小额贷款机构外汇风险管理和小额信贷投资基金

1、原文：The Management of Foreign Exchange Risk by Microfinance Institutions and Microfinance Investment Funds The term “MFI is used broadly in this chapter to encompass institutions that provide small-scale financial services, such as loans, savings, insurance, remittances and other services (generally

2、in amounts less than 250 % of GNP per capita). The term encompasses a wide variety of organizations: NGOs, credit unions, non-bank financial intermediaries, rural banks, etc. Most microfinance investment funds (MFIFs) and other funders such as official development agencies finance their activities i

3、n US dollars (USD) or Euros (EUR), which may be called “hard currencies.However, most microfinance institutions (MFIs) operate in nondollarised or non-Euro-based economies and lend local currency to their clients.Funding in one currency and lending in another, and the probability that the relative v

4、alues of the two currencies will alter, creates foreign exchange (FX) risk. Volatile currency exchange rate fluctuations in many countries where MFIs operate make FX risk a serious issue, but one that has often been accorded little urgency in microfinance. The accelerated development of microfinance

5、 through access to capital markets makes it imperative that foreign exchange be managed in ways that are consistent with best practice in finance. Until this is widely achieved, access to capital markets for the benefit of microfinance will be retarded. Foreign exchange risk is one of many risks tha

6、t MFIFs face. Interest rate risk is an additional risk that is related to FX risk. As currency values change, interest expense or income will also change. And, spreads between interest rates on both sides of the balance sheet may change, that is, interest rates on money borrowed in one currency by a

7、 microfinance institution, for example, may diverge from interest rates on money loaned to micro entrepreneurs by the MFI. Each of these effects has implications for MFIF and MFI profitability. For purposes of economy, these second order exchange risks are not discussed further here in. This chapter

8、 explores the nature of FX risk in debt funding by focusing on which party is likely to bear the risk of exchange rate fluctuations in different situations at different points in a funding transaction. The importance of hedging is noted, and mechanisms are listed that MFIFs and MFIs use to address t

9、heir respective FX risks. The relationships between currency and risk described below apply to equity funds, while in the case of guarantee funds the situation is reversed. Equity investments, as capital, are always in the currency of the MFI. For the foreign equity investor, “foreign exchange risk

10、becomes one of several risks associated with an investment rather than a central factor in making a loan.Equity and guarantee funds, while not the focus of this chapter, are included in the Appendices with examples to identify when they face a currency risk and the hedging mechanisms they use. The m

11、ost common foreign exchange risk possibilities are summarized in Table. These combinations involve positions in Euros (EUR) and local currency, US dollars (USD) and local currency, and between EUR and USD, that comprise the currencies in which assets and liabilities are held by MFIs and MFIFs. Gener

12、alizing, we assume that before the MFI receives funding, it has no currency mismatch. Its “operating currency, the currency in which its assets are denominated, is the same as its “funding currency, which is the currency in which its liabilities are denominated. The example of change in value of the

13、 EUR against the USD is an interesting one to examine. Over a 2-year period, the EUR gained close to 40% of its value against USD. This large change in the relative values of two “hard currencies was underestimated by many MFIs and MFIFs. The EUR was launched in 2002 at USD 1.17, and subsequently fe

14、ll to less than USD 0.90. Recently, however, the EUR has appreciated considerably against the USD, and many European MFIFs operating in EUR and lending in USD in dollarizsed countries in Latin America have incurred significant losses from the transactions. The sharp appreciation of the EUR against t

15、he USD has created significant exchange losses on the EUR loans of many MFIs, which in some cases will require restructuring. The ASN-Novib Fonds is an example. It is an MFIF in the Netherlands that lends in hard currency (both USD and EUR), with most of its portfolio concentrated in Latin America.

16、It is seeking opportunities in Asia and Africa if the foreign exchange risks can be hedged. In the past, the ASN-Novib Fonds made EUR loans to MFIs operating in dollarised economies, but the lack of hedging by its client MFIs and subsequent losses have forced ASN-Novib Fonds to discontinue unhedged

17、EUR funding, which it considers too risky for the MFIs. On the other hand, MFIs borrowing in USD and on-lending in EUR have experienced currency gains their Euro-equivalent USD repayments of principal and interest have diminished considerably. Regardless of who bears the direct currency risk (i. e.,

18、 direct losses from currency fluctuations), both parties are at risk for indirect losses resulting from currency risk. For example, if an MFIF suffers losses and downscales operations or changes the allocation of countries in which it invests, client MFIs may lose access to a funder that has been he

19、lpful in the past. On the other hand, MFIFs face increased credit risk (i. e., an indirect currency risk in this case), when MFIs have not hedged their currency risk and suffer subsequent losses that affect their profitability and long term viability. In this sense, some dimensions of currency risk

20、are always shared between the MFIF and the MFI, regardless of which bears the direct risk, as portrayed in the examples above.Because of direct and indirect FX risks, MFIFs and MFIs are working together to develop hedging mechanisms in countries where the capital markets may offer few of the hedging

21、 options that are available in developed countries. To mitigate indirect currency risks, most MFIFs try to assess whether it is reasonable for their client MFIs to borrow in a certain currency. They examine their funding and operating currencies and monitor their overall foreign currency exposure on

22、 a regular basis as part of their due diligence process. MFIFs that have adopted these procedures include BIO, Cordaid, Etimos, Incofin, Luxmint-ADA, Rabobank and Triodos. Exposure analysis varies, and is not used in every case. Informal cross-checking among MFIFs also helps raise their awareness of

23、 the foreign exchange exposure of their affiliates. Some MFIFs such as ASN-Novib Fonds have changed their policies to reduce MFI currency risks.Interviews conducted by ADA, CGAP, and The MIX for the KfW symposium in 2004 shed some light on MFIFs perceptions of FX risk. The study found that perceptio

24、ns of the degree of risk linked to currency fluctuations depend largely on direct currency exposure, although most MFIFs interviewed expressed great concern for the larger issue whether or not they directly faced a riskbecause of the potential repercussions of a loss incurred by MFIs as a result of

25、transactions with an MFIF.When asked: “Is foreign exchange risk a big issue for the MFIs that you invest in?, MFIFs were almost unanimous in saying that foreign exchange risk is a major issue in lending to MFIs because it increases the risk of losses, regardless of who assumes the risk. MFIFs that s

26、hared this view included BIO, Cordaid, Luxmint-ADA, Rabobank, and Triodos. Some MFIFs, including BIO, Cordaid, and PlaNet Fund, were nevertheless willing to assume greater FX risk, or were generally less concerned about it, for several reasons: The potential currency losses linked to currency risk d

27、iscussed previously contrast with the responses regarding risk mitigation. While levels of risk vary, not enough is being done from the perspectives of both MFIFs and MFIs. Many MFIFs and MFIs that should hedge because of the level of their exposure do not have hedging mechanisms in place, for a var

28、iety of reasons explored below. Of the 64 MFIFs analyzed for the KfW symposium and through The MIX Market, 49 provided the currency breakdown of their microfinance investment portfolios. Of these, 46 provided information about their hedging policies or lack thereof. Only a little over 40% (19) of th

29、e MFIFs that gave details of their hedging policies indicated that they had a hedging policy in place. As noted previously, not all MFIFs need to hedge. MFIFs that offer funding in their currency of operations have no FX risk and therefore do not have hedging policies in place. Excepting the 7 MFIFs

30、 that were not exposed to direct currency risk, 20 MFIFs, about 50% of the 39 that faced exposure from currency risk, did not have hedging mechanisms in place, as illustrated in Table . Failures to hedge adequately created losses for several of the MFIFs studied, including many European microfinance

31、 investors, such as NOVIB (on local currency loans and participations in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mexico, Mozambique, Peru, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Uganda), Cordaid (on loans in Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Morocco, Peru, Phi

32、lippines, etc, and others. How are exchange rate losses treated in accounting information? Some MFIFs show returns prior to exchange rate losses while others show returns after exchange rate losses. Lack of standardisation produces important differences in the overall return, often turning a positiv

33、e return into a negative one. This difference should be taken into consideration when examining the financial statements of MFIFs. A forthcoming edition of the MicroBanking Bulletin, focusing on the supply side of MFI funding, will provide more details of issues arising from the lack of standardisat

34、ion and transparency in MFIF reporting. MFIFs that reported having hedging mechanisms in place indicated differences in their degree of hedging: some fully hedged currency risk, while many hedged hard currency risk but not their local currency exposure. The most common reason for not hedging currenc

35、y risk is that MFIFs are willing to assume the risk. MFIFs that had not hedged their currency exposure are identified in Appendix 5. Other MFIFs that were not hedging simply because they did not face direct currency risk are listed in Appendix 6. Some MFIFs also chose to bear the FX risk and not hed

36、ge, in order not to increase the costs of their loans and face the risk of losing potential customers. Appendix 3 indicates that a few investment funds, primarily social funds, are willing to assume direct currency risk by offering local currency loans to MFIs. However, most MFIFs invest in MFIs in

37、hard currency, passing the FX risk to the MFIs, which then bear the responsibility for hedging by obtaining a hard currency guarantee or buying a derivative security that neutralises their risk. A number of MFIFs are lending in hard currencies, sometimes recklessly, in countries where the devaluatio

38、n risk is high and MFIs do not hedge. Similar to the MFIFs, MFIs face varying levels of risk that depend not only on the mix of currencies they borrow and on-lend to their clients, but also on the volume of funds borrowed and/or on-lent in different currencies.A recent survey conducted by CGAP and T

39、he MIX identified the funding structure and future funding projections of MFIs.Of the 216 MFIs that responded to the survey, 80 indicated that they were currently using hard currency funding (USD or EUR) and indicated the amount.Of these 80 MFIs, 8 operated in dollarised economies (Ecuador and El Sa

40、lvador) or in Euros (Kosovo). The remaining 72 were exposed to either USD or EUR currency risk: 61 had an average exposure of USD 2.6 million and 11 had an average exposure of EUR 3.8 million. An average of 48% of USD loans and an average of 36% of EUR loans were hedged. Nevertheless, these averages

41、 hide important differences in hedging practices amongst MFIs. More interesting is the distribution of hedging (Table 4).In either USD or EUR exposures, 72 MFIs should have hedged: 54% were not hedging at all, while 24% were fully hedged. The remaining 16 MFIs (or 22%) partially hedged their currenc

42、y risk. For more details on exposures and the percentage of hedging by the MFIs in the survey that were operating in a non-USD or non-EUR country, see Appendices 9, 10 and11. Most of the 216 surveyed MFIs had some exposure to currency risk through their transactions with an average of one foreign le

43、nder, and/or desired to increase their funding from foreign sources. In addition, 68 (or 31%) of the 216 MFIs surveyed indicated that foreign funders did not want to assume foreign exchange risk and that this was a challenge in obtaining foreign loans and equity. In addition, the sample results sugg

44、est that there is a high probability that MFIs that have access to foreign loans are not hedging properly. The hedging issue is therefore important: helping MFIs reduce currency risk will increase their interest in obtaining foreign lending and reducing FX losses. Similar to the MFIFs, the performan

45、ce of MFIs is affected not only by the actual gains or losses incurred from foreign exchange, but also in the way these are accounted for. Adjustment methods used by external analysts such as rating agencies also contain considerable differences. It is important to examine the specific accounting tr

46、eatments when comparing the performance of MFIs. Although FX risk occurs in almost every transaction between microfinance investors (especially foreign investors) and MFIs, too many MFIFs and MFIs are not hedging appropriately. Hedging is seldom used because common hedging mechanisms are not availab

47、le in the countries where MFIs operate, or prohibitively costly for the small amounts of the transactions involved. While hedging increases transaction costs, lack of hedging results in losses that can be significant, especially for MFIs and MFIFs that do not have well diversified portfolios.In addi

48、tion, MFIFs often compensate for FX risk by increasing their interest rates to MFIs to cover potential losses. FX risk therefore increases the lending costs for the MFIs (and ultimately, for their clients), regardless of whether or not they have access to local currency loans. Unless MFIFs are able

49、to assume more of the FX risk linked to their lending to MFIs, other funding instruments such as guarantees may be more appropriate for MFIs that face small margins.“Best practices for hedging by MFIFs should include strategies of when to hedge, how much to hedge, how to hedge. Sharing experiences w

50、ith successful and innovative hedging mechanisms, such as FX insurance funds, would greatly encourage MFIFs to absorb more of the FX risk that MFIs are so ill equipped to address, reducing costs for MFIFs and MFIs.Source: IsabelleBarres. "MFI Demand for Funding". Harvard business review, 2

51、0048:P56-58.译文：小额贷款机构外汇风险管理和小额信贷投资基金术语“多边投资框架在这一章中使用广泛，包括机构一般金额小于人均国民生产总值250提供的小规模金融效劳，如贷款，储蓄，保险，汇款和其他效劳。这个术语包括了各种组织：非政府组织，信用合作社，非银行金融中介机构，农村银行等。大多数小额信贷投资基金MFIFs和机构或者其他出资者的官方融资倾向于美元或欧元，可能称这些货币为“硬货币。然而，大多数小额信贷机构却在经营非美元或者非欧元为根底的经济和本地货币贷款的客户。资金的货币和贷款随着利率的改变相对价值也将改变，造成外汇FX的风险。挥发性是许多国家的货币兑换汇率波动引起的，也是小额信贷

52、机构经营面临的严重外汇风险问题，而且经常给予小额信贷紧迫性。小额信贷进入资本市场的加速开展迫切需要好的外汇方式，最好的做法是一致的金融管理。直到这个被广泛实现，准入，有利于资本市场的小额信贷就将受到阻碍。外汇风险是 MFIFs 面对的很多风险之一。利率风险是一个额外的，与其相关的外汇风险。由于货币价值的变化，利息支出或收入也将发生变化。而且，由于利差，资产负债表可能也会改变。也就是由小额贷款机构借入一种货币利率，脱离有关钱的利率跟由MFI所作的微企业家贷款。这些效果对 MFIF 和 MFI 的赢利有暗示性。出于经济目的，这些二阶汇率风险在这里不进一步讨论。本章探讨的重点放在：资金在一个交易的不

53、同点的汇率波动风险，在不同情况下的外汇债务融资风险的性质。套期保值的重要性指出，使用机制和小额信贷机构列出的MFIFs外汇，以解决它们各自的风险。货币和风险之间的关系如下所述，适用于股票基金，对基金而言，情况正好相反。股权投资，资本，总是小额信贷机构MFI投资的货币。对于外国投资者的权益，“外汇风险成为与投资有关，而不是在作出贷款时出现的风险因素之一公平与担保资金，不是本章的重点，而是在包含的例子中确定当他们面对货币风险的对冲机制和他们使用的回避机制。最常见的外汇风险是Table.These组合中涉及欧元和当地货币的局部，美元USD和当地货币，欧元和美元之间的关系，这其中包括货币资产和负债通过

54、小额信贷机构和MFIFs反映。概括地说，我们假设小额信贷机构获得资金之前，它没有任何的货币配置，其“经营货币的是其资产的计价货币，是作为其“融资的货币，负债均与货币相同。欧元兑美元价值变化的例子是一个有趣的研究。通过2年期间，欧元上涨近40，其兑美元的价值。这两种“硬货币的相对估值的大变化是由许多小额信贷机构和MFIFs发现的。欧元在2002年发起了1.17美元，其后跌幅超过缺乏0.90美元。然而，最近欧元对美元大幅升值，许多欧洲MFIFs欧元营运和在拉丁美洲美元化的国家美元贷款已经发生了的重大交易损失。欧元兑美元大幅升值创造了许多小额信贷机构对欧元的贷款，这在某些情况下需要重组重大汇兑损失。

55、ASN - Novib全宗就是一个例子。这是一个在荷兰MFIF的例子，在硬通货包括美元和欧元出现与拉丁美洲最集中的投资组合。它正在寻求如果外汇风险可以对冲，在亚洲和非洲投资的时机。在过去的ASN - Novib Fonds的小额信贷机构取得贷款，以欧元在美元化的市场上进行经济运作，但其客户小额信贷机构和由此造成的损失，迫使对冲缺乏的ASN - Novib全宗停止套期保值欧元的资金，因为他们认为这是很大的冒险小额信贷机构。另一方面，小额信贷机构以美元和欧元贷款的借款，相当于欧元货币收益的本金和利息，归还美元有大幅度减少。 无论谁承当直接货币的风险即，货币波动的直接损失，双方都得承当货币风险造成的

56、间接损失。例如，如果一个MFIF遭受损失或许会改变它的国家投资，小额信贷机构的分配可能会失去一个已经在过去访问过的客户端或出资人。另一方面，MFIFs面临更大的信用风险即，在这种情况下的间接货币风险时，微型金融机构没有对冲汇率风险，并受到他们的影响其盈利能力和长期的生存能力由此造成损失。在这个意义上说，货币风险的一些方面总是和小额信贷机构与MFIF之间共享，无论谁有直接的风险，正如上面的例子描绘的。因直接和间接外汇风险，MFIFs和小额信贷机构合作开发的国家机制在对冲资本市场可能提供的对冲期权是在兴旺国家中的少数几个。为了减轻间接货币风险，MFIFs试图借他们的客户的一定货币评估它们是否是合理

57、的小额信贷机构。他们以审视自己的资金，经营货币和监督作为其尽职调查过程的一局部。他们整理的定期外汇风险，已通过MFIFs这些程序，包括生物，Cordaid，Etimos，Incofin，Luxmint，荷兰合作银行和Triodos。曝光的分析各不相同，并非在任何场合都能使用。非正式MFIFs之间相互检查也有助于提高对他们的分支机构外汇风险的意识。如ASN - Novib全宗已经改变其政策，以减少小额信贷机构的一些MFIFs货币风险。 由阿达和扶贫协商小组混合进行的专题讨论会，在2004年德国复兴信贷银行采访了一些对外汇研究的MFIFs，观念主要是货币波动的风险程度依赖于直接感知的货币风险，虽然

58、大局部MFIFs采访表示更关注他们是否直接面对风险的损失，小额信贷机构实施与MFIF交易可能产生的影响。当问道：“外汇风险，为什么是小额信贷机构的大问题时，MFIFs表示，外汇风险几乎是一致的，是小额信贷机构的贷款主要问题，因为它增加了亏损的风险，不管是谁承当风险。MFIFs，共享这一观点，包括生物，Cordaid，Luxmint，荷兰合作银行和Triodos。有些MFIFs，包括生物，Cordaid，基金和行星，但仍不愿意承当更大的外汇风险，或者是一般较少关注它。有以下几个原因：与外币挂钩的潜在风险损失和有关缓解货币风险的讨论。虽然风险程度不同，但还不够从MFIFs和小额信贷机构两方面说明观点。许多MFIFs和微型金融机构，并没有由于其风险水平对对冲机制做以下各种原因的探讨。德国复兴信贷银行研讨会，通过市场分析的MIX 提供了小额信贷投资组合的货币崩溃。其中，46条规定超过40的MFIFs有关其对冲政策信息，对冲政策细节说明，他们有一个适当的对冲政