ANNEX 7: Providing mentoring and business support

Micro-credit has already proved to be an efficient tool to promote entrepreneurship and self-employment among people who do not have access to finance or who are furthest from the labour market where they can benefit from adequate mentoring. Successful experiences have demonstrated that even low-qualified people and people facing social difficulties can recover autonomy though self-employment if they are properly accompanied through the development of a project. However, setting up and increasing investment in loan funds, which offer micro-credit, does not suffice and not all business proposals or people are "investment ready"

This is why the provision of business development services is important. These may include assistance with business plans, management, bookkeeping and computer training, identification of suppliers and support for marketing, as they are essential to ensure proper operations and help the new entrepreneur build a sustainable activity. Business development services may utilise both direct contact and new technologies (Internet, mobile telephone).

Traditional micro-enterprises very often receive advice from institutional networks such as chambers of commerce and crafts. People in difficulty receive such support from social networks and, in some countries, local authorities. Incubators and networks supported by the EC, such as European Information Centres and Innovation Relay Centres, could play an important part in this activity.

In implementing their strategies for micro-credit development, Member States could usefully mainstream good practice developed in EQUAL-led development partnerships since 2001. As the Structural Funds and especially ESF can provide assistance to Member States and support national or multi-country initiatives on training, common report standards and the application of new technologies to financial services, the Commission intends to support the following initiatives through ESF technical assistance in order to intensify the use of micro-credit as a tool for active inclusion of all on the labour market:

• 
  research aiming to improve knowledge of the target groups, their social and economic situation and their financial and business needs;
  
• 
  integrated tools to assess the effectiveness of support schemes and actions to promote inclusive entrepreneurship locally or regionally;
  
• 
  validation of and exchange of good practice in mentoring and business support services complementing the provision of micro-credit, with the aim of financial capacity building among micro-credit customers (teaching people how to manage income flows in such a way that they can gradually capitalise their activities);
  
• 
  validation and exchange of good practice in capacity building for microfinance institutions, including the development of benchmarking and accreditation services in order to provide a means to track and guide progress;
  
• 
  research on issues associated with the transition from welfare to entrepreneurship with a view to supporting the development of products and methods suited to the specific needs of micro-credit customers.
  

These initiatives at European level will complement policies on micro-credit at national level taking into account that there is a need for an approach that combines delivery of loans and mentoring.

- For direct bank loans to micro-enterprises or individuals, either standard retail bank’s weighting or internal rating and loss assessments apply.

Under the standard approach, the weighting of assets applicable to a ratio of 8% equity is 75%, thus yielding an effective ratio of 6%. As noted above, this is a reduction from the 8%, which was applied under the old scheme (100% x 8%).

Under the internal rating approach, used by larger, more sophisticated banks , as far as the bank has not sufficient track records to demonstrate the actual repayment rates, micro-credit may be considered as relatively riskier and on the whole less attractive, given its higher distribution costs, than other types of loans.

For encouraging banks to use an internal approach tailored to microfinance, it may be relevant to build common data bases collecting information at EU-level on default and losses related to micro finance (individuals, enterprises ), as well as common rating tools consistent with the best practices in the sector. This may demonstrate the actual micro-finance cost of risk and encourage incomers to enter this market.

- For credit lines provided to MFIs, specific ratings may be relevant. This approach would also be facilitated by establishment of a common data base and a common rating tool mentioned above, consistent with standard criteria, making it possible to measure the results of non-bank MFIs from the point of view of risk.

In both cases the required contribution of equity capital could be limited by loan guarantees and, as portfolios develop or are combined, by securitization.

Credit unions

- Credit unions are mutual financial cooperatives, one of the core principles of which is that funds deposited by members are utilised to provide loans to members. The members of a credit union are linked by a "common bond" of membership (geography, employer, vocational, common interest, etc) which creates a strong community link for the cooperative.

Credit unions provide micro- and social finance services to their members. They play a major role in providing micro-credit in many EU regions. However, in some EU Member States in which credit unions operate, they face limitations as regards savings mobilisation from their members and provision of small loans to legal persons such as small businesses.

It may be possible for micro-enterprises (or the individuals running them) to fall within a particular common bond, but a general permission to lend to any micro-enterprise cannot exist as there would then be no difference between a credit union and a bank. It is the common bond (i.e., a restricted client base on both sides of the balance sheet) that is the main argument for credit unions to be exempt from EU banking regulation and supervision.

- As regards non-bank institutions, in several European countries these are not authorised to lend or can only lend their capital. The principal step would thus be to authorise them to borrow from banks in order to play the role of intermediary vis-à-vis a clientele which the banks cannot reach directly. It might also be useful to authorise them to finance their activities with withdraw able share capital exempt from bank regulation, as is the case in the United Kingdom for Community Development Finance Institutions, or as it is the case with wage savings in France for institutions recognized as “solidarity enterprises.” It must be underlined however that if non-bank institutions would finance their activities via retail savings, then they are taking deposits and would fall within the definition of "credit institution", and be regulated / supervised accordingly.

- Finally, as regards all MFIs, taking micro-credit into account by creating a specific category for retail credit for banks and non-bank institutions, would allow to develop statistics and appropriate rules for micro-credit. Attention should also be paid to lifting within definite limits the interest rate caps on credit to enterprises, as this would contribute to help these operators to better cover their operating costs and envisage sustainability;

Similarly, access to records of borrower performance should be considered as a factor of development of micro-credit, as helps reducing risks, and hence, costs.

6.9. ANNEX 9: A possible scheme for the Micro-fund

The objective of the European initiative for the development of micro-credit is the promotion of micro-credit throughout the EU. One of the measures foreseen in the initiative concerns the setting up of a fund (“Fund”) providing seed capital and technical assistance to selected non-banking Micro-finance Institutions (MFIs), helping them to become self-sustainable and creating models for the whole sector. It is proposed that the Fund, would be managed by EIF.

The Fund’s legal structure will be chosen having regard to various aspects, including taxation. More in particular the Fund’s legal form should permit:

1. 
   to raise capital in the form of equity, donations, issuance of bonds (including bonds with different repayment priorities), debt financing etc;
   
2. 
   to invest directly in MFIs by means of senior and subordinated/junior debt, equity investments, contributions to risk funds and reserves, start- up grants etc;
   
3. 
   to invest in operations providing indirect funding to MFIs (both debt and equity), including the participation in structured operations originated by MFIs such as securitisation transactions.
   

The Luxembourgish legal framework offers a wide range of legal forms for this type of funds, either as incorporated companies (SICAV, SICAF, SICAR, Fonds d’investissment specialisés) or non-incorporated companies (Fonds de placement).

The Fund’s investor base could include:

4. 
   Donors/sponsors;
   
5. 
   Shareholders and Investors (banks-Eurofi, EIB, EC, private persons, foundations, etc);
   
6. 
   Investors/donors/sponsors with specific objectives
   

Evaluation could be conducted at different levels. Member States could conduct an annual evaluation of the progress of micro-credit for the Spring European Council, to be included in the Commission’s Spring report. In order to achieve this, the European initiative for Micro-credit should be incorporated into the National Lisbon Reform Plans. Under the open method of coordination,³¹ progress in meeting individualised, national targets relating to micro-credit could be evaluated by applying a scoring system based on the different factors of progress noted above. An example of such a scoring system is given below.

For micro-credit supported by the European regional programmes, progress could also be monitored in the network or in Regions for Economic Change. This activity would take the form of twinning between regions participating in the JEREMIE programme, promoting mutual exchanges on best practice. While currently geared to technological innovation, the Network of Regions for Economic Change could perfectly well open itself to social and financial innovation.

Evaluation could also include activities by banks and investment funds. Their micro-credit activities could be explicitly included in the rating agencies’ criteria for socially responsible investment.

Finally, a code of conduct would enable micro-credit institutions financed by JEREMIE to be monitored and evaluated on the basis of international social and financial performance indicators. They could also be subject to more precise rating by specialised agencies. Financing of MFIs from European funds would be linked to their results, and would inevitably have an impact on their private financing as well.

The following graph shows six countries’ scores as given in a micro-credit study carried out for the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs in 2004.³²