Professional Documents
Culture Documents
interest,
microfinance
prevents
the
borrower
from
globally since 2002, the Indian microfinance sector has emerged as one of the
most socially conscious, commercially viable, and financially sustainable.
According to a MIX market study, India has one of the lowest average loan sizes
of around $150 as well as the lowest yield on portfolio of 21.2%. The small
loan size combined with the low interest rates testify to the social inclination of
Indian Micro Finance Institutions, which seek to genuinely foster financial
inclusion among the poor and alleviate poverty. In conjunction with this goal,
Indian Micro Finance Institutions have succeeded not only in comfortably
covering costs, but also returning healthy profits and Return on Assets (ROA).
This highlights Indian Micro Finance Institutions operational efficiency and
ability to function on tight budgets. True, Micro Finance Institutions in other
countries such as Brazil and Mexico have higher profit margins, but they offer
significantly larger loans with interest rates typically between 40-65%.
The inherent efficiency and resiliency of the Indian microfinance industry
proved critical during the recent financial meltdown during which growth
continued unabated despite a slowdown in the flow of funds which negatively
affected growth in microfinance in other markets around the world.
This
been charged with exploiting the poor with usurious interest rates and
intimidating the borrowers by forced loan recovery practices.
loans is very small. The average loans per member in both MFIs and SHGs are
between Rs. 3,500 and 5,000. The average value of loans per SHG member for
various years.
This amount is not sufficient to fulfil the financial needs of the poor
people. The duration of the loans is also short. The small loan size and short
duration do not enable most borrowers to invest it for productive purposes.
They, generally, utilize these small loans to ease their liquidity problems.
These factors are the critical points in evaluating the performance of the
Micro Finance Institutions. The researcher has made a maiden attempt to
analyze the performance on the basis of Gross Loan Portfolio to Total Assets
and Profit Margin.
1.4 Objectives
With the above theoretical background, the present study aims:
Expense
(OE),
Personnel
Expense
(PE),
Administrative
Expense (AE), Personnel Allocation Ratio (PAR), Total Expense (TE) and
Financial Expense (FE),
To study the relationship between Profit Margin (PM) and Return on Asset
(ROA), Return on Equity (ROE) and Financial Revenue (FR).
Independent Variable
CAR- Capital to Asset Ratio
DER- Debt Equity Ratio
OE- Operating Expense
PE- Personnel Expense
AE- Administrative Expense
PAR- Personnel Allocation Ratio
TE- Total Expense
FE- Financial Expense
portfolio. The gross loan portfolio is frequently referred to as the loan portfolio
or loans outstanding, both of which create confusion as to whether they refer to
a gross or a net figure. The gross loan portfolio should not be confused with the
value of loans disbursed.
Operating Expense =
Personnel Expense =
Number of Personnel
Number of Personnel
Total Expense =
Financial Expense =
1.6.2 Profitability
Dependent Variable
PM Profit Margin
Independent Variable
ROA Return on Asset
ROE - Return on Equity
FR Financial Revenue
payments generated by financial assets other than the gross loan portfolio,
such as interest-bearing deposits, certificates of deposit, and treasury
obligations. This includes not only interest paid in cash, but also interest
accrued but not yet paid.
Revenue from interest earned, fees, and commissions (including late fees and
penalties) on the gross loan portfolio only. This item includes not only interest
paid in cash, but also interest accrued but not yet paid.
Adjusted Financial revenue
Financial Revenue =
Adjusted Average Total Assets
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Padma
Manoharan
(2011)1In
the
study
analyzed
the
financial
Anne-Lucie Lafourcade (2005)6In the study analyzed found out that out
of the 163 MFIs that provided information for this study, 57 percent were
created in the past eight years and 45 percent of those in the past four.2
African MFIs appear to serve the broad financial needs of their clients. They
asserted that MFIs in Africa tend to report lower levels of profitability, as
measured by return on assets, than MFIs in other global regions. Among the
African MFIs that provided information from their study, 47 percent post
positive unadjusted returns; regulated MFIs report the highest return on assets
of all MFI types, averaging around 2.6 percent. MFIs in Africa also
demonstrated higher levels of portfolio quality, with an average portfolio at risk
over 30 days of only 4.0 percent.
Abhijit Banerjee (2013)7in the study analyzed reports on the first
randomized evaluation of the impact of introducing the standard microcredit
group-based lending product in a new market. In 2005, half of 104 slums in
Hyderabad, India were randomly selected for opening of a branch of a
particular microfinance institution (Span- Dana) while the remainder were not,
although other MFIs were free to enter those slums. Fifteen to 18 months after
Spandana began lending in treated areas, households were 8.8 percentage
points more likely to have a microcredit loan. This studythe first and longest
running evaluation of the standard group-lending loan product that has made
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
that the industry's outreach rise in the period from 2003 to 2007 on average by
22. 9 percent. It identified that while MFIs reach the very poor, their reach to
the disadvantages particularly to women is limited (38.4 Percent). From
financial sustainability angle, it finds that MFIs are operational sustainable
measured by return on asset and return on equity and the industry's profit
performance is improving over time. The paper examines the performance of
MFIs in relation to outreach and financial sustainability. It reviews literatures
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
on core performance indicators of MFIs. The literatures noted that MFIs could
be examined through three main polar: outreach to the poor, financial
sustainability and welfare impact. The welfare impact assessment is not
covered in this paper due to time and money limitations. Both secondary and
primary data (obtained from questionnaire distributed to representative sample
MFIs) has been employed in the study. In the analysis process, the study has
adopted simple correlation and descriptive analysis techniques. While,
dependency ratio measured by the ratio of donated equity to total capital
decline, ratio of retained earnings to total capital is raising letting the industry
to be financial self-sufficient. Using Non performing Loan (NPLs) to loan
outstanding
ratio
indicator
the
study
found
out
that
MFI
financial
sustainability is in a comfort zone with average NPLs ratio of 3.2 percent for the
period from 2005 to 2007. The study also found low but increasing default rate.
Marie
Godquin
(2006)9in
the
study
analyzed
analysis
of
the
cannot attribute the same positive impact to group homogeneity in terms of age
or education level. Non-financial services did not show a positive impact in all
the cases whereas MFIs tend to attribute bigger loans to borrowers who have
access to these services.
Christian Ahlin (2009)12In the study analyzed the little is known about
whether and how the success of microfinance institutions (MFIs) depends on
the country-level context, in particular macroeconomic and macro-institutional
features. Understanding these linkages can make MFI evaluation more
accurate and, further, can help to locate microfinance in the broader picture of
economic development. We collect data on 373 MFIs and merge it with countrylevel economic and institutional data. Evidence arises for complementarity
between MFI performance and the broader economy. This study is an attempt
to place microfinance institutions in national context. We examine country-level
determinants of success of 373 MFIs from around the world. There is evidence
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
for
complementarity
between
overall
economic
performance
and
MFI
performance. Growth appears good for MFI financial performance, in part due
to its eect on default. Breaking even appears easier to do in richer countries
at least up to a point. Also, a deeper financial sector is associated with lower
operating costs, lower default, and lower interest rates, suggesting that broad
financial competition does benefit micro-borrowers.
CS Reddy (2005)13In the study analyzed in the early 1980s, the GoI
launched the Integrated Rural Development Program (IRDP), a large poverty
alleviation credit program, which provided government subsidized credit
through banks to the poor. It was aimed that the poor would be able to use the
inexpensive credit to finance themselves over the poverty line. Recently,
microfinance has garnered significant worldwide attention as being a
successful tool in poverty reduction. In 2005, the GoI introduced significant
measures in the annual budget affecting MFIs. Specifically, it mentioned that
MFIs would be eligible for external commercial borrowings which would allow
MFIs and private banks to do business thereby increasing the capacity of MFIs.
In some areas, there is a reasonable amount of infrastructure that state-owned
rural banks operate.
scale, they need access to more financial services. Governments can address
this need through their state-owned banks by introducing flexible and easily
accessible products.
looking at the financial sustainability of an MFI only gives one feature of its
performance. As many MFIs primarily exist in order to help the poorest people,
one also has to include aspects of outreach in their performance. Hence, MFIs
performance can be termed multidimensional. This paper illustrates how some
statistical tools can offer new insights in the context of MFIs performance
evaluation. Factor analysis is used in a first step to construct performance
indices based on several possible associations of variables without posing too
many a priori restrictions. Microcredit is often promoted as an efficient tool to
help the poor, since it is based on sound economic principles. Rates of return
of small scale investments can be very high and explain why some people are
ready to pay high interest rates in order to finance them. However, market
failures and relatively high transaction costs can prevent a substantial part of
these investments to be realized through private financial intermediaries,
especially in remote rural areas. MFIs ambition is to fill the gap. As discussed
earlier, they can do so either by focusing on the poor and expanding their
outreach, or they may prioritize their financial viability.
Newly
Independent
States.
Results
indicate
that
among
external
sustainability
while
larger
and
less
independent
boards
lower
outreach.
specifically supervision
by
of
womens
overall
well-being.
Against
this
background,
convenience and flexibility of the informal sector, while adding reliability and
the promise of continuity, and in some countries it is already doing this on a
significant scale. Getting to this point reaching poor people on a massive scale
with popular products on a continuous basis has involved rethinking basic
assumptions along the way.
match the convenience and flexibility of the informal sector, while adding
reliability and the promise of continuity, and in some countries it is already
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
doing this on a significant scale. Getting to this point reaching poor people
on a massive scale with popular products on a continuous basis has involved
rethinking basic assumptions along the way, and programs in Bangladesh and
Indonesia are still developing new products and approaches.
The
evidence
surveyed
here
suggests
that
the
conclusion from the early literature, that whilst microfinance clearly may have
The one size fits all approach to lending is too inflexible to meet
(11mm HH)
Aspirers
(41mm HH)
sector.
services
Currently,
total
and
agriculture
Deprived
(135mm HH)
financial
density
of
100,000
primary
societies.
financial
This
services,
annual household income between $4,000 and $20,000. The Aspirers make up
nearly22% of the households and have an annual household income between
$1,800 and $4,000. Lastly, the deprived segment, the prime target of the
microfinance industry, comprises 135 million or 72% of the households and
has an annual household income below $1,800.Despite the density and
robustness of the formal Indian financial system, it has failed to reach the
deprived segment, leaving approximately 135 million households entirely
unbanked. The size of India's unbanked population is one of the highest in the
world, second only to that of China. The microfinance sector targets the poorer
portion of the Aspirer segment and the mid to richer portion of the deprived
segment. The industry has thus far been able to create a service model and
products that are suitable to these segments and these services and products
have proven successful in affecting improvements in the clients economic
status. The reasons behind the formal financial sectors failure to reach such a
large segment of the Indian population are manifold and operate in a selfreinforcing manner.
extremely high fixed and variable costs in servicing low income households,
resulting in high delivery costs for relatively small transactions. Much of the
low income population is located in rural areas that are geographically remote
and inaccessible. For this population, the cost of visiting a traditional bank
branch is prohibitive due to the loss of wages that would be incurred in the
time required.
Concurrently, from a banks perspective, the cost of operating a branch
in a remote location is financially unfeasible due to the low volume and high
cost dynamic. Moreover, low income households are not interested in the same
products that are usually utilized by the rest of the population because they
have different immediate needs, lower financial capacities and variable income
streams.
The unsuitability of existing credit products for low income households is
exacerbated by a general unavailability of collateralizable assets. Additionally,
the low income population is often illiterate and lacks financial knowledge,
making it nearly impossible for it to even contemplate availing existing financial
services, which provide no ancillary support to mitigate these challenges.
In the absence of access to formal financial services, the low income
segment has traditionally relied on local moneylenders to fulfill their financial
needs. While this money is readily available, it is often exorbitantly priced at
60%-100% annual yields and forces the borrower into a classic debt trap,
entrenching her in poverty. Credit from moneylenders has not traditionally
acted as a tool for business expansion or enhancement of quality of life, but
rather as a lifeline for immediate consumption or healthcare needs.
Metric
Interest on debt
ROA
Typically 3-5%
Debt/Equity
Typically 5-8x
ROE
20-30%
Micro-loan sizes vary from an initial loan size between $100 and $150 to
subsequent loans of $300 to $500 with an annual interest rate between 25%
and 35%. The term loans are structured with weekly or monthly repayment
schedules and a 6-month to 2 year term. Microfinance institutions typically
charge a higher rate of interest to their clients than traditional commercial
banks as the administrative costs of servicing smaller loans is far higher in
percentage terms than the cost of servicing larger loans. Additionally, Micro
Finance Institutions provide doorstep services to their customers, a strategy
that has a high cost associated with it, especially in rural areas where
population densities tend to be low. Because of this model, Micro Finance
Institutions generally face an operating expense ratio (OER) between 6% and
15%, depending on the scale and efficiency level of the particular MFI as well
its area of operations. Additionally, today, Micro Finance Institutions face
borrowing costs in the range of 12% to 16% per annum, depending on the size
and track-record of the individual MFI.
cogency, its OER will certainly continue to decline, ensuring a healthy and
sustainable ROA going forward. These three examples are reflective of trends in
the sector overall. Nascent Micro Finance Institutions make gains in ROA as
they scale their businesses and then remain within the 3% to 5% range as they
streamline their business models to reflect their longer-term goals.
customers
capacities
to
avoid
over-indebtedness
and
credit-
geographies
the low-income
population. This strategy will ensure that the social mission of Micro Finance
Institutions remains intact and that the business continues to be successful
over the long run, achieving the ultimate social-commercial balance and
strengthening the double bottom line advantage.
As the Indian microfinance sector matures, Lok Capital expects the year-onyear growth rate to decline to still high, but more sustainable levels. Over the
next four years, Lok Capital projects the number of borrowers to grow at 34%,
which is 60% less than the historical 5-year CAGR of 86% and the portfolio
outstanding to grow at 40%, which is 58% less than the historical 5-year CAGR
of 96%.
the quality of their portfolio. It has become imperative that Micro Finance
Institutions diversify their operational base and limit overexposure to heavily
serviced areas and clients.
demonstrated the urgent need to re-engineer expansion strategies to avoid overlending to a cluster of clients and hedge against regional disturbances,
economic, political and social.
capacities and evaluate what kind of products and services would allow them
to be brought under the financial inclusion umbrella. For example, with help
from Lok Foundation, Ujjivan is currently participating in a pilot program for
the urban ultra-poor which seeks to equip them with knowledge and skills that
will allow them to eventually avail microfinance services.
Moreover, the government has also of late turned its focus toward
financial inclusion. This means that policy and regulatory attention on
microfinance has increased with the government constituting two high-level
committees to provide suggestions on how to improve the financial inclusion
scenario in India. This new trend will provide impetus to devise strategies for
more inclusive growth that makes commercial as well as social sense.
following
single-product
model,
the
sector
has
experienced
Product
Purpose
Micro Enterprise/Small Business Loan
Existing
Working Capital
Product
Agriculture Loan
Crop/Farm Related
Livestock
New/Niche
Dairy/Poultry
Product
General
Loan
Consumption
Educational
Loan
Vocational
Housing
Loan
New Home
The very same clients that the sector currently serves have a plethora of
alternate needs for basic products and services, financial and non-financial
which can affect sustainable, long-term achievements in their quality of life.
Fortunately,
recognizing
this
pent-up
demand,
mature
Micro
Finance
Savings
Access to a savings mechanism like that which is available through
commercial banks, is usually held by the microfinance industry to be the most
urgent need to enhance the economic security of the poor. Due to RBI
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
3.8 Insurance
While credit can serve to enhance a households income, insurance
can serve to cushion the negative economic impact in the event of an
emergency. Without insurance, a single incident can often impoverish a
household, even with access to micro-credit, especially if the emergency affects
the main earning members. A number of Micro Finance Institutions already
offer micro-insurance products to their clients. The most basic products insure
against health and accidental death.
usually tie the insurance products to their credit products, which makes the
availability of credit contingent on the client availing insurance. The rationale
behind packaging the loan and insurance together is that often clients do not
understand the importance or benefit of insurance until they face an
emergency. From a commercial viewpoint, the MFI is in effect insuring its loan
against a crisis in the clients household, since insurance hedges against total
financial collapse and thus ensures repayment of the loan, albeit in a delayed
fashion. Similar to customers, BASIX also links livestock loans to livestock
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
insurance for a similar reason it cushions the financial blow and increases
the likelihood of a successful loan recovery. We can expect the number of
insurance products available to increase as Micro Finance Institutions expand
beyond their core credit product and clients become more aware of the benefits
of insurance.
3.9 Remittance
Domestic labor migration has a long history in India and is on the
rise given disparities in growth across states migrants need a fast, low-cost,
convenient, safe and widely accessible money transfer service. In India,
remittance services can be enabled by the provision of savings and thus need
to be provided in tie- ups with banks and post offices. In some cases, Micro
Finance Institutions provide remittance services by establishing their presence
in a migrant destination to channel remittances back to the community in the
migrants area of origin or by establishing a tie-up with another MFI, bank or
money transfer company in the area of origin. Going forward, the role of
technology will become more important in facilitating the development of
alternative channels and payment mechanisms.
and
business
development
consulting
services,
to
help
microfinance clients use their loans more effectively. BASIX offers these
alternative services to its clients through different entities housed under one
umbrella. These groups have tremendous synergy and contribute to each
others growth and prosperity.
acquisition, while the insurance business mitigates risk, and agricultural and
business development service enables customer retention. The consulting and
IT business enhances BASIXs revenues, while the social businesses enable
research and development which contribute to BASIXs strategy development.
In addition to livelihood services, several Micro Finance Institutions are
examining the feasibility of providing critical basic services to deliver low cost
healthcare, education and vocational training. For example, Spandana is
currently developing a comprehensive low cost healthcare delivery model
focused on the healthcare needs of women and children. BASIX has launched a
vocational training academy to impart education in rural development and
management to potential job seekers from low income communities.
microfinance
model
including
efficient
distribution,
high-
throughput and para-skilling of low cost resources to address the last mile
inclusion challenge
linked products while regionally focused Micro Finance Institutions will try to
leverage their deeper ties with clients (due to proximity and awareness of local
dynamics) and provide additional services.
development
impact.
Moreover,
mainstream
investors
are
beginning
to
participate in this sector, picking up larger stakes than the social investors that
have been dominant so far. The entrance of mainstream investors is indicative
of an industry that is maturing, but is still expected to grow at a high rate.
Micro Finance
Institutions across the world face an equity valuation of 1.5x to 3.0x book
value, whereas Indian Micro Finance Institutions face a valuation that is 3.0x
to 4.0x book value. This premium is driven partly by the generous amounts of
debt available to the industry to expand which in turn enables Micro Finance
Institutions to achieve returns on equity of approximately 20% to 30%.16 These
premium levels are also identical to the premier to book value at which private
sector banks and non-banks have traded in the Indian capital markets which
have averaged over 3.5x to 4.0x book value throughout the last seven to ten
years. In the short run, as mainstream investors gain interest in the Indian
microfinance industry and infuse larger amounts of capital at higher prices,
equity will continue to trade at a premium.
Institutions and efforts are underway to utilize them to deliver both, financial
and non- financial products and services. These factors will continue to impact
the supply of equity for Indian microfinance and hence the equity valuations.
Furthermore, since this untapped demand is unlikely to be satisfied in the
short or medium term, while valuations will be tempered by cautious investors,
premier driven by fundamental growth expectations can be expected to prevail
through the short and medium term as Micro Finance Institutions re-engineer
their strategies to take advantage of the unsatisfied microloan demand.
3.13 Exits
For early stage investors like Lok, the most likely source of exit
remains secondary or trade sales. Given the multiple rounds of capital raisings
that fast growing MFIs need to complete and the increasing investor interest
(including from large commercial investors) in taking direct exposure to Indian
microfinance institutions, there is significant opportunity for early-stage,
nimble investors to sell their stake in subsequent rounds. For example, as part
of Spandanas current capital raise of approximately $40 million from
mainstream investors, Lok is doing a partial exit of its shareholding in the
company, realizing a cash on cash multiple of 8x on the shares sold. Early
stage investor Kalpathi Suresh recently sold a 10% stake in Equities to Sequoia
Capital, generating over 12x returns, demonstrating that it is possible for
minority investors to successfully exit their microfinance investments.
Some large MFIs including two to three in Lok Capitals portfolio could
consider a potential listing in one to two years, but IPOs will be a challenge for
the sector overall given limited market experience in listing socially-focused
firms. Criteria for a successful IPO will include size; the capacity to absorb
large amounts of capital and generate post-issue liquidity of the listed shares;
operating experience of the management team; track-record of value creation;
and institutional capacity to deal with the listing process, compliance
requirements and public scrutiny. In this regard, the experience of SKS
Microfinance in executing its proposed IPO in 2010 will be a useful learning
experience for the microfinance sector to determine the extent to which a social
business model such as microfinance can be accepted by mainstream and
particularly retail investors, and the value these investors are willing to ascribe
to its potential.
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
That exits are still uncommon in microfinance means that for early
stage investors like Lok, entrepreneurs need to be made aware of their exit
obligations, and investors relationships with entrepreneurs will be key in
realizing exits, especially for minority shareholders. The ability to work with
different mainstream investors, MFI promoters, banks and industry regulators
as well as investors prior experience and track-record of executing exits in the
Indian market will be the key to completing successful exits in Indian
microfinance companies.
women under the Grameen Bank model, at a flat interest rate of 12.5 per cent
to 15 per cent, and charges an upfront one-time processing fee of 1.15 to 2.50
per cent of the loan amount.
AML has a strong rural presence. Most of the loans are given for incomegeneration activities; trading and animal husbandry account for about twothirds of AML's loans. As of March 31, 2008, AML was present in Orissa,
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra: it has ventured into nine more
states during the first half of 2008-09 (refers to financial year, April 1 to March
31).
Microfinance
Ltd.
(SKSMPL)
is
India's
largest
microfinance
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
GLPTA
.80
2.52
1.1550
.61600
CAR
-.64
.34
.0010
.28061
DER
-3.95
22.18
7.4670
7.87946
OE
.05
.12
.0800
.02309
PE
.03
.09
.0520
.01932
AE
.02
.05
.0310
.01197
PAR
.61
.97
.7630
.14275
TE
.13
.63
.2320
.14405
FE
.05
.11
.0830
.01889
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.4.1 represents descriptive statistics of Asmitha Microfinance Ltd
(AML) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study. The data are
collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance in India.
Summary statistics in the above table include the minimum, maximum, mean
and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The minimum value of
-3.95 is found in DER and GLPTA have the maximum value of .80. DER shows
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
a highest mean value of 7.4670 and also shows the highest value of standard
deviation 7.87946.
CAR
DER
OE
PE
AE
.000
10
-.919**
.013
10
.812
10
.348
10
PAR
TE
FE
.252 -.561
.507 -.050
.482
10
.135
10
.891
10
.092
10
.493 -.113
.174 -.430
.330 -.375
.245
.756
10
.631
10
.215
10
.352
10
.496
10
.000
10
10
.148
10
-.745*
.493
.472
.617
.013
10
.148
10
10
.169
10
.057
10
.622
10
-.087 -.113
.472
1 .896** .884**
.812
10
.756
10
.169
10
10
.000
10
-.332
.174
.617 .896**
.348
10
.631
10
.057
10
.001
10
10
.037
10
.252 -.430
.178 .884**
.663*
.482
10
.622
10
.037
10
10
.330 .834**
.691* .860**
.453
.352
10
.027
10
.188
10
-.561
.092
10
.003
10
.001
10
.001
10
.128
10
.154
10
.450
10
.092
10
.000
10
.215
10
.003
10
.285
10
.001
10
.624
10
.052
10
.372
10
.135
10
1 -.396 -.721*
10
.257
10
.019
10
TE
FE
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.047
.257
10
10
.898
10
.047
.496
10
.898
10
10
.285
10
.128
10
.154
10
.450
10
.092
10
.624
10
.052
10
.372
10
.135
10
.019
10
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.2 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the
variables used in the study. Linear regressions were run in SPSS using the
Enter Method to test the set hypotheses or more clearly to test how the
independent variables explain the GLPTA (Dependent Variable). Table 4.1.2
depicts that the highest correlation coefficient value of variable is 0.896. CAR
are showing significant relationship with the dependent variable GLPTA.
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardize
d
Coefficients
Sig.
1.515
.371
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
3.871
2.555
CAR
-1.301
2.094
-.593
-.621
.646
DER
-.023
.037
-.295
-.629
.642
OE
-6.712
19.896
-.252
-.337
.793
PE
14.178
46.790
.445
.303
.813
AE
4.120
79.471
.080
.052
.967
PAR
-2.610
2.642
-.605
-.988
.504
TE
-.243
3.606
-.057
-.067
.957
FE
-9.909
10.168
-.304
-.975
.508
Interpretation:
The above table presents the estimated results. The regression was run
with GLPTA as dependent and CAR, DER, OE, PE, AE, PAR, TE and FE as
independent variables. With GLPTA as dependent variable there is no
significant relationship with the determinants of GLPTA. PE and AE is found to
have positive co-efficient which shows that this variable has an inverse impact
on this dependent variable GLPTA.
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
GLPTA
.57
1.66
.9120
.29966
CAR
-1.04
.35
-.0470
.44239
DER
-2.49
28.02
6.2880
8.48081
PE
.04
.12
.0830
.02541
PAR
.41
.80
.5930
.10791
TE
.18
.74
.3360
.19867
FE
.04
.14
.0800
.02981
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
GLPTA
Pearson
Correlation
PE
OE
PE
AE
PAR
TE
FE
-.444
.011
.973**
.809**
.970**
.166
.562
.067
.199
.977
.000
.005
.000
.646
.091
.854
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-.444
.393
-.412
-.310
-.440
.323
Sig. (2-tailed)
.199
.261
.236
.383
.203
.363
.000
.014
-.919** -.741*
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.011
.393
.175
.283
.105
.157
-.065
-.250
Sig. (2-tailed)
.977
.261
.628
.428
.772
.666
.858
.487
N
OE
DER
Pearson
Correlation
N
DER
CAR
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CAR
GLPTA
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.973**
-.412
.175
.887**
.964**
.215
.582
-.011
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.236
.628
.001
.000
.551
.077
.976
10
.809**
10
-.310
10
.283
10
1
10
.737*
10
.021
10
.502
10
-.132
Pearson
Correlation
10
.887**
.005
.383
.428
.001
.015
.955
.139
.716
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.970**
-.440
.105
.964**
.737*
.298
.580
.073
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.203
.772
.000
.015
.402
.079
.842
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.166
.323
.157
.215
.021
.298
-.332
-.594
Sig. (2-tailed)
.646
.363
.666
.551
.955
.402
.349
.070
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.562
-.919**
-.065
.582
.502
.580
-.332
.668*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.091
.000
.858
.077
.139
.079
.349
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.067
-.741*
-.250
-.011
-.132
.073
-.594
.668*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.854
.014
.487
.976
.716
.842
.070
.035
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N
AE
N
PAR
N
TE
N
FE
.035
10
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.5 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the
variables used in the study. Linear regressions were run in SPSS using the
Enter Method to test the set hypotheses or more clearly to test how the
independent variables explain the GLPTA (Dependent Variable). Table 4.1.5
depicts that the highest correlation coefficient value of variable is 0.973. OE
and AE are showing significant relationship with the dependent variable
GLPTA.
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Interpretation:
Explanatory power of the model as indicated by R 2 (multiple coefficient of
determination) and Adjusted R2 is fairly good. The model explains around
99.7% of the variation in the dependent variable (GLPTA). The adjusted
explanation of the model is about 97.4%. The F value which is a measure of
overall significance of the estimated regression and also a test of significance of
R2 is 43.063.
ANOVA
Sum of
Mean
d.f
F
Sig.
Squares
Square
.806
8
.101
43.063
.117
Regression
.002
1
.002
Residual
.808
9
Total
a. Predictors: (Constant), FE, OE, DER, PAR, TE, PE, CAR, AE
b. Dependent Variable: GLPTA
Model
1
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on GLPTA is significant. At 95% confidence level, the
critical value obtained from F table is 2.87.The calculated value is 43.063
which is greater than the tabular value and falls in the rejection region.
Therefore, we can say that there is no significant relationship between
dependent variable GLPTA and other determinants of Bhartiya Samruddhi
Finance Ltd (BSFL).
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardize
d
Coefficients
Sig.
.285
.823
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
.163
.570
CAR
.140
.312
.206
.448
.732
DER
-.008
.006
-.215
-1.254
.429
OE
.385
5.775
.086
.067
.958
PE
3.605
6.499
.306
.555
.678
AE
5.350
5.598
.825
.956
.514
PAR
-.194
.441
-.070
-.439
.736
TE
-.104
.585
-.069
-.178
.888
FE
1.534
2.045
.153
.750
.590
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
GLPTA
.70
.93
.8240
.07792
CAR
.08
.21
.1660
.03565
DER
3.76
11.07
5.4340
2.08152
OE
.07
.15
.1080
.02573
PE
.05
.09
.0640
.01430
AE
.02
.07
.0460
.01430
PAR
.54
.89
.7560
.12817
TE
.18
.25
.2090
.02378
FE
.06
.11
.0860
.01713
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.7 represents descriptive statistics of Bharatha Swamukti
Samsthe (BSS) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study. The
data are collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance in
India. Summary statistics in the above table includes the minimum, maximum,
mean and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The minimum value
of .02 is found in AE and DER have the maximum value of 11.07. DER shows a
highest mean value of 5.4340 and also shows the highest value of standard
deviation 2.08152.
GLPTA
GLPTA
CAR
DER
OE
PE
AE
PAR
TE
FE
-.614
.600
-.300
-.624
.166
.351
-.082
-.303
.059
.067
.399
.054
.648
.320
.823
.395
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
-.614
-.968**
.039
.318
-.253
-.322
-.045
.571
Sig. (2-tailed)
.059
.000
.915
.370
.481
.364
.903
.084
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
CAR
N
DER
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.600
-.968**
-.110
-.378
.163
.212
-.004
-.561
Sig. (2-tailed)
.067
.000
.762
.281
.652
.556
.992
.092
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
-.300
.039
-.110
.870**
.852**
.301
.868**
-.323
Sig. (2-tailed)
.399
.915
.762
.001
.002
.399
.001
.363
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
-.624
.318
-.378
.870**
.522
.076
.569
-.154
Sig. (2-tailed)
.054
.370
.281
.001
.122
.834
.086
.670
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.166
-.253
.163
.852**
.522
.584
.902**
-.481
Sig. (2-tailed)
.648
.481
.652
.002
.122
.076
.000
.159
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.351
-.322
.212
.301
.076
.584
.392
-.388
Sig. (2-tailed)
.320
.364
.556
.399
.834
.076
.262
.268
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
-.082
-.045
-.004
.868**
.569
.902**
.392
-.338
Sig. (2-tailed)
.823
.903
.992
.001
.086
.000
.262
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
-.303
.571
-.561
-.323
-.154
-.481
-.388
-.338
Sig. (2-tailed)
.395
.084
.092
.363
.670
.159
.268
.339
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N
OE
N
PE
N
AE
N
PAR
N
TE
N
FE
.339
10
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.8 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the
variables used in the study. Linear regressions were run in SPSS using the
Enter Method to test the set hypotheses or more clearly to test how the
independent variables explain the GLPTA (Dependent Variable). Table 4.1.8
depicts that the highest correlation coefficient value of variable is 0.902.
ANOVA
Model
1
Regression
Residual
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean Square
Sig.
.046
.006
.658
.747
.009
1
.009
Total
.055
9
a. Predictors: (Constant), FE, PE, PAR, TE, CAR, AE, DER, OE
b. Dependent Variable: GLPTA
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on GLPTA is significant. At 95% confidence level, the
critical value obtained from F table is 2.87.The calculated value is 0.658 which
is lesser than the tabular value and falls in the rejection region. Therefore, we
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardize
d
Coefficients
Sig.
.966
.511
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
1.395
1.443
CAR
.317
4.281
.145
.074
.953
DER
.004
.074
.112
.056
.964
OE
1.296
12.992
.428
.100
.937
PE
-6.144
14.231
-1.127
-.432
.741
AE
6.651
11.533
1.220
.577
.667
PAR
-.038
.381
-.063
-.101
.936
TE
-3.004
4.978
-.917
-.604
.654
FE
-.487
2.936
-.107
-.166
.895
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
GLPTA
.70
1.21
.9220
.13959
CAR
.00
.08
.0380
.03521
DER
-77.52
225.78
43.3640
79.52993
OE
.08
.22
.1290
.04508
PE
.05
.14
.0880
.02860
AE
.02
.08
.0390
.01969
PAR
.62
.81
.7000
.05981
TE
.18
.31
.2330
.03945
FE
.07
.12
.1030
.01636
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.10 represents descriptive statistics of Cashpor Micro Credit
(CASHPOR MC) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study.
The data are collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance
in India. Summary statistics in Table10 include the minimum, maximum,
mean and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. DER shows the
minimum value of -77.52 and maximum value of 225.78. Also DER shows a
highest mean value of 43.3640 and the highest value of standard deviation
79.52993.
Pearson
Correlation
FE
-.504
.537
.721
.494
.104
.078
.222
.054
.138
.109
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.130
-.325 -.652*
-.622
-.564 -.786**
-.507
.590
Sig. (2-tailed)
.721
Sig. (2-tailed)
.359
.041
.055
.089
.007
.135
.073
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.246
-.325
.052
.033
.070
-.072
.203
.388
Sig. (2-tailed)
.494
.359
.887
.929
.848
.843
.575
.268
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-.543 -.652*
.052
.981**
.975**
.766**
.000
.000
.010
.000
.023
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
TE
TE
-.624
N
PAR
PAR
-.424
N
AE
AE
-.581
N
PE
PE
-.543
N
OE
OE
.246
N
DER
DER
.130
N
CAR
CAR
Pearson
Correlation
.933** -.703*
.104
.041
.887
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-.581
-.622
.033
.981**
.943**
.747*
.078
.055
.929
.000
.000
.013
.000
.042
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-.424
-.564
.070
.975**
.943**
.623
.934**
-.610
.222
.089
.848
.000
.000
.055
.000
.061
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-.624 -.786**
-.072
.766**
.747*
.623
.054
.007
.843
.010
.013
.055
10
10
10
10
10
10
-.504
-.507
.203
.933**
.951**
.934**
.951** -.651*
.556 -.897**
.095
.000
10
10
10
.556
-.429
.138
.135
.575
.000
.000
.000
.095
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Pearson
Correlation
.537
.590
-.610 -.897**
-.429
Sig. (2-tailed)
.109
.073
.268
.023
.042
.061
.000
.217
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
N
FE
.217
10
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.11 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the
variables used in the study. Linear regressions were run in SPSS using the
Enter Method to test the set hypotheses or more clearly to test how the
independent variables explain the GLPTA (Dependent Variable). Table 4.1.11
depicts that the highest correlation coefficient value of variable is 0.981. OE,
PE and AE are showing significant relationship with the dependent variable
GLPTA.
ANOVA
Model
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean Square
F
Sig.
.174
8
.022
22.704
.161
Regression
.001
1
.001
Residual
.175
9
Total
a. Predictors: (Constant), FE, DER, TE, CAR, PAR, AE, PE, OE
b. Dependent Variable: GLPTA
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on GLPTA is significant. At 95% confidence level, the
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
5.877
.107
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
19.062
3.244
CAR
-6.909
.927
-1.743
-7.454
.085
DER
.002
.000
1.081
4.101
.152
OE
49.335
12.464
15.933
3.958
.158
PE
7.508
3.506
1.538
2.142
.278
AE
-86.229
21.076
-12.165
-4.091
.153
PAR
-22.486
4.212
-9.636
-5.339
.118
TE
-10.307
2.855
-2.913
-3.611
.172
FE
-33.779
7.136
-3.960
-4.733
.133
Interpretation:
The above table presents the estimated results. The regression was run
with GLPTA as dependent and CAR, DER, OE, PE, AE, PAR, TE, and FE as
independent variables. With GLPTA as dependent variable there is no
significant relationship with the determinants of GLPTA. DER, OE and PE is
having positive co-efficient which shows that these variable has an inverse
impact on this dependent variable GLPTA.
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
GLPTA
.77
1.36
.9440
.18644
CAR
.01
.42
.2030
.10339
DER
1.38
119.88
15.5140
36.69622
OE
.08
.14
.1130
.01767
PE
.05
.09
.0660
.01430
AE
.03
.06
.0440
.00843
PAR
.56
.91
.6740
.12773
TE
.17
.61
.2560
.13566
FE
.06
.12
.0840
.01713
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.13 represents descriptive statistics of Swayam Krishi Sangam
(SKS) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study. The data are
collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance in India.
Summary statistics in the above table include the minimum, maximum, mean
and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The minimum value of 0.01
is found in CAR and DER have the maximum value of 119.88. DER shows a
highest mean value of 15.5140 and also shows the highest value of standard
deviation 36.69622.
GLPTA
CAR
DER
OE
PE
AE
PAR
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
GLPTA
CAR
DER
OE
PE
AE
PAR
TE
FE
.262
-.226
.576
.519
.604
-.458
.181
.175
.464
.530
.081
.124
.065
.184
.617
.628
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.262
10
-.681
*
.007
.257
-.206
-.512
.134
-.146
.030
.985
.473
.567
.131
.712
.688
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.126
-.159
.244
.634*
.024
.722*
.728
.661
.497
.049
.947
.018
.464
10
-.226
10
-.681
*
.530
.030
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.576
.007
.126
.800**
.731*
-.331
.576
.323
.081
.985
.728
.005
.016
.350
.082
.363
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.519
.257
-.159
.800**
.240
-.361
.804**
.163
.124
.473
.661
.005
.505
.305
.005
.652
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.604
-.206
.244
.731*
.240
-.233
-.033
.262
.065
.567
.497
.016
.505
.517
.928
.465
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
-.458
-.512
.634*
-.331
-.361
-.233
-.061
.292
.184
.131
.049
.350
.305
.517
.868
.414
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
TE
FE
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2tailed)
N
.181
.134
.024
.576
.804**
-.033
-.061
.617
.712
.947
.082
.005
.928
.868
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.175
-.146
.722*
.323
.163
.262
.292
.118
.628
.688
.018
.363
.652
.465
.414
.746
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.118
.746
10
Interpretation:
Table 4.1.14 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the
variables used in the study. Linear regressions were run in SPSS using the
Enter Method to test the set hypotheses or more clearly to test how the
independent variables explain the Dependent Variable (GLPTA). Table 4.1.14
depicts that the highest correlation coefficient value of variable is 0.804.
ANOVA
Model
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean Square
F
.291
8
.036
1.656
Regression
.022
1
.022
Residual
.313
9
Total
a. Predictors: (Constant), FE, TE, CAR, AE, PAR, PE, DER, OE
b. Dependent Variable: GLPTA
Sig.
.541
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on GLPTA is significant. At 95% confidence level, the
critical value obtained from F table is 2.87.The calculated value is 1.656 which
is greater than the tabular value and falls in the rejection region. Therefore, we
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
-.016
.990
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
-.013
.811
CAR
-.617
1.011
-.342
-.611
.651
DER
-.006
.005
-1.133
-1.106
.468
OE
-25.705
15.320
-2.436
-1.678
.342
PE
15.324
13.369
1.175
1.146
.457
AE
45.935
20.192
2.078
2.275
.264
PAR
-.060
.632
-.041
-.096
.939
TE
.918
.968
.668
.949
.517
FE
10.113
7.593
.929
1.332
.410
Interpretation:
The above table presents the estimated results. The regression was run
with GLPTA as dependent and CAR, DER, OE, PE, AE, PAR, TE, and FE as
independent variables. With GLPTA as dependent variable there is no
significant relationship with the determinants of GLPTA. PE, AE, TE and FE is
having positive co-efficient which shows that these variable has an inverse
impact on this dependent variable GLPTA.
4.2 PM
Table No. 4.2.1
Table showing Descriptive Statistics of PM of Asmitha
Microfinance Ltd (AML)
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
PM
-4.30
.32
-.4890
1.43203
ROA
-.51
.05
-.0490
.17039
ROE
-4.90
.58
-.2480
1.66247
FR
.09
.29
.1950
.07153
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.2.1 represents descriptive statistics of Asmitha Microfinance Ltd
(AML) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study. The data are
collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance in India.
Summary statistics in the above table include the minimum, maximum, mean
and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The minimum value of
-4.90 is found in ROE and ROE have the maximum value of 0.58. FR shows a
highest mean value of 0.1950. The ROE also shows the highest value of
standard deviation 1.66247.
Pearson Correlation
PM
ROA
ROE
FR
PM
ROA
ROE
FR
.996**
.976**
.590
.000
.000
.073
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
.996**
.985**
.580
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.079
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
.976**
.985**
.478
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
.590
.580
.478
Sig. (2-tailed)
.073
.079
.162
10
10
10
.162
10
Model
1
R
.996
Model Summary
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.993
.989
.14817
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
Interpretation:
Explanatory power of the model as indicated by R 2 (multiple coefficient of
determination) and Adjusted R2 is fairly good. The model explains around
99.3% of the variation in the dependent variable / PM. The adjusted
explanation of the model is about 98.9%. The F value which is a measure of
overall significance of the estimated regression and also a test of significance of
R2 is 27.237.
Model
Regression
Residual
Total
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean Square
18.325
3
6.108
.132
6
.022
18.456
9
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
b. Dependent Variable: PM
F
27.237
Sig.
.000
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on PM is significant. At 95% confidence level, the critical
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
-.084
.936
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
-.023
.274
ROA
9.789
2.395
1.165
4.087
.006
ROE
-.145
.228
-.168
-.635
.549
FR
-.114
1.129
-.006
-.101
.923
a. Dependent Variable: PM
Interpretation:
The table presents the estimated results. The regression was run with
PM as dependent and ROA, ROE and FR as independent variables. PM as
dependent variable there is significant relationship with ROA. ROE and FR is
having negative co-efficient which shows that these variable has an inverse
impact on the dependent variable PM.
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
PM
-5.84
.21
-.9740
1.98426
ROA
-.64
.03
-.1290
.24406
ROE
.00
276.97
27.9420
87.50057
FR
.11
.28
.2150
.05442
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.2.4 represents descriptive statistics of Bhartiya Samruddhi
Finance Ltd (BSFL) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study.
The data are collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance
in India. Summary statistics in the above table include the minimum,
maximum, mean and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The
minimum value of -5.84 is found in PM and ROE has the maximum value of
276.97 and shows a highest mean value of 27.9420. The ROE also shows the
highest value of standard deviation 87.50057.
Pearson Correlation
PM
ROE
FR
ROA
ROE
FR
.976**
-.863**
.891**
.000
.001
.001
10
10
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
ROA
PM
10
Pearson Correlation
.976
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
10
**
-.738
10
Pearson Correlation
-.863
-.738
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.015
10
10
**
.000
10
10
-.680*
.031
10
.891
.902
Sig. (2-tailed)
.001
.000
.031
10
10
10
**
.902**
.015
Pearson Correlation
**
10
*
-.680
10
*
1
10
Model
1
R
.999
Model Summary
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.998
.997
.11246
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
Interpretation:
Explanatory power of the model as indicated by R 2 (multiple coefficient of
determination) and Adjusted R2 is fairly good. The model explains around
99.8% of the variation in the dependent variable / PM. The adjusted
explanation of the model is about 99.7%. The F value which is a measure of
overall significance of the estimated regression and also a test of significance of
R2 is 31.975.
Model
Regression
1
Residual
Total
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean Square
35.360
3
11.787
.076
6
.013
35.436
9
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
b. Dependent Variable: PM
F
Sig.
31.975 .000
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on PM is significant. At 95% confidence level, the critical
value obtained from F table is 2.87.The calculated value is 31.975 which is
greater than the tabular value and falls in the rejection region. Therefore, we
can say that there is a significant relationship between dependent variable PM
and the determinants of PM of Bhartiya Samruddhi Finance Ltd (BSFL).
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardize
d
Coefficients
Sig.
-.760
.476
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
-.294
.387
ROA
5.807
.388
.714
14.973
.000
ROE
-.007
.001
-.313
-11.159
.000
FR
1.245
1.600
.034
.778
.466
a. Dependent Variable: PM
Interpretation:
The above table presents the estimated results. The regression was run
with PM as dependent and ROA, ROE and FR as independent variables. With
PM as dependent variable there is significant relationship with the ROA and
ROE. ROA and FR is having positive co-efficient which shows that these
variable has an inverse impact on the dependent variable PM.
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
PM
.01
.36
.1810
.12706
ROA
.00
.12
.0460
.04169
ROE
.01
.83
.3170
.29128
FR
.20
.36
.2610
.05216
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.2.7 represents descriptive statistics of Bharatha Swamukti
Samsthe (BSS) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study. The
data are collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance in
India. Summary statistics in Table1 include the minimum, maximum, mean
and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The minimum value of .00
is found in ROA and ROE have the maximum value of .83. ROE shows a
highest mean value of .3170 and highest value of standard deviation .29128.
PM
ROA
ROE
FR
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
PM
1
10
.930**
.000
10
.912**
.000
10
.828**
.003
10
ROA
.930**
.000
10
1
10
.972**
.000
10
.886**
.001
10
ROE
.912**
.000
10
.972**
.000
10
1
10
.842**
.002
10
FR
.828**
.003
10
.886**
.001
10
.842**
.002
10
1
10
Interpretation:
Table 4.2.8 presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the
variables used in the study. Linear regressions were run in SPSS using the
Enter Method to test the set hypotheses or more clearly to test how the
independent variables explain the PM (Dependent Variable). Table 4.2.8 depicts
that the highest correlation coefficient value of variable is 0.972. ROA, ROE &
FR are showing significant relationship with the dependent variable PM.
R
.931
Model Summary
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.867
.800
.05684
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
Interpretation:
Explanatory power of the model as indicated by R 2 (multiple coefficient of
determination) and Adjusted R2 is fairly good. The model explains around
86.7% of the variation in the dependent variable / PM. The adjusted
explanation of the model is about 80%. The F value which is a measure of
overall significance of the estimated regression and also a test of significance of
R2 is 12.992.
Model
Regression
Residual
Total
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean Square
.126
3
.042
.019
6
.003
.145
9
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
b. Dependent Variable: PM
F
12.992
Sig.
.005
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on PM is significant. At 95% confidence level, the critical
value obtained from F table is 2.87.The calculated value is 12.992 which is
greater than the tabular value and falls in the rejection region. Therefore, we
Coefficients
Model
Standardize
d
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Sig.
.201
.847
Std. Error
(Constant)
.034
.169
ROA
2.288
2.269
.751
1.008
.352
ROE
.068
.279
.156
.244
.816
FR
.077
.795
.032
.097
.926
Beta
a. Dependent Variable: PM
Interpretation:
The above table presents the estimated results. The regression was run
with PM as dependent and ROA, ROE and FR as independent variables. With
PM
as
dependent
variable
there
is
significant
relationship
with
the
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
PM
-.66
.17
-.0690
.30889
ROA
-.12
.04
-.0080
.06033
ROE
-5.05
17.91
2.3610
6.59299
FR
.18
.26
.2240
.02836
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.2.10 represents descriptive statistics of Cashpor Micro Credit
(CASHPOR MC) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study.
The data are collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance
in India. Summary statistics in the above table include the minimum,
maximum, mean and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The
minimum value of -0.66 is found in PM and ROE have the maximum value of
17.91. Also ROE shows a highest mean value of 2.3610 and the highest value
of standard deviation 6.59299.
Pearson Correlation
PM
ROA
ROE
FR
.997**
-.455
.815**
.000
.187
.004
Sig. (2-tailed)
ROA
ROE
FR
PM
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
.997**
-.449
.813**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.193
.004
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
-.455
-.449
-.396
Sig. (2-tailed)
.187
.193
10
10
.257
10
10
.813
-.396
Pearson Correlation
.815
Sig. (2-tailed)
.004
.004
.257
10
10
10
**
**
10
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean
Square
.285
.001
.854
3
38.582
.004
6
.859
9
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
b. Dependent Variable: PM
Sig.
.000
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on PM is significant. At 95% confidence level, the critical
value obtained from F table is 2.87.The calculated value is 38.582 which is
greater than the tabular value and falls in the rejection region. Therefore, we
Jagadeesh T - Department of Commerce - SKASC
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardize
d
Coefficients
Sig.
-.447
.670
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
-.056
.125
ROA
5.039
.265
.984
18.989
.000
ROE
.000
.002
-.008
-.254
.808
FR
.126
.549
.012
.230
.826
a. Dependent Variable: PM
Interpretation:
The above table presents the estimated results. The regression was run
with PM as dependent and ROA, ROE and FR as independent variables. ROA
shows that there is significant relationship with dependent variable PM. ROE is
having negative co-efficient which shows that these variable has an inverse
impact on the dependent variable PM.
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
PM
-2.94
.28
-.2409
.94919
ROA
-.47
.05
-.0400
.15356
ROE
-1.17
.27
-.0891
.45154
FR
.15
.27
.2200
.04171
Valid N (listwise)
Interpretation:
Table 4.2.7 represents descriptive statistics of Swayam Krishi Sangam
(SKS) for the variables used in the estimates of the present study. The data are
collected from the Mix market database relating to Micro finance in India.
Summary statistics in the above table include the minimum, maximum, mean
and the standard deviation for period 2004 2013. The minimum value of
-2.94 is found in PM and it has the maximum value of 0.28. FR shows a
highest mean value of .2200. The PM also shows the highest value of standard
deviation .94919.
Pearson Correlation
PM
ROA
ROE
FR
PM
ROA
ROE
FR
.999**
.946**
.661*
.000
.000
.027
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
.999**
.959**
.674*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
.023
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
.946**
.959**
.652*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
.000
10
10
10
10
Pearson Correlation
.661*
.674*
.652*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.027
.023
.030
10
10
10
.030
10
Model
R
1
1.000
Model Summary
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.999
.999
.02697
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
Interpretation:
Explanatory power of the model as indicated by R 2 (multiple coefficient of
determination) and Adjusted R2 is fairly good. The model explains around
99.9% of the variation in the dependent variable / PM. The adjusted
explanation of the model is about 99.9%. The F value which is a measure of
overall significance of the estimated regression and also a test of significance of
R2 is 4.126.
Model
Regression
1
Residual
Total
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
d.f
Mean Square
F
9.005
3
3.002
4.126
.005
7
.001
9.010
10
a. Predictors: (Constant), FR, ROE, ROA
b. Dependent Variable: PM
Sig.
.000
Interpretation:
The ANOVA table reveals that F value is significant at .05 levels during
the study period. This clearly indicates that the variation caused by
independent variables on PM is significant. At 95% confidence level, the critical
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Sig.
2.022
.083
Std. Error
Beta
(Constant)
.128
.064
ROA
7.087
.201
1.147
35.289
.000
ROE
-.291
.067
-.138
-4.374
.003
FR
-.508
.277
-.022
-1.834
.109
a. Dependent Variable: PM
Interpretation:
The above table presents the estimated results. The regression was run
with PM as dependent and ROA, ROE and FR as independent variables. With
PM as dependent variable there is significant relationship with ROA and ROE.
ROA is having positive co-efficient which shows that these variable has an
inverse impact on the dependent variable PM.
co-
efficient which shows that these variable has an inverse impact on this
dependent variable GLPTA.
2. There is no significant relationship with the dependent variable GLPTA
and its determinants. DER, PAR and TE is having negative co-efficient
which shows that these variable has an inverse impact on this dependent
variable GLPTA.
3. With GLPTA as dependent variable there is no significant relationship
with the determinants of GLPTA. CAR, DER, OE, and AE is found to have
positive co-efficient which shows that these variable has an inverse
impact on this dependent variable GLPTA.
4. GLPTA has no significant relationship with the determinants of GLPTA.
DER, OE and PE is having positive co-efficient which shows that these
variable has an inverse impact on this dependent variable GLPTA.
5. There is no significant relationship with the dependent variable GLPTA
and its determinants. PE, AE, TE and FE is having positive co-efficient
which shows that these variables has an inverse impact on this
dependent variable GLPTA.
5.1.2
Findings of PM:
1. PM as dependent variable there is significant relationship with ROA.ROE
and FR is having negative co-efficient which shows that these variable
has an inverse impact on the dependent variable PM.
2. ROA and ROE has a significant relationship with the dependent variable
PM. ROA and FR is having positive co-efficient which shows that these
variable has an inverse impact on the dependent variable PM.
3. With PM as dependent variable there is significant relationship with the
determinants of PM. ROA, ROE and FR is having positive co-efficient
which shows that these variable has an inverse impact on this dependent
variable PM.
4. ROA shows that there is significant relationship with dependent variable
PM. ROE is having negative co-efficient which shows that these variable
has an inverse impact on the dependent variable PM.
5. PM as dependent variable there is significant relationship with ROA and
ROE. ROA is having positive co-efficient which shows that these variable
has an inverse impact on the dependent variable PM.
5.2
SUGGESTIONS
5.2.1
GLPTA
The AML Micro Finance Institutions has to improve and utilize the
Capital to Asset Ratio (CAR) which is negatively correlated with GLPTA.
This implies the over capitalization situation. Therefore, AML has to
5.2.2 PM
PM.
The BSFL and CASHPOR MC Micro Finance Institutions the Return on
Equity (ROE) has to make efficient utilization of reserves and surplus to
6. CONCLUSION
The overall financial performance of selected 5 companies have been
analyzed. Efficiency and Profitability have been taken to assess financial
performance as they are considered as performance indicators of MFIs. It can
be concluded that, the variables Capital to asset Ratio (CAR), Debt Equity ratio
(DER), Administrative Expense (AE), OE (operating Expense), PE (Personnel
Expense), PAR (Personnel Allocation Ratio), TE (Total Expense) and are highly
correlated with GLPTA (Gross Loan Portfolio to Total Assets) thereby explaining
the level of efficiency of MFIs. Thus the fluctuations in these ratios would
impact on GLPTA. Since the explanatory variables are negatively correlated
with profit margin, profitability of MFIs are in a vulnerable conditions. The
MFIs have to improve their profitability by efficient utilization of manpower and
capital resources.
Bibliography
Ahlin, C. (2009). Where Does Microfinance Flourish? Microfinance Institution
Performance in Macroeconomic Contex.
Banerjee, A. (2013). The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a randomized
evaluation.
Bright, O. (2011). A Study on the Annual Micro Credit Plan of Banks and
Financial Institutions in Kanyakumari District.
Chakrabarti,
R.
(2002).
The
Indian
Microfinance
Experience
INSTITUTIONS
IN
INDIA.
Annals
of
Public
and
Cooperative Economics.
Epstein, M. J. (2005). Alleviating Global Poverty through Microfinance: Factors
and Measures of Financial, Economic, and Social Performance.