1. Multiple Borrowing among Microfinance Clients Results from an Area Study Prepared by Ronald T. Chua and Erwin R. Tiongson July 2012

2. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION Overview and Research Objectives

3. Introduction This PPT provides a summary of the findings from a study of multiple borrowing in an urban community. As a pilot effort that draws information from a variety of sources, it potentially enriches our understanding of the dimensions, the prevalence, and correlates of multiple borrowing. As a pilot effort, however, it is also suffers from several technical weaknesses. As explained in the following slides, the results should be interpreted with caution. An accompanying report describes details of the methodology and the analyses conducted.

4. Background: Notes from 2009-2011 consultations Multiple borrowing = “Over-indebtedness” “Over-borrowing” “Multiple indebtedness” “Loan recycling” “Client poaching” “Loan pushing” “Credit pollution” “Over-supply of loans"

5. Background: Notes from 2009-2011 consultations There are several dimensions of multiple borrowing Different notions of “multiple borrowing” Borrowing from multiple MFIs? Or from multiple sources, both formal and informal? Or multiple loans from the same MFI? All of the above? The incidence of multiple borrowing is not clear How prevalent is multiple borrowing? The causes and consequences also unclear On one hand Loans used to pay off other loans Multiple borrowing may lead to rising levels of delinquency and default On the other hand Households may need multiple sources of credit Households may be perfectly able to manage their finances

6. Research Objectives 1.Clarify dimensions of multiple borrowing Multiple borrowing across MFIs, within MFIs, across loan sources (MFI, non-MFI, informal) 2.Estimate the incidence of multiple borrowing Multiple borrowers in percent of MFI clients, in percent of all households, etc. 3.Understand the correlates of multiple borrowing Statistical profile Repayment record

7. RESEARCH DESIGN Data Sources: Key Features

8. Research Design Commonwealth area of Quezon City as the area of study, including the following barangays: Commonwealth, Payatas, Holy Spirit, Bagong Silangan, Fairview, Batasan Hills 1.Based on a series of consultations in 2009-2011 2.Several MFIs are known to operate in this community 3.Anecdotal evidence suggested the existence of multiple borrowing

9. Sources: Google Maps; TNS-Global Methodological Report

10. Research Design Technical considerations o Credibility of household-level information: How reliable are self-reported levels of indebtedness? o The sources of multiple loans: Should we include both formal and informal sources of finance? o The unit of measurement: How do we treat individuals in the same household?

11. Research Design Sources of Information 1.Household Survey Random sample, geographically representative 800 households Patterned after FIES, APIS, and credit modules Comprehensive credit information: MFI, bank, informal, government, etc. 2.Branch Client Data from MFIs Operating in the Commonwealth Area Consolidated information using search algorithm based on name and address and/or birth date 3.Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)

12. Research Design Sources of Information Dimensions of Multiple Borrowing 1.Borrowing from several MFIs (branch client data) 2.Multiple loans from the same MFI (branch client data) 3.Multiple loans from several sources of finance, including formal and informal sources (household survey) 4.Sequential versus simultaneous multiple borrowing (FGD)

13. Research Design Sources of Information: Caveat 1.They are analyzed separately and cannot be consolidated. 2.They vary in representativeness e.g., FGD participants not representative of general population 3.They vary in scope and comprehensiveness e.g., branch client data do not provide information on other sources of financing 4.They are subject to error Errors include misreporting, sampling errors, encoding errors, etc. 5.They are cross-sectional (from a single point in time) and provide little information about dynamics (i.e., how things evolve over time) and causality (e.g., if multiple borrowing is correlated with financial distress: did multiple borrowing cause distress or was it distress that initially led to multiple borrowing?)

14. Research Design Additional features: Branch Client Data 1.As agreed with partners, sources of branch client data are not publicly revealed 2.Restricted access to branch client data (principal researchers)

15. SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS 1. Household Survey

16. Household Survey: Selected Findings 57 percent of households: at least one outstanding loan Only 6.8 percent of households are MFI clients

17. Household Survey: Selected Findings This chart refers to all households. Of the MFI client households alone, 77 percent are “multiple borrowers”, all sources of finance considered.

18. Household Survey: Selected Findings These charts show multiple borrowers by number of loans (all sources of finance considered) For multiple borrowers as a group, 52 percent have 3 or more loans. For multiple borrowers MFI clients as a group, 71 percent have 3 or more loans

19. Household Survey: Selected Findings

20. How Many Times Did You Miss Payments The Last 3 Months? There is no evidence that multiple borrowing is associated with higher delinquency, compared with average indebted household. Caveat: based on self-reported information This is from cross-sectional information or information from a single point in time

21. Selected Cross-Checks Source: Commonwealth survey; World Bank Global Findex database; authors’ calculations. Compare with the Consumer Finance Survey: 4 percent of households own credit cards

22. SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS 2. Branch Client Data

23. The Framework MFI1 Database Client 1 Client 2 … Client 2000 MFI2 Database MFI3 Database MFI4 Database MFI5 Database MFI6 Database MFI7 Database MFI8 Database MFI9 Database MFI10 Database MFI11 Database MFI12 Database MFI13 Database

24. Branch Client Data: Selected Results 14 percent Incidence of Multiple Borrowing On average, 14 percent of MFI clients Substantial variation across MFIs (4-26 percent)

25. Branch Client Data: Selected Results Incidence: Within-MFI Multiple Borrowing “Within-MFI” multiple borrowing also exists, i.e., multiple loans from the same MFI Most cases appear to be known to the MFI Some may not be known (borrowing from several branches) On average, where they exist, within-MFI multiple borrowers represent 5 percent of all MFI clients Some overlap with multiple borrowing as defined previously (14 percent)

26. Branch Client Data: Selected Results Number of Loans Most multiple borrowers have loans from only 2 MFIs About 15 percent of multiple borrowers have loans from 3 or more MFIs

27. Branch Client Data: Selected Results Share of Outstanding Loans Loan sizes tend to be uniform. As a result, the share of loans accounted for by multiple borrowers tend to be proportional to the incidence of multiple borrowing (14 percent) However, among multiple borrowers who also take out multiple loans from the same MFI (within-MFI multiple borrowing), their share of all outstanding 2 nd or 3 rd loans within the same MFI tends to be large (40 percent).

28. Branch Client Data: Selected Results Correlates In general, no strong evidence linking multiple borrowing to specific lengths of membership, loan cycles, client age, and other demographic patterns. There are some suggestive patterns. Multiple borrowers with two or three loans tend to be on longer loan cycles. Multiple borrowers also tend to be somewhat older

29. Branch Client Data: Selected Results Delinquency There is no evidence that multiple borrowing is associated with delinquent payment, at least not among the active clients. This should be interpreted with caution. This indicates the average observable outcome to date and does not at all address the possible impact of economic or income shocks and whether multiple borrowers can fall into delinquency as a result. There are large differences in the availability of information on missing payments. The data are not recorded consistently across MFIs. May reflect business opportunities in a particular urban community. The economics may differ in other communities, including rural communities.

30. SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS 3. Focus Group Discussions

31. FGDs: Selected Findings Participants consisted of: o MFI members known or who have admitted to having loans from at least one other MFI o Branch staff MFI clients were selected by MFI staff. Only criterion was that they have borrowed or have current loans from at least two MFIs Each group consisted of 8 to 12 discussants

32. FGDs: Selected Findings Profiles of FGD participants A number of participants are center chiefs or group leaders in the MFIs Have had many years of borrowing experience Long time residents of Commonwealth (one had been resident in area for 30 years) Borrowing behavior reported Borrowed sequentially from several MFIs Borrowed simultaneously several MFIs

33. FGDs: Selected Findings On proliferation of lending sources Clients observed that there has been an increase in the number of lenders in the area recently, as recent as the past year (2010-2011) Clients appreciated the availability of more choices Some cited concerns about their own inability to repay so expressed preference to stay with one MFI Reasons for borrowing from multiple sources To maximize benefits. No one single MFI offers a whole range of Obtain sufficiently large consolidated loan from several MFIs as one MFI loan is not sufficient for their needs To meet emergency needs To try out other sources To stagger payments (multiple loans from the same MFI are paid on the same day; multiple loans from multiple loans can be staggered)

34. SUMMARY This is a heroic attempt at a summary

35. Caveat This is not nationally representative This is from cross-sectional data that mask the changes over time The data are subject to error Data are from multiple sources and not fully consistent

36. Summary and Concluding Observations Multiple borrowing exists, it exists in various forms, and is not small. Though the data sources cannot be fully consolidated, they suggest the following incidence, along several dimensions: o 5 percent if multiple borrowing means taking out multiple loans from the same MFI o 14 percent if multiple borrowing means borrowing from several MFIs, though there is substantial variation across MFIs o 77 percent if multiple borrowing means borrowing from one MFI as well as from any other source of finance

37. Summary and Concluding Observations Multiple borrowers take out multiple loans for a variety of reasons. Some report that a single loan is insufficient to pay for a major consumption expenditure or to invest in a business activity. Some are after the auxiliary services attached to various loans. We are unable to find a distinctive statistical profile of multiple borrowers. There is some evidence to suggest that they are older and are on longer loan cycles, but otherwise there is (to date) no strong statistical links between multiple borrowing and individual demographic characteristics as well as characteristics of the loan itself (size, loan cycle, reported loan use).

38. Summary and Concluding Observations There is no evidence that multiple borrowing is associated with delinquent payment, at least not among the active clients. This should be interpreted with caution. This indicates the average observable outcome to date. We are unable to say anything meaningful about the likelihood of falling into delinquency. There are large differences in the availability of information on missing payments and the data are not fully consistent across MFIs. Furthermore, the sample represents a particular urban community. It is not clear whether this relationship holds more generally.