<em>Past crises have taught the microfinance sector a lot about weathering storms, and microfinance institutions (MFIs) are once again facing challenging times. This case study is part of a series that CFI, in partnership with the European Microfinance Platform (e-MFP) and the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, is publishing to revisit tales of tough times and resiliency in five markets — <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-viator-azerbaijan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Azerbaijan</a>, Bosnia and Herzegovina, <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-spandana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">India</a>, Nicaragua and <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-vitas-palestine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Palestine</a> — and discuss how MFIs, with the help of their investors and other stakeholders, emerged and thrived. The lessons learned from these cases will be compiled and examined in a forthcoming report, </em>Weathering the Storm II<em>, a follow-up to the first edition published in the aftermath of the global financial crisis a decade ago. The hope is that these lessons will be applicable to not only the COVID-19 response, but to future crisis responses as well.</em>

During the final months of 2008, as the world was entering what would be the worst economic crisis of the past half-century, Senad Sinanović, CEO of Partner Microcredit Foundation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was contemplating the future.

A year earlier, he and his staff had celebrated Partner’s 20th anniversary. Partner was founded following the tragic war that marked the breakup of Yugoslavia, which had itself been assembled from the ashes of the Austro-Hungarian Empire 90 years earlier. It was in the country’s capital, Sarajevo, that WWI began, with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. On his frequent work visits to Sarajevo, Sinanović sometimes passed by the plaque marking the site of the “shot heard round the world,” along the way stepping on the Sarajevo Roses — red-painted shell marks on the pavement, remnants of the Bosnian war of the 1990s. In that corner of the world, history can seem omnipresent.

But it wasn’t history that was on Sinanović’s mind. He was worried about how the financial crisis would impact his clients, his institution, and the broader microfinance sector in the country. The path ahead concerned him greatly. The situation was unfolding against a backdrop of high liquidity in the sector. A strong period of growth of the main MFIs during the second half of the 2000s, as well as a new regulatory framework for microcredit, contributed to the high confidence of donors and funders, who responded by pouring large amounts of funding into the market.

In 2008, the tiny country of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a population of 3.7 million, was the second biggest destination worldwide, behind Peru, for <a href="https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/CGAP-Focus-Note-Foreign-Capital-Investment-in-Microfinance-Reassessing-Financial-and-Social-Returns-May-2011.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">foreign capital investment</a> in the microfinance sector. In that market, Partner was (and still is) one of its leading MFIs, with the third largest by gross loan portfolio at about 181 million convertible marks (abbreviated KM), or about USD$106 million, and the second largest in number of active borrowers, at 63,500.

High liquidity may be a blessing during growth periods, but it quickly becomes a curse when loan demand contracts and all that cash sits in a bank, yielding no income. The deep recession in Bosnia brought about by the global financial crisis strongly affected the micro and small enterprises in the country, resulting in less appetite for investment, and thus for the business loans provided by the microcredit sector.
<blockquote>High liquidity may be a blessing during growth periods, but it quickly becomes a curse when loan demand contracts and cash sits in a bank, yielding no income.</blockquote>
Those same challenges also lowered clients’ ability to repay their existing loans. In a context of intense competition between MFIs and widespread multiple borrowing — which was difficult to trace since the use of credit bureau data was still incipient — this predictably resulted in severe loan delinquency problems and credit losses across all MFIs. The poor lending standards of several MFIs also undermined the sector’s reputation, further legitimizing non-repayment of loans even beyond what might have been expected from the economic downturn alone.
<h2>Dealing With High Liquidity</h2>
Partner had, by the end of 2008, a total debt of 156 million KM, broken down into 10 outstanding short-term loans with local banks and 23 long-term loans from foreign social and development investors. While the overwhelming majority of these were market-rate loans, Partner also had subsidized loans, including a 6 million euro loan from a bilateral public funder.

<img class="alignleft wp-image-41167" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/Chart-debt-in-KM-4.png" alt="bar graph debt" width="700" height="389" />Some of the loans had just been disbursed when the crisis began to unfold, leading to a situation where Partner was sitting on a pile of money that it could not lend out, and thus could not generate income, even as the interest due on the loans continued to accrue.

To limit interest losses, especially on its more recent and expensive loans, Sinanović tried to give the money back, asking to prepay the loans ahead of schedule. However, this was not welcomed by all investors, and some needed to be persuaded to accept the money and terminate the contracts without penalties. This process included a meeting in April 2009 with lenders at the Microfinance Centre (MFC) conference in Belgrade, organized by a group of Bosnian MFIs, including Partner. Facing the reluctance of some investors to accept early loan prepayment, one of the Bosnian CEOs questioned if their behavior was consistent with social investing, which helped change investors’ minds. During the period of crisis, and in the following years, Partner’s short- and long-term debt fell significantly. By the end of 2011, its total debt was down 61 percent from its peak in 2008.
<h2>Getting Ahead of Events</h2>
While reducing excess liquidity solved a part of Partner’s problems, the MFI was still facing strong, serious challenges in its loan portfolio and the consequences of escalating credit and market risks.

<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-41142" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/Chart-glp-delinquency-partner.png" alt="graph" width="600" height="320" />During 2009 and 2010, Partner’s portfolio contracted by nearly 50 percent off its 2008 peak, and while it has been recovering steadily since then, as of 2019, its portfolio remains 25 percent smaller than it was over a decade ago, at 137 million KM ($78 million).

<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-41191" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/Chart-write-offs-partner-V2.png" alt="chart" width="600" height="266" />Beginning in 2008, delinquency levels grew rapidly, peaking at 11.5 percent in 2010. Partner also took an aggressive approach to writing off loans it saw as non-recoverable. Between 2009 and 2011, the MFI wrote off 11.4 percent of its 2008 gross loan portfolio (GLP). While high, these credit losses were modest in the context of the Bosnian microfinance crisis. Three of Partner’s major competitors experienced cumulative write-offs of 25 percent or more of their peak 2008 portfolio (according to the authors' calculation using <a href="https://databank.worldbank.org/source/mix-market" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MIX Market</a> data).

Nonetheless, Partner’s portfolio quality was worrying, and during the early months of the crisis, Sinanović knew already that Partner would breach many of its debt covenants with its lenders. Together with Partner’s board of directors, Sinanović decided to get ahead of events and provide lenders all the information available on the context of the crisis, the reputation issues affecting the sector, and the exact situation of the MFI. For this, Sinanović and his staff prepared a detailed, 13-page memorandum outlining the impact of the crisis on Partner, its clients, and the Bosnian microfinance market, as well as Partner’s response up to that point and planned next steps. The memo also included extensive monthly data and ratios pertaining to Partner’s portfolio and financial situation. This document was sent to all 17 creditors in April 2009, when the crisis was still in its early phase.
<blockquote class="pullquote--left">Sinanović and his staff prepared a detailed, 13-page memorandum outlining the impact of the crisis.</blockquote>
In this way, Partner’s transparency helped gain lenders’ confidence and, at the same time, effectively created the reporting template for all individual creditors. This early transparency helped Partner avoid being flooded with multiple and diverse requests for information by lenders and gave Sinanović and his team the space to focus on containing repayment problems in its portfolio.

Midway through the crisis, after extensive conversations with like-minded MFIs in the country and with support of outside stakeholders, Partner went further. In 2010, together with two other MFIs, EKI and Mi-Bospo, Partner created U-Plusu. This non-profit financial management advisory center aimed to tackle client over-indebtedness and improve the public image of the institution and the sector by providing financial education and mediation services between clients and financial institutions, especially in cases of multiple borrowing.

Despite the serious impact from the crisis, with credit losses accompanied by steep drops in lending and profitability (ROE decreased from 24 percent in 2008 to -5 percent in 2009), Partner managed to keep the situation under control throughout, and its solvency was never at risk. In fact, despite the large provisions and eventual write-offs, Partner’s equity only slightly decreased during the crisis period (from 43 million KM to 41 million KM).
<blockquote>Partner's solvency was never at risk and its equity only decreased slightly.</blockquote>
Partner’s ability to weather the storm was closely linked to a process of foresight and preparation led by Sinanović and the MFI’s directors. It started with swift adaptation to a significant decrease in loan demand, both in terms of credit offer and operational structure, and an aggressive strategy regarding write-offs, while getting rid of excessive liquidity and being proactive and transparent in its communications with creditors. All this helped Partner ready itself for what would be a sustainable — albeit smaller — future.

<em>What are some dos and don’ts and key success factors that the microfinance sector can learn from the Partner case? CFI’s forthcoming report, </em>Weathering the Storm II<em>, will draw on lessons from Partner and cases from microfinance institutions in four other markets: </em><a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-viator-azerbaijan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Azerbaijan</em></a><em>, </em><a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-spandana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>India</em></a><em>, </em><a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-vitas-palestine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>Palestine</em></a><em> and Nicaragua. See also the <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-hazards-beacons-and-life-rafts-lessons-in-microfinance-crisis-survival-from-those-who-have-been-there/">original Weathering the Storm</a> report from 2011. </em>

Weathering the Storm II: A Case Study of Partner

In 2010, when the world was going through the largest economic crisis in three generations, the microfinance sector found – in most cases for the first time – that it’s not immune. The sector’s many stakeholders, very few of whom had previously experienced a major crisis, had to learn on the fly. Seeing this knowledge gap – and also recognizing an opportunity – CFI launched <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-hazards-beacons-and-life-rafts-lessons-in-microfinance-crisis-survival-from-those-who-have-been-there/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weathering the Storm</a>, a first-of-a-kind research project to capture the experience of MFIs dealing with crisis.

With the onset of COVID-19 came a scramble for direction on how to respond, and, amid the hubbub, the first Weathering the Storm made the rounds on <a href="https://twitter.com/bull_greta/status/1254851974798999553">social media</a> as one of the reference materials for this new crisis. Many of its lessons -- admonition to MFIs to “keep leverage low and liquidity high,” focus on prioritizing client and staff confidence, emphasis on maintaining transparency with creditors -- proved as true in April 2020 as they did a decade ago. Indeed, its discussion of creditor responsibilities helped inform the rapid and well-organized <a href="https://www.covid-finclusion.org/investors" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">response by social investors</a>.

Even so, it wasn’t a perfect fit. Much of the original Weathering the Storm focused on institutions whose crises were due more to internal mismanagement than to external threats -- a situation that is largely reversed today. And most of that study focused on avoiding a crisis rather than surviving one – hardly appropriate advice to institutions facing a pandemic. Recognizing these differences, CFI -- this time in partnership with<a href="http://www.e-mfp.eu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> e-MFP</a> and Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth -- launched <a href="https://www.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/series/weathering-the-storm-ii" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weathering the Storm II </a>to seek out cases that are more relevant to today’s situation.

The new project includes five case studies from around the world that highlight challenges that were not extensively featured in its predecessor publication. These cases examine institutions that were beset more by external challenges than internal mismanagement, and some of them feature institutions that survived exceptionally high levels of credit losses.
<blockquote class="pullquote--left">Surviving the immediate danger is only the start of a multi-year journey.</blockquote>
But perhaps what comes out most clearly from these new cases is that deep crises have long tails. Surviving the immediate danger is only the start of a multi-year journey. Some institutions spent years operating under loan restructuring agreements, effectively insolvent, as they wrote off bad loans only to the extent their paper equity allowed. New funding typically became available only after they had fully stabilized and were ready for renewed growth.

It’s true that these were the worst-case scenarios that still ended with a successful turnaround. And while the current pandemic may also create similar outcomes for a few, most institutions are likely to face less severe pressures and experience faster rebounds. Nevertheless, even if the pandemic itself ends sometime during 2021, most institutions won’t end the year fully back to normal. The after-effects are likely to last well into 2022, and for some, it may take several more years to fully recover.

In early 2021, we will compile the lessons from the combined 15 case studies from Weathering the Storm I and II – a volume that will be able to serve as a useful guide for the long road ahead. And, as with its predecessor, we hope that years from now, the many stakeholders in the sector will be able to consult it whenever the situation requires.

Preparing for the Long Tail of COVID’s Impact on Microfinance

<em>Past crises have taught the microfinance sector a lot about weathering storms. Microfinance institutions (MFIs) are once again facing challenging times. This case study is part of a series that CFI, in partnership with the European Microfinance Platform (e-MFP) and the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, is publishing to (re)visit tales of tough times and resiliency in five markets – <a href="https://www.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-viator-azerbaijan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Azerbaijan</a>, Bosnia and Herzegovina, <a href="https://www.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-spandana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">India</a>, Nicaragua and Palestine – and discuss how MFIs, with the help of their investors and other stakeholders, emerged and thrived. The lessons learned from these cases will be compiled and examined in a forthcoming report, Weathering the Storm II, a follow up to the <a href="https://www.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-hazards-beacons-and-life-rafts-lessons-in-microfinance-crisis-survival-from-those-who-have-been-there/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">first edition</a> published in the aftermath of the global financial crisis a decade ago. The hope is that these lessons will be applicable to not only the COVID-19 response, but to future crisis responses as well.</em>

In the spring of 2018, Alaa Sisalem, the general manager of Vitas Palestine, was reviewing the materials prepared for an upcoming board meeting. In the first quarter of 2018, Vitas Palestine – part of <a href="https://www.vitasgroup.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Vitas Group</a>, a holding company that operates non-bank financial services companies in the Middle East and Eastern Europe – achieved 95 percent of projected portfolio growth while maintaining a PAR 30 (loans in arrears for over 30 days) of 2.1 percent. As Sisalem looked through the growth projections for the year, he glanced outside his window at the bustling streets of Ramallah. He thought about Vitas Palestine's clients and their ability to pay in the current economic conditions, and he realized that while the financials didn't show it yet, a major storm was coming.

A few weeks earlier, in April 2018, the salaries for about 38,000 civil servants in the Gaza Strip were delayed. The following month, the Palestinian Authority (PA) <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-palestinians-gaza-salaries/anger-as-palestinian-authority-cuts-gaza-salaries-and-pays-late-idUSKBN1I41LM" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">cut staff salaries</a> by 20 percent. This marked the beginning of a crisis for Vitas Palestine. The civil servant salaries were unpaid or delayed multiple times, especially in Gaza, which took a toll on the local economy. Gaza's economy was already under severe stress because of movement restrictions brought about by the conflict between Hamas and Israel. Hamas gained control of Gaza in the 2006 elections, but the PA continued to administer payroll in the region, causing tensions between Hamas and the PA.<img class="alignright wp-image-40560" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Vitas-Chart-1-4-1024x678.png" alt="chart " width="400" height="265" />

Civil servant salaries significantly impact the Palestinian economy because of the low rates of private investment and a low labor force participation rate of <a href="https://databank.worldbank.org/Palestine---Labor-Force/id/ecae3350" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">44 percent</a>. The territory has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world, with a quarter of the working-age population unemployed. The situation is even more dire in Gaza, which accounted for 29 percent of Vitas' 2018 gross loan portfolio and has an unemployment rate close to <a href="https://databank.worldbank.org/Unemployment/id/2a6c0966" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">45 percent</a>. In Gaza, 37 percent of the employed individuals worked in the public sector, and therefore, interruptions to civil servant salaries tend to have a cascading effect on consumer spending and the local economy.

The West Bank economy is more diversified than Gaza, with <a href="http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/pcbs_2012/Publications.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">16 percent</a> of all employed individuals working in the public sector. Yet, there were concerns that the crisis would seep into the West Bank after the Israeli government passed a law in 2018 that allowed unilateral deductions from the tax revenues it transfers to the PA. The deductions are equivalent to the amount paid by the PA to families of Palestinians killed or put in jail due to the conflict with Israel (about $12 million per month). The tax revenues transferred from Israel represent more than 60 percent of PA's total revenues, and the deductions would further strain PA's budget.
<h2>The Board Moves to Head Off Crisis</h2>
Vitas Palestine began in the early years of the microfinance sector as a USAID project. The incorporation of Vitas Palestine as a for-profit company in 2014 made it easier for the company to borrow from local and international lenders. This ease of access to funding contributed to the rapid growth of Vitas' loan portfolio (see graph below).

<img class="wp-image-40561 alignleft" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Vitas-Chart-2-2-1024x487.png" alt="bar graph" width="600" height="285" />

But when the Vitas Palestine's board met in May 2018, the region's worsening economic conditions dominated their discussion. Following the salary interruptions in early 2018, Vitas Palestine began to experience declining portfolio quality, with a 10 percent drop in the collection rate, resulting in a PAR 30 of 6 percent for the total portfolio in May, and a PAR 30 of 16 percent in Gaza. This was a significant increase from the December 2017 PAR 30 of 1.32 percent. Vitas Palestine had a strong debt to equity ratio of 1.81 at the end of 2017, but in 2018, the declining portfolio quality led to a breach of delinquency covenants.

The board and the management agreed that Vitas needed to prepare for further challenges due to the political instability. After deliberations with management, the Vitas board advised against aggressive growth targets and counseled the management to prioritize three areas: managing liquidity, improving portfolio quality, and controlling operational costs.
<blockquote class="pullquote--right">Managing liquidity, improving portfolio quality, and controlling operational costs were three priorities for the board.</blockquote>
Sisalem had been through numerous crises at the company, ever since CHF Ryada, Vitas Palestine's predecessor, disbursed its first housing loan in 1995. As Sisalem was formulating the plan of action to tackle the salary crisis, he knew from experience that maintaining strong relationships with clients, investors, and staff would be crucial to Vitas' survival. The management team at Vitas ensured open communication with its staff and investors. The management also recognized that the front-line staff plays an essential role in deepening client relationships and continued its investment in client relationship officer training to prepare staff to handle difficult conversations with clients.

In order to control operational costs, the management team performed a detailed analysis of its expenses and identified ways to optimize operations. Their analysis showed that there was sufficient liquidity to tackle the next six to nine months without exploring drastic measures to reduce costs. Further, the loan officers' incentives were based in part on portfolio quality, and the increase in PAR 30 during the crisis led to lower incentives paid by the company. This variable component of the compensation structure led to lower staffing expenses and aided the management efforts to lower costs.

Weathering the Storm II: A Case Study of Vitas Palestine

<em>Past crises have taught the microfinance sector a lot about weathering storms. Microfinance institutions (MFIs) are once again facing challenging times. This case study is part of a series that CFI, in partnership with the European Microfinance Platform (e-MFP) and the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, is publishing to (re)visit tales of tough times and resiliency in five markets – <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-viator-azerbaijan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Azerbaijan</a>, Bosnia and Herzegovina, India, Nicaragua and <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-vitas-palestine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Palestine</a> – and discuss how MFIs, with the help of their investors and other stakeholders, emerged and thrived. The lessons learned from these cases will be compiled and examined in a forthcoming report, Weathering the Storm II, a follow up to the <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-hazards-beacons-and-life-rafts-lessons-in-microfinance-crisis-survival-from-those-who-have-been-there/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">first edition</a> published in the aftermath of the global financial crisis a decade ago. The hope is that these lessons will be applicable to not only the COVID-19 response, but to future crisis responses as well.</em>

Spandana started in 1998 as a microcredit program of an NGO. It quickly became one of the bellwethers of the country’s microfinance industry, offering small group loans to predominately low-income women without the need for collateral. When Spandana was incorporated as a non-bank financial company/microfinance institution (NBFC-MFI) in 2003, it was the largest microfinance institution in India and the sixth largest in the world. In the early 2000s, Spandana was growing rapidly and began exploring a path to an initial public offering (IPO).

The state of Andhra Pradesh (AP) had become one of the most competitive microfinance markets in India during this time. As more commercial MFIs grew, they competed with the state government’s Self-Help Group-Bank Linkage (SHG) program. The SHGs had access to capital from the banking system and worked with millions of underserved women by helping them save small sums and take out loans.

The AP government started to become uneasy with the outsized impact and influence of commercial MFIs, however. Increased competition led to excessive lending, with many clients taking out multiple loans from both SHGs and commercial MFIs. Average household debt in AP rose to about INR 65,000 compared to a national average of about INR 70,001. The MFIs were accused of harassing customers for repayment. The suicide rate spiked, and the state government began attributing some of these suicides to excessive lending by the MFIs and coercive loan recovery practices.
<blockquote>The Andhra Pradesh government started to become uneasy with the outsized impact and influence of commercial MFIs.</blockquote>
In order to rein in the alleged coercive recovery practices of the commercial MFIs, the state government passed the AP Microfinance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act in October 2010. The ordinance barred MFIs from collecting payments at certain locations, such as a borrower's home or place of work. The regulatory authority also set interest rate caps and mandated stringent reporting guidelines.

<img class="alignright wp-image-40319" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Spandana-Portfolio-Distribution-Chart-V3-1024x639.png" alt="" width="450" height="281" />Clients misconstrued the ordinance to justify non-repayment of loans owed to the MFIs with no serious repercussions. Within a month, the loan repayment rate had dropped from 99.89 percent to 1 percent. An estimated INR 70 billion in loans in the state, from about 6.25 million accounts, had come under stress. This led to severe cash flow problems for the MFIs in the region. In the end, the ordinance caused some MFIs in the state to close and declare bankruptcy. For Spandana, even though it had sufficient capital adequacy (with equity of INR 4.85 billion), the unfolding crisis meant severe financial stress and cash flow problems.

At the onset of the crisis, loans in AP accounted for about half of Spandana's portfolio. In addition to its customers, the livelihoods of the firm’s employees were also at stake: Spandana employed 7000 in AP and had 850 branches operating there.

After the shock of the ordinance rippled through the microfinance ecosystem, Spandana felt it had no choice but to take the case to the court. While it was good news that their case eventually reached the Supreme Court, it meant a long wait, and Spandana’s management was forced to suspend operations in AP and scrap their IPO plans while the court heard their case. Knowing it couldn’t depend on the legal challenge alone, however, Spandana leadership triaged the most pressing challenges and made some difficult business decisions.
<h2>Hard Solutions for A Long Recovery</h2>
The senior management team quickly recognized that liquidity, crucial for ensuring the company could continue operations, was the top challenge. But for Spandana, additional liquidity in the form of financing was hard to come by as it had taken on debt from 48 lenders to fuel its growth.

<img class="alignleft wp-image-40320" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Lenders-Chart-V3-1024x711.png" alt="pie chart" width="450" height="312" />The team ultimately felt that a corporate debt restructuring (CDR) would be appropriate to get needed liquidity and avoid default. ICICI Bank and SIDBI, Spandana's largest lenders, agreed with the management team's assessment that Spandana needed a CDR. The team needed to convince the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), however, because it did not allow such a facility for NBFCs. Spandana's executive team, along with ICICI and SIDBI, began efforts to persuade the RBI to authorize debt of NBFCs as eligible for a CDR. At the same time, the management team held discussions with its investors to gather internal support for a CDR, pending RBI approval.

In 2011, after months of dialogue with the RBI, Spandana, along with other NBFCs in AP, finally got what they wanted: authorization to proceed with a CDR in accordance with guidelines established by the new policy. The RBI also established rules, which played an important role in stabilizing the regulatory environment on issues related to operational process, customer protection, and governance. It also created a separate class of institutions for NBFC-MFIs for regulatory purposes.

ICICI and SIDBI managed to persuade most lenders to sign on to the CDR package by emphasizing the increased chance of recovery over time with improved ground-level conditions, although some lenders did not agree to the CDR and were left out. In September 2011 (see timeline graphic below) Spandana’s investors signed the CDR, which would restructure their INR 21.46 billion in loans outstanding to address its exposure in AP and assist with liquidity challenges. The CDR had two components:
<h3>1. Optionally Convertible Note (OCN)</h3>
INR 10 billion (46 percent) of the outstanding loan value, an amount equivalent to AP portfolio that was deemed irrecoverable, was restructured into a convertible quasi-equity instrument. A redemption premium of 12 percent per annum was payable at redemption. The lenders also had the option to convert these instruments into equity shares of the company, an option Spandana hoped investors would exercise.
<h3>2. Term Loan</h3>
The remaining INR 11.5 billion (54 percent) was bundled into a 72-month term loan repayable in monthly installments at 12 percent interest from April 2012. The term loan was secured by a pledge of 7.27 million Spandana shares owned by its founder, Padmaja Reddy.
<h2>Leaner and Stronger Operations</h2>
While the CDR resolved the initial liquidity issues keeping Spandana from defaulting, many other business and operational challenges had to be dealt with in order to ensure long-term survival. The first, most immediate challenge was Spandana's increasing operational costs coupled with declining revenue. After an exhaustive analysis of its operational costs, the team decided to reduce its number branches and staff.

The next challenge was to establish strong practices related to customer experience and engagement. This included organizing institution-wide staff trainings on appropriate field behavior and client communications. To further improve field behavior, the staff remuneration structure was changed so that 70 percent of staff salaries were fixed, as opposed to 30 percent before the crisis. The goal of this was to encourage staff focus on portfolio quality instead of growth.
<blockquote class="pullquote--right">Staff members were encouraged to focus on portfolio quality instead of growth.</blockquote>
In 2012, after waiting almost two years, the Supreme Court ruled that Spandana could restart lending and recovery operations in the state. This decision restored Spandana’s recovery efforts and it managed to collect INR 10 billion between FY 2011 and FY 2017. With collections resuming in AP, and the new liquidity provided by the CDR, Spandana decided to expand its portfolio to other states to counter perceived overexposure to AP. By deploying capital in other states, Spandana managed to lower its exposure in Andhra Pradesh to 3.1 percent of its active portfolio in 2017, significantly lower than the pre-crisis level of 51 percent.

Spandana also needed to show it was on track operationally. In FY 2014, Spandana reported disbursing INR 16.67 billion in new loans. The improved collection rate and business performance gave confidence to the CDR lenders, which helped Spandana persuade them to defer CDR payments for a period of two years, from January 2014 to December 2015. This agreement allowed Spandana to continue using the cash from collections to reinvest in the expansion of lending operations. ICICI Bank also stepped up to provide an INR 11.5 billion credit facility to boost portfolio growth outside AP. As a result of these efforts, Spandana was able to strengthen its financial performance and condition and begin servicing the CDR when initial payments came due in 2016.
<h2>Profitability and A Strong New Ally</h2>
The shift in strategy, resumed collections in AP, and operational changes allowed Spandana to become profitable starting in FY 2014 (2013-14) after three years of losses (see graphs below). In FY 2016, Spandana reported a profit of INR 2.45 billion. Moreover, its capital adequacy ratio, which was negative the prior two years, turned positive in FY 2017.

<img class="size-full wp-image-40382 aligncenter" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Profit-Tax-Chart-V6.png" alt="" width="750" height="458" />

<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-40383" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Capital-Adequacy-Chart-V5.png" alt="graph" width="750" height="399" />

Although Spandana attempted to fulfill the CDR obligations, there were times when collections and revenue were not adequate to cover payments. Therefore, in 2016, the management began scouting for investors to obtain new funding and buy out the CDR lenders who did not intend to convert their investment into equity. While Spandana continued to negotiate the payoff of the OCN, time was running out fast to find new equity investors. In 2017, Kedara Capital, recognizing Spandana's long-term value, invested by buying out the remaining portion of the OCN. Spandana was also able to get a consortium of banks to provide a loan of INR 11 billion to pay off the outstanding term loan of the CDR. Following these moves, Spandana exited the CDR package, which assisted in improving its credit rating

<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-40325" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/Spandana-Timeline-V2.png" alt="spandana timeline" width="1500" height="613" />

By 2019, Kedara Capital gradually increased its investment in Spandana to 59.1 percent. As a majority shareholder, Kedara took an active role to help Spandana consolidate the number of lenders and increase the availability of capital at lower cost. With the support of Kedara, the number of lenders was reduced to five, and Spandana was able to obtain new financing for business expansion. Kedara also advised the company to improve its governance structure by bringing in industry experts to serve as independent directors. This rebuild fueled Spandana’s operating and profit margins while enabling the upgrade of its credit ratings.
<blockquote class="pullquote--right">Kedara advised Spandana to improve its governance structure by bringing in industry experts to serve as independent directors.</blockquote>
Finally, 10 years after the AP crisis, Spandana came full circle when it successfully launched its IPO in 2019.  It went well: the company’s share price rose more than 33 percent between August 2019 and late February 2020. Then, COVID hit…

<em>What are some of the dos and don’ts and key success factors that the microfinance sector can learn from the Spandana case? CFI’s forthcoming report, </em>Weathering the Storm II<em>, will draw on lessons from Spandana and cases from microfinance institutions in four other markets – <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-viator-azerbaijan/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Azerbaijan</a>, Bosnia, Palestine and Nicaragua. See the original Weathering the Storm report from 2011 <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-hazards-beacons-and-life-rafts-lessons-in-microfinance-crisis-survival-from-those-who-have-been-there/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">here</a>.
</em>

<em>The author is extremely grateful to N.K Maini, ex-Deputy Managing Director of SIDBI, Gourisankar Gollapudi, CEO of Manaveeya Development and Finance Limited, Nitin Agarwal (former CEO of Spandana between 2010 and 2014) Prakash Kumar, CGM, SIDBI, for agreeing to be interviewed about the Spandana crisis and revival. We would also like to thank Tanwi Kumari for her invaluable research assistance on this project. This case would not be complete without their contributions.</em>

Weathering the Storm II: A Case Study of Spandana

<em>Past crises have taught the microfinance sector a lot about weathering storms. Microfinance institutions (MFIs) are once again facing challenging times. This case study is part of a series that CFI, in partnership with the European Microfinance Platform (e-MFP) and the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth, is publishing to (re)visit tales of tough times and resiliency in five markets – Azerbaijan, <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-partner/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bosnia and Herzegovina</a>, <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-spandana/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">India</a>, Nicaragua and <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-vitas-palestine/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Palestine</a> – and discuss how MFIs, with the help of their investors and other stakeholders, emerged and thrived. The lessons learned from these cases will be compiled and examined in a forthcoming report, Weathering the Storm II, a follow up to the <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-hazards-beacons-and-life-rafts-lessons-in-microfinance-crisis-survival-from-those-who-have-been-there/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">first edition</a> published in the aftermath of the global financial crisis a decade ago. The hope is that these lessons will be applicable to not only the COVID-19 response, but to future crisis responses as well.</em>

Aynur Aliyeva began 2015 in limbo and facing uncertainty. Her CEO had just left Azerbaijan and gone back to the Philippines, thousands of miles away, having been denied a renewed work visa a few months earlier. As his deputy at the Azerbaijani microfinance company Viator, Aliyeva stepped in, working feverishly with lawyers and government authorities to bring the CEO back. Unbeknownst to her, a far greater challenge loomed just ahead.

On February 21<sup>st</sup> of that year, the Azerbaijani currency, the manat, lost 25 percent of its value — all in a single day. For a country whose currency had been steady since at least 2000, even during the height of the global financial crisis in 2008-09, such a devaluation was a major shock. It capped a year of severe economic pressures, with falling oil prices over the past year having already been felt in every corner of the petroleum-driven economy. Even with that, the devaluation was something new entirely — “snow in the middle of summer,” thought Aliyeva.

These pressures were bearing down on Viator. Like other MFIs in the country, much of Viator’s portfolio was lent out in USD-denominated loans, and most of its debt was likewise in dollars. Now its borrowers — few of whom actually earned USD incomes — were facing large payment shocks, on top of already being affected by the slowing economy. Viator was entering an existential crisis. Meanwhile, Aliyeva spent those initial few months navigating between a remote CEO, concerned investors and staff, and a loan portfolio that was fast deteriorating.

<img class="wp-image-40041 alignright" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Table-1-v2-1-1024x620.png" alt="" width="400" height="242" />In April 2015, Aliyeva was finally appointed CEO. With that uncertainty resolved, Viator embarked on a crisis response. Its first step was to change its lending policy; until then, Viator had been lending between a third and half of its loans in USD. With the devaluation, it began to sharply curtail this practice, bringing USD disbursements down to zero by the end of the year. That was just in time, because on December 21<sup>st</sup>, the manat was suddenly devalued again, this time by another 32 percent. With these two devaluations, the manat had lost half of its value — and the decline would continue through 2016 into 2017.

The resulting fear and uncertainty, combined with a major recession, destroyed trust and threw the entire financial sector into turmoil. Viator was a small fish, had no deposits, and certainly did not meet the too-big-to-fail test. Its primary shareholder was a Norwegian NGO that, while morally supportive, had little financial expertise and no access to additional capital. If Viator was to survive, it would have to do it on its own.

And survival was indeed at stake. Several of the country’s MFIs, far larger and more important than Viator, would not make it.

Aliyeva had never run an MFI in the midst of crisis, but that had its advantages, too — she carried no “founder’s syndrome” baggage; whatever mistakes were made previously were made by her predecessor. This allowed her to ignore the past and focus entirely on the present and the future.

<img class="wp-image-40055 alignleft" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Table-2-v4-1024x660.png" alt="" width="600" height="387" />In the meantime, in Viator’s portfolio, things were going from bad to worse. By the end of 2015, 47 percent of its loans were overdue. A year later, that number had grown to 77 percent, comprising mostly loans that were by then more than 12 months behind. Faced with such numbers, most managers would panic.

Aliyeva did not panic. With many of the country’s financial institutions — banks and MFIs alike — hunkering down in the midst of crisis, Viator suddenly found a wide-open market. In the face of uncertainty and volatile cash flows, people still needed to borrow. And so Viator continued to lend. Indeed, no matter how bad things got during the long crisis period, Viator never stopped lending.

Having already switched to entirely local currency loans, Viator focused on the best clients and low-risk products. Chief among these was the jewelry loan, which allowed clients to monetize the gold received during weddings and other family events — a common cultural practice in Azerbaijan. With this secure and relatively liquid collateral, Viator could lend during the depths of the crisis, and still keep credit risk low.

Of course, this new lending was far below pre-crisis levels. Midway through 2016, monthly disbursements averaged AZN 0.6 million, or 70 percent lower than a year earlier. By mid-2017, this was cut again by half, down 83 percent from the level set two years before. These lower disbursements were accompanied by lower operating costs; in 2016 alone, operating expenses were halved, mainly through salary cuts and staff attrition, as well as layoffs that prioritized retention of the best-performing and most experienced staff.

<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-40044" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Table-3-v2-e1604330128251.png" alt="" width="1200" height="438" />

Though shrinking, Viator was by no means closing its doors. Despite the greatly reduced levels, new disbursements proved crucial to its survival. By January 2017 — a year after the second devaluation that marked the full onset of the crisis — repayments from its new portfolio of jewelry-backed loans accounted for nearly two-thirds of Viator’s total cash inflows. Indeed, for nearly five years during the period 2015-2019, loan repayments were Viator’s sole source of cash inflows. That proved crucial not only for allowing Viator to continue disbursing new loans, but also to continue to repay its debt.

<img class="aligncenter wp-image-40045" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Table-4-v2-1024x587.png" alt="" width="797" height="457" />

At the start of 2015, nearly all of Viator’s funding was in the form of debt from foreign social investment funds, mostly in foreign currency. Given the depth of the crisis, its investors were naturally worried. Many had also invested in other MFIs in Azerbaijan, not surprising considering that just before the crisis, the country was one of the five largest markets in the world for microfinance investment. Now these investors were faced with preserving capital and minimizing losses.

Complicating matters further, some investors had disbursed their investments as recently as February 2015, while others were already near the end of their loan maturities. With Viator in violation of multiple debt covenants, investors faced the same coordination problem that arises with nearly every crisis-stricken MFI: if all of them were to follow the loan covenants and accelerate their debts, they would be fighting for the meager leftovers of a liquidated entity. Not only would they face steep financial losses, they would also be abandoning an MFI that was one of the few institutions still providing loans to excluded rural households in Azerbaijan.

<img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-40047" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Table-5-v2-1-1024x350.png" alt="" width="1024" height="350" />

To nearly all investors, the answer was clear: the debt had to be restructured. Despite this, the negotiations among them proved challenging. Some of the investors had prior experience handling workouts, but for others, this was the first time. There were additional obstacles that some negotiators faced when needing to explain these inter-creditor discussions and tentative agreements to their own credit committees, some of which had limited experience investing in microfinance or even in emerging markets more generally. For one credit committee, the sole reference point for debt restructuring was a court-supervised process — a drawn-out and deeply uncertain option in the context of Azerbaijan. Educating them in these realities took time.

One crucial input into these negotiations was an assessment and recommendations from an external advisor, hired by Viator in early 2016 upon the recommendation of one of its investors. The advisor had extensive experience managing situations such as this, having worked at a crisis-stricken MFI in Bosnia and Herzegovina during its turnaround following the 2008 crash. Her report found that while Viator was deeply affected by the crisis, its operations were sound and it remained a viable institution that could survive the crisis. The report also contained a series of suggestions to Viator, especially aimed at strengthening collections on overdue loans — advice that Aliyeva readily adopted.

The consultant went further and invited several of Viator’s senior staff to her former MFI in Bosnia to directly observe the collections systems the MFI had instituted during its turnaround. This experience, along with training of Viator’s collections staff, were crucial factors into Viator’s crisis response.

The work this consultant did for Viator was not only important to the MFI; included with her report was a series of cash flow projections that showed the turnaround to be very much possible. These projections would prove a critical input for Viator’s investors.

Throughout this time, Viator’s transparency and openness with both the external advisor and with its investors played an important role in building trust. As it happens, several of the fund managers had also invested in another Azerbaijan MFI that took an approach that was diametrically opposite from Viator’s. Its unwillingness to communicate and share information made Viator’s openness even more notable in the investors’ eyes — and made them more willing to make the difficult decisions required for the workout.
<blockquote class="pullquote--left">Viator’s transparency and openness with both the external advisor and with its investors played an important role in building trust.</blockquote>
With the consultant’s report concluded in June 2016, negotiations among Viator’s creditors swung into high gear, and finally in August 2016, they signed an inter-creditor agreement that extended all loans, regardless of maturity. The agreement specified a single repayment schedule for all investors, who would be paid pro rata, but using a formula that gave some additional preference to debts with the earliest maturities. The agreement also fixed a discounted interest rate of 5 percent for all creditors. Over the course of the next two years, reflecting the depth of the crisis, this agreement would be amended twice more, adding further discounts to the interest rate.

During these negotiations, Aliyeva was adamant that rather than funneling all excess inflows from loan repayments back to its creditors, Viator should use a substantial portion of these cash flows in order to reinvest in new lending. For investors, this meant they would have to sacrifice some repayments in the short-term. It is here that the external consultant’s projections proved crucial, for they showed the value of reinvesting cash flows into new loan disbursements. Indeed, a number of Viator’s investors used these same projections as a benchmark to monitor Viator’s performance over the coming months.

<img class="alignright wp-image-40058" src="https://content.centerforfinancialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Table-6-v3-1-1024x713.png" alt="" width="550" height="383" />With its liquidity thus stabilized, Viator could focus on managing its solvency situation. Here, things were arguably even more challenging. It certainly helped that Viator entered the crisis well-capitalized, with equity comprising 40 percent of total assets at the end of 2014. Even so, that generous level of capital was not enough when 63 percent of its pre-crisis portfolio was six or more months delinquent by the end of 2016. One way that Viator handled this challenge was by adapting its provisioning practices. At the outset of the crisis in 2015, it provisioned generously (100 percent for all loans overdue by more than 90 days), in 2016-18 provisioning dropped to as low as 64 percent, even when nearly all overdue loans had by then exceeded 12 months.

The decision to change its provisioning rules helped conserve much needed equity, which by 2017 had eroded to just 13 percent of assets. Doing so bought crucial respite during the years that non-performing loans continuing to fester on its books. Finally, rescue arrived in 2019, four years after the onset of the crisis, when the Azerbaijani government implemented a rescue package for the microfinance sector. Through it, Viator received both a grant and a subsidized loan from the Central Bank of Azerbaijan that allowed it to cover a major portion of its losses. Only then did Viator once again fully provision for its delinquent portfolio. Almost exactly five years after the onset of the crisis in February 2015, Viator could finally close the last page on this difficult episode and truly look forward.

A few months later, it was facing COVID-19…

<em>What are some dos and don’ts and key factors of success that the microfinance sector can learn from the Viator case? CFI’s forthcoming report, </em>Weathering the Storm II,<em> will draw on lessons from this case and cases from microfinance institutions in four other markets – <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-ii-a-case-study-of-partner/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bosnia and Herzegovenia</a>, India, Palestine and Nicaragua. See also CFI's original <a href="https://centerforfinancialinclusion.org/weathering-the-storm-hazards-beacons-and-life-rafts-lessons-in-microfinance-crisis-survival-from-those-who-have-been-there/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weathering the Storm</a> report from 2011</em>.

Weathering the Storm II: A Case Study of Viator

Joana Afonso

Daniel Rozas

Shradha Modi

Narasimhan Srinivasan

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Europe and Central Asia

Middle East and North Africa

West Bank and Gaza

India

South Asia

Azerbaijan

Challenges and Crises

Consumer Protection

Credit

Enabling Environment

Microfinance

Microfinance Institutions

Customer Centricity

Digital Financial Services

Governance

Policy, Regulation and Government Initiatives

Brief

Blog Post

e-MFP

India is a global leader in financial inclusion. For over a decade, Accion has worked with and learned from India’s innovators, investors, and policymakers to expand economic opportunity for its people and businesses.