《贾奇商学院:2022年中小企业数字金融可及性研究报告-深潜拉丁美洲金融科技生态系统(英文版)(136页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《贾奇商学院:2022年中小企业数字金融可及性研究报告-深潜拉丁美洲金融科技生态系统(英文版)(136页).pdf(136页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、The SME Access to Digital Finance Study Tania Ziegler,Felipe Ferri de Camargo Paes,Cecilia Lpez Closs,Erika Soki,Diego Herrera and Jaime Sarmiento A Deep Dive into the Latin American Fintech EcosystemContentsForewords.6Research team.9Research partners.10Acknowledgements .121.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.132.IN
2、TRODUCTION.152.1.Study rationale.152.2.Report structure.153.METHODOLOGY.163.1.Data sources.163.2.Taxonomy.173.3.Data sanitization,verification and analysis.194.OVERALL PROFILE OF MSMEs.214.1.Participating countries .214.2.Legal structure.214.3.Size and full-time employees .224.4.Trading duration.224
3、.5.Sector.234.6.Gender,education and age of Chief Executive Officer or Managing Director .245.OVERALL USE OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCE BY MSMEs.255.1.Verticals:models encompassed in this study.255.2.Amount borrowed or raised by MSMEs through a digital financial services platform .255.3.Previous funding ex
4、periences of MSMEs .285.4.Analysis by model.296.P2P/MARKETPLACE LENDING.306.1.Profile of MSMEs.306.2.Borrowing experience .376.3.Funding outcomes.407.INVOICE TRADING.457.1.Profile of MSMEs.457.2.Borrowing experience .527.3.Funding outcomes.558.INVESTMENT CROWDFUNDING:EQUITY AND REAL ESTATE.598.1.Pro
5、file of MSMEs.598.2.Issuer experience.668.3.Funding outcomes.709.NON-INVESTMENT CROWDFUNDING.739.1.Profile of MSMEs.739.2.Issuer experience.809.3.Funding outcomes.8310.IMPACTS OF COVID-19.8510.1.Business closures.8510.2.Government assistance.8510.3.Covid-19 platform assistance.8611.COUNTRY FACTSHEET
6、|ARGENTINA.8912.COUNTRY FACTSHEET|BRAZIL.9413.COUNTRY FACTSHEET|CHILE.10014.COUNTRY FACTSHEET|COLOMBIA.10615.COUNTRY FACTSHEET|MEXICO.11116.COUNTRY FACTSHEET|PERU.11717.CURRENT REGULATIONS OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCE IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN.12117.1.Argentina.12117.2.Brazil:equity crowdfunding.
7、12217.3.Brazil:loan crowdfunding.12317.4.Colombia.12417.5.Mexico.12517.6.Peru.12717.7.Chile.12817.8.Crowdfunding regulations in Latin America and the Caribbean:a comparison.129ENDNOTES.1326The small business sector is one of the most important drivers of economic development,employment,and innovatio
8、n.With a quickly growing micro,small and medium-sized(MSME)sector in Latin America,it is important to address the MSME finance gap in the region.Across Latin America,digital lending and capital raising fintech firms have increasingly been servicing the MSME sector.In both 2019 and 2020,more than USD
9、3 billion was lent to MSMEs through fintech channels.Thus,to better contextualize how growth in the fintech industry has contributed to bridging the finance gap,The SME Access to Digital Finance:A Deep Dive into the Latin American Fintech Ecosystem shows how fintechs could be part of the solution of
10、 how to include MSMEs in the financial sector.Focusing on six key countries where fintech has taken off over the last few years Argentina,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Peru and Mexico this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities faced by MSMEs when seeking finance through
11、 fintech channels.The study also seeks to understand how MSMEs view their fintech funding activities compared to traditional finance options,such as retail banking.This study follows on from the first edition of this study,Business Access to Alternative Finance:A Deep Dive into Mexico&Chile,which fo
12、cused on how small businesses use digital alternative financial products to support their funding needs.It is also part of a regional series focusing on access to finance more broadly,with the forthcoming ASEAN Access to Digital Finance Study looking at how both small businesses and individual consu
13、mers use digital financial channels for their financing needs in Indonesia,Malaysia,the Philippines,Singapore and Thailand.The findings from this study confirm the hypothesis that fintechs are important players in closing the MSME financing gap,and can play an important role in driving MSME growth i
14、n the region.Alternative finance originations related to fintech credit and capital raising models reached USD5.27 billion in 2020 when most of it went to MSMEs.This highlights the fast pace at which fintechs are becoming of key importance for MSME growth.Crucially,for many MSMEs in the region,finte
15、ch platforms are becoming an essential resource for providing much-needed finance.The study presents the current regulatory landscape in the region as access to finance mandates become increasingly important to policymakers.Fintech-focused regulation and policies must be considered to ensure the sma
16、ll business sector across the region is supported.The fintech ecosystem continues to develop rapidly,and regulators and supervisors across the region are endeavoring to keep pace with developments.We expect the fintech ecosystems across Latin America to continue growing,particularly in terms of func
17、tioning as clear channels for financial inclusion for MSMEs.We would like to thank the Inter-American Development Bank and IDB-Invest for their support,and the 33 fintech platforms that partnered with the research team to ensure robust MSME participation.Bryan ZhangCo-founder and Executive DirectorC
18、ambridge Centre for Alternative FinanceTania ZieglerLead in Global BenchmarkingCambridge Centre for Alternative FinanceForewordsTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 7Alternative finance:a power tool for financial inclusion The SME Access to Di
19、gital Finance:A Deep Dive into the Latin American Fintech Ecosystem is one more achievement of our successful partnership with the University of Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance(CCAF)on the fintech space.Insofar,we have collaborated on seven publications with the CCAF during the last seven y
20、ears.Last year,we produced The 2nd Global Alternative Finance Market Benchmarking Report to deconstruct the alternative finance(AF)and crowdfunding ecosystem in Latin America and the Caribbean(LAC).The results were impressing indeed:the region reached USD5.27 billion in AF originations for 2020,repr
21、esenting a stunning 191%compared with 2018.Most importantly,the LAC AF ecosystem increased the share of business finance to reach 86%in 2020 from 60%in 2018.Alternative finance business-oriented funding grew 260%compared with 2018,from USD1.08 billion to more than USD4.45 billion.Consequently,it is
22、safe to say that AF platforms appear to be a feasible alternative to finance the micro,small,and medium enterprises(MSMEs),which are 95%of their client firms.The present document is a deep dive into the patterns of MSME financing in our region.The study is highly relevant,since the financing gap for
23、 MSMEs in our region is only 21%of the regional GDP.One of the main conclusions of the study supports the idea that fintech platforms can become important vehicles of financing for the firms in the region.The study is based on a sample of 540 MSMEs from Argentina,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Peru and Mexic
24、o.Out of those,59%of the firms funded their businesses with personal credit cards.In this context,the study shows how fintechs could be part of the solution to include MSMEs in the financial sector.First,the study found that 76%of respondents used the P2P/marketplace lending model as a channel to fi
25、nance their activities,while 13%used invoice trading as an alternative to funding them.The models are relevant because they give hints to policymakers about where to focus their actions.Furthermore,with a median credit value of USD3,917,a total of 61%of the firms used the resources obtained from AF
26、platforms for working capital,while 8.2%used it for asset purchases,8.2%to refinance and 7.8%to expand the business.But more important yet,those firms that were able to access fintech funding through P2P lending,could also increase or maintain their number of employees(92%of the total),income(86%)an
27、d turnover(84%).Fintech-financed firms became resilient,even in the middle of a very adverse situation such as the pandemic,thanks to the availability of credit.The results are even more relevant if it is taken into account that 83%of the firms were micro or small firms(ten employees or less).Finall
28、y,as the fintech ecosystem is moving forward,so are regulators and supervisors across the region.Hence,the study presents a summary of the regulations and policies related to crowdfunding in Latin America and the Caribbean.In this regard,it is worth highlighting that seven countries have enacted reg
29、ulations on crowdfunding and alternative finance,and five more jurisdictions are drafting corresponding rules.The study classifies the regulations along five fintech segments(crowdfunding,cryptoassets,fast retail payments systems and open finance).The results are shown in FintechRegMap,an interactiv
30、e map showing 8the status of relevant fintech regulations in the region.The study also includes visuals for regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs in the region.The map is available at www.iadb.org/FintechRegMap,or through the Power BI mobile application.We believe that all these efforts may be va
31、luable for investors,regulators,the ecosystem and academia.Data is relevant for their decision-making processes.We expect to witness a continued growth of fintech in Latin America and the Caribbean as a means to foster financial inclusion in our region.Juan Antonio KettererConnectivity,Markets,and F
32、inance Division ChiefInter-American Development BankForewordsTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 9RESEARCH TEAMTania Ziegler Tania is Head of Global Benchmarking at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance and manages the Centres industry
33、-facing research activities.She has authored over 25 industry reports and contributed to numerous academic and working papers since joining the CCAF.Tania is an expert on SME finance and leads the Centres work on SME access to finance in LATAM.Tania completed an MSc at the London School of Economics
34、,and a BA at Loyola College,Maryland.Tania is a 2010 Fulbright Scholar.Felipe Ferri de Camargo Paes Felipe is a Research Associate at the CCAF,and works with the Global Benchmark team,leads the work on SME access to finance in LATAM and participated in the development of the CCAF Alternative Finance
35、 Atlas.He pursued his Bachelors degree in Mechanical Engineering in Brazil and a Masters degree in Management at the School of Economics at the University of Coimbra(FEUC)in Portugal with a focus on sharing economy.Cecilia Lpez Closs Cecilia is a Research Affiliate at the CCAF and works with the Glo
36、bal Benchmark Team.She holds a BA in Business Administration from the Universidad Paraguayo Alemana(UPA)and is currently pursuing a Masters degree in Finance,Technology and Policy at the University of Edinburgh.Her main research interests are how fintech solutions can improve financial inclusion,for
37、 both individuals and MSMEs.Erika Soki Erika is a Research Affiliate at the CCAF.She holds a Masters degree from the Brazilian National School of Public Administration,where she developed research on SME financial inclusion and the perspectives of fintech players entering the Brazilian SME credit ma
38、rket.She is a policy analyst dedicated to research on financial inclusion and education at the Central Bank.Diego HerreraDiego is a Lead Specialist at the Connectivity,Markets,and Finance Division at the Inter-American Development Bank.Besides his leading activities at the IDB,he leads FintechLAC,a
39、digital finance public-private group,supporting public policy.Before his tenure at IDB,he was Superintendent for Market Risk and Integrity and Market Risk Chief at the Colombian financial regulator,and worked in the private sector in Colombia.Diego has an MSc in Risk Management from New York Univers
40、ity-Stern School of Business,and earned MA and BA degrees in Economics from Universidad del Rosario in Colombia.Jaime SarmientoJaime works at the Connectivity,Markets,and Finance Division at the Inter-American Development Bank.Previously,Jaime was a member of the Argentinian team that oversees the h
41、ighest profile lending program at the International Monetary Fund.Prior to that,he participated in a project to identify the factors driving investment project performance at the World Bank.Jaime also gained experience at the Insurance Deposit Fund in Colombia,among others.He is an MBA graduate from
42、 the George Washington University in the United States.Research partners10ChilePeruColombiaRESEARCH PARTNERSArgentinaBrazilMexico Acknowledgements12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research team would like to thank to Pablo Sanucci(Invoitrade),Matias Kelly(Sumatoria),Florencia Menendez(Sumatoria),Bruno Israel(
43、BizCapital),Cristiano Rocha(BizCapital),Paulo Deitos(Captable),Sergio Spieler(Gyra+),Bruno Sayo(Iouu),Andr Bastos(OpenCo),Cintia Miekusz(Geru),Adriana Sonu(Open Co),Patricia Vidal,Fabrcio Spiazzi Sanfelice(Mutual Emprstimos),Tarso Rodrigues Aguiar(Sitawi),Murilo Farah(Benfeitoria),Luis Otavio Ribeir
44、o(Catarse),Christian Real(Chita),Cristin Mura(Chita),Carolina Montes(Cumplo),Ana Fernanda de las Fuentes(Cumplo),Paula Andrea Silva Riao(Omni Latam),Jimena Castillo Garcia(OmniLatam),Ana Mara Correa(Doble Impacto),Jorge Muoz(Doble Impacto),Nelson Rodrguez Harvey(Doble Impacto),Raimundo Meneses(Doble
45、 Impacto),Felipe Zanberk(RedCapital),Adriana Bone(RedCapital),Martn Jofr(Uppercap),Alejandra Toro Abarca(Uppercap),Andres Idarraga(Creci),Paula Daz(Creci),Jorge Leon(Finaktiva),Maria Jose Vsquez(Finaktiva),Rassa Joo(Vaki),Tarek El Sheriff(Zinobe),Camila Villada(Zinobe),Maria Camila Munoz Sanchez(Aff
46、irmatum),Ricardo Soto(Juancho te Presta),Juan Diego Urrea(Juancho te Presta),Maria del Mar Palau(Bankamoda),Alexandra Mendoza De Castro(Liquitech),Gustavo Morales Briceo(Colfimax Factoring),Andrs Guvita Torres(Colfimax Factoring),Fernando Padilla(Lendera),Marcelo De Fuentes(Fundary),Josafat Alejandr
47、o Martnez Navarro(MiCochinito),Juan Carlos Castro(Briq.mx),Ted Senado(Monific)and Valentin Bonnet(Inversiones.io)for distributing the survey.Their considerable contribution and willingness as research partners made this study possible.We would also like to thank to our colleagues at the Inter-Americ
48、an Development Bank for their valuable support in building a strong report:Mr.Juan Ketterer,Division Chief for the Connectivity,Markets,and Finance Division;Ana Mara Zarate Moreno;Sonia Vadillo,Consultant at the Connectivity,Markets,and Finance Division;Gema Sacristn,CIO,IDB Invest;and Guillermo Mul
49、ville,Head of Digital Economy,IDB Invest.We would like to extend our utmost gratitude to our colleagues Alpa Somaiya,Neil Jessiman and Dana Salman at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance for their huge efforts in reviewing and editing this report.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEE
50、P DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 13This edition of The SME Access to Finance:A Deep Dive into LATAMs Fintech Ecosystem provides insights into micro,small and medium enterprises(MSMEs)access to funding through the alternative finance industry in Latin America(LATAM).The study looks at
51、 key factors influencing MSMEs access to finance,such as business owner demographics and company structure,relationships with traditional finance,previous and current funding experiences with a financial technology(fintech)firm,and post-funding outcome.It follows on from our first report on MSMEs ac
52、cess to finance,which has since become a critical resource for industry stakeholders,regulators and policymakers as they evaluate the important role that fintech plays in supporting the MSME sector in LATAM.This study is based on a survey of MSMEs in Argentina,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Mexico and Peru,m
53、aking this the largest MSME-focused alternative finance project to date.The survey captured a total of 540 unique responses from MSMEs that had raised funds via the digital marketplace,focusing on online alternative finance models as they relate to digital lending and digital capital raising activit
54、ies.Due to certain limitations related to response distribution within the sample,this study does not incorporate any cross-business model or cross-country analysis.The results from the study reveal that most respondents(75%)were micro enterprises,supporting the hypothesis that fintechs are a critic
55、al component of smaller businesses funding cycle.Of the respondent MSMEs,44%were mature firms that had been operating for more than six years and less than one-third were young firms that had been operating for fewer than three years.Most of the CEOs were men,and one-third had an undergraduate degre
56、e and were aged between 35 and 44.In terms of the amounts borrowed or raised,the findings suggest that they were concentrated around lower values.Overall,the median amount borrowed or raised was USD3,917 and for 75%of the sample(up to the third quartile),the amounts ranged up to USD20,000.Most MSMEs
57、 used the money,with a median value of USD4,023,for working capital.This value was largely influenced by MSMEs that had borrowed from a P2P/marketplace lending platform.By industry,MSMEs operating in traditional industries raised the highest funding amounts,with a median borrowing value of USD8,813.
58、This was followed by MSMEs in the innovative,and commerce and services industries,where the median amount borrowed for both sectors was approximately USD4,000.Before receiving funding from a fintech platform,MSMEs had tried to raise funds through different sources,primarily banks or family and frien
59、ds.Banks were the most popular funding source for those that used P2P/marketplace or invoice trading platforms,while for those MSMEs that used investment crowdfunding or non-investment crowdfunding platforms,it was friends and family.Although many MSMEs sought funding from banks,only approximately o
60、ne-half received an offer and accepted it.MSMEs that sought funding from family and friends were more successful,especially those that used an investment crowdfunding platform:more than 80%received an offer,all of which were accepted.Regarding traditional finance facilities,the type of product used
61、differed by vertical.MSMEs that used P2P/marketplace lending or non-investment crowdfunding platforms relied more on personal financial products,in the form of personal credit cards or personal accounts,to support their business.Conversely,most MSMEs that used invoice trading or investment crowdfund
62、ing platforms used business accounts.Friends and family were 1.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY14the traditional facilities that more than half the MSMEs that raised funds through an investment crowdfunding fintech turned to.The decision to raise funds through an alternative finance platform was largely influenced
63、 by being able to receive funds faster and better customer service.Also,MSMEs that used a P2P/marketplace lending platform reported they were unable to get funding through any other source except a fintech,indicating this was one of the most important decision-making factors.A better interest rate w
64、as another very important decision-making factor,being reported by approximately half the MSMEs.Overall,MSMEs managed to improve their businesses financial health as a result of the funding received via an alternative finance platform.Most MSMEs across all business models and platform types increase
65、d turnover and net income.However,20%of those that used an investment crowdfunding platform saw a decrease in net profit,but those MSMEs also reported a significant increase in the businesss value and employment rate(over 60%for both factors).Overall,the main impact on the businesses due to funding
66、was an increase in productivity,which was mainly seen for those that used an investment crowdfunding platform(67%).One-third of MSMEs that used a digital lending or invoice trading platform decreased costs.Further,launching a product or service was the result for more than 60%of MSMEs that used an i
67、nvestment or non-investment crowdfunding platform.Another outcome of receiving funding was a positive change in the use of different financial products.There was a noted increase in the use of savings or checking accounts for entrepreneurs that borrowed from a digital lending or invoice trading plat
68、form.MSMEs either decreased their use of or stopped using products such as overdrafts,loan contracts or revolving lines of credit.Interestingly,most MSMEs that used an investment crowdfunding fintech reported no change.However,there were a few for which the use of loan contracts and mortgages increa
69、sed,and decreased for business credit cards and invoice trading products.Regarding the Covid-19 pandemics effects on the business,almost half the businesses managed to cope with the crisis and remained operational,albeit with adjustments.Approximately one-third of MSMEs had to shut down operations t
70、emporarily and only 3%had to permanently close their business.When asked about government-based assistance,22%reported receiving it,of which half received a government Covid-19 voucher and emergency funds for payrolls.The main assistance offered by fintech platforms was related to payment facilities
71、.For digital lending,invoice trading and investment crowdfunding platforms,the primary types of assistance provided were payment holidays and eased payment plans.For non-investment crowdfunding platforms,it was waiving fees.Completing the top three assistance types offered,across all models,were cre
72、dit facilities(not related to a government assistance scheme).Executive summaryTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 152.INTRODUCTION2.1.Study rationaleAcross Latin America,digital lending and capital raising fintech firms have increasingly bee
73、n servicing the MSME sector.In both 2019 and 2020,more than USD3 billion was lent to MSMEs that applied to fintech channels for funding.With a quickly growing entrepreneurial MSME sector,governments and policymakers across LATAM need evidence-based data to determine best practices for MSME-focused f
74、inancial inclusion.Part of this discussion must include the role that fintechs play.This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and opportunities faced by MSMEs in LATAM when seeking finance through fintech channels and how this compares to traditional finance options such
75、as banking.To that end,in 2018,the CCAF and the Inter-American Development Bank(IDB)jointly produced the seminal report Business Access to Alternative Finance:A Deep Dive into Mexico&Chile,which focused on how small businesses use financial technology to support their funding needs.The report contai
76、ns a reliable,evidence-based analysis of the relationships that MSMEs have with the alternative finance industry,and how they use these channels to access growth and working capital.It serves as a crucial public resource that supports regulators,policymakers and key stakeholders in trying to underst
77、and the uniquely important position that fintech has in terms of small business funding.The findings of the first report support the hypothesis that alternative finance channels are a critical component of an MSMEs funding cycle,enhancing access to credit and bolstering this segment of the economy.T
78、his study aims to assess qualitatively LATAM MSMEs access to funding through the alternative finance industry,the decision-making processes,previous funding experiences,funding experiences with alternative finance platforms and post-funding outcomes;not collect precise figures for company turnover o
79、r overall performance.2.2.Report structureChapters 69 analyze the business models included in this study,each one divided into the survey blocks:business structure and demographics,borrowing experience,and the funding outcomes.Chapter 10 analyzes the impact of Covid-19 on the MSMEs.It describes the
80、effects of the pandemic on the businesses and the assistance offered by the fintech platforms they were funded by.We present country factsheets in Chapters 1115 that contain the main findings for the jurisdictions targeted in this study:Argentina,Brazil,Chile,Columbia and Mexico.For this section,we
81、analyzed factors such as business structure and demographics,funding experience,and funding outcomes for each jurisdiction.Methodology16The main data used for this report was collected through the Business Access to Finance:Deep Dive into LATAMs Fintech Ecosystem survey,developed by the CCAF and IDB
82、.The survey was distributed in partnership with 33 fintech firms in LATAM and we received responses from 540 MSMEs that had used a digital lending or digital capital raising fintech platform during 2020 to access credit or raise finance.The 32-question survey comprised four research areas:1.Business
83、 owner demographics and company structure2.MSMEs relationships with traditional finance services(banks)3.MSMEs fundraising experiences when using fintech-based financial services4.Post-fundraising outcomesWe collected both quantitative and qualitative data from the survey and used survey logic to im
84、prove the user experience.The survey was distributed as a stand-alone online survey.We collected data between 11 January and 14 March 2021 in English,Spanish and Portuguese.Respondents were MSMEs based in Argentina,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Peru and Mexico that had used a fintech firm to access credit o
85、r raise finance using debt-,investment-or non-investment-based alternative finance models.Specifically,the models tested in this study are the following:Debt-based models:P2P/marketplace business lending,balance sheet business lending and invoice trading Equity-based models or investment crowdfundin
86、g:equity-based and real estate crowdfunding Non-investment models or non-investment crowdfunding:reward-based and donation-based crowdfunding After defining the scope of the report,the research team initiated the identification process,which included listing LATAM fintechs from the above-mentioned b
87、usiness models.The targeted platforms were then invited to assist us in our data-collection process.They were provided with a communication pack and guidelines regarding the projects,which included information on the type of customers(MSMEs)that the study would be focusing on.3.METHODOLOGY3.1.Data s
88、ourcesTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 17CategoryBusiness modelStakeholdersP2P/marketplace lendingi Consumer lendingIndividuals or institutional funders provide loans to consumer borrowers;commonly assigned to off-balance-sheet lending.Bus
89、iness lendingIndividuals or institutional funders provide loans to business borrowers;commonly assigned to off-balance-sheet lending.Property lendingIndividuals or institutional funders provide loans secured against property to consumers or business borrowers;commonly assigned to off-balance-sheet l
90、ending.Balance sheet lendingii Consumer lendingThe platform entity provides loans directly to consumer borrowers;assigned to on-balance-sheet non-bank lending.Business lendingThe platform entity provides loans directly to business borrowers;assigned to on-balance-sheet non-bank lending.Property lend
91、ingThe platform entity provides loans secured against property directly to consumers or business borrowers;assigned to on-balance-sheet non-bank lending.Invoice tradingiii Invoice tradingIndividuals or institutional funders purchase discounted invoices or receivables from businesses.SecuritiesDebt-b
92、ased securitiesIndividuals or institutional funders purchase debt-based securities,typically a bond or debenture,at a fixed interest rate.Mini-bondsIndividuals or institutions purchase securities from companies in the form of an unsecured bond which is called mini because the issue size is much smal
93、ler than the minimum bond amount that can be issued from institutional capital markets.Consumer purchase financing/customer cash-advanceA buy now,pay later payment facilitator or store credit solution;typically interest bearing.Table 3.2.1 Models included in the debt-based model categoryThe focus of
94、 this report is on online alternative finance models as they relate to digital lending and digital capital raising.Though somewhat vague,at its core,the term online alternative finance includes digital financing activities that have emerged outside incumbent banking systems and traditional capital m
95、arkets.In particular,the alternative finance ecosystem comprises various lending,investment and non-investment models that enable individuals,businesses and other entities to raise funds via a digital marketplace.As the ecosystem has evolved,distinct model types have emerged.In this regard,the CCAF
96、has developed a taxonomy for 16 business models,grouping them into three categories:debt,equity and non-investment models.Debt modelsDebt models,commonly associated with person-to-person(P2P)and marketplace lending activities,include online non-deposit taking platforms from which individual lenders
97、or institutional investors can extend credit to individuals,businesses or other borrower entities.This debt can be in the form of a secured or unsecured loan,a bond or another type of debtor note.Table 3.2.1 summarizes the models included in this category.3.2.TaxonomyMethodology18CategoryBusiness mo
98、delStakeholdersEquity-basedEquity-based crowdfundingIndividuals or institutional funders purchase equity issued by companies.Real estate crowdfundingIndividuals or institutional funders provide equity or subordinated debt financing for real estate.Profit sharingIndividuals or institutions purchase s
99、ecurities from companies,such as shares or bonds,and receive a share of the profits or royalties in return.Non-investment-basedReward-based crowdfundingBackers fund individuals,projects or companies in exchange for non-monetary rewards or products.Donation-based crowdfundingDonors fund individuals,p
100、rojects or companies for philanthropic or civic reasons with no expectation of monetary or material rewards.Crowd-led microfinanceiv Interests and/or other profits are re-invested(forgoing the interest earned by donating the funds)or used to provide microcredit at lower rates.OtherFor this category,
101、the research team recorded funds raised through other alternative finance models including community shares,pension-led funding,and other models that fall outside our existing taxonomy.Table 3.2.2 Models included in the equity-based and non-investment categoriesEquity modelsEquity-based models(inclu
102、ding equity-based crowdfunding)relate to activities where individuals or institutions invest in unlisted shares or securities issued by a business,typically a start-up.As equity-based models have advanced,subsets of the model,such as real estate and property-based crowdfunding,have flourished,with i
103、nvestors being able to own a property asset fully or partially by purchasing property shares.Non-investment modelsNon-investment-based models,including reward-based and donation-based crowdfunding,are the crowdfunding models the public is most likely to recognize.In reward-based and donation-based c
104、rowdfunding,individuals fund a project,an individual or a business,and the fundraiser is under no obligation to provide a financial return for the funds raised in the form of shares of profits.In this report,we also include crowd-led microfinance in the non-investment category,which is where profits
105、 made from such loans are re-invested in new microcredit,usually for social responsibility efforts.Table 3.2.2 summarizes the models included in this category.Emerging models that can be defined as debt-based,equity-based or non-investment-based,are classified as other in this report.The research te
106、am will further analyze them to see if they can be included in the taxonomy.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 193.3.Data sanitization,verification and analysisThe CCAF research team sanitized and verified the raw data between 15 and 27 Marc
107、h 2021.Adhering to the EU General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR)and University of Cambridges data controller and protection rules,we stripped and securely removed all personal and firm-level identifying information.We analyzed the data against an anonymized file and reported at an aggregate level:
108、vertical or geographical jurisdiction.There were 594 unique entries in the primary data.After the initial sanitization,54 entries did not match the inclusion criteria and were removed(31 were funded by a traditional bank,14 reported unrealistic figures and nine were large enterprises).In total,540 e
109、ntries were analyzed,and some data cleaning and manipulation features were implemented.These features are as follows.Each entity was categorized by size according to the respective countrys guidelines.The CCAF research team classified each MSME by size based on the reported number of full-time emplo
110、yees(FTEs)and 2020 turnover,v according to each jurisdictions criteria for determining company size.vi The legal structures of the companies were re-matched.There were some discrepancies in the categorization of legal structures between the United States(English),Brazilian(Portuguese)and Spanish ver
111、sions of the survey because of regional differences in the classification of companies.These differences were accounted for in the final database.To that end,the research team tracked the language in which a respondent submitted the survey in order to apply the exact translation in the final dataset
112、.Each response was assigned a sector group according to the reported industry sector.The CCAF and IDB research teams created a new variable categorizing MSMEs into traditional,innovative,creative,and commerce and service sectors.The turnover and amount borrowed were analyzed.We inspected the samples
113、 quartiles,where the first quartile represents the first 25%of the sample,the second quartile between 26%and 50%,the third quartile between 51%and 75%,and the last quartile between 76%and 100%.Banking products were grouped into their respective lines.Banking products were reclassified as personal fi
114、nancial products,business financial products,equity investments or other products.Banking products usage intensity index was calculated.To shed light on how MSMEs use certain banking products,the research team developed an intensity index based on the MSMEs frequency of use,ranging from 0(never)to 5
115、2(very often or weekly).vii Thus,three groups of use types were created:credit intensity,payment intensity and overall banking intensity.For each response,the total use frequency was calculated within a banking product group and divided by the maximum frequency that group could reach:credit=364 or t
116、hree products weekly;payments=156 or three products weekly;banking=520 or ten products weekly).viii Methodology20The data from the Business Access to Finance:A Deep Dive into LATAMs Fintech Ecosystem survey was analyzed using an aggregated sample based on response distributions and averages,and spli
117、t into four verticals(digital lending,invoice trading,investment crowdfunding and non-investment crowdfunding)and six jurisdictions(Argentina,Brazil,Chile,Colombia,Mexico and Peru).To account for potential response bias(in terms of larger players elevating the averages),we checked results against a
118、normal distribution and excluded significant outliers as aforementioned.For some analyses,the sample size did not allow us to apply this data treatment,which we considered in our descriptions.Analysis typeIn this study,we collected data using a survey with questions that resulted in both quantitativ
119、e and qualitative data.The research team relied on case studies that they analyzed by business model and jurisdiction,the results of which are contained in this report.They applied a descriptive analysis to the quantitative data and a content analysis to the qualitative data reported,to better under
120、stand the responses given by the participants.Limitations This study contains some limitations regarding sample size and response distribution because the number of responses was not evenly distributed among all countries and verticals.Because of this,the research team were unable to perform any cro
121、ss-business model or cross-country analysis.This study does not intend to measure the quality,price and diversity of offers,nor the behavior of the MSMEs when deciding between online financial products or services and traditional banking products or services.Further research is needed to analyze tho
122、se aspects of financial products and services.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 2137%22%11%9%8%8%2%2%1%1%Sole partnership 1*Public limited company,Plc.Sole partnership 2*Private limited company,Ltd.Limited partnershipSole partnershipRegiste
123、red charity/trust foundationPartnershipCooperativeOtherMost respondents were from Brazil(64%),followed by Colombia(15%)and Mexico(12%).The remainder comprised 4%from Chile,2%from Argentina,1%from Peru and less than 1%from Venezuela.Note:Sole partnership 1 corresponds to individual micro-entrepreneur
124、s(IME)and sole partnership 2 corresponds to individual entrepreneurs(IE)4.OVERALL PROFILE OF MSMEs4.1.Participating countries More than half the respondents(56%)indicated sole partnership as their legal structure,of which the majority(37%of the total number of respondents)were individual micro-entre
125、preneurs(IME)which was also included as a category and is an important size bracket in Brazil.This was followed by public limited companies(22%),private limited companies(9%)and limited partnerships(8%).Figure 4.1.1 shows the respondents country of operation and Figure 4.2.2 the reported business le
126、gal structures.Figure 4.1.1 Country of operation(n.540)4.2.Legal structureFigure 4.2.1 Business legal structure(n.540)Overall profile of MSMEs22MSMEs were classified by size based on the relevant countrys criteria(as shown inTable 4.3.1),which is mostly a mix of FTEs and annual turnover.Overall,39%o
127、f respondents were classed as micro enterprises,22%as small and 5%as medium.Sole partnerships(IMEs)represented 34%of respondents.Figure 4.3.1 represents the number of full-time employees of the respondent MSMEs:73%had between zero(sole partnership)and five FTEs,13%had between 11 and 50,and 10%betwee
128、n six and ten.4.3.Size and full-time employees Figure 4.3.1 Number of full-time employees(n.534)MSME SizeCountProportionMedium285%Micro19839%Small11222%Sole partnership(MEI)17234%Total510100%Note:Thirty responses were excluded for not providing enough data for classification.Table 4.3.1 MSMEs by siz
129、e(n.540)Most respondents(44%)were mature MSMEs that had been operating for more than six years:17%had been operating for between six and ten years,17%between 10 and 20 years,and 10%for more than 20 years.Thirty percent of firms had been operating for between three and six years and 26%for less than
130、three years.It is worth mentioning that fewer than 1%had been operating for less than a year.These figures are summarized in Figure 4.4.1.4.4.Trading duration73%10%13%4%05610115050+Figure 4.4.1 Trading duration(n.537)26%30%44%6 yearsTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN
131、AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 23Business and profesional services,14%Food&drink,8%Retail&wholesale,11%Fashion&apparel,9%Construction,8%Technology,7%Manufacturing&engineering,5%Education&research,3%Health&social work,3%Transport&utilities,5%Internet&e-commerce,4%Finance,3%Media&publishing,3%Information&
132、communica-tion,1%Energy&mining,2%Environment&cleantech,2%Film&entertainment,1%Sport,1%Buy-to-let investment,1%Agriculture,1%Community&social enterprise,1%Leisure&hospitality,1%Property developmentReal estate&housing116(44%)6(57%)36(39%)1%1%Sole partnership 1*Sole partnership 2*Public limited company
133、Limited partnershipPrivate limited companySole partnershipPartnershipRegistered charity/trust foundationCooperativeOtherMost respondent businesses(76%)used a P2P/marketplace lending platform to access credit,which is not surprising given this is the largest lending model across LATAM,consistently ra
134、nking as the most robust fintech model in the six countries included in this study.ix6.P2P/MARKETPLACE LENDINGBusiness structureTotal respondents and countries In total,413 MSMEs used a P2P/marketplace lending platform to fund their business.Of these,79%were based in Brazil,11%in Colombia and 7%in M
135、exico,with Chile,Peru and Argentina comprising the remaining 4%of firms(as shown in Figure 6.1.1).6.1.Profile of MSMEsFigure 6.1.1 Country of operation:P2P/marketplace lending(n.413)Legal structure Figure 6.1.2 shows that the two most prevalent structures among respondents were sole partnerships(65%
136、),of which the majority comprised IMEs(45%),and public limited companies(12%).Figure 6.1.2 Business legal structure:P2P/marketplace lending(n.413)Note:Sole partnership 1 corresponds to individual micro-entrepreneurs(IME)and sole partnership 2 corresponds to individual entrepreneurs(IE).THE SME ACCES
137、S TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 3123%33%44%6 years62%16%11%9%2%15Sole traders115061050+Figure 6.1.3 Number of full-time employees:P2P/marketplace lending(n.408)Figure 6.1.4 Trading duration:P2P/marketplace lending(n.410)Trading durationDespite the str
138、ong trends related to structure and number of employees,the number of years of operation varied greatly.However,mature firms were more prevalent(44%)than younger ones(23%),as shown in Figure 6.1.4.Size and full-time employees When classified by size,most respondents were Brazilian sole proprietorshi
139、ps(IMEs)or micro enterprises(76%).This is in line with the 78%of respondents that reported being self-employed or having up to five employees.Nineteen percent of firms were classified as small and 4%as medium.Less than 3%of respondents were firms with over 50 FTEs(see Figure 6.1.3).P2P/marketplace l
140、ending32Turnover Most respondent firms reported turnovers of less than USD100,000 in 2019 and 2020,with a slight drop in 2020.Median values were approximately USD25,000 in 2019 and USD20,000 in 2020.Average values were largely influenced by the last quarter of the distribution which comprised 84%of
141、total declared turnover in 2019 and 95%in 2020(see Figure 6.1.5).USD50,000USD-USD100,000USD150,000USD200,000USD250,000USD300,000USD350,000USD400,000USD111,872USD262,596USD352,466USD302,152USD227,520USD95,963USD19,584USD7,834USD25,381USD10,270Figure 6.1.5 2019 turnover vs 2020 turnover(USD):P2P/marke
142、tplace lending(n.383)Other,2%Food&drink,8%Retail&wholesale,13%Fashion&apparel,10%Construction,7%Technology,7%Manufacturing&engineering,3%Education&research,3%Transport&utilities,5%Finance,3%Media&publishing,3%Energy&mining,1%Environment&cleantech,2%Film&entertainment,1%Sport,1%Leisure&hospitality,1%
143、Real estate&housing,Charity&philanthropyBusiness and profesional services,15%11Internet&e-commerce,5%Health&socialwork,2%Community&social enterprise,1%Personal services,3%Information&communication,1%Agriculture,1%Commerce and servicesTraditional industryInnovative industryOtherNote:Amounts were repo
144、rted in local currencies and converted into USD using the OANDA average rate for the period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020.Outliers are not shown in this boxplot.Figure 6.1.6 Business Sector:P2P/marketplace lending(n.413)Sector As shown in Figure 6.1.6,the sectors most represented among
145、 respondents were those related to commerce and services(46%),traditional industries(41%)and innovative industries(11%).THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 33Gender,education and age of Chief Executive Officer or Managing Director Similar to
146、the overall trend,67%of MSMEs that used P2P/marketplace lending were led by men and 29%by women.More than one-half of CEOs or MDs were under 44 years of age and over 60%held higher education degrees.These statistics are summarized in Figures 6.1.7 to 6.1.9.Figure 6.1.7 CEO or MD gender:P2P/marketpla
147、ce lending(n.367)3544years old35%4554years old26%20%15%3%1%2534years old5564 years old+65 years old1824 years oldMaleFemalePrefer not to sayOther67%29%4%1%Figure 6.1.8 CEO or MD age:P2P/marketplace lending(n.361)Undergraduate degree(Bachelors)34%Secondary school or lower23%Postgraduate certificate20
148、%Technical education or vocational training14%Postgraduate degree(Masters)or above(PhD)10%Figure 6.1.9 CEO or MD highest education level:P2P/marketplace lending(n.360)P2P/marketplace lending34Case studyCountry:BrazilFintech platform:Biz CapitalMSME:Salo AzulAnistalio Jairo inherited the Blue Saloon(
149、Salo Azul)from his father.He took over the barbershop,which was established in 1989,in 2013.Despite the companys history,Anistalio was denied credit to renovate the shop.He came across Biz Capital advertized on a social network and,after some research,applied for funding and decided to accept the of
150、fer he received.With these funds,he renovated the barbershop,which led to more clients and higher turnover.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 35Relationship with traditional financial servicesTraditional finance facilities useMSMEs that used
151、 traditional finance facilities relied heavily on personal financial products,as shown in Figure 6.1.10,Most used personal credit cards(57%)or personal bank accounts(43%)for funding.Over half the MSMEs used a business account for funding,making it the second-most product used.This points to the form
152、al structure of these firms financial situation,which seems to agree with the high prevalence of mature firms in the sample.Investment from directors,and family and friends,was used by 14%and 5%of firms,respectively.In terms of formal credit,less than 10%of respondents used a secured loan from a ban
153、k and only 5%held a secured loan from a financial specialist.51%29%57%43%14%5%4%3%4%0500Business savings/checking accountBusiness credit cardsPersonal credit cardsOwners personal savings/checking accountDirectors of the businessFamily/friendsMortgage,bridge loan or other secured loan from
154、 a bankMortage,bridge loan or other secured loan from a specialist providerOtherBusinessfinancialproductsPersonalfinancialproductsEquityinvestmentfrom.OtherNumber of observationsBanking product useFurther analysis showed that banking product use mostly related to payments and transfers,with 85%of re
155、spondent MSMEs using transfers.Payment machines were used often or very often by 47%of firms.Only 13%frequently used cheque payments.As previously mentioned,more firms used business accounts than personal accounts.However,this was not the case for credit cards:personal credit cards were used often o
156、r very often by 65%of respondents,while 38%used business cards frequently.In terms of credit,overdrafts and revolving lines of credit were frequently used by 35%and 20%of firms,respectively.Loan contracts seem to be a viable alternative for respondents,as more than 80%of MSMEs reported they used tha
157、t bank product.Regarding secured credit,invoice trading and mortgages were less prevalent:62%had never used invoice trading products and 76%had never resorted to mortgages.These statistics are summarized in Figure 6.1.11.Figure 6.1.10 MSMEs traditional finance facilities use:P2P/marketplace lending(
158、n.410)P2P/marketplace lending361%9%5%6%8%10%18%22%32%43%65%2%2%6%5%4%10%17%16%15%22%20%1%4%38%7%9%15%13%10%9%11%5%7%3%32%6%11%21%13%6%7%6%1%76%41%15%62%57%39%35%37%27%14%7%14%41%5%13%11%5%4%9%9%3%1%0%20%40%60%80%100%Mortgage(n.303)Other(n.116)Loan contracts(n.344)Invoice trading(n.310)Cheque payment
159、s(n.314)Revolving line of credit(n.341)Overdraft(n.368)Business credit card(n.337)Payment machines(n.329)Personal credit card(n.358)Transfers(n.339)Percentage of respondentsVery often(weekly)Often(monthly)Occasionally(more than once a year)Rarely(once a year)NeverN/AFigure 6.1.11 MSMEs bank products
160、 use:P2P/marketplace lending Funding from other sources MSMEs commonly searched for funding from various other sources before turning to P2P/marketplace lending platforms.The facility from which funding was most often sought was banks(82%),with less than half of those firms receiving an offer.Of tho
161、se,62%accepted the banks offer.The biggest funding gap was observed in sole partnership(IME)enterprises in Brazil,where only 18%received funding from a bank(see Figure 6.1.12).Angel investors were the second most popular facility from which to source funding(44%),but less than half of those MSMEs re
162、ceived an offer,of which 50%accepted the funding.Funds from friends and family were sought by 31%of firms,54%of those received an offer and 74%accepted it.One in four firms sought funding from other platforms.Those firms received the highest percentage of offers(61%).Finally,one in five respondent M
163、SMEs sought credit from a credit cooperative,with over 56%receiving an offer.Figure 6.1.12 Previous fundraising activity:P2P/marketplace lending(n.381)82%44%31%28%25%22%20%9%5%5%44%42%53%53%61%35%56%41%45%37%62%49%74%75%58%69%56%57%11%29%0500300350BankAngel investorFriends and familySpeci
164、alist financeproviderAnother alternativefinance platformGovernment/publicfunderCredit cooperativePrivate equityVenture capitalfirmsPhilanthropic/thirdsector FunderNumber of observationsRespondents that sought fundingOf which received offerOf which accepted offerTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUD
165、Y:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 376.2.Borrowing experience Primary purpose of borrowing When borrowing from a P2P/marketplace lending platform,most MSMEs sought funding to use as working capital(64%)and one-fifth used the funding to cover unexpected cash flow requirements.The
166、 remainder used the funding to pay suppliers.For 22%of MSMEs,the motivation for borrowing funds was purchasing an asset(11%),mainly a non-property,and refinancing long-term debts(11%).Expansion and growth were the next motivating factors(10%),with most MSMEs using the funds to develop a new product
167、or service,or expand into a new market.These statistics are summarized in Figure 6.2.1.64%11%10%10%5%Working capitalAsset purchaseRefinance or debt liabilityExpansion/growthOtherFigure 6.2.1 Funding primary purpose:P2P/marketplace lending(n.360)Decision-making factors for borrowing from fintechsAs s
168、hown in Figure 6.2.2,the decision to borrow funds from a platform was heavily influenced by five main factors:speed(73%),customer service(62%),non-interference in the business(63%),flexible terms(59%)and better interest rates(51%).Figure 6.2.2 Decision-making factors:P2P/marketplace lendingVery impo
169、rtantImportantNeutralUnimportantVery unimportant17%18%30%34%33%47%51%59%63%62%73%28%28%23%19%22%27%25%25%24%27%22%30%26%30%34%27%15%17%10%10%9%4%16%17%9%7%12%5%2%2%1%1%10%10%8%6%6%6%5%4%2%1%1%0%20%40%60%80%100%Received referral from bank or otherfinance providerNews or media coverageUnable to get fu
170、nding elsewhereEngage with supporters and communityAdvice from a financial adviser Easier to get fundingthan traditional channelsBetter interest rateFlexible termsRetain control over businessBetter customer serviceSpeed in receiving fundsPercentage of respondents1%P2P/marketplace lending38Ability to
171、 get funding from another sourceOne-third of firms decided to use fintech platform services because they were unable to secure funds from other sources.An in-depth analysis revealed that 23%were unsure they could have accessed other credit facilities to meet their needs.This finding demonstrates tha
172、t fintech platform services have the potential to increase financial inclusion.Conversely,almost half the respondents believed they would have been able to source funding elsewhere,hence additional factors such as speed,better customer service and flexibility may have influenced their decision to ch
173、oose an alternative finance provider.Measure Amount(USD)Average20,812.25Minimum 156.67 1st quartile1,566.74 2nd quartile3,916.86 3rd quartile9,792.15 Maximum758,400.00Note:Amounts were reported in local currencies and converted into USD using the OANDA average rate for the period between 1 January a
174、nd 31 December 2020.Zero values were excluded from calculations.Table 6.2.1 Amount borrowed:P2P/marketplace lending(n.329)Digital finance platform ease of useIn terms of P2P/marketplace lending platforms,MSMEs indicated that generally,digital financial services were accessible and easy to use.In thi
175、s regard,over 80%of respondent MSMEs reported that bureaucratic processes such as registering,applying,verifying business information and receiving the funds after approval caused no difficulty.Communicating with the platform was also reported as easy by over 70%of MSMEs.Eighteen percent of MSMEs we
176、re unable to refinance at the initial terms and a much lower percentage reported using this feature as easy.These statistics are summarized in Figure 6.2.3.24%39%49%49%51%61%66%22%26%22%29%29%24%22%11%10%11%10%7%5%5%12%11%8%6%9%7%3%7%10%5%3%2%1%3%4%1%2%1%1%1%1%3%1%1%1%18%2%2%1%1%1%1%0%20%40%60%80%10
177、0%Refinancing initial terms(n.373)Meeting interest payments(n.389)Commuincating with the platform(n.386)Completing loan application(n.392)Verifying business information(n.394)Registering on the platform(n.405)Getting funds once approved(n.389)Percentage of respondentsExtremely easyModerately easySli
178、ghtly easyNeither easy nor difficultSlightly difficultModerately difficultExtremely difficultN/A1%Figure 6.2.3 Ease of using alternative finance platforms:P2P/marketplace lendingAmount borrowed Only 20%of MSMEs borrowed amounts over USD20,000.More than half borrowed less than USD4,000(see Table 6.2.
179、1),most of which were sole partnerships(IME)operating in Brazil that had borrowed from fintechs to cover working capital needs.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 39Country:ColombiaFintech platform:CreciMSME:Moksa Green Engineering Brief stor
180、y about the MSMEMoksa Green Engineering was legally established in July 2016.The company was created with the aim of adding value to what organizations do by generating solutions and strategies that aim to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs),especially SDG 6:Clean Water and S
181、anitation.The name of the company comes from a term used by Indian alchemists to refer to transformation.The alchemists believed that they must first transform themselves before transforming matter.We want to be transformers,generators of change and become better human beings in the process.Why CREC
182、I?In CRECI,we found a fintech willing to support us and that also seeks to leverage companies and ventures,such as ours,that work to achieve sustainable development.How has the funding affected the company?A growing venture,at some point,will need funding sources to nurture that growth,whether the r
183、esources are obtained from its close circle,from an investor,or from a conventional financial institution or a fintech.The funding has allowed us to develop larger projects and,therefore,of greater impact.Having these additional sources of financing makes it possible for our mission to be carried ou
184、t on a larger scale as we continue to grow.Case studyP2P/marketplace lending4021%53%56%71%33%28%8%14%16%0%20%40%60%80%100%Change in employment(n.325)Change in profit/net income(n.336)Change in turnover(n.348)Percentage of respondentsIncreasedAbout the sameDecreased6.3.Funding outcomesChanges to busi
185、ness Figure 6.3.1 shows that over half the respondent firms indicated they perceived an increase in turnover(56%)and profits(53%)since receiving funding from a P2P/marketplace lending platform.Moreover,28%of respondents reported no change in turnover and one-third no change in profits.Changes in emp
186、loyment were less prevalent,with 71%of firms maintaining their size.Changes were predominately positive,with one in five firms increasing employee numbers.Figure 6.3.1 Business changes since using the facility:P2P/marketplace lendingImpact on business as a result of funding When asked about how thei
187、r funding activity with a P2P/marketplace lending platform affected their business,MSMEs responded that the impact was,for the most part,positive(as shown in Figure 6.3.2).An increase in productivity was reported by 43%of respondents,while 29%saw a reduction in costs as a direct effect of funding.Th
188、irty percent of firms used the funds to pay off an existing loan.One-quarter reported expanding their customer base and launching a new product or service.A smaller number attracted subsequent funding(6%)and mediacoverage(3%).A smaller percentage of respondent firms reported negative impacts due to
189、the funding,the most prevalent of which were being refused credit by a specialist provider(12%)or a bank(9%)and making a financial loss(11%).Others reported disruption to their financial situation:6%became overdrawn without prior agreement,5%missed a loan repayment to other providers and 1%had chequ
190、es bounce.Further investigation could help clarify the links,if any,between an MSMEs funding experience and its specific outcomes.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 41Figure 6.3.2 Impact of funding:P2P/marketplace lending(n.377)7%1%5%6%9%11%
191、12%3%6%24%24%29%30%43%0204060800180OtherHad cheques bounceMissed a loan repayment to another providerEntered unauthorized overdraft on bank accountBeen refused a loan by a bankMade a financial lossBeen refused credit by non-bank specialist providerAttracted media coverageAttracted subsequ
192、ent fundingExpanded customer baseLaunched a new product/serviceReduced costsPaid off existing loanIncreased productivityNumber of observationsRepayment status Most businesses were able to pay their debts on time(see Figure 6.3.3).More than half of MSMEs reported meeting the terms of their loan,and 1
193、5%had already paid it off.The remaining third had some difficulty in repaying the loan:10%were unable to meet the due date but did eventually repay the full amount,and 6%missed the payment date due to platform errors but are now up to date.Another 5%renegotiated the terms of the debt they were unabl
194、e to pay and 8%of MSMEs reported defaulting on their loan,which was higher than the non-performing loan average for the six countries analyzed in this study which,according to IMF data,was 3.17%in 2020.xFigure 6.3.3 Loan repayment status:P2P/marketplace lending(n.377)5%6%8%10%15%57%050Number of obse
195、rvations0Unable to repay but platform rolled overdebt/offered new loanTemporarily missed payment due to platform error but now currentDefaulted on loanUnable to repay on due date but did repay full amount with delayNever missed payment,loan paid offNever missed payment,payments on-goingP2
196、P/marketplace lending42Subsequent funding One-third of firms received subsequent funding,which could indicate that their funding activity with a P2P/marketplace lending platform positively affected their ability to access finance from traditional finance providers.This figure is greater than that re
197、ported by MSMEs when asked about the general impact the funding had on their business,with only 6%indicating they had attracted subsequent funding.This discrepancy may be because the link between the cause and its direct effect was not emphasized.The main providers of subsequent funding were banks(3
198、6%),followed by specialist finance providers(28%).These statistics are summarized in Figures 6.3.4and 6.3.5.These results indicate that traditional banking services are still the main source of funding that MSMEs turn to even if they previously have had a positive funding experience with a platform.
199、A more detailed analysis of the impact that MSMEs experiences with platforms had on traditional banking services use is presented below.69%31%NoYes1%2%3%3%5%6%14%26%34%05540Philanthropic/third-sector funderVenture capital fundAngel investorPrivate equityGovernment/public funderCredit coop
200、erativeAnother institutionSpecialist finance providerBankNumber of observationsFigure 6.3.4 Subsequent funding:P2P/marketplace lending(n.326)Figure 6.3.5 Source subsequent funding:P2P/marketplace lending(n.100)THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYS
201、TEM 434%3%4%7%9%9%11%7%17%1%3%5%5%6%9%8%24%26%74%68%71%51%49%59%51%48%47%1%3%3%16%13%10%14%13%6%20%23%17%21%24%14%15%8%4%0%20%40%60%80%100%Mortgages(n.216)Others(n.31)Invoice trading and receivables(n.216)Overdraft account(n.260)Revolving line of credit(n.251)Business credit card(n.241)Loan contract
202、s(n.243)Personal credit card(n.259)Savings or checking account(n.307)Percentage of respondentsJust started using this facilityIncreased useNo change in previous useReduced useStopped using this facilityFigure 6.3.6 Banking relationship impact:P2P/marketplace lending Banking relationship impactMSMEs
203、reported no change in their use of traditional banking services after using a digital financial platform.When there was a change,most firms relied less on traditional credit products(see Figure 6.3.6).The borrowing experience influenced the use of banking products for half the respondents who used a
204、ccount services,loans,credit cards and overdraft facilities.However,the only two services for which there was a reported increase in use were savings or checking accounts and personal credit cards.Seventeen percent of MSMEs reported they had started using savings or checking accounts as a direct res
205、ult of the loan.Another 26%reported using these accounts more.This may indicate a more organized financial situation for those entrepreneurs,and further research could help explain this potential financial inclusion aspect of the funding experience with a P2P/marketplace lending platform.Personal cr
206、edit cards were used more frequently by 24%of respondents,7%started using them and 21%used them less often or stopped using them.A significant percentage of MSMEs stopped using or reduced their use of expensive credit lines:37%each for overdraft accounts and revolving lines of credit.Conversely,12%(
207、for overdraft accounts)and 15%(for revolving lines of credit)reported an increase in use.There was a smaller impact on the use of mortgages and invoice trading,with 71%of MSMEs reporting no change.For those firms that reported changes in the use of these banking products,most had decreased their use
208、.P2P/marketplace lending44Country:ColombiaFintech platform:Juancho Te PrestaMSME:Bicicletas SONEG Brief story about the MSMEBicicletas SONEG was created in November 2019 in the city of Bogota,but the owner had a dream of operating throughout the whole country.So,with only two bicycles and a credit c
209、ard with COP1 million,its owners started selling bicycles by promoting them online.To inspire confidence,they decided to open the doors of their home so customers could see the bicycles.The companys owner,Camilo,decided to take a mechanics course so he could assemble the bicycles himself because he
210、had trouble finding someone nearby to assemble them for him.However,in the meantime,he had to travel to the other side of the city to someone he could trust to assemble them.A challenge they faced was to purchase more stock so they could offer their customers a variety of options.They then began loo
211、king for someone to invest in the bike store but came across many difficulties in trying to obtain finance.Finally,they found a relative who was willing to help the business,which helped create a positive relationship with its suppliers which,in turn,resulted in the company being offered credit.This
212、 access to additional funds allowed them to expand the companys credit portfolio the following year(March 2020).Unfortunately,this coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic,which slowed down operations but only for about one month because,they were fortunate that the bike sector was one of the first sect
213、ors to recover during the pandemic.Why Juancho Te Presta and the impact of the funding After receiving credit from their relative,they chose to start looking for a fintech to help and support them sell their products,as this would increase the purchase options.After searching for more than six month
214、s,they finally found the fintech Juancho Te Presta that agreed to finance them.The financing allowed them to increase the variety of products they sold and,because of increased demand for their products,they could purchase a store on a main street in Bogota.Their reputation for bicycles and mechanic
215、al services grew as they were able to afford a specialized and experienced mechanic.Case studyTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 4565%13%10%8%3%1%Public limited companySole partnershipPrivate limited companySole partnership 1*Registered char
216、ity/trust foundationSole partnership 2*7.INVOICE TRADINGBusiness structureTotal respondents and countries As shown in Figure 7.1.1,among the 72 respondents,46%operate in Colombia,19%in Chile,13%in Brazil,11%in Argentina,and the remainder in Mexico and Peru.7.1.Profile of MSMEsFigure 7.1.1 Country of
217、 operation:invoice trading(n.72)Figure 7.1.2 Business legal structure:invoice trading(n.72)Of the MSMEs that responded to the survey,13%had used an invoice trading platform to access credit.Invoice trading companies are becoming more important in LATAM,and this model was the second most frequently u
218、sed by MSMEs participating in this study.Legal structure Figure 7.1.2 shows that among the MSMEs that used invoice trading,more than two-thirds were classified as public limited companies(65%).Sole partnerships came second(22%)and private limited companies,third(10%).Note:Sole partnership 1 correspo
219、nds to individual micro-entrepreneurs(IME)and sole partnership 2 corresponds to individual entrepreneurs(IE).Invoice trading4625%18%57%6 years39%22%21%14%4%+Sole tradersFigure 7.1.3 Number of full-time employees:invoice trading(n.72)Figure 7.1.4 Trading duration:invoice trading(n.72)Size
220、and full-time employees Based on reported turnover,half the MSMEs were micro enterprises,followed by small(30%),medium(10%)and IME(10%).Regarding the number of FTEs,39%reported having between one and five employees,22%between six and ten,and 21%between 11 and 50(see Figure 7.1.3).Trading durationIn
221、contrast to the overall trend,MSMEs that used an invoice trading platform were predominantly more mature firms:57%reported operating for more than six years,with most of those operating for more than 11 years,as shown in Figure 7.1.4.TurnoverAs shown in Figure 7.1.5,over half the respondent MSMEs re
222、ported a turnover of approximately USD150,000 in both 2019 and 2020,as well as a 13%decrease in value between those years.Average values were largely influenced by the last quarter of the distribution,which accounted for over 85%of the total turnover amounts in both years;the average turnover was US
223、D513,297 in 2019 and USD480,015 in 2020.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 47USD100,000USD-2019 turnover(USD)2020 turnover(USD)USD200,000USD300,000USD400,000USD500,000USD600,000USD900,000USD800,000USD700,000USD132,612USD24,954USD 352,804USD5
224、13,298USD710,752USD813,000USD480,015USD339,509USD144,116USD22,586Note:Amounts were reported in local currencies and converted into USD using the OANDA average rate for the period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020.Outliers are not shown in this boxplot.Construction,10%Business and Profesion
225、al Services,13%Food&drink,7%Retail&wholesale,11%Construction,10%Technology,6%Manufacturing&engineering,15%Education&research,1%Transport&utilities,7%Finance,4%Information&communica-tion,1%Energy&mining,8%Business&profesional services,13%Media&publishing,4%Leisure&hospitality,1%Fashion&apparel,7%Othe
226、r,4%Traditional industryInnovative industryCommerce and servicesOtherFigure 7.1.5 2019 turnover vs 2020 turnover(USD):invoice trading(n.72)Figure 7.1.6 Sector:invoice trading(n.72)Sector Most invoice trading platforms catered for MSMEs operating in traditional industries(56%),generally within the ma
227、nufacturing and engineering,and retail and wholesale sectors.Commerce and services represented 35%of MSMEs,mostly comprising business and professional services.The technology sector represented 6%of MSMEs(see Figure 7.1.6).Invoice trading48Gender,education and age of Chief Executive Officer or Manag
228、ing Director In this vertical,males were the founders/managers of most MSMEs(76%),slightly higher than the overall average.Regarding the highest level of education of the CEO or MD,40%reported having an undergraduate degree,24%a technical education or vocational training,16%a postgraduate degree or
229、above,14%a postgraduate certificate,and the remaining 6%a secondary school or lower level of education.In 37%of the respondent firms,the CEO or MD was between 45 and 54 years of age,29%between 35 and 44,19%between 55 and 64,13%between 25 and 24,and only 2%were aged between 18 and 24 or over 65.These
230、 statistics are summarized in Figures 7.1.7 to 7.1.9.Undergraduate degree(Bachelors)Technical education or vocational trainingPostgraduate degree(Masters)or above(PhD)Postgraduate certificateSecondary school or lower40%24%16%14%6%MaleFemalePrefer not to sayOther67%29%4%1%Figure 7.1.7 CEO or MD gende
231、r:invoice trading(n.63)Figure 7.1.8 CEO or MD highest education level:invoice trading(n.63)2%1824 years old2534years old5564 years old4554years old37%3544years old29%19%13%2%65+years oldFigure 7.1.9 CEO or MD age:invoice trading(n.63)THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN
232、 AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 49Banking products useMost MSMEs(86%)reported using transfer services very often(weekly)or often(monthly).Unsurprisingly,invoice trading services were the second most used banking product(37%very often;39%often).Completing the top three,45%of MSMEs used payment machines v
233、ery often or often(see Figure 7.1.11).Business and personal credit cards were among the most used traditional finance facilities by MSMEs.Of those,40%reported using their business credit cards and 45%their personal credit cards as frequently as weekly or monthly.The products least used were mortgage
234、s and overdraft accounts,which makes sense as these products can incur high costs in many LATAM countries;47%(mortgages)and 31%(overdraft accounts)of firms reported that they never used these products.However,37%of MSMEs used an overdraft account weekly or monthly,suggesting that this facility is an
235、 important source of finance for those businesses.Figure 7.1.10 MSMEs traditional facilities use:inovice trading(n.68)72%38%41%34%25%16%16%4%12%00Business savings/checking accountBusiness credit cardsPersonal credit cardsOwners personal savings/checking accountFamily/friendsDirectors of t
236、he businessMortgage,bridge loan or other secured loan from a bankMortage,bridge loan or other secured loan from a specialistproviderOtherBusinessfinancialproductsPersonalFinancialProductsEquityinvestmentfrom.OtherNumber of observationsRelationship with traditional financial servicesIn this section,w
237、e discuss the relationship between MSMEs and traditional financial services,the type of services or products they use,and previous fundraising experiences.Traditional finance facilities useAs shown in Figure 7.1.10,most of the 68 respondents used business financial products and more than two-thirds(
238、72%)used business savings or checking accounts,followed by 38%that used business credit cards to support their business,which is consistent with the maturity of the firms in the sample.Regarding the use of personal financial products,most MSMEs used a personal credit card and over one-third reported
239、 using a personal savings or checking account for their business.When MSMEs used equity investment as a source of funding,over two-thirds chose to use family or friends and 16%used funds from the directors.Invoice trading506%7%15%21%21%29%19%37%71%6%23%5%27%13%19%16%18%39%15%12%21%20%15%13%10%5%13%1
240、5%6%9%8%18%10%4%4%8%10%5%47%28%25%15%28%29%24%31%2%6%26%15%25%19%21%17%18%10%2%2%0%20%40%60%80%100%Mortgage(n.34)Revolving line of credit(n.53)Loan contracts(n.44)Personal credit card(n.48)Cheque payments(n.47)Business credit card(n.52)Payment machines(n.38)Overdraft account(n.62)Invoice trading(n.5
241、9)Transfers(n.52)Percentage of respondentsVery often(weekly)Often(monthly)Occasionally(more than once a year)Rarely(once a year)NeverN/AFigure 7.1.11 MSMEs bank products use:invoice tradingSearch for funding from other sourcesAs shown in Figure 7.1.12,most MSMEs searched for funding from alternative
242、 sources before using invoice trading to fund their business activities.Overall,66 respondents applied for funding from some form of traditional financial service.Most of those sought funding through banks(86%),of which over half received an offer and 76%accepted the funding.The second most popular
243、source of funding was friends and family,with 41%of respondents trying this option.Of those,70%received an offer,which was the highest percentage for offers received,and 84%accepted the loan.Completing the top three funding sources were governments or public funders.Over two-thirds of MSMEs sought f
244、unding from these institutions and less than half received an offer.Of those,over two-thirds accepted the funding.86%41%35%24%17%15%14%9%8%2%51%70%39%25%27%40%44%33%20%76%84%67%75%67%100%50%50%100%00BankFriends and family Government/publicFunderAngel investorAnother alternativefinance pla
245、tformCredit cooperative Specialist financeproviderPrivate equityVenture capitalfirmsPhilanthropic/thirdsectorfunderNumber of observationsRespondents that sought fundingOf which received offerOf which accepted offerFigure 7.1.12 Previous fundraising activity:invoice trading(n.68)THE SME ACCESS TO DIG
246、ITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 51Case studyCountry:ColombiaFintech platform:Exponencial ConfirmingMSME:Sello Global S.A.S.Brief story about the MSMESSello Global S.A.S.was established in 2017 and sells cleaning products.Their main supplier ran into financial
247、 difficulties,so Sello Global S.A.S.decided to buy the suppliers production plant.The business began to develop and started to establish stores specializing in their own brand of cleaning products,called ONZA,which are biodegradable and developed in an environmentally friendly way.The company has 18
248、 stores in the metropolitan areas of Medellin,Cartagena and Villavicencio.To open the stores,we needed enough capital to buy stock.We used our own capital and resources from strategic commercial partners to open the stores.Why Exponencial Confirming?Because we were only using a small percentage of t
249、he production plants capacity,in 2019 we decided to explore the possibility of manufacturing our own brand of products for third parties.Therefore,we were able to partner with Hard Discount,traditional retail and catalog sales.This increase in manufacturing generated cash flow difficulties,so to acq
250、uire more capital,we looked for new investors.However,because the cashflow was not sufficient,we explored the possibility of approaching traditional banks for financing.Because of our limited credit history,we still could not raise enough funds.We continued searching for alternative financing source
251、s,such as invoice discounting models,and we finally decided to use Exponencial Confirming because of how easy it was to obtain funds and gain credibility in the financial sector.The fintech also offered a very competitive discount rate compared to the market.Exponencial Confirming has been key in th
252、e expansion and growth of Sello Global S.A.S.because,without its support,we would not have been able to grow nor develop new ventures.How has the funding affected the company?We are currently expanding so we can triple our production capacity and grow our customer base.One of the reasons we can do t
253、his is because of the support we received from Exponencial Confirming through its Affirmatum platform.It has been a key tool and strategic ally for us.Invoice trading527.2.Borrowing experience Primary purpose of borrowing Most firms used an invoice trading platform for short-term working capital.For
254、 the remainder of MSMEs,a refinance or debt liability,or asset purchase,amongst others,were the main reasons for seeking funding(see Figure 7.2.1).90%4%4%1%Working capitalRefinance or debt liabilityOtherAsset purchaseFigure 7.2.1 Primary purpose of funding:invoice trading(n.68)Decision-making factor
255、s for borrowing from a fintechAmong the MSMEs that chose to use invoice trading services,the top five decision-making factors were reported as being important by 70%.Almost unanimously(93%),the speed of receiving funds was the main decision-making factor and it was very important to the majority(73%
256、).Better customer service was very important for 59%of MSMEs,followed by the ease with which funding could be obtained through alternative finance platforms compared to traditional channels.Finally,retaining control of the business and flexible terms completed the top five(see Figure 7.2.2).Figure 7
257、.2.2 Decision-making factors:invoice trading12%15%21%30%29%40%48%49%52%59%73%12%28%17%38%23%24%23%34%26%25%20%31%26%35%15%19%22%21%11%12%13%4%16%11%8%3%8%10%4%2%2%29%19%19%13%21%3%4%4%9%4%4%0%20%40%60%80%100%News or media coverage(n.51)Received referral from bank or other finance provider(n.53)Maint
258、ain confidentiality(n.52)Advice from a financial adviser(n.60)Unable to get funding elsewhere(n.62)Better interest rate(n.58)Flexible terms(n.52)Retain control over business(n.53)Easier to get funding thantraditional channels(n.58)Better customer service(n.56)Speed in receiving funds(n.56)Percentage
259、 of respondentsVery ImportantImportantNeutralUnimportantVery unimportantTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 5320%OnceTwiceThree timesFour timesFive timesMore than five times20%8%3%2%2%67%Ability to get funding from another sourceHalf the MSME
260、s that were funded by an invoice trading platform reported they were sure they could get funding from other sources.One-third were not sure and 13%were sure they could not.This corresponds to the high proportion of companies that sought funding from a bank,and then received and accepted the offer.Am
261、ount borrowedThe average amount MSMEs borrowed was USD90,849.35,as shown in Table 7.2.1.This was largely biased by the last quartile of values as half the respondents borrowed an average of USD24,559.50.Frequency of invoice trading useOver two-thirds of respondent MSMEs reported using an invoice tra
262、ding platform more than five times,in contrast to the 20%that used the platform only once(seeFigure 7.2.3).Measure Amount(USD)Minimum153.38Average90,849.35 1st quartile5,568.14 2nd quartile24,559.50 3rd quartile98,897.75 Maximum716,050.00 Note:Amounts were reported in local currencies and converted
263、into USD using the OANDA average rate for the period between 1 January and 31 December 2020.Zero values and outliers were excluded from calculations.Table 7.2.1 Amount borrowed:invoice trading(n.56)Figure 7.2.3 Frequency of use:invoice trading platform(n.66)Invoice trading5423%36%42%47%49%47%54%56%1
264、5%34%27%25%17%17%18%23%8%9%6%6%10%9%8%6%8%10%9%13%13%12%9%3%6%6%8%5%2%2%3%5%3%4%3%2%2%2%2%8%3%2%29%5%3%8%9%5%6%0%20%40%60%80%100%Refinancing initial terms(n.65)Registering on the platform(n.67)Completing loan application(n.64)Verifying business information(n.64)Meeting interest payments(n.63)Providi
265、ng business plans orcash-flow reports(n.66)Commuincating with the platform(n.65)Getting funds once approved(n.64)Percentage of respondentsExtremely easyModerately easySlightly easyNeither easy nor difficultSlightly difficultModerately difficultExtremely difficultN/AFigure 7.2.4 Ease of using alterna
266、tive finance platforms:invoice tradingPlatform ease of useMost of the entrepreneurs who used an invoice trading platform found it fairly easy to use and accessible.The main reason for this was the ease of getting the funds once the application was approved(85%of positive correlation),which more than
267、 half the MSMEs reported being extremely easy.Communicating with the alternative finance platform was reported as being extremely easy by 54%of MSMEs and approximately half the MSMEs found meeting interest payments extremely easy,as shown in Figure 7.2.4.Another positive correlation is the bureaucra
268、tic processes involved when applying for the loan such as providing business plans,finding business information,completing loan applications and registering on the platform.Refinancing initial terms had the highest proportion of responses marked not applicable(29%),meaning that for many MSMEs,it was
269、 not even possible to do.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 557.3.Funding outcomesChanges to business As shown in Figure 7.3.1,respondents indicated that using an invoice trading platform for funding had a positive impact on their business:m
270、ore than half the MSMEs reported an increase in turnover and profit/net income.One-fifth of those reported a 20%increase in turnover and 5%in net profit.Regarding employment,22%of MSMEs reported an increase in the number of employees and 73%reported no change.In this section,we describe the changes
271、that occurred in the businesses as a result of the funding.We look at the transaction details,the direct impact on the businesses and the relationship changes with traditional banking services.Figure 7.3.1 Business changes since using the facility:invoice trading21%54%54%74%30%36%5%16%10%0%20%40%60%
272、80%100%Change in employment(n.58)Change in turnover(n.56)Change in profit/net income(n.61)Percentage of respondentsIncreasedAbout the sameDecreasedBusiness impact due to funding Sixty-three MSMEs responded to the question regarding the impact the funding had on their business.Over one-third reported
273、 increased productivity,followed by reduced costs and a greater customer base.In addition,19%paid off an existing loan.These are all positive outcomes that strengthen the financial health and operational structure of MSMEs(see Figure 7.3.2).A far smaller proportion of MSMEs reported negative impacts
274、 on the business compared to those that reported positive factors.After receiving the funds,5%reported making a financial loss and being refused a loan by a bank.Invoice trading56Figure 7.3.2 Impact of funding:invoice trading(n.63)12%2%2%3%5%5%2%6%13%19%27%29%35%0510152025OtherMissed a loan repaymen
275、t to another providerBeen refused credit by non-bank specialist providerEntered unauthorized overdraft on bank accountBeen refused a loan by a bankMade a financial lossAttracted media coverageAttracted subsequent fundingLaunched a new product/servicePaid off existing loanExpanded customer baseReduce
276、d costsIncreased productivityNumber of observationsRepayment status Surveyed MSMEs were questioned about the status of the loan repayment.Most firms(71%)reported never missing a payment and that the payments were ongoing(see Figure 7.3.3).Among the remaining MSMEs,12%reported never missing a payment
277、 and had already paid off the loan,and 8%reported having issues repaying on time but did eventually repay the full amount.Only 3%had defaulted on their loan.2%3%3%8%12%71%0554045Unable to repay but platform rolled our debt/offered new loanTemporarily missed payment due to platform error b
278、utnow currentDefaulted on loanUnable to repay payment on due date but did repay fullamount with delayNever missed payment,loan paid offNever missed payment,payments on-goingNumber of observationsFigure 7.3.3 Loan repayment status:invoice trading(n.59)THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DI
279、VE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 57Impact on banking relationship As shown in Figure 7.3.4,more than half the MSMEs reported increasing or decreasing their use of all banking products except for mortgages,for which 68%of respondents reported no change.Notably,more than half the responden
280、ts increased their use of invoice trading and receivables services(30%started using this facility and 39%reported using it more often).However,this question could be considered ambiguous as we asked about the impact on traditional banking relationships and,therefore,the responses may include those r
281、elating to banks as well as other financial providers that also offer these services.The use of savings or checking accounts also increased,suggesting better financial organization.For all other credit-related products,MSMEs either stopped using them or used them less:29%stopped using overdraft acco
282、unts and 36%had less personal credit with a bank.This trend contrasts with that of digital lending where MSMEs reported relying more on these products to support their businesses.8%6%6%11%9%17%30%4%6%6%10%11%14%22%39%68%31%45%42%50%43%46%15%4%36%27%13%14%14%7%7%25%19%15%29%14%20%7%9%0%20%40%60%80%10
283、0%Mortgages(n.29)Personal credit card(n.35)Loan contracts(n.32)Overdraft account(n.38)Business credit card(n.36)Revolving line of credit(n.36)Savings or checking account(n.45)Invoice trading and receivables(n.49)Percentage of respondentsJust started using this facilityIncreased useNo change in previ
284、ous useDecreased useStopped using this facilityFigure 7.3.4 Banking relationship impact:invoice tradingInvoice trading58Country:ColombiaFintech platform:LiquitechMSME:Fundacin La Santsima Trinidad-FunsantriCase studyBrief story about the MSMEThe Fundacin La Santsima Trinidad is dedicated to caring f
285、or children between the ages of 18 months and five years,providing services in education,nutrition and psychology.Endorsed by the Ministry of Education,the Foundation now cares for 555 children,distributed among five sites located in Carrizal,La Luz,Galn,Las Nieves and Rebolo.The Foundations aim is
286、to help vulnerable children in highly marginalized areas in the city of Barranquilla.The child development centers(CDIs)in each area employ qualified personnel such as graduates in early childhood education,psychologists,nutritionists and social workers,who are supported by community mothers.Women p
287、lay an essential role in the services that Funsantri offers.Challenges to obtain fundingThe service contracts the Foundation have are with the public sector,specifically with the District of Barranquilla.The greatest challenge for the Foundation is the amount of time the district takes to pay the bi
288、lls because it needs these funds immediately.This created an uncertain financial situation for the Foundation,forcing them to find funding elsewhere to cover their operating costs.However,because the Foundation does not belong to a robust and solid economic sector,it found it very difficult to find
289、financing.Non-traditional sources had very high costs and the traditional financial sector(banks)rejected their application because of the type of company the Foundation is.Why Liquitech?Due to these circumstances,the District of Barranquilla recommended that the Foundation approach Liquitech for fu
290、nding.Liquitech offered the Foundation very attractive rates and terms.Additionally,the fintech provided useful and proactive commercial support,and the Foundation found its digital factoring platform very simple to use.How has the funding affected the business or relationship with finance?The finan
291、cing from Liquitech improved the Foundations cash flow,providing it with the financial resources it needed to smoothly develop its core business.Liquitechs service has had a very positive impact because it has given the Foundation the opportunity to concentrate fully on its business because it no lo
292、nger needs to spend time searching for finance.It can now dedicate its time to strengthening the services and projects offered and developed in the CDIs,such as providing food and education to young children in vulnerable areas.THE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERI
293、CAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 59Legal structureMost respondents were classed as public limited companies(63%),followed by limited partnerships(17%),as shown in Figure 8.1.2.61%17%13%4%4%61%17%9%4%4%4%Public limited companyLimited partnershipSole partnershipPartnershipPrivate limited companySole partnership
294、1*8.INVESTMENT CROWDFUNDING:EQUITY AND REAL ESTATEBusiness structureTotal respondents and countries As Figure 8.1.1 summarizes,a total of 23 respondent MSMEs had used an investment crowdfunding platform(equity and real estate)to fund their business.The MSMEs operated in Mexico,Brazil,Argentina and C
295、hile.8.1.Profile of MSMEsFigure 8.1.1 Country of operation:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Figure 8.1.2 Business legal structure:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Four percent of MSME respondents used an investment crowdfunding platform to fund their business activities,making this model the least frequentl
296、y usedNote:Sole partnership 1 corresponds to individual micro-entrepreneurs(IME).6057%26%17%%39%26%6 yearsTrading durationAs shown in Figure 8.1.4,most respondent MSMEs were established and mature:26%had been operating for more than six years,39%between three and six years,and 25%had been
297、 operating for less than three years.Size and full-time employeesMost MSMEs that raised funds via investment crowdfunding were classified as small(61%)and micro(30%).These statistics are reflected in the number of FTEs:more than half(57%)reported having between one and five FTEs(see Figure 8.1.3).Fi
298、gure 8.1.3 Number of full-time employees:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Figure 8.1.4 Trading duration:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Investment crowdfunding:equity and real estateTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 612019 turnover(USD)2020 turnov
299、er(USD)USD200,000USD-USD400,000USD600,000USD800,000USD1,000,000USD1,200,000USD1,400,000USD1,600,000USD1,500,000USD30,187USD940,046USD751,376USD89,823USD-USD-USD339,489USD468,640USD779,085USD 94,77130%30%20%20%0123Pre-seedEarly stageSeedGrowth businessNumber of observationsFigure 8.1.5 Business stage
300、:equity crowdfunding(n.10)TurnoverAs shown in Figure 8.1.6,the average turnover for investment crowdfunding respondents was USD468,640 in 2019 and USD527,168 in 2020.Because this is a small sample of firms,further analysis,such as comparisons with other models,is not viable.Figure 8.1.6 2019 turnove
301、r vs 2020 turnover(USD):investment crowdfunding(n.22)Note:Amounts were reported in local currencies and converted into USD using the OANDA average rate for the period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020.Outliers are not shown in this boxplot.Business stageThirty percent of equity-based crowd
302、funding respondents reported being in the pre-seed stage,another 30%indicated they were early-stage enterprises,20%were in the seed stage and the remaining 20%specified being a growth business(see Figure 8.1.5).62Buy-to-let investment,30%Technology,13%Finance,4%Real Estate&Housing,4%Traditional indu
303、stryInnovative industryCommerce and servicesBuy-to-let investment,30%Food&drink,4%Construction,13%Technology,13%Manufacturing&engineering,9%Property development,9%Finance,4%Environment&cleantech,4%Media&publishing,4%Real estate&housing,4%SectorMost respondents operated in traditional industries(48%)
304、,followed by commerce and services(35%),and innovative industries(17%),as shown in Figure 8.1.7.Figure 8.1.7 Business sector:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Investment crowdfunding:equity and real estateTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 63Figu
305、re 8.1.8 CEO or MD gender:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Gender,education and age of Chief Executive Officer or Managing Director Only 9%of investment crowdfunding respondents were led by women.In terms of age,43%of CEOs or MDs were between 35 and 44,and more than 80%had a higher education degree.Thes
306、e statistics are summarized in Figures 8.1.8 to 8.1.10.OtherMaleFemale87%9%4%Figure 8.1.9 CEO or MD age:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Figure 8.1.10 CEO or MD highest education level:investment crowdfunding(n.23)5564 years old4554 years old3554years old2534years old43%39%13%4%Postgraduate degree(Maste
307、rs)or above(PhD)Undergraduate degree(Bachelors)Secondary school or lowerTechnical education or vocational trainingPostgraduate certificate35%35%22%4%4%64Relationship with traditional financial servicesTraditional finance facilities useAs shown in Figure 8.1.11,more of the 23 respondent MSMEs reporte
308、d using business financial products(65%)compared to those that used personal financial products(43%).The most-used product was a business account,which is double the number of MSMEs that used the owners personal account.This reflects a clear separation between a business and the owner,reflecting the
309、 fact most respondent MSMEs were well-established and mature,and that the most predominant legal structure was a public company.In contrast,more entrepreneurs reported using personal credit cards than business credit cards to support business activities.Regarding equity investment,52%of MSMEs receiv
310、ed funding from family or friends,and 39%from directors of the business.In terms of credit products,30%used a secured loan from a specialist provider and 22%from a bank.9%22%30%39%52%26%30%22%61%0246810121416OtherMortgage,bridge loan or other secured loan from a bankMortage,bridge loan or other secu
311、red loan from a specialistproviderDirectors of the businessFamily/friendsPersonal credit cardsOwners personal savings/checking accountBusiness credit cardsBusiness savings/checking accountOtherEquityinvestmentfrom.PersonalfinancialproductsBusinessfinancialproductsNumber of observationsFigure 8.1.11
312、MSMEs traditional finance facilities use:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Banking product useThe most often used product was transfers,with 70%of respondents reporting they used it weekly and 20%reported using it monthly.In addition,29%percent of MSMEs also reported using a personal credit card weekly f
313、or their business and 24%used it monthly.Business credit cards were used weekly by 25%,5%used them monthly and 5%more than once a year(see Figure 8.1.12).Investment crowdfunding:equity and real estateTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE STUDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 656%11
314、%11%11%15%20%25%29%70%5%6%5%11%11%5%5%24%20%15%24%11%6%6%5%18%5%30%16%29%22%11%20%5%6%45%68%29%68%44%50%60%60%60%18%10%11%6%5%6%11%20%6%5%0%20%40%60%80%100%Mortgage(n.20)Invoice trading(n.19)Loan contracts(n.17)Revolving line of credit(n.19)Cheque payments(n.18)Payment machines(n.18)Overdraft accoun
315、t(n.20)Other(n.5)Business credit card(n.20)Personal credit card(n.17)Transfers(n.20)Percentage of respondentsVery often(weekly)Often(monthly)Occasionally(more than once a year)Rarely(once a year)NeverN/AFigure 8.1.12 MSMEs bank products use:investment crowdfunding74%52%35%35%26%26%22%9%82%42%38%25%6
316、7%33%60%50%100%40%100%100%50%100%67%100%024681012141618Friends and familyBankAngel investorAnother alternativefinance platformPrivate equityVenture capital firmsSpecialist financeproviderGovernment/publicfunderNumber of observationsRespondents that sought fundingOf which received offerOf which accep
317、ted offerFigure 8.1.13 Previous fundraising activity:investment crowdfunding(n.23)Search for funding from other sources Regarding previous fundraising activities,the most sought-after funding source was family and friends at 74%.Of those MSMEs,82%received an offer and 100%accepted the offer.Banks we
318、re approached for funding by 52%of respondents but less than half received an offer and only 40%of those accepted the offer.Angel investors were the third most popular funding source,with 35%of respondents approaching them.Of those,38%received an offer which was accepted by all MSMEs that received t
319、he offer.Alternative finance platforms were approached by 35%of respondents.One-quarter of those received an offer,all of which accepted the offer.These statistics are summarized in Figure 8.1.13.668.2.Issuer experienceNews or media coverage(n.21)Received referral from bank or otherfinance provider(
320、n.19)Unable to get funding elsewhere(n.20)Advice from a financial adviser(n.23)Better interest rate/cheaper costs(n.13)Speed of funding round(n.9)Insight and expertise from platform investors(n.9)Because the money comes from individuals(n.10)Ability to set terms/shareholder agreement(n.7)Engagement
321、with supportersand community(n.22)Achieve higher valuation/lower cost of capital(n.6)Non-financial benefits(n.9)Easier to get funding than traditional channels(n.22)Speed in receiving funds(n.13)Retain control over business(n.22)Flexible terms(n.13)Better customer service(n.23)Ease of use(n.8)5%5%20
322、%22%23%33%33%40%43%45%50%56%59%62%64%69%70%75%19%21%20%39%23%44%33%20%14%32%50%33%23%15%23%15%13%13%33%21%35%17%8%11%22%20%29%23%11%5%15%14%15%13%13%19%16%9%31%11%20%9%24%37%20%13%15%11%14%5%8%4%5%0%20%40%Percentage of respondents60%80%100%Very ImportantImportantNeutralUnimportantVery unimportantN/A
323、Figure 8.2.1 Decision-making factors:investment crowdfunding*Includes only real estate crowdfunding respondents *Includes only equity-based crowdfunding respondentsDecision-making factorsAs shown in Figure 8.2.1,for equity-based crowdfunding respondents,the most important factor that influenced thei
324、r decision to raise funds through an investment crowdfunding platform was ease of use:75%of eight respondents reported this factor as being very important.This was followed by better customer service at 70%.For real estate crowdfunding respondents,flexible terms were deemed important by 69%.Retainin
325、g control of the business was a very important factor for 64%of investment crowdfunding respondents,followed by 62%of equity-based crowdfunding respondents who considered the speed of receiving funds as very important.Investment crowdfunding:equity and real estateTHE SME ACCESS TO DIGITAL FINANCE ST
326、UDY:A DEEP DIVE INTO THE LATIN AMERICAN FINTECH ECOSYSTEM 67Measure Amount(USD)Minimum153.38Average378,7231st quartile104,3672nd quartile215,4273rd quartile468,260Maximum1,638,910Table 8.2.1 Amount raised:investment crowdfunding(n.21)Note:Amounts were reported in local currencies and converted into
327、USD using the OANDA average rate for the period between 1 January and 31 December 2020.Zero values and outliers were excluded from calculations.USD138,408 USD558,960 USD-USD100,000USD200,000USD300,000USD400,000USD500,000USD600,000Amount raisedReal estate crowdfundingEquity-based crowdfundingFigure 8
328、.2.2 Average amount raised:equity-based crowdfunding vs real estate crowdfunding(n.21)Ability to get funding from another sourceApproximately 40%of respondents reported that the impossibility of getting funding elsewhere was an important or a very important decision-making factor.Thirteen percent di
329、d not believe they could get funding from other sources,while 57%believed they could.This explains the prevalence of ease of use and customer service in the responses regarding decision-making factors.Amount raised Respondent MSMEs raised an average of USD378,723(see Table 8.2.1).However,approximate
330、ly 70%raised less than the average,the majority of which were partnerships operating in Mexico that had sought funding to cover their working capital needs.When comparing the average amounts raised by equity-based respondents and real estate respondents,the latter raised more than four times the for
331、mer(see Figure 8.2.2).Most MSMEs that sought funding through real estate crowdfunding had been trading longer than those that funded their business through an equity-based crowdfunding platform.6854%31%15%Working capitalExpansionAsset purchasePrimary purpose for debt finance:real estate crowdfunding
332、For 54%of real estate respondents,working capital was the main purpose for raising funds,31%used it for expansion,mainly a real estate purchase or development,and 15%used it to purchase assets,specifically a new business premises(see Figure 8.2.3).Figure 8.2.3 Funding primary purpose:real estate cro
333、wdfunding(n.13)Number of individuals in the crowd(equity)and voting rightsEquity-based crowdfunding respondents were asked how many individuals were in the fundraising crowd.Of the nine respondents,33%reported between one and nine participants,22%between 100 and 249,another 22%between 250 and 499,11%between 25 and 49,and another 11%had 500 or more participants,as shown in Figure 8.2.4.33%22%22%11%