Why Credit Guarantee Companies?
It is often said that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are the workhorse from which future economic growth and innovation flows in every country.
However, in many developing countries, access to capital is a major obstacle to the successful take-off and growth of SMEs. According to a study by the World Bank Group, there exists a credit gap of c.$1.10trn in lending to SMEs in these economies.
This issue arises due to market failure largely on the back of information asymmetry.
What this means is that due to the predominantly informal nature of SMEs, lenders operating under strict regulatory provisions (prudential ratios, etc.) are averse to bearing the risk opacity of extending credit to them. These banks prefer to avoid the unpredictable cashflows, limited hard assets, and thin governance structures that define this category of companies.
Several studies show that SMEs in Nigeria suffer the same fate.
Available studies show that SMEs in the Nigerian market are not exempt from these financing challenges.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) estimates and puts the annual financing gap for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises at c.₦617.00bn.
Institutionalised problem-solving approach
Fixing these market problems, however, requires fresh thinking at the policy level.
In brief, this would involve market interventions that generate positive externalities by encouraging banks and non-bank lenders to extend credit to SMEs, albeit the real challenges with lack of credit history and collateral.
A solution that has proven successful in other emerging economies is Credit Guarantee Schemes (CGS).
These have gained prominence as a common form of intervention in SME credit markets.
CGS provides third-party credit risk mitigation to lenders with the aim of stimulating access to credit for SMEs in themarketplace.
This happens through CGS’ absorption of a portion of a lender’s losses on loans made to SMEs in an event of default in return for a fee.
CGS provides a high level of efficiency in the financial sector by reducing the overall risks in specific sectors of an economy thus offsetting the adverse mismatch between entrepreneurs and assets used for collateral.
In Nigeria, there are two (2) widely recognised CGS – Infrastructure Credit Guarantee
Company Limited (InfraCredit) and Impact Credit Guarantee Limited (Impact).
InfraCredit is focused on providing guarantees to lenders/investors in large scale infrastructure projects, while Impact, a subsidiary of the Development.
Bank of Nigeria (DBN), has a mandate to stimulate lending to SMEs.
To understand the opportunities which can be exploited with the implementation of CGS in the Nigerian SME market, it is imperative to look at the idea behind CGS, its modalities, and a case study of success.
A brief history of CGSs
Founded in the 1840s, the first known CGSs were the Brussels Credit Union and the Banque Populaire in France.
Structured as cooperatives, both used trade and mutual arrangements to guarantee loans to their union members using members’ collective contributions as underlying security.
Similar mutual guarantee arrangements were also prevalent in Germany, Spain, Portugal, and Greece prior to, andfollowing World War II.
These mutual guarantees, which were privately owned, relied on financial and social repayments mechanism; members stood to lose their contributions (financial) and could be expelled from the union (social), in the event of a default on their financial obligations.
Indeed, across Europe and parts of Southern America, mutual guarantee arrangements remain dominant.
Types of CGSs
In practice, there are four (4) major types of CGS arrangements – mutual CGS as earlier discussed, privately-owned CGS, public CGS and international CGS.
Privately-owned CGSs are managed by entities established mostly by individuals together with financial institutions, trade groups and private businesses with the aim of providing access to finance for smaller corporates within target sectors. Public CGSs reflect interventions by governments in the form of budgeted subventions with the sole aim of expanding access to underserved sectors. International CGCs are interventions by bilateral/multilateral international agencies aimed at improving access to finance for neglected sectors.
Internationally, however, very different lending objectives have been pursued by CGS with most focusing on supporting lending for working or fixed capital while others have remained focused on export support.
On the face of it, the key distinguishing feature of CGS is the operating model and the source of the underlying financingfor the guarantees.
As the main weakness with public CGS arrangements is moral hazard and adverse selection issues, a sort of middle ground has evolved in recent years.
This seeks to combine institutional arrangements that works for private/mutual CGS with public/international financing to deliver a well aligned CGS model.
This concept is increasingly referred to as blended finance.
This type of evolving CGS design has two (2) merits – firstly, it delivers access to finance for underserved segments and secondly, it ensures access to finance at a relatively lower cost without creating.
According to the World Bank and the Financial Sector Reform and Strengthening Initiative (FIRST) Initiative, the development of CGS for SMEs requires sixteen (16) principlesas the foundation layer.
These sixteen principles cover four (4) key areas namely the legal and regulatory framework, corporate governance, risk and operational framework, and monitoring and evaluation.
These requirements give additional credence to the establishment of a CGS through a blended finance approach; this approach, promotes sound corporate governance, operational efficiency, transparency as well as injection of adequate capital by public, philanthropic and private capital providers.
Case study of South Korea Credit Guarantee Funds
South Korea, just like other economies, is characterised by a booming SMEs sector, which comprise c.90% of the enterprises.
For decades, SMEs in South Korea have similar challenges in accessing finance like insufficient collateral, high default risks, high transaction costs and asymmetric credit information.
This led to limited access of finance, low credit allocation by banks, high interest rates, and lack of long-term financing.
The underdevelopment of the SME financing market showed that there was a need for government intervention in the SME sector.
Two (2) major national guarantee funds operate in Korea: Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (KODIT) provides a generalguarantee facility for all types of business loans and the Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund (KOTEC) which focuses on guarantee facilities for projects involving an element of new technology.
They are both independent not-for-profit institutions and operate loan approvals system for guarantees.
KODIT’s corporate objective is to enable SMEs without adequate collateral to obtain funds and make headway in financial or business transactions.
To meet SMEs’ demand for financing services, KODITprovides enterprises with credit guarantee services for the repayment of liabilities assumed by business enterprises in transactions with other companies or institutions.
At KODIT, credit guarantee services involve a series of interactions among three (3) parties: the guarantor (KODIT), the debtor (SMEs), and the creditor (Banks, Enterprises, etc.).
As of 2021, KODIT maintained a capital fund of US$7.5bn and has provided credit guarantees to over 205,361 companies, in South Korea.
KODIT and KOTEC’s operate, in part, a revenue model that involves payment of a guarantee fee that is determined based on the size of the credit facility to be guaranteed.
Evidence from the South Korean CGS’ is generally positive with a stronger impact recorded by the technology oriented KOTEC.
KOTEC’s success owes a lot to its two-part evaluation process that covers creditworthiness and the quality of the borrower.
A possible operational model
The central function of a CGS is that the risk of loss is shared in an agreed proportion between the CGS and a lender.
Ideally, the borrower is typically a company with a viable project but unable to satisfy usual lending criteria either due to a lack of collateral or established credit ratings.
In this situation, and subject to some investigation of thecompany’s creditworthiness, a third-party guarantee is made available to reduce lenders’ exposure to risk.
A practical application is an establishment of a ‘CGS Entity’ – which may comprise public sector agency, financialinstitutions, and other investors as promoters, to develop, provide capital and operationalize the CGS entity.
This is to ensure a system where there is professional unbiased assessment of obligors’ loans as well as management of the guaranteed loan portfolio within pre-set targets to underserved sectors.
To scale the rate of successful offtake, the CGS Entity could operate a model where lenders participate in a way that allowsthem to enroll and subsequently renew their membership with the CGS entity on an annual basis.
Available research shows that this form of ‘CGS–Lender’ relationship has 4 advantages.
It allows the CGS conduct a first level appraisal, institute uniform underwriting standards on loans to be guaranteed, generate revenue, and most importantly, avail itself with the relevant information on participating members financialrecords, governance, risk management practices and overall capacity to support the objectives of the CGS.
As the CGS entity generates revenue from its core business and build on its operations, the CGS Entity can commence a capacity-building solution that will create the appropriate governance and control structures for SMEs.
This is expected to allow SMEs deepen its ability to access a variety of finance sources.
Subsequently, the CGS entity can diversify its revenue profile as more loans are guaranteed.
CGS Entity can then look to raise first loss capital from public or bilateral development agencies after a few years to enable it scale and deliver additional guarantee solutions.
In summary, CGSs can play an important role in developing countries by (i) improving information on SMEs (ii) buildingthe credit origination and risk management capacity of lenders (iii) fostering innovation and building internalcapacity of SMEs through technical assistance/capacity building programs) and (iv) helping to drive countercyclicalfinancing to SMEs in economic downturns.
It is high time that the Central Bank of Nigeria and other financial system regulators give a careful look at CGS’ as a pathway to unlocking credit to SMEs.
Ayokunle wrote from Lagos. He is Chief Executive Officer of Berkshire Finance Company Limited. He can be reached via email at info@berkshirefinancecompany.com
References
• Anke Green (2003): Credit Guarantee Schemes for Small Enterprises: An Effective Instrument to Promote PrivateSector-Led Growth? SME Technical Working Papers Series. United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
• Shim, IIhyock. (2006). “Corporate Credit Guarantees in Asia.” BIS Quarterly Review (December): 85–98
• Task Force for the Design, Implementation and Evaluation of Public Credit Guarantee Schemes for Small and Medium Enterprises: Principles for Public Credit Guarantee
Schemes for SMEs (2015):
• What’s Happening in the Missing Middle? Lessons fromFinancing SMEs. Edited by Salman Alibhai, Simon Bell, and Gillette Conne (2017) https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/26324/113906-WhatsHappeningintheMissingMiddleLessonsinSMEFinancing-29-3-2017-14-20-24.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
