Microfinance Investors: Profiting Off the Poor or Profiting With the Poor?
December 24, 2008 3 CommentsBBC News ran an excellent article in its Business section yesterday highlighting the increased interest in microfinance among investors. In particular, institutional funds are seeking safe investments in a time of economic turmoil, even if the returns aren’t as robust as investors might see from more traditional investments.
“To a certain extent, the client that [microfinance institutions] serve is insulated from the global economy,” he says. “People still require a cobbler or a rickshaw driver.”
Over the last few months, I have spoken with a number of people at microfinance investment vehicles, the organizations that channel the funds from investors to microfinance institutions. The consensus seems to be that the global credit crunch has caused a slowdown in funding, which runs counter to the findings in the BBC article. What I suspect is that investment in microfinance may slow in the short term, but continue to hit new highs over the long term. Because the investments are spread over so many individual borrowers, diversification is inherent to microfinance funds.
The article–provocatively titled “Profiting From the Poor”–also addresses the concern about the impact of for profit investors funding microfinance. Undoubtedly there is a danger (already realized in some cases) of microfinance institutions becoming driven by the profit motive, rather than by a social mission. In these cases, MFIs begin to look a lot like the payday lenders we have in the US. However, there are also plenty of examples of MFIs that balance the profit motive with a social mission, achieving sustainability as a business while contributing a social good in their impact area. These are the MFIs I would seek out as an investor.
“We see no contradiction between running an activity like a business and achieving a social impact.”
News and Commentary

Hi Ryan,
Here’s another perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/25/opinion/25kristof.html
Thanks, Yaniv. Great article. Recently I was asked to consider a Director position at a nonprofit with dozens of staff, multiple offices, and with a significant risk profile because of the areas in which it works. Although I currently am not in a job search, I would have had a hard time accepting the position, since I am currently our family’s sole bread winner (my wife’s in law school) and the compensation was less than what I could make waiting tables. I appreciate that some types of work bring non-monetary benefits (a sense of meaning, the respect of others, etc.) but we need to compensate talent in the nonprofit sector at least within range of what we could compensate the same role in the for profit sector.
Exactly! The traditional problem with this logic has been that non-profit projects have been funded at the pleasure of the for-profit actors, limiting the amount of money available for administration of good works. This is one of the greatest aspects about microfinance, especially as it is being promoted at Unitus and GP. They are creating sustainable models, that truly do good while doing well, and therefore can attract a more expensive talent pool, which will serve them well as they grow on a stronger foundation. The alternative excludes both the most expensive, and the least fortunate, from taking part in important social programming.
Perhaps you need to wait for your wife to graduate, so that you can have some fun, or better yet, help the organization figure out how to pay you more!
Happy new year Ryan!
Yaniv