> Posted by Mary Ellen Iskenderian, President and CEO of Women’s World Banking, and Michael Schlein, President and CEO of Accion, who are Co-Chair and Founding Member, respectively, of the Microfinance CEO Working Group
The following post was originally published on the Microfinance CEO Working Group blog.
As leaders of international organizations dedicated to financial inclusion, we welcome and support initiatives that hold the microfinance industry to the highest standards of client protection, social performance, and pricing transparency. This is the principal reason why the members of the Microfinance CEO Working Group came together – a shared commitment to these principles as well as a shared recognition that enforcing them takes work that none of us can do alone.
When our group first formed in 2011, we scanned the landscape of actors and initiatives working to enforce high quality microfinance industry standards. Chuck Waterfield and MFTransparency (MFT) stood out. Pricing transparency is widely considered the most challenging standard to uphold in our industry, and there was no denying that Chuck and his small but dynamic team had created something unprecedented with MFT.
Publicly reporting pricing information is extremely complicated, which is why all industries struggle with it. The microfinance industry, however, is actually further along than most, and that is largely due to MFT’s efforts. Chuck and his staff developed a methodology to present credit pricing information in a clear and consistent way, so all stakeholders can learn the true price of credit products for clients. As a direct result of MFT’s methodology, microfinance institutions in many countries now report their pricing data. Multiple institutions also reduced their prices after publishing data and determining that they were out of line with other institutions in their market. Since MFT has been operating, many governments have also started to require pricing transparency in their regulation of the microfinance industry.
After seven years of hard work, MFT is suspending operations, making way for a new chapter in microfinance pricing transparency. We are grateful for Chuck’s work – work that clearly demonstrates that transparent pricing information is not only essential to our industry but also possible to achieve. We recognize that his was often an uphill battle. It’s now time for us to step up, identify the lessons of this battle, work on solutions, and build on MFT’s achievements and momentum.
As we learned from watching MFT over the last several years, achieving pricing transparency is not limited to successful data collection. It requires advocacy, education, training, and funding to ensure that all players – from regulators, to investors, to practitioners – understand not just the value of pricing transparency as a principle of client protection but as an essential element of our industry’s success.
We all have a role to play. The Microfinance CEO Working Group, of which we are founding members, collectively reaches more than 61 million people in 80 countries. We need to support and encourage the institutions serving those clients to report their prices – not just as a compliance measure but to fulfill their missions as organizations that serve low-income clients and serve them well. Institutions that do not comply are not “getting away with it”; they do not belong in this industry. Pricing transparency should never be a threat to competitive advantage, but a requirement to operate as a responsible microfinance institution.
We applaud Chuck’s efforts with MFTransparency over the last several years and look forward to his continued involvement in holding microfinance institutions to the highest standards. We call on our colleagues throughout the industry to join us in this new chapter for pricing transparency. Without it, sustainable financial inclusion that responsibly serves low-income clients cannot happen.
Have you read?
Microfinance CEOs Make Six Major Commitments at 2013 Partnerships Against Poverty Summit
Facebook
Twitter
20 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 17, 2015 at 11:03 am
Shamina Singh
Excellent movement to transparency! Thanks Chuck and Mary Ellen.
March 17, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Alex Counts
Chuck and his small team broke through on a seemingly intractable issue — pricing transparency. We all owe him our thanks, and also our collective efforts to keep pushing this agenda forward. He nurtured young talent like Alex Fiorello, people who are making major contributions to the field and will for decades. And Chuck the gadfly is now making waves on related issues and pushing all of our thinking and causing us to check our ethical compasses — which itself is a major contribution and also a thankless task. Congratulations Chuck, and thank you. We will all try to keep the momentum on pricing transparency that you created and sustained.
March 30, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Alexandra Fiorillo
Alex C., thank you for your thoughtful and kind words! Working with Chuck was a privilege; I learned more in those intense, whirlwind, exciting 3 years that I could have during a decade of a “normal” gig. We made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time but it was not an easy task.
I’m saddened that MFT is closing but have faith than the industry will continue to find ways to promote transparency in pricing and effective consumer protection. I hope we can all attempt to keep the customer at the center of our work so we can help create systems, institutions and products that empower them to make the best financial decisions possible for their and their families’ well-being.
March 19, 2015 at 7:23 am
John Gitau
I am lost. What do you mean by MTF is suspending operations, making way for a new chapter in microfinance pricing transparency?
The last time we talked about Chuck and his work was when he needed funding to continue serving the sector. And Beth had written a blog-buster on this topic: https://cfi-blog.org/2014/03/11/microfinance-industry-needs-an-infrastructure-fix/ and nothing much was heard subsequently.
What am I missing?
March 19, 2015 at 10:39 am
erhyne
Well, it’s definitely a new chapter, but no one knows yet what the chapter will contain or whether it will lead to a happy ending. Right now, it’s looking like the heroine has been tied to the railroad tracks and the train is coming.
March 19, 2015 at 12:06 pm
John Gitau
So, does it mean what MTF was doing has been taken over by Microfinance CEO working Group? How and where does Chuck Waterfield continue to contribute in pricing transparency?
Either I missed out on something or I am becoming comprehension illiterate. It seems this post has a background that if missed, comprehension is lost. Can Mary help me?
March 20, 2015 at 11:55 am
erhyne
John, You ask the right questions. What I think is meant in the initial blog and my flippant comment above is that the answers are unknown. Chuck has announced that MFT will close soon. The Microfinance CEO working group is concerned about this and wants to look for solutions. There are others who are also looking.
Chuck will I’m sure contribute to thinking and understanding on pricing transparency, and has some interesting things in store. But whether the data collection and publication function can be picked up by others is a big question mark.
March 21, 2015 at 7:59 am
John Gitau
On reflection, it is not convincing that the industry wanted MFT to be self sustaining while what it was doing was a public good. The industry is perhaps quietly happy that Chuck Waterfield is out of the way so that pricing impunity can prevail. He exposed some microfinance institutions’ pricing appetite and lack of transparency. He was, to them, a spoiler and a skeleton in the feast. No wonder there are echoes of uncanny silence with chuckles of mirthful laughter reverberating the microfinance ravine. I now understand why I couldn’t understand the story. The closure of MFT enjoying just a by-the-way mention is perhaps evidence of disgust disguised for too long and relief thereof. If the big five microfinance development institutions really appreciated MFT contribution to the microfinance sector’s growth, they would have funded it effortlessly as a demonstration of gratitude to their benefactors and in line with the law of giving to receive.
This is really sad and enemies of miicrofinance now have attack ammunitions and they will say “look at them, they couldn’t even support one of their own because they always suspected him to be a trojan horse, .while in his life, they lied to him how important he was to them”
March 22, 2015 at 1:05 pm
MFHeretic
John – the sector is delighted that MFT is closing, but don’t seek answers from either the MF CEO Working Group of Smart Campaign – these are the two bodies that are most delighted to see the back of Chuck Waterfield. You honestly think the Working Group, with the treasure-trove of Accion, couldn’t have funded Chuck if they really wanted to? No, they prefer to fund watered-down, ineffective self-regulation such as Smart. The Working Group consists of Accion – a by-word in the sector for exploitation (Compartamos etc), and Opportunity International, whom I have humiliated repeatedly on my blog for their extortionate interest rates. Have a look at the interest rates charged by Finca in a number of countries. Don’t forget that Grameen Foundation were caught out badly in the LAPO incident – they had denied that LAPO was charging extortionate interest rates and hired Chuck to do a private reivew of the interest rates at LAPO, but refused to publish the results for some reason. Then Planet Rating inadvertently published the results, suggesting LAPO had in fact INCREASED its PAR to 144%. Grameen Foundation was humiliated, and had obviously tried to suppress this information from reachng the market.
Then we have the likes of Beth Rhyne, mastermind of Smart, who apparently promote transparent pricing, but hand out awards to people like Compartamos (whom, entirely coincidentally we are supposed to believe, they have shares in). If they really believed in transparent pricing they could have required MFIs seeking Smart certification to be assessed by Chuck – it is free after all. But they didn’t. Transparency looks good on others, not us!
John – wake up and smell the coffee – this sector does not want transparency. It does not want meaningful regulation. It needs to present the image to the outside world that “all is good in the MF world” in order to keep the funds rolling in, while keeping the door sufficiently open to continue exploiting the poor with high interest rates. Every person in the CEO Working Group receives their salary directly or indirectly from interest rates, i.e. the poor. I have discussed the salaries these people earn elsewhere. Regulation and transparency stand directly in the way of their greed. If you doubt this, ask them to reveal the interest rates they charge and the salaries they earn. Go to Finca’s website – where are the interest rates they themselves charge, if they are so passionate about transparency? GFUSA? Opportunity? Accion…. you might see a pattern here! Have a look at the salaries these folk earn – I published the Accion salaries, but check out the others, they are surprisingly high, expecially for a sector that has really done very little for poverty alleviation – but that’s another debate!
March 23, 2015 at 11:35 am
John Gitau
Ok then MFHeretic. Let’s now worry about the words that the MFT epitaph shall bear. The eulogy, the dirge is what should be in our minds now. Let me say this ; if MFT was the body that shall go back to the soil, its spirit that gave it motion on this earth shall live for ever. That spirit is Chuck Waterfield. I believe in reincarnation. RIP MFT.
March 23, 2015 at 1:07 pm
MFHeretic
John – the thing to bear in mind is that the MF sector does not want transparency. The only potential beneficiary of transparency is the end client, and this is the one person who rarely has access to the MFT data. So, the transparent prices were, in practice, little more than a means to humiliate MFIs publicly, by revealing their extortionate interest rates, as I did with some success with Opportunity International. These people will be extremely relieved that they can now get on with their core business of charging the poor interest rates well over 100% (according to MFT) without anyone finding out. The fact that they do this in the name of Jesus merely adds to the irony. If people such as Opportunity, or Accion, or Grameen Foundation, actually wanted transparent pricing, there are two rather simple things they could do to assist: firstly, publish their interest rates on their own websites. How hard could that be? In developed countries, and regulated developing countries, this is obligatory. Look at Ecuador, for example. Every bank has to have it’s interest rates firmly on the front page, thus eliminating the need for institutions such as MFT. Opportunity go to huge lengths on their pretty website to tell people why they are so great, playing the Christian card, and doing whatever possible to con people into giving them money – but they keep suspiciously quiet about their interest rates. Why? Because they are ashamed of them, but need to charge such rates to cover their chronically inefficient operations and pay the ex-pats fat salaries – where else do you think the money come from? Have a look at the salaries they pay – they are impressive – especially for entirely failing to achieve the stated objective of the company!
Secondly, if these guys want transparency, why not fund MFT? It is a small company with low overhead, I do not have the figures, but I suspect we are talking about a small fraction of the earnings of the companies that make up the CEO Working Group. The combined portfolio of these guys is many billions of dollars, and yet they cannot afford to fund MFT? Of course not – there is no one happier at the closure of MFT than these very same people, principally Accion, host of this blog, who are synonymous with mass exploitation of the poor. Remember David Roodman’s observation that Compartamos were charging the poor 195% in interest? How do you think they can afford to pay the salaries at Accion without charging such rates? Many senior management at Accion earn well over $250.000. The evidence of them having a shred of impact on poverty reduction is absent, and yet they pocket this money without complaint. And these are the lowest management salaries, some are closer to or above $1m per year. Where else can this money come from if not from the poor?
The epitaph you and I might write for MFT is very different to the one the CEO Working Group would write. The key difference is that ours would lament the negative impact on the poor. Theirs laments the negative impact on profits. Now they can get back to their core model of exploitation.
I will be writing about Finca shortly, the data is devestating. It is astonishing that the company still exists, and pays such ludicrous salaries.
March 27, 2015 at 11:17 am
milford bateman
MF Heretic – excellent points and can’t wait for the further blogging you promised on the appallingly exploitative and cynical FINCA operation. You simply could not make up the sort of things FINCA’s CEO is doing in the name of ‘poverty reduction’ and with (crocodile) tears in his eyes continues to defend as much as possible. I have also heard from former Opportunity people that it is moving in the same direction as FINCA – being Wall Street-ised, one might say – but the financial rewards its insiders are reaping are not in the FINCA league just yet. Nevertheless, one can say that both institutions have clearly evolved into a classic ‘control fraud’ operation as per the definition provided by the great Bill Black – financial institutions in which the CEO has ruthlessly deployed the freedom he or she has to legally (at least initially) loot the organisation which employs him/her.
I also wonder if you have thought how long it will take before someone in the USA takes FINCA and Opportunity, and also such as ACCION and Grameen Foundation USA, to the US equivalent of the advertising standards authority on the grounds that they are all fraudulently selling a product that, we all now agree after the recent high-profile event in DC with Karlan, Duflo, Banerjee, et al, simply does NOT do what its says on the tin. Anyone up to the task?
On a related more prosaic issue, I heard on some blog you were mistakenly invited to FINCA’s ‘Breakfast with Rupert’ PR event in London a while back. I too was mistakenly invited and I accepted the invitation in order to go along and ask some pointed questions about Mr Scofield’s $770,000 salary and FINCAs ultra-high interest rates and other anti-poor developments they seem to be perfecting. But the admin person who invited me was put right and I got a nice ‘disinvitation’ soon after…..I thought to myself at the time though, this is what Bernie Madoff’s organisation used to do in trying to win over the sceptical public! So more power to your elbow mate.
March 27, 2015 at 6:30 pm
Chuck Waterfield
Oh my…. I just happened to come back a week after this posting to see if there were any comments, and i find this…. If anyone has the stamina to read to this depth in the comments section, let me say that all the criticisms and attacks stated here, while perhaps well-intentioned, are completely wrong. The CEO Working Group and the SMART Campaign very much support MFTransaprency. In my experiences with both over the past 7 years, everything they have expressed in this posting and the comments is sincere. MFT’s decision to close has nothing to do with funding issues. We are not stopping because of funding drying up. MFT is not closing because of resistance from the CEO Working Group or SMART – in fact, it is just the opposite.
I have a post running on Next Billion this coming week that will explain things more fully. Rather than restate everything here, I ask you to read that blog.
I will for now state two fundamental points.
First, support for pricing transparency is very strong and very sincere across a broad range of the stakeholders in microfinance. Everyone posting here on this blog truly supports the work MFT did, and that is why we persevered for seven years. We wouldn’t have even started if it were not for the moral support we get from everyone. (And the CEO Working Group has been exceptional in this regard for years, consistently going out of their way to ask for updates and ask for ways they can support us further.) We do very much appreciate the support all are expressing here… but we wish that support for MFT weren’t entwined with criticism and attacks of other parties.
Second, the real reason we are stopping is that most of the MFIs find lots of reasons not to be transparent. Networks and funders and ratings agencies and certifiers and analysts are all in favor of MFIs being transparent on pricing. But the MFIs are much less in favor. So MFTransparency finds that the data is hard to get. If the rest of the industry does not insist that the MFIs give us the data, MFT doesn’t get the data. And that is the rub. The will is there across a broad range of the industry that the lenders be transparent, but the rest of the industry isn’t able or ready to convert that will into concrete actions. If funders and networks demanded transparency as a non-negotiable, there would be more transparency, but we are a long way from that happening. Transparency doesn’t come from MFT sticking around. Transparency only comes when all the stakeholders absolutely demand it and stop taking excuses from the MFIs about why they choose not to be transparent.
Chuck Waterfield
Founder and CEO, MFTransparency
March 30, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Chuck Waterfield
Here is the link to the NextBillion blog post I mentioned above that explains our decision and proposes what the industry should do moving forward:
http://nextbillion.net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=5363
March 28, 2015 at 1:57 am
John Gitau
Thank you Chuck for clarifying the issues raised in the blog post and the comments section. When information is scarce or absent, we human beings fill the gap with opinions.
Attacks and criticism come with the territory and only those who have corns need to fear them. Those will solid self esteem let them pass, absorb them, laugh them off or use them to amend things. But the guilty ones shake in their boots. It is not up to critics or attackers to stop. It is for the attacked to defend themselves if what is said isn’t true or accurate. Indeed, coming to the aid of the attacked and criticized is patronizing, like suggested they can’t defend themselves or that they are so guiltly vulnerable that they have to be defended.
Credit goes to CFI for living to the promise of making the blog the ultimate democratic space where everybody’s opinion is respected however disconcerting it would be for some readers. Freedom of expression comes with a price.
Your second point, Chuck, says it all. Thank you for that truth. It sets you free. Wishing you the best in your next project.
March 31, 2015 at 11:12 am
James Militzer
Sorry John, I have to respectfully disagree – I’m glad Chuck chimed in with a defense of the groups that were criticized here in comments, and don’t find it patronizing at all.
I appreciate criticisms that are backed up with facts, but not those that jump to erroneous conclusions based on assumptions about other people’s motives. I’m glad we have folks like Hugh and Milford, who aren’t afraid to point out the industry’s actual failings in stark terms – I think such discussions are healthy. But in light of Chuck’s clarification, some of the criticisms Hugh expressed here clearly were unfair and inaccurate. I wouldn’t assume that people’s reluctance to respond to these criticisms somehow legitimizes them.
Anyway, as Chuck mentioned, his post on NextBillion will hopefully clear up a few of these misunderstandings: http://nextbillion.net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=5363.
March 31, 2015 at 12:39 pm
John Gitau
Thanks James for your observation. It’s is only that criticizing the criticizer makes two. The best option is to provide an alternative perspective. By the end of the day, it is just an exchange of perspectives, and some perspectives are labeled criticism, others attracts, forgetting that such labeling is ironically a criticism and an attack. In my language, we have a proverb that says ” a mouth that has saliva always has something to say”
We can settle at one point though; that if someone doesn’t like a perspective, it is healthier to provide an alternative one or not at all.
But no one has a right to insult another, and the insulted has the obligation not to allow the insult to sink by being above it in terms of self image. Nothing comes easy.
We are mourning MFT’s demise and no genuine mourning is without emotions. We shall be fine. In my language, we say at the grave ” If the departed has died from someone’s bad eye or hand, may the killer never have peace. But If death was natural, may the soul rest in peace. It is well, it is well!”
And our final proverb goes ” If you take upon yourself to defend the defendable, never keep the rod down, as attacks will always come”( its more colourful said in my mother tongue!)
March 31, 2015 at 1:09 pm
MFHeretic
I am sorry if my opinion on this appears unfair. I have known MFT since its inception and have been a vocal supporter of Chuck’s superb work. I have probably referred to his website more often than most, and have used it frequently to expose questionable practices. With some success, I would speculate: I criticised Finca very openly for charging rates of 347% per year in Zambia as published by MFT, and note that they are the ONLY Zambian MFI to update their MFT pricing data, and I am delighted that the maximum interest rate has fallen to a mere 95.4%. Still scope for improvement, and this is yet to make it to the Finca website, but a step in the right direction.
http://www.mftransparency.org/microfinance-pricing/zambia/
It appears Opportunity have also updated some of their data, to the benefit of the poor.
However, it is unfortunate that institutions such as MFT are even necessary in this sector. Let’s not forget Yunus’s lament: “I never imagined that one day microcredit would give rise to its own breed of loan sharks”. Although loan shark is ill-defined, Finca, Opportunity and Accion, to name but three, charge interest rates raise eyebrows in most environments and could well be considered loan sharks. James – what is your opinion? At what point do interest rates enter the “loan shark” category? Or are you of the opinion that it is a term that is impossible to define, and thus best left un-defined such that none are guilty?
All three are members of the CEO Working Group, and none of these have published their OWN interest rates on their OWN websites. Chuck suggests that MFIs have been very unwilling to sumit thier data – an astute observation from the horse’s mouth, but let’s not assume that Finca, Accion and Opportunity have been particularly transparent in this regard. Are they willing to publish their rates, and set an example to the rest of the sector? I’ll believe it when I see it, no sooner.
For all the rhetoric around fair and transparent pricing, would it really have been so hard for Smart Campaign to require submission of data to MFT as a condition for obtaining their certification? If we are to believe that transparency is a genuine goal of Smart, wouldn’t this have been a rather obvious means to achieve it? Of course, one cannot prove motivation. But the facts are there, and this is an opaque sector at best. The fact that we have Accion running the Smart Campaign is deeply disturbing in the first place. That they award their own MFI, Compartamos, their ludicrous certification raised fundamental questions about their integrity across the sector. In doing so they undermined other efforts, such as Truelift, whose highest award requires Smart Certification – wooopppeee – the maximum category of apparently effective and ethical performance would place an MFI in the same boat as Compartamos – a by-word for exploitation.
My only real concern with MFT was that the data never reached the end user. But I am tired of hearing false praise for transparency. If these folk expect to be taken seriously, lead the way. Let’s see the APRs of the members of the CEO Working Group. We know how much these guys earn, now let’s see where the money comes from. Is that really such a silly idea? How hard would it be to simply publish the rates? But as we have previously seen with the likes of Kiva, and now hear directly from Chuck, MFIs do not want to publish their rates. Why not? To answer this question necessitates speculation, but one very likely candidate is that these same MFIs are ashamed of the interest rates they charge and fear the consequences of publishing them openly, while they rather enjoy the income stream that flows directly from them and pays their salaries.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15yunus.html?_r=0
April 7, 2015 at 11:00 am
James Militzer
Hugh, you’re making some good points, and I think the organizations that are pushing transparency should be bold enough to make their own rates publicly available. But I can understand why they may not want to do so, and I think their reasons go beyond any sense of shame at inappropriate pricing.
For instance, any interest rate that’s higher than what consumers pay in developed countries is going to strike many people in these countries as unfair – including many potential donors and investors in microfinance organizations. These people may not take into account the difficulties and risks in delivering loans to poor people in challenging settings – factors that may make even “eyebrow-raising” interest rates seem appropriate in other contexts. If I were an honest MFI charging 100% interest in difficult settings while making a modest profit, I’d be reluctant to publicize my rates too – especially if I knew that my competitors, who are charging and making far more – would not do likewise. Why should I bear the brunt of public criticism over my (justifiable) three-figure interest rate, while my less-ethical competitors get a free pass?
Plus, as Chuck has pointed out in the parallel discussion going on at his NextBillion blog, sometimes definitional differences in listed interest rates can lead to misunderstandings about the actual cost of credit to consumers. So you can’t always just cherry pick the highest interest rates from a list, and use that to condemn an entire organization. Yet that’s what critics like you tend to do – and I’m sure many MFIs take this into account when considering the risks and rewards of greater transparency.
This raises an interesting dilemma: making a public example of apparently high interest rates can raise awareness of an important issue that deserves fuller discussion. But it also provides a disincentive for honest MFIs to brave these criticisms and opt for full transparency – while providing a convenient excuse for exploitative MFIs to hide their prices as well.
I’m not saying vocal critics like you should be less vocal, but perhaps more nuance is warranted? It’s easy to throw around terms like “loan shark” – but defining who belongs in that category might be more complex than you seem to believe.
July 13, 2015 at 2:22 pm
Hugh Sinclair (@MFheretic)
James – the term loan-shark applied to microfinance stems from Yunus’s original piece in the NYT, not me. I agree with him. And the blunt measure of naming and shaming those that charge high interest rates does seem to work – it gets the public to at least think about these things, it obliges operators to defend why it is that they need to charge 100%, it produces an incentive to reduce rates, if only for reputational damage. But at what point does a loan simply not impart value to the recipient, even if the expenses are “justified”? I am sure there are remote tribes that can only be served by helicopter living in jungles somewhere or other that could only be sustainably serviced with interest rates of thousands of percent, perhaps tens of thousands of percent, just to cover the weekly visits by loan officers. At what point do you simply say “actually, it’s simply not worth offering cost-covering loans to these people”? The cost of service is a factor, but it is not the sole criteria for providing access, particularly when one considers that financial literacy is not alway that high, and margins on the underlying businesses may not be sufficient to cover the cost of servicing the loan.
When we talk about “cost-covering” this often means covering salaries, and if we look at the likes of Accion and Finca, some of these salaries are astronomical. According to the 990 form 2013 for Finca, Rupert Scofield received over $750.000 (publicly available data). One way to reduce interest rates would be to reduce his salary. Look at the salaries of Accion staff, which I reproduced on my website. By your logic I can justify high rates in the name of “sustainability”, and then pay massive salaries to my few key staff. I suggest you read Black “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One” – this is called control fraud.
But your fundamental argument seems to be aymmetry in reporting interest rates – unless everyone does it, it is “unfair” on the transparent few. I agree. So, that is why initiatives such as Smart are a waste of time, and local regulations enforcing transparent pricing such as Ecuador and most developed countries are a wise idea. This sector needs local, state-driven regulation, an anethema to most in the microfinance sector, who’s obsession with free-markets extends to such a high degree of de-regulation that they can’t even fathom the idea of restricting lending to businesses that utilize illegal child labour. Show me anindustry initiative, such as truelift, or Smart, or even a rating agency, that suggests that the underlying activities of MF clients even be LEGAL.
The demise of MFT is a blessing to many, or do you disagree?