Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorCharles F. Kane.en_US
dc.contributor.authorJang, Ryosunen_US
dc.contributor.otherSloan School of Management.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-24T19:41:48Z
dc.date.available2013-09-24T19:41:48Z
dc.date.copyright2013en_US
dc.date.issued2013en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/81084
dc.descriptionThesis (S.M. in Management Studies)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sloan School of Management, 2013.en_US
dc.descriptionCataloged from PDF version of thesis. Page 50 blank.en_US
dc.descriptionIncludes bibliographical references (p. 49).en_US
dc.description.abstractThis thesis compares two microfinance business models, the non-profit Grameen Bank model and the commercial for-profit Compartamos Banco so as to identify industry best practices. Although there are many differences between these two models, the author concludes that the fundamental distinction between them is in their funding methods. Grameen Bank funds microloans primarily through local funds usually from savings deposits, while Compartamos Banco takes a funding approach that is similar to that of traditional commercial banks, including engaging in an IPO to fundraise. Based upon an analysis of respective business models, both institutions, in aiming to reduce poverty, believe that reaching scale and financial sustainability is important. Qualitative analysis and secondary research are used to gather the data that provides this analysis. The author concludes that in order for Grameen Bank to effectively reach its objectives, it should manage savings deposits to generate more microcredit rather than the large amount of interbank lending that is being generated as fixed deposit investments. Compartamos Banco's commercial model is effective in reaching aggressive financial growth. However, as it endeavors to scale for higher social impact, without industry-wide support (which identifies borrower's overall indebtedness), pure expansion could lead to disastrous consequences (Andhra Pradesh crisis). Risk can be better managed by smaller scale peer pressure in case there is no system to identify over-indebtedness. The analysis also highlights how microfinance institutions find it difficult to balance social impact and financial returns.en_US
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityby Ryosun Jang.en_US
dc.format.extent50 p.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherMassachusetts Institute of Technologyen_US
dc.rightsM.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission.en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582en_US
dc.subjectSloan School of Management.en_US
dc.titleMicrofinance business models : comparing and contrasting Grameen Bank and Compartamos Bancoen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.degreeS.M.in Management Studiesen_US
dc.contributor.departmentSloan School of Management
dc.identifier.oclc858010092en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record