to the financial statements.
144
Annexures
FFO provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Tariq
Abdul Ghani Maqbool & Co audited the annual accounts for FFO for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
All necessary adjustments to FFO data have been made in order to remove subsidies. There is no adjustment
on loan loss provisioning expense as FFO is aggressive in its policies.
FFO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers;
and vi). Number of offices.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
DEEP provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Salman Arshad audited the annual accounts for DEEP for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
DEEP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio iv). Number of staff; v). Number of credit officers;
and vi). Number of offices.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
DAMEN provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports.
Grant Thornton (Anjum Asim Shahid Rehman) audited the annual accounts for DAMEN for the year ending at
31st December 2014.
As DAMEN is a multi-dimensional development organization accounts for its microfinance function are kept
separate.
There is no adjustment on cost of borrowing since DAMENs actual cost is higher than the adjusted cost. Similarly, no adjustment was made to loan loss provisioning expense; DAMEN is aggressive in its policies.
DAMEN prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio (verifiable from audited accounts); iv). Breakup for
the number of loans doubtful; v). Number of staff; vi). Number of credit officers
145
KF provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. KPMG
(Taseer Hadi and Co) audited the annual accounts for KF for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
The financial statements have been presented as per the requirements of the State Bank of Pakistan.
All necessary adjustments to KF data have been made in order to remove subsidies. Adjustments were not
made for loan loss provisioning expense, since KF is aggressive in its policies. Adjustment for cost of borrowing was not made since it was entirely commercial borrowing. KF prepares accounts on historical cost basis
using the accrual system of accounting.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is a proper disclosure on
grants in notes to the financial statements.
The following numbers have been taken from KFs MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female clients; iii).
Number of staff; iv). Number of credit officers; and v). Number of branches (also available in audited accounts).
GBTI provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports.
KPMG (Taseer Hadi and Co) audited the annual accounts for GBTI for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
GBTI prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices. Revenue is recognized on receipt basis.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio (not verifiable from audited accounts); iv). Number
of staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of offices.
There is proper disclosure on the balance sheet of loan portfolio, and loan loss provision; expense charged
during the year is disclosed on the income statement.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
The related party transactions should be presented in notes to the financial statements.
JWS provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Tariq
Abdul Ghani Maqbool & Co. audited the annual accounts for JWS for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
JWS prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices. Revenue is recognized on receipt basis.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio (verified from audited accounts); iv). Number of
staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in audited accounts).
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to financial statements.
MO provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Baker
Tilly Mehmood Idrees Qamar has audited the annual accounts of MO for the year ending at 31st December
2014.
MO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
Mojaz provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Ibrahim, Shaikh & Co has audited the annual accounts of Mojaz for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
Mojaz prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
146
Annexures
Naymet provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports.
Izhar & Co has audited the annual accounts of Naymet for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
Naymet prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
NRDP provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Izhar
& Co has audited the annual accounts of NRDP for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
NRDP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
OPD provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Izhar &
Co has audited the annual accounts of OPD for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
OPD prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
147
OCT provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Tanzeem & Co. has audited the annual accounts of OCT for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
OCT prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
OLP has provided its audited accounts for the reporting period to PMN.
However, given that OLPs audited accounts do not disclose figures related to its Microfinance Division (MFD),
the data reported in the PMR is not verifiable with audited accounts.
OLP has separate staff and offices for microfinance. OLPs MFD has provided data specific to its microfinance
operations.
OLP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention in using accrual system of ac-
counting.
Adjustments to the data have been made as per the PMNs adjustment policies. These adjustments are in line
with international practices being followed by The MIX.
RCDS provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Ijaz
Tabassum & Co. audited the annual accounts for RCDS for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
RCDS prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices. Revenue is recognized on receipt basis.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio (verified from audited accounts); iv). Number of
staff; v). Number of credit officers; and vi). Number of branches (also available in audited accounts).
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to financial statements.
SAFCO provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Grant
Thornton (Anjum Asim Shahid Rehman) audited the annual accounts for SAFCO for the year ending at 30th
June 2014.
Income and expense are booked on an accrual basis.
All necessary adjustments to SAFCO data have been made in order to remove subsidies.
SAFCO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention and in conformity with accepted
accounting practices using the principles of fund accounting.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Aging on number of loans and value of portfolio (not verifiable from audited accounts); iv). Number
of staff; and v). Number of credit officers.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
SDS provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Tanwir
Arif & Co. has audited the annual accounts of OCT for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
SDS prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
SRDO provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Tanwir
Arif & Co. has audited the annual accounts of SRDO for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
SRDO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
148
Annexures
SVDP provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Zahid
Jamil & Co. has audited the annual accounts of SVDP for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
SVDP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
VDO provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Tanwir
Arif & Co. has audited the annual accounts of VDO for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
VDO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
Wasil provided PMN with its audited accounts. The numbers reported in the PMR match these reports. Grant
Thornton (Anjum Asim Shahid Rehman) has audited the annual accounts of VDO for the year ending at 30th
June 2014.
VDO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
All necessary adjustments to data have been made in order to remove subsidies. No adjustment was made to
loan loss provisioning expense as the institute is aggressive in its policies.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to the financial statements.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements. Additionally, there is proper disclosure
on grants in notes to the financial statements.
149
NRSP has provided its audited accounts for the reporting period to PMN and the figures tally with the reported data. Ernst & Young Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder and Co. audited the annual accounts for NRSP for the year
ending at 30th June 2014.
All necessary adjustments to NRSP data have been made in order to remove subsidies. Adjustment for cost
of borrowing was not made since it was entirely commercial borrowing. Similarly, there is no adjustment on
loan loss provisioning expense, since NRSP is aggressive in its policies and all loans > 90 days past due are
100% provisioned for.
NRSP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
Data on distribution of clients in terms of the urban-rural mix is not provided in the disclosures. However,
given that NRSP has a separate program for urban areas and rural areas and their information is available
separately, the disaggregation can be made quite accurately. The data on gender segregation was taken from
the MIS and is not available in notes to the accounts.
Data on the number of total staff, loan officers and branches has been drawn from audited accounts.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to financial statements.
As per the CGAP requirements, portfolio quality, sustainability/profitability and asset/liability management
ratios are presented in the notes to financial statements.
PRSP has provided its audited accounts for the reporting period to PMN. Ernst & Young Ford Rhodes Sidat
Hyder and Co. audited the annual accounts for PRSP for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
Since PRSP is an integrated programme, the following resource allocation process was followed:
1. The identified accounts for credit and non-credit functions were directly transferred to the respective
programs.
2. All other accounts that were common to the institution were transferred in the ratio of 60% to credit and
40% to non-credit functions.
3. 60% of PRSPs investment income was credited to its credit operations
All necessary adjustments to PRSP data have been made in order to remove subsidies. Adjustment for cost
of borrowing was not made since it was entirely commercial borrowing. Similarly, there is no adjustment on
loan loss provisioning expense, since PRSP is aggressive in its provisioning policies.
PRSP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention, in conformity with accepted
accounting practices.
Data on distribution of clients in terms of the urban-rural mix is not provided in the disclosures. However,
given that PRSP only works in rural Punjab the information can be accurately deduced. The data on gender
segregation was taken from the MIS and is not available in notes to the accounts.
Data on number of staff for PRSP as a whole is available. These numbers have been allocated between credit
and non-credit functions of PRSP on the basis mentioned above. Data for credit officers has been obtained
from the organizations MIS.
The grant income has been properly disclosed in financial statements and there is a proper disclosure on
grants in notes to the financial statements.
The related party transactions have been properly disclosed in notes to financial statements.
SRSP has provided its audited accounts for the reporting period to PMN. KPMG (Taseer Hadi and Co) audited
the annual accounts for SRSP for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
SRSP is a multi-dimensional development organization. It has provided its integrated audited accounts for
the reporting period to PMN and has also extracted accounts for its microfinance operations from the consolidated audited statements.
All necessary adjustments to SRSP data have been made in order to remove subsidies. There is no adjustment
on loan loss provisioning expense, since SRSP is aggressive in its policies and all loans > 90 days past due are
100% provisioned for.
SRSP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
The ageing of portfolio in rupee value is not verifiable from audited accounts. Both ageing on number of loans
and value of portfolio was obtained from the MIS. However, there is proper disclosure on the movement in
portfolio and write-offs. It will be valuable if SRSP could provide separate disclosure on movement in provisioning of portfolio as suggested previously.
Data on the number of total staff, loan officers and branches has been drawn from audited accounts.
TRDP has provided its audited accounts for the microfinance program (inclusive of credit and non-credit functions). Grant Thornton (Anjum Asim Shahid Rehman) audited the annual accounts for TRDP for the year ending at 30th June 2014.
All necessary adjustments to TRDP data have been made in order to remove subsidies.
TRDP prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
150
Annexures
151
SRSO has provided its audited accounts for the microfinance program (inclusive of credit and non-credit functions). Ernst & Young Ford Rhodes Sidat Hyder and Co. audited the annual accounts for SRSO for the year
ending at 30th June 2014.
All necessary adjustments to PRSP data have been made in order to remove subsidies. There is no adjustment on loan loss provisioning expense, since PRSP is aggressive in its provisioning policies.
SRSO prepares its financial statements under the historical cost convention in conformity with accepted accounting practices.
The following numbers have been taken from the organizations MIS: i). rural-urban clients; ii). male-female
clients; iii). Number of staff; and iv). Number of credit officers.
The ageing of portfolio (in rupee value and number of loans) is taken from audited accounts.
Annex D
Adjustments to
Financial Data
Rationale
Adjustments to financial statements are made when doing benchmark analysis. Adjustments are made for two
primary reasons:
To give an institution a more accurate picture of its financial position, by accounting for factors unique to
an MFP including the predominance of below-market-rate funding sources. Such factors distort an MFPs
on-going performance.
To make the data of various MFPs comparable. Thus, adjustments are made in order to bring organizations
operating under varying conditions and with varying levels of subsidy onto a level playing field.
The following adjustments are made to data used for the PMR:
A. Inflation Adjustment
Inflation adjustment adjusts for the effect of inflation on an MFPs equity and non-monetary assets i.e., fixed
assets. Inflation decreases the real value of an MFPs equity. Fixed assets are capable of tracking the increase in
price levels; their monetary value is increased. The net loss (or gain) is considered to be a cost of funds, and results
in a decrease (or increase) in net operating income.
Net Fixed Assets (Prior Year) X Average Annual Inflation Rate (Current Financial Year)
B. Subsidies adjustment
Adjustments for three types of subsidies are made:
A cost-of-funds subsidy from loans at below-market rates
152
Annexures
Additionally, for multipurpose MFPs, an attempt to isolate the performance of the financial services program is
made by removing the effect of any cross-subsidization. Cash donations flowing through the income statement
are accounted for by reclassifying them below net operating income on the income statement. Thus, adjustments
for cash donations are not made since these are handled through a direct reclassification on the income statement. This year no MFP has disclosed receipt of in-kind subsidy.
Funds donated to cover operational costs constitute a direct subsidy to an MFP. The value of the subsidy is therefore, equal to the amount donated to cover expenses incurred in the period reported. Some donations are provided
to cover operating shortfall over a period greater than one year. Only the amount spent in the year is recorded on
the income statement as revenue. Any amount still to be used in subsequent years appears as a liability on the
balance sheet (deferred revenue). This occurs because theoretically, if an MFP stopped operations in the middle
of a multi-year operating grant, it would have to return the unused portion of the grant to the donor. The unused
amount is therefore, considered as a liability.
153
Funds donated to pay for operations should be reported on the income statement separately from the revenue
generated by lending and investment activities. This practice is meant for accurately reporting the earned revenue
of an MFP. Donated funds are deducted from revenue or net income prior to any financial performance analysis
because they do not represent revenue earned from operations.
Note: Costs incurred to obtain donor funds (fundraising costs) should also be separated from operating expenses,
because the benefit of receiving the funds is not included.
selecting a percentage of the total cost and attributing it to program expense. The percentage may be selected on
the basis of sales proportion, management input, etc.
Calculation of in-kind subsidy
Sum of in-kind subsidies by operating expense account, added to unadjusted numbers for each account.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Sum above reserve calculations. If sum is more than current reserves make calculated reserve new Loan Loss
Reserve. If not, keep current reserves.
Step 3:
Add the Unadjusted Loan Loss Provision Expense to the difference between the Adjusted Net Loan Portfolio and
the Unadjusted Net Loan Portfolio. This is the Adjusted Loan Loss Provision Expense.
154
Annexures
Annex E - Terms
and Definitions
Age
Adjustment Expense
Total adjustment cost related to inflation, subsidized cost of borrowing, loan loss provisioning and in-kind subsidies.
It is calculated by using standardized ageing-of-portfolio technique. The principle of conservatism is used which is
why loan loss provision in audited accounts is greater than the amount computed by the analyst.
155
NOTE: Imputed salaries should be used instead of salaries actually received by such persons, thus salary range
that a local hire would get for the same level of work-load/position should be used. Judgment is used to decide
whether or not the in-kind donation represents a key input to the on-going operations of the MFP
Formula:
Personnel Expense + Administrative Expense
Indicates the credit risk of a borrower above the specified number of days (30, 60, 90) past his/her due date for
installment payment.
Formula:
Outstanding balance less loans overdue > (30 or 60 or 90) Days
Adjusted Gross Loan Portfolio
In accounts for loan size differentials, generally operating expense ratio is lower (more efficient) for institutions
with higher loan sizes, ceteris paribus. This indicator discounts the effect of loan size on efficient management of
loan portfolio.
Formula:
Adjusted Operating Expense
Average Number of Active Borrowers
Formula:
Adjusted Operating Expense
Average Number of Active Loans
The cost-of-funds adjustment reflects the impact of soft loans on the financial performance of the institution.
The analyst calculates the difference between what the MFP actually paid in interest on its subsidized liabilities
and what it would have paid at a shadow market rate for each country. This difference represents the value of the
subsidy, considered an additional financial expense.
Loan loss provision expense calculated with standardized ageing-of-portfolio technique. It is however ensured
that if the actual loan loss provision expense is higher than the adjusted then the conservatism principle is followed.
It includes actual operational expenses and in-kind subsidy adjustments.
Includes actual personnel expenses (salaries and benefits), and in-kind subsidy adjustments.
156
Annexures
Formula:
Adjusted Net Operating Income
Adjusted Financial Revenue
Formula:
Adjusted Net Operating Income, net of taxes
Average Total Assets
Formula:
Adjusted Net Operating Income, net of taxes
Average Total Equity
Includes all actual and adjusted expenses related to operations, cost of borrowings, loan losses and inflation adjustment.
Formula:
Adjusted (Financial Expense + Net Loan Loss Provision Expense + Operating Expense) Cost Average Total Assets
Used to measure depth of outreach. The lower the ratio the more poverty-focused the MFP.
157
It measure of depth of outreach. The lower the ratio the more poverty-focused the MFP.
Formula:
Average Outstanding Balance
Per Capita Income
It measure of loan officer productivity. It indicates the number of borrowers managed by a loan officer.
Formula:
Number of Active Borrowers
Number of Loan Officers
It measure of staff productivity. It indicates the number of borrowers managed by the staff on average.
Formula:
Number of Active Borrowers
Number of Total Personnel
Commercial Liabilities
It is principal balance of all borrowings, including overdraft accounts, for which the organization pays a nominal
rate of interest that may be greater than or equal to the local commercial interest rate.
Deposits
Demand deposits from the general public and members (clients) held with the institution. These deposits are not
conditional to accessing a current or future loan from the MFP and include certificates of deposit or other fixed
term deposits.
It is inverse of the advance-to-deposit ratio.
Formula:
Deposits
Gross Loan Portfolio
Equity-to-Asset Ratio
This is a simple version of the capital adequacy ratio as it does not take in to account risk weighted assets. This
ratio indicates the proportion of a companys equity that is accounted for by assets.
Formula:
Total Equity
Total Assets
158
Annexures
Financial Expense
Financial Revenue
This is the total revenue from loan portfolio and other financial assets, as well as other financial revenue from
financial services.
Indicates the efficiency with which an MFP is utilizing its assets to earn income from them.
Formula:
Financial Revenue
Average Total Assets
Financial Self-Sufficiency
Formula:
Financial Revenue
Adjusted (Financial Expense + Net Loan Loss Provision Expense + Operating Expense + Inflation Adjustment)
It is the outstanding principal for all outstanding client loans, including current, delinquent and restructured loans.
It does not include:
Loans that have been written-off
Interest receivable
Employee loans
For accounting purposes GLP is categorized as an asset.
Indicates the efficiency of assets deployed in high yield instruments and core business of an MFP.
Formula:
Gross Loan Portfolio
Total Assets
Inflation decreases the real value of an MFPs equity. Fixed assets are considered to track the increase in price
levels, and their value is considered increased. The net loss (or gain) is treated as a cost of funds, is disclosed on
the income statement, and decreases net operating income.
159
Inflation Rate
Latest annualized consumer price index (CPI) as reported by the State Bank of Pakistan.
Liabilities-to-Equity Ratio (debt-equity ratio)
Formula:
Total Liabilities
Total Equity
It is the sum of loan loss provision expense and recovery on loan loss provision.
Formula:
Number of Active Loans
Number of Personnel
It is the sum of loan loss provision expense and recovery on loan loss provision. MFPs vary tremendously in accounting for loan delinquency. Some count the entire loan balance as overdue the day a payment is missed. Others
do not consider a loan delinquent until its full term has expired. Some MFPs write off bad debt within one year of
the initial delinquency, while others never write off bad loans, thus carrying forward a defaulting loan that they
have little chance of ever recovering.
The number of loans that have been neither fully repaid nor written off, and thus that are part of the MFPs gross
loan portfolio.
It is the number of loans outstanding at the end of the reporting period. Depending upon the policy of an MFP one
borrower can have two loans outstanding; hence, the number of loans could be more than the number of borrowers.
Number of Savers
One depositor can have more than two deposit accounts. Hence, the number of deposit accounts could be more
than the number of depositors.
It is the number of women savers with voluntary demand deposit and time deposit accounts.
Offices
The total number of staffed points of service (POS) and administrative sites (including head office) used to deliver
or support the delivery of financial services to microfinance clients.
Operating Expense
It is the number of depositors maintaining voluntary demand deposit and time deposit accounts with an MFP.
160
Annexures
Operational Self-Sufficiency
Formula:
Financial Revenue
(Financial Expense + Net Loan Loss Provision Expense + Operating Expense)
Personnel
It is the number of individuals actively employed by an MFP. This number includes contract employees and advisors who dedicate the majority of their time to the organization, even if they are not on the MFPs roster of employees. This number is expressed as a full-time equivalent, such that an advisor who spends 2/3 of his/her time
with the MFP is accounted for as 2/3 of a full-time employee.
The higher the indicator the more lean the head office structure of the organization. This indictor is used to measure organizational efficiency.
Formula:
Loan Officers
Total Staff
Saving Outstanding
Formula:
Number of Savers
Number of Personnel
It is the sum of loan loss provision expense and recovery on loan loss provision.
161
Formula:
Adjusted Loan Loss Reserve
PAR > 30 Days
Total Assets
Total net asset accounts i.e., all asset accounts net of any allowance. The one exception to this is the separate
disclosure of the gross loan portfolio and loan loss reserve.
Total Equity
Equity represents the worth of an organization net of what it owes (liabilities). Equity accounts are presented net
of distributions, such as dividends.
Formula:
Total Assets Total Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Liabilities represent the borrowings of an organization i.e., the amount owed. Examples of liabilities include loans,
and deposits. This number includes both interest and non-interest bearing liabilities of an MFP.
The number of staff members who dedicate the majority of their time to direct client contact. Front office staff
include more than those typically qualified as credit or loan officers. They may also include tellers, personnel who
open and maintain accountssuch as savings accountsfor clients, delinquent loan recovery officers, and others
whose primary responsibilities bring them in direct contact with microfinance clients.
Write-Off Rate
Formula:
Loans written off during the year
Average Gross Loan Portfolio
Indicates the yield on an MFPs loan portfolio and is usually used as a proxy to look at MFPs (realized) effective
interest rate.
Formula:
Financial Revenue from Loan Portfolio
Average Gross Loan Portfolio
It is the number of depositors maintaining voluntary demand deposit and time deposit accounts with an MFP.
Formula:
(Yield on Gross Portfolio (nominal) - Inflation Rate)
(1 + Inflation Rate)
162