An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance

Microfinance institutions (MFIs) play an important role in enabling poor households to escape poverty. MFIs cannot help borrowers if their own performance is poor. This study evaluates financial performance of Village Funds (VFs) and Saving Groups for Production (SGPs) to determine how well the MFIs...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wittawat Hemtanon, Christopher Gan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: LLC "CPC "Business Perspectives" 2020-06-01
Series:Banks and Bank Systems
Subjects:
Online Access:https://businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/13608/BBS_2020_02_Hemtanon.pdf
id doaj-2a996040e8184ac29f1b2de8fc003a63
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2a996040e8184ac29f1b2de8fc003a632020-11-25T02:59:35ZengLLC "CPC "Business Perspectives"Banks and Bank Systems1816-74031991-70742020-06-0115215316610.21511/bbs.15(2).2020.1413608An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performanceWittawat Hemtanon0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9038-5500Christopher Gan1https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5618-1651Ph.D. student, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Ellesmere Junction Road, LincolnPh.D., Professor, Faculty of Agribusiness and Commerce, Lincoln University, Ellesmere Junction Road, LincolnMicrofinance institutions (MFIs) play an important role in enabling poor households to escape poverty. MFIs cannot help borrowers if their own performance is poor. This study evaluates financial performance of Village Funds (VFs) and Saving Groups for Production (SGPs) to determine how well the MFIs are performing financially and how to improve the institutions’ future performances. The study evaluates MFIs’ performance, including MFI characteristics, outreach, productivity, financial structure and financial performance. Data are collected from the annual reports of MFIs between 2014 and 2016. VF and SGP annual reports were collected by the Government Savings Bank between 2014 and 2016. Data are analyzed using descriptive statistics, such as means, to compare the VFs’ and SGPs’ performance. The result shows that SGPs are bigger than VFs in terms of the average number of members and borrowers. However, VFs provide more loans than SGPs to poorer clients. In terms of loan management, SGP staff are more efficient than VF staff. SGPs’ profits are significantly higher than VFs’ profits. In the context of financial structure, SGPs are funded through member deposits, while VFs receive government subsidies. The results indicate that both VFs and SGPs are profitable and financially sustainable.https://businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/13608/BBS_2020_02_Hemtanon.pdffinancial structuremicrofinance institutional characteristicsmicrofinance institutionsoutreachproductivity
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Wittawat Hemtanon
Christopher Gan
spellingShingle Wittawat Hemtanon
Christopher Gan
An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance
Banks and Bank Systems
financial structure
microfinance institutional characteristics
microfinance institutions
outreach
productivity
author_facet Wittawat Hemtanon
Christopher Gan
author_sort Wittawat Hemtanon
title An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance
title_short An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance
title_full An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance
title_fullStr An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance
title_full_unstemmed An empirical analysis of Thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance
title_sort empirical analysis of thai village funds and saving groups’ financial performance
publisher LLC "CPC "Business Perspectives"
series Banks and Bank Systems
issn 1816-7403
1991-7074
publishDate 2020-06-01
description Microfinance institutions (MFIs) play an important role in enabling poor households to escape poverty. MFIs cannot help borrowers if their own performance is poor. This study evaluates financial performance of Village Funds (VFs) and Saving Groups for Production (SGPs) to determine how well the MFIs are performing financially and how to improve the institutions’ future performances. The study evaluates MFIs’ performance, including MFI characteristics, outreach, productivity, financial structure and financial performance. Data are collected from the annual reports of MFIs between 2014 and 2016. VF and SGP annual reports were collected by the Government Savings Bank between 2014 and 2016. Data are analyzed using descriptive statistics, such as means, to compare the VFs’ and SGPs’ performance. The result shows that SGPs are bigger than VFs in terms of the average number of members and borrowers. However, VFs provide more loans than SGPs to poorer clients. In terms of loan management, SGP staff are more efficient than VF staff. SGPs’ profits are significantly higher than VFs’ profits. In the context of financial structure, SGPs are funded through member deposits, while VFs receive government subsidies. The results indicate that both VFs and SGPs are profitable and financially sustainable.
topic financial structure
microfinance institutional characteristics
microfinance institutions
outreach
productivity
url https://businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/13608/BBS_2020_02_Hemtanon.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT wittawathemtanon anempiricalanalysisofthaivillagefundsandsavinggroupsfinancialperformance
AT christophergan anempiricalanalysisofthaivillagefundsandsavinggroupsfinancialperformance
AT wittawathemtanon empiricalanalysisofthaivillagefundsandsavinggroupsfinancialperformance
AT christophergan empiricalanalysisofthaivillagefundsandsavinggroupsfinancialperformance
_version_ 1724701470591287296