A What does and does not work well with Omidyar Network’s investment framework?
B Why is financial inclusion an important investment sector? How does it fit into Omidyar Network’s investment framework?
C Should MicroEnsure remain a grant investment, or should ON make a more substantial equity investment? What is your view on MicroEnsure’s value? How would changing MicroEnsure’s investment structure impact its fit in Omidyar Network’s investment
D Should Omidyar Network invest in Lenddo? Does Lenddo fit Omidyar Network’s impact thesis, or is it merely an attractive financial investment that requires “impact rationalization?”
9-318-004
R E V : F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 0
Senior Lecturer Vikram S. Gandhi, Program Director Caitlin Lindsay Reimers Brumme (Impact Collaboratory), and Associate Case Researcher James Barnett (Case Research & Writing Group) prepared this case. It was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company. Certain details have been disguised. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright © 2018, 2020 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545- 7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
V I K R A M S . G A N D H I
C A I T L I N L I N D S A Y R E I M E R S B R U M M E
J A M E S B A R N E T T
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
It was early March 2012 and Arjuna Costa (HBS 2001), Director at the impact investing firm Omidyar Network (ON) and lead investor for ON’s new financial inclusion initiative, had just left the company office in Redwood City, California. He and Matt Bannick (HBS 1993), ON’s Managing Partner and the Chair of the investment committee, had spent the day discussing how they would apply their newly adopted financial inclusion strategy and what investments would align with ON’s company mission: ON only made investments intended to create social impact around the world. Several months prior, ON had launched its financial inclusion initiative in order to better serve the more than 2.5 billion people worldwide who lacked access to basic financial services. Costa, who joined ON in 2010 to focus on investments primarily related to financial services, took the initial lead.
That day, Costa and Bannick had discussed investing in two different companies—MicroEnsure and Lenddo—both of which, despite intriguing characteristics, raised questions for the financial inclusion team. MicroEnsure, a nonprofit entity intended to deliver microinsurance to underserved populations in emerging markets, was requesting a bridge loan on commercial terms that would enable it to spin off from its parent nonprofit into a standalone commercial enterprise. While MicroEnsure’s product seemed aligned with ON’s financial inclusion strategy, the team wondered if its return and impact potential warranted risky interim funding and a long-term commitment on a for-profit basis.
At the same time, ON was considering an investment in Lenddo, a credit scoring and verification service that used online data to provide loan opportunities for those with limited or no credit history. While Costa and Bannick were excited by Lenddo’s innovative model for leveraging big data, they were concerned that traditional banks and lenders might not accept Lenddo’s unconventional credit scoring system. Furthermore, Lenddo largely targeted the aspiring middle class that had a social media presence in markets where much of the population was well below the poverty line.
Costa and Bannick used ON’s investment framework to evaluate MicroEnsure and Lenddo. The framework categorized investments by looking at both their financial and impact potential. Costa and Bannick had to decide: Should ON make an investment into one, or both, of these companies? What type of investment made the most sense given their impact and financial goals?
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
2
Impact Investing The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defined impact investing as “investments made into
companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.”1 Impact investing as an established field had only existed since the mid- 2000s. The GIIN was launched at the annual Clinton Global Initiative conference in 2009.2 Although the GIIN and other organizations had begun to establish industry infrastructure, clear consensus on what constituted an impact investment and how to measure impact did not exist. Impact investment strategies included those seeking risk-adjusted returns (an investment return that considered the risk taken in the investment over time) and sub-market returns. (See Exhibit 1 for characteristics that define an impact investment business.) Impact investing was sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, social investing, or social impact investing.
Omidyar Network In 1995, before launching ON, Pierre Omidyar founded the online marketplace that would become
eBay. Following the company’s initial public offering (IPO) in 1998, Omidyar became a billionaire, and shortly thereafter, he and his fiancée, Pam, agreed they would use their newfound fortune in an altruistic fashion.3 Omidyar moved out of his day-to-day role at eBay (he remained board chairman), and, in 2000, he and Pam founded the Omidyar Family Foundation (OFF). At first, the foundation ran as a nonprofit donating to charities in need of consistent financial support. However, within three years, Omidyar realized OFF could make a greater impact if it were run more like a business and less like a charity.4 His belief that philanthropy differs considerably from charity added to the underpinning for what came to be ON. In 2011, Omidyar explained:
Most people don’t distinguish between charity and philanthropy, but to me there’s a significant difference. . . . Charity is inherently not self-sustaining, but there are problems in the world, such as natural disasters, that require charity. . . . Philanthropy is much more. Philanthropy is a desire to improve the state of humanity and the world. It requires thinking about the root causes of issues so that we can prevent tomorrow’s suffering. . . . In thinking about philanthropy, I began looking for ways to harness the incredible power of business in order to make the world better.5
In 2004, the Omidyars decided to create an innovative hybrid structure that gave them more flexibility to achieve their philanthropic goals. They established ON as both a limited liability company (LLC) and a private foundation, with operations conducted from the limited liability company. This change enabled ON to fund potentially impactful organizations and causes beyond what fell under the traditional notion of being charitable as defined by the United States tax code. The ON LLC made for- profit investments, and the foundation provided grants. The 2004 establishment of ON helped pioneer the growing impact investment industry.
The transition from a traditional charity to ON’s for-profit/nonprofit blended structure proved difficult. ON struggled to match its culture with the new company vision. Philanthropies were generally risk averse, so the new personnel and previous OFF staff approached investments with different philosophies.6 In 2007, the Omidyars led a restructuring intended to shift the organization to run more like a business; Omidyar remarked that he wanted ON to operate similarly to a venture capital (VC) partnership model, with an egalitarian team of investors collaborating and willing, when necessary, to take risks on both nonprofit and for-profit investments.7
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
3
As part of the restructuring, Matt Bannick came on as Managing Partner. Bannick knew Omidyar from his time at eBay, when he joined just after the IPO and went on to serve as President of eBay International. Bannick had also been President at PayPal for three years.
Over time, ON continued to adjust its strategy for advancing scalable change worldwide. The organization operated under a set of beliefs inspired by Omidyar: primarily that people were inherently good but often lacked access to opportunity. Moreover, businesses could be a catalyst for good, particularly when driving large-scale social change.
ON’s flexibility to invest in both for-profit and nonprofit entities, however, required a way for investment teams to rigorously evaluate investment opportunities with specific expectations for financial return.
Impact Investment Framework
To address this challenge, ON developed a proprietary framework to guide how it would make investments across a “returns continuum.” Bannick explained, “We believe that for investors seeking impact there is a broad range of investment profiles. Many impact investments can be fully commercial, as success scales both financial return and social impact in tandem, while others involve a trade-off between returns and impact.”
Omidyar and Bannick remained intentional about, if not wary of, potential investments that, while fitting with ON’s social mission, were likely to deliver below-market returns. Omidyar did not want social impact to cover up for underperformance. Perhaps more importantly, Omidyar saw the potential for subsidies to distort a market—and an investment with below risk-adjusted market rate returns had the potential to do exactly that.
As a result, ON determined it would accept below-market returns in certain circumstances, namely where an investment had the potential to not only deliver value to its customers (direct impact) but also accelerate the development of a new market paradigm to reach the underserved (market-level impact). According to ON, market-level impact could be achieved in three ways: first, an investment could pioneer a new service or model previously undeveloped in a given market; second, an investment could develop infrastructure that might catalyze future growth; or third, the investment influenced policy critical to a market’s development.8
ON’s investment framework integrated these concepts into all investment decisions. ON began by confirming the investment’s potential for direct impact and then assigned an investment to one of the categories on the continuum: commercial (A1, A2), subcommercial (B1, B2), or grant (C1, C2, C3). Investments that were not expected to generate commercial returns faced greater expectations for their market-level impact (see Exhibit 2 for ON’s breakdown of its investment framework).
Category A: Commercial Investments in this category were expected to achieve risk-adjusted financial returns, while having a strong positive impact. While Category A investments were not required to have evidence or likelihood of market-level impact, ON sought to avoid investment in companies where the financial or business model put them at higher risk of “mission drift,”9 such as targeting more affluent customers.10 ON often sought to make Category A investments in companies where impact was implicit in the business model, and therefore impact could be achieved simply through growth in customers. ON invested in Category A companies due to their capacity to scale massively through retained earnings, in addition to their ability to raise substantial outside capital. ON believed that Category A investments that scaled were also likely to deliver market impact, as high
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
4
levels of profitability would attract competitors, driving up quality and continuing the cycle of innovation.
Category A investments were subdivided into A1 investments and A2 investments. A1 investments involved commercial co-investors alongside ON.11 A1 investments generally occurred in established VC markets like the U.S., Europe, and India before being adapted into emerging markets upon productive returns.12 ON made A1 investments because it believed that it could bring value beyond financial capital, a fact recognized by entrepreneurs.
A2 investments were those for which ON expected commercial returns but commercial co-investors were absent. These investments tended to be in sectors or regions in which ON had relative expertise or familiarity and therefore presented a lower risk profile than a commercial investor might perceive.13 ON found A2 investments attractive because they were not likely to get funded without ON involvement, and they had the potential to generate both direct and market-level impact. These investments were often in regions outside the U.S. and in companies serving mass-market customers, which traditional investors might not see as viable.
Category B: Subcommercial ON accepted potential below-market financial returns in commercial entities in which it anticipated market-level impact. ON recognized that entrepreneurs in new markets, however promising, often had to overcome significant market-level barriers before becoming viable commercial entities. Companies building market infrastructure or seeking to influence policy might never achieve commercial returns but were critical to market creation.
Category B investments were subdivided into B1 and B2 investments. ON anticipated positive absolute returns with B1 investments and capital preservation with B2 investments. B2 investments were distinguished from B1 in that their financial returns were harder to estimate, often because they existed in emerging markets that had previously received little to no private-sector investments.14 Few of ON’s investments fell within the B2 subcategory.15
Category C: Grants Anytime it made a grant, ON required evidence of potential for significant market-level impact. While there was never an expectation of returned capital on grant funding, ON divided Category C grants into three subcategories (C1, C2, and C3) reflecting the extent to which ON expected the respective nonprofits to eventually cover their own costs through operations. C1 grants went to organizations expected to earn revenue that would cover 80% to 100% of their costs over time; C2 grants went to organizations expected to cover 20% to 80% of their costs over time; C3 grants went to organizations expected to cover less than 20% of their costs over time, sometimes not covering any costs at all.16
By 2012, the organization was starting to organize itself according to different impact priorities, which it called initiatives, each with its own specific mission, metrics, and team. Each initiative developed an impact portfolio that represented a different mix of Category A, B, and C investments. The portfolio reflected a number of factors, including the team’s strategy, the relative maturity of the sector and consequent need for catalytic capital, and the structure of the markets in which they operated. The five initiatives were: education, emerging technologies, financial inclusion, governance and citizen engagement, and property rights. (See Exhibit 3 for a description of each initiative.)
Financial Inclusion
Financial inclusion was the term used in the broader economic development ecosystem for making financial services available to all individuals and businesses; it represented the evolution of the
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
5
economic development narrative beyond microfinance.17 The World Bank stated: “Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services to meet their needs—transactions, payments, savings, credit, and insurance—delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.”18 The World Bank estimated that more than 2 billion adults worldwide did not have access to a bank account.19
Financial inclusion gained relevance as studies revealed negative correlations between poverty and access to formal financial services.20 Experts on the topic argued that those without access to formal financial services, also referred to as “unbanked populations,” reinforced poverty. Unbanked individuals generally used cash and had greater difficulties accessing loans. Formal financial services eased the ability to access loans and created a platform to build credit history. Academic research provided evidence that access to financial services improved the lives of those previously without such access. In one such study, poor farmers who were offered rainfall insurance began planting different crops that yielded profits up to 35% higher.21 Another study found that when offered banking services, entrepreneurs in Kenya saved more money and invested it back into their businesses.22
Financial exclusion was not limited to developing nations. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Federal Reserve, 46% of American adults would be unable to come up with $400 for an emergency expense, or would need to sell something or borrow funds to do so.23 The same report found 8% did not have a bank account.24 In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the number of bank branches serving low-income postal codes dropped by 10%, compared to a 3% decline for high-income communities.25 These same regions, sometimes called “banking deserts,” were often populated by companies operating in the alternative financial services industry—check cashers and payday lenders—which often charged high fees.26 “Those places are open during convenient hours. They are friendly and accessible. They are also deathly expensive and often result in a spiral of debt for their users,” noted one financial inclusion expert.27 Managing money outside the commercial bank system was costly for individuals and businesses. Unbanked and underbanked people paid high fees to cash paychecks and government benefit checks, and lacked a secure, reliable method for saving money.28
Traditionally, populations with limited or no access to financial services did not receive attention from banks due to assumptions of high customer acquisition costs, high lending costs, and low transaction values because of limited incomes. However, some argued that firms could in fact offer financial services to unbanked and underserved populations profitably. Doing so would require an understanding of customer needs, innovative product design that might differ from traditional financial services, and the ability to manage challenges and opportunities when introducing financial services to new populations (through engaging governments and other stakeholders).29
ON’s Financial Inclusion Initiative
In 2011, ON expanded its microfinance investing into the financial inclusion initiative that Costa described as a natural evolution stemming from recent investments and developments in the field:
Initially, our financial inclusion investments were not categorized as a separate initiative. Many of our initial investments that fell under the financial inclusion umbrella stemmed from our work in the microfinance space. As a reaction to the evolution of microfinance and the landscape at large, we decided to create the initiative to better focus our investments and structure our investment strategy.
Each investment from the team had to align with the stated goal of the financial inclusion initiative: “To accelerate ubiquitous access to an affordable and complete suite of financial products and services by financially educated individuals from a commercially viable industry.” (See Exhibit 4 for ON’s
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
6
financial inclusion approach.) Equally, Costa recognized the financial services industry had many unique attributes: it was heavily regulated in each local jurisdiction; it was dominated by incumbent banks with significant market power; and scale invariably required large amounts of capital best raised through the capital markets. Costa believed market-level impact could therefore come in two forms: (1) scaling a direct-to-consumer business, and/or (2) building new products and services for incumbent service providers, altering how they approached mass-market customers. The returns continuum framework would have to be thoughtfully applied in every investment decision that the financial inclusion team would make—with investments in both emerging and developed markets.
MicroEnsure
Founded in 2005 by Opportunity International, a faith-based charity aiming to end global poverty, MicroEnsure worked to provide affordable insurance products in developing markets. MicroEnsure operated as an insurance broker, meaning the majority of its products were offered on behalf of other insurers. MicroEnsure was responsible for intermediation between insurers and insurance customers, administration throughout the process, and claims management. Historically, MicroEnsure offered insurance products through partnerships with microfinance institutions; however, in Ghana, MicroEnsure had pioneered an innovative partnership model with mobile phone operators. Given the scale benefits, the company shifted to emphasize growth through this type of partnership. The company offered a range of insurance including credit, life, health, property, and weather.
Before MicroEnsure, the majority of companies that tried to offer insurance to low-income populations in developing markets failed, due to either high subsidy requirements or high churn rates. However, MicroEnsure’s unique partnership approach with mobile carriers had significant promise. The vast majority of cell phones in developing markets were prepaid.30 Capitalizing on this, MicroEnsure and its partner mobile carrier offered subscribers free insurance products as an add-on if they spent a pre-specified amount on airtime each month. Each subsequent month, customers had to spend the same or greater amount on airtime to keep the insurance coverage. This created an embedded loyalty program for the mobile operator’s services and also provided the insurance providers a low- cost sales method to reach previously inaccessible markets. Moreover, customers submitted claims via text messages, which also reduced claims-management costs and settlement time. After spending time using the free add-on service, many customers saw the benefits of insurance and paid for upgraded plans with more expansive coverage options.31
MicroEnsure had the potential to have a meaningful impact on its customers and the market. Its insurance products sought to help minimize the financial distress of unexpected life events for low- income families, often the hard-to-reach “last mile” customers. As a true pioneer, MicroEnsure had the potential to demonstrate to the insurance ecosystem that a company could profitably serve mass- market and low-income consumers in the emerging markets. Moreover, MicroEnsure was committed to developing and selling products beyond the typical “credit life”a product to the mass market. If successful, MicroEnsure would generate both direct and market-level impact.
Most of MicroEnsure’s revenues came from a small commission earned on a per-policy basis when providing sales and front-office support for the insurance provider. However, MicroEnsure also had some revenues related to its back-office support. Per policy, earned monthly commissions averaged $0.02 per month. While commissions through partnerships with mobile carrier partners were low, they
a Credit life insurance was a product covering the outstanding principal and interest of a loan upon death of a borrower.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
7
resulted in significantly more scale. (See Exhibit 5 for MicroEnsure’s business model.) MicroEnsure’s business model thus required scale to be a compelling financial investment.
The company projected it would sell 27.1 million policies by 2016, of which 19 million would come from mobile carrier partnerships. Major costs included staff on the ground and in the central office. (See Exhibit 6 for financial projections for MicroEnsure.)
Investing in Insurance
In 2009, ON had made a $4.5 million grant to MicroEnsure’s parent organization, Opportunity International, to fund electronic and mobile banking technology in Africa.32 Upon joining ON, Costa had been tasked with managing this grant. While Costa ultimately decided not to renew the grant, he remained interested in MicroEnsure and continued to communicate with the CEO, Richard Leftley.
MicroEnsure’s primary funding had been in the form of grants from Opportunity International and a multiyear $24.2 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates) in 2007.33 By 2011, MicroEnsure’s funding was under pressure. Opportunity International faced competing demands on funding, and the Gates grant had been not been renewed due to a shift in focus at both Gates and MicroEnsure in terms of product and geography.
At the same time, Costa believed MicroEnsure was showing signs of commercial promise. Costa remarked on the situation: “When I looked at Opportunity International’s portfolio, I found that MicroEnsure could be an intriguing potential addition to our growing financial inclusion portfolio. However, because the Gates Foundation was not going to renew their grant, and the partnership with mobile operators showed commercial promise, I thought this represented a unique opportunity to try and create a standalone commercial entity.”
In May 2011, Telenor, a multinational telecommunications company interested in expanding into microinsurance, approached MicroEnsure about an acquisition. Leftley was concerned about making such a significant decision with an untested partner and instead opted to form an Asia-focused joint venture (JV). When finalized, this JV would give MicroEnsure access to approximately 130 million potential customers.
These factors encouraged Leftley to focus on spinning out MicroEnsure as a for-profit entity and raising external capital to fund growth. The company had received a term sheet from one other investment fund, but that deal would be complex and remove management from any ownership position. MicroEnsure’s leadership was not convinced this was the right partner to help navigate the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. Therefore, MicroEnsure continued discussions with Telenor and several other commercial investors to seek funding as it pursued independent growth.
In November 2011, Leftley approached Costa to see if ON would provide a short-term $1 million bridge loan that would convert into equity when the company raised its priced Series A. The company would run out of cash in the summer of 2012, so a decision would need to be made quickly. Based on valuation negotiations at the time, ON had an opportunity to secure a 20% ownership stake in the company upon conversion of the $1 million note and a further infusion of $250,000 in MicroEnsure’s A round. Costa felt that the valuation seemed reasonable. While MicroEnsure had been in operation since 2005, in many ways, the new commercial business model was unproven. Additionally, there were no comparables to look at, as there were no precedents for a spinoff from a nonprofit.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
8
The Opportunity
Costa and Bannick believed MicroEnsure offered a promising alternative insurance model with a large potential market. In addition to the potential for massive customer scale, the partnership delivery model offered the opportunity for a viable and compelling future business model, one that could spur the microinsurance industry and solidify a symbiosis between financial inclusion and mobile businesses. Along the key dimensions of reach, engagement, and influence, MicroEnsure’s business model and market potential were exciting.
The partnership model also underpinned the financial case. In 2012, MicroEnsure served 4 million people, which Costa estimated represented only 2% to 3% of its market potential. Total potential premium volume was upwards of $40 billion.34 If able to execute, MicroEnsure might be uniquely positioned to capitalize on the $40 billion market potential due to its innovative partnership model.
MicroEnsure’s experience with one of the leading telecom operators in Ghana showed it had a compelling value proposition: the partnership had reduced churn and increased average revenue per user (ARPU) for the partner. (MicroEnsure had begun negotiating its JV with Telenor.) If MicroEnsure were successful, the insurance product would be able to reduce churn and increase ARPU by 5%, and the incremental revenues could be significant.
Moreover, financial services companies sometimes sold at multiples of up to 6x EBITDA. If MicroEnsure was able to grow the Telenor JV over the next five years and, assuming no dilution ( implying that ON would need to invest additional capital) and an exit multiple at peak trading multiples of 6x EBITDA, an investment could deliver up to a 15% internal rate of return. (See Exhibit 6 for company financials.)
Additionally, ON was uniquely positioned to be a strategic long-term partner to MicroEnsure as it navigated the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. In addition to funding, ON offered executive coaching and talent development resources, both of which Costa anticipated would be invaluable should ON invest. Given ON’s own impact thesis, Costa envisioned it could act as an ally to MicroEnsure management in its effort to balance mission, profitability, and growth.
However, Costa and Bannick knew there were significant risks that threatened both the financial and impact thesis. First, the financial case had several optimistic assumptions. The financial projections were premised on a successful Telenor partnership. While conversations to date had been productive, there was always risk in a concentrated partner relationship. Would such a tight relationship with a single operator dissuade other operators from working with MicroEnsure, constraining growth? Moreover, the return projections assumed ON would be able to maintain a 20% ownership stake. ON’s experience was that this type of investment would likely require several more equity rounds, which could dilute its ownership stake over time. This would certainly be the case if the Telenor relationship turned out not to be as profitable as anticipated. In addition, ON would have to make decisions in the future as to what degree it would continue to support the company with additional investments. Under some scenarios, its ownership could drop to below 5%. Moreover, a five-year timeline to exit could be ambitious in a market with shallow private capital reserves.
Second, ON had not yet invested in a microinsurance company, and an investment in MicroEnsure would represent a markedly different approach from its experience with microcredit institutions. Previous investors in microinsurance usually took established insurance providers down market. The impact and return potential depended on MicroEnsure’s ability to build profitable, long-term relationships with incumbent telecom operators—a notoriously challenging group. If MicroEnsure was unable to continue forging new partnerships with mobile carriers and maintain some pricing power,
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
9
both growth and profitability would be significantly threatened. While mobile operators had a history of building successful partnerships with value-added services (VAS) providers around products like ringtones and games, partnerships around financial services had been much more challenging, as evidenced by the termination of the M-Kesho product (a suite of financial products) jointly offered by the mobile payment company M-Pesa and Equity Bank.35
Moreover, there remained customer adoption risk. While MicroEnsure sought to address a significant unmet need—insurance for a market that ON believed to be more than 1.5 billion people— customer acceptance and uptake of new products was notoriously difficult in Africa and Asia, particularly for more complex products. MicroEnsure would need to execute on its ambitious sales and distribution model, while also improving its technology, in order to tap into the market.
Finally, this would be the first time ON would be financing a company as it transitioned from nonprofit to for-profit. The transition, and subsequent introduction of corporate partners and for-profit investors, would bring new and unforeseen pressures and challenges. Did MicroEnsure have the right leadership and talent in place to navigate the startup and venture world? Would the organization make the cultural transitions successfully? Would it be able to execute well under the time-bound pressures of demanding new investors?
ON considered that a $1 million bridge loan convertible into equity would allow it to earn a financial return if the business was profitable and would likely lead ON to take a more proactive role in MicroEnsure’s future direction, including an assumed board seat. While the MicroEnsure management team had presented projections that would make MicroEnsure a Category A2 investment, there were significant risks that threatened commercial returns. The investment terms came with requirements for additional capital in later funding rounds ($250,000 immediately and potentially up to several million dollars in subsequent rounds)—a significant commitment given that MicroEnsure was still at such an early stage. If financial risks were too high, was the potential market-level impact compelling enough to warrant the risk of a Category B investment? Would MicroEnsure eventually attract commercial capital and influence the incumbent insurance companies to consider the mass market as an attractive segment? Costa considered whether perhaps a grant would be a more prudent form of capital to test the viability of this new market and ensure that the company would continue to innovate without being concerned about near-term profitability. Or should Costa convince his partners and the investment committee that the sector-creation potential was worth a for-profit ON investment, with all the commitments that entailed?
Lenddo Lenddo was founded in 2011 as an online credit scoring and verification service. The software-as-
a-service (SaaS) was first offered in the Philippines, using an algorithm that drew upon opt-in, permissioned, online user data to determine a customer’s identity, character, and capacity to repay. Unlike traditional credit scores, which typically used credit and financial history, Lenddo drew upon customers’ digital data and network in order to determine a “LenddoScore.”36 Customers gained access to Lenddo’s credit scoring services after opting to allow the use of their data during a credit application. In doing so, Lenddo assured customers that it would not share their data. Lenddo had made the strategic decision to fund all loans (ranging from $300 to $1,000 per individual) independently at first, arguing this would allow it to more quickly build its technology and algorithms as well as license services to other lenders.
The company started with a belief that when assessing credit risk, personal character was as important as past financial history—and that online data taken from sources such as social media
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
10
provided a modern, data-driven opportunity to leverage that belief.37 Because the LenddoScore system could potentially enable consumers without traditional credit histories to get credit, it opened up potential opportunity for new customers in emerging markets, as many individuals in low- to middle- income communities had limited or no prior credit and had difficulty applying for a loan or credit card through traditional channels. However, these same customers, referred to as the aspiring middle class, increasingly had access to the internet, mobile phones, and social media platforms. Lenddo’s initial customer base was young Filipino professionals. (See Exhibit 7 for Lenddo’s target customer market.) Before Lenddo, this target customer base had to work with payday lenders and pawnshops to access capital. Traditional banks typically did not provide loans to the aspiring middle class, and emerging microfinance organizations typically targeted low-income individuals.
From its launch in February 2011 through December of that year, Lenddo had 25,000 members throughout the Philippines and extended approximately 550 loans. In order to qualify for a loan, each potential borrower had to have at least three members in their network, including one work colleague, one friend, and one family member. These individuals had to sign up to be a Lenddo member, affirmatively opting into the Lenddo network. Any repayment failure had an impact on both the borrower’s and this trusted network’s scores. The average loan was around $400, with maturities ranging from 6 to 12 months. Every loan carried a 2% flat monthly interest rate (a 42% APR), less than half the typical rates being charged in the Philippines at that time. To that point, default rates, defined as outstanding loans 30 days past due, were below 2%. In sum, Lenddo earned roughly $24 for every $100 loaned. By the end of 2012, Lenddo expected to extend about $2.1 million in loans, which would require $1.4 million in funding, accounting for interest repayments.
The Investment Case
Lenddo sought to secure $6 million in its first round of funding by the end of March 2012. Costa and Bannick considered a $1 million investment with a 5% ownership stake, assuming a $14 million pre-money valuation. The sector had already seen a few high-profile raises, with valuations above what was being proposed by the lead investor in the round. However, these “comparable deals” had been in U.S. or European markets, where the financial services infrastructure was well developed. There were no comparable companies that had surmounted the challenges of expanding across multiple emerging markets with an untested client segment. On the other hand, the competition for such customers was lower, and the potential of the aspiring middle class in the emerging markets was attractive to a number of potential investors, as it provided uncorrelated risk and growth opportunities.
Table 1 Comparable Valuations
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
11
The company projected a high financial return potential through its strategy targeting emerging- market, middle-class consumers. While the investment was still in a very early stage, Lenddo’s cofounders had past experience as entrepreneurs, particularly in building companies reliant on big data and in the context of emerging markets.
Costa and Bannick believed there were many compelling elements to the model. First, Lenddo’s credit risk assessment model did not rely on past financial data, which meant Lenddo had the potential to reach many customers who typically did not have such information available for potential lenders. ON also believed that access to the internet, social media, and smartphones would increase and that an early investment could produce greater returns than even some of the most optimistic projections, as access to the internet and social media extended beyond the aspiring middle class.
Second, it believed Lenddo had significant growth potential. Lenddo planned to use proceeds from this investment round to improve its loan underwriting algorithm and build credibility with lenders and customers alike. If successful, Lenddo could establish itself as a leading alternative to traditional loan underwriting, resulting in unprecedented access to credit for the emerging middle class, a segment forecasted to reach 1.2 billion people by 2030. Costa commented, “One of the most appealing aspects of investing in Lenddo was that they had the potential to fundamentally disrupt traditional loan underwriting.” Third, Lenddo’s model could be highly profitable at scale. An optimistic model forecasted Lenddo’s operating profit as having the potential to increase to more than $51 million by 2016. The ON team ran a number of sensitivities on management’s projections; even if the company were to achieve a fraction of the expected growth, and ON’s stake were diluted down to 4% due to future capital raises, the deal had the potential to produce an internal rate of return (IRR) of 44%. (See Exhibit 8 for Lenddo’s financial projections.)
However, the financial case rested on uncertain assumptions. Lenddo’s growth was constrained to the size of its loan book, as its profitability was driven primarily through underwriting loans. Even if Lenddo raised sufficient funding in its first round, it would need several additional rounds to prove out its algorithm and reach scale. Based on Lenddo’s burn rate, a $6 million equity raise would last only 16 to 18 months before additional external capital would be required. While Lenddo had started conversations with venture debt funders for access to credit to expand the loan portfolio, additional and costly equity would likely be required. The company’s aggressive growth strategy relied on the growth of mobile web and social media usage in emerging markets, as well as the ability to adhere to different country’s regulations. Anticipated growth in new markets relied upon a foundation that community bonds were the same online and offline; with just a year of data in a single market, the ON team was unsure of this assumption. Lenddo would need to build a straightforward user interface for new members across very diverse markets. Would user attitudes to data sharing and privacy be the same across markets? And could the management team handle the complexity of managing operations across multiple geographies, each with its own set of regulations?
The team was also concerned that, given Lenddo’s reliance on big data—still a nascent concept— investors and partners might be skeptical. Costa reflected further: “We did not know if big data would become mainstream. And even if it did, would Lenddo be able to convince lending organizations of an unconventional and somewhat unproven credit scoring approach?”
As importantly, the financial inclusion team was concerned with mission alignment. While its “reach” numbers were compelling, should ON invest in products for the aspiring middle class when so many others lacked basic financial services? After all, Lenddo operated in, and planned to expand to, markets with huge populations below the poverty line. While some growth projections included low-income customers, users needed digital data, which required ownership of or access to a computer,
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
12
smartphone, or other internet-enabled device. Costa explained some of their chief concerns as the financial inclusion team deliberated on Lenddo’s fit within ON’s impact investment strategy:
We looked at two levels when considering drawbacks with an investment in Lenddo. First, we were not sure if delivering credit to the emerging middle class aligned with ON’s vision of direct impact. Second, establishing credit scores via online data would only work if major creditors and banks bought in, which was not a given. If they did not, Lenddo would end up as a fringe idea that produced little of the promising financial return and impact.
The Decision
Costa and Bannick considered ON’s mission and strategy in light of the financial inclusion initiative: “[M]ake catalytic investments in organizations with potential for massive impact, in an efficient and scalable manner through innovation.” With limited capital, any investment needed to be in service of this newly defined mission. Moreover, their returns framework had been met with significant curiosity by the market, and other investors were waiting to see how it was applied in practice. ON was excited at the prospect of influencing the impact investing field away from the impact-versus-returns debate, but was also keenly aware that real-world complexities were hard to fit into its idealized framework. Costa and Bannick knew they would have to be able to explain their decisions not only to their internal investment team, but likely to the field. Should they make the investments, and if so, how should they be classified?
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
13
Exhibit 1 Impact Investing Definition
Source: JP Morgan Global Research Team, The Rockefeller Foundation, and Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class,” November 29, 2010, p. 7, https://thegiin.org/assets/documents/Impact%20Investments%20an%20Emerging%20Asset%20Class2.pdf, accessed August 2017.
Exhibit 2 ON Returns Continuum Framework
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
14
Exhibit 3 Omidyar Network Initiative Descriptions
Education ON made education investments in India, Africa, South America, and the U.S. The initiative focused its investments on three specific areas to address multifaceted issues: innovative K12 teaching and pedagogical models for both private and public schools; educational technology (ed-tech) for K12 schools; and online and offline skills-training programs directly associated with partnering employers. In the U.S., ON focused on investments that would impact child development before kindergarten (from birth to age five).
Emerging Technology The emerging technologies initiative focused on investing in entrepreneurs developing accessible mobile and online technologies, as well as policies aimed at increasing technology accessibility in emerging markets. Many of these investments focused on making an impact in emerging markets both in the U.S. and in the emerging markets.
Governance & Citizen Engagement Based on Omidyar’s foundational premise that everyone should have equal opportunity, this initiative invested in organizations and civic groups aimed at increasing opportunity and resource accessibility. Investments included organizations that tracked government programs or monitored budget expenditures to reduce corruption. Investments in this initiative were focused primarily in India, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, and the U.S.
Property Rights ON operated a property rights initiative on the principle that owning property catalyzed social identity, inclusion, economic stability, and environmental awareness. In turn, ON invested in research efforts aimed at improving property rights policies around the globe.
Financial Inclusion ON invested in businesses and technology intended to improve economic development. Under the premise that more than 2.5 billion people did not have access to financial services around the globe, and that such services enable financial stability, ON also invested in financial inclusion research and policy reform. This initiative aimed to work with financially underserved populations in both emerging markets and the U.S.
Source: Casewriter, adapted from the company website.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
15
Exhibit 4 ON Financial Inclusion Strategy, 2012
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
16
Exhibit 5 MicroEnsure Model for Delivering Insurance Products to the Mass Market
Source: MicroEnsure, “Our Model,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-model/, accessed June 2017.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
17
Exhibit 6 Financial Projections for MicroEnsure (2013–2017) in U.S. Dollars
Source: Company documents.
Note: All in USD except “Policies,” which indicated the total number of MicroEnsure policies. “Admin revenue” reflected revenue from insurance companies outsourcing their existing back-office operations to MicroEnsure. (Source: company documents.)
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
18
Exhibit 7 Lenddo: Target Market
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
19
Exhibit 8 Financial Projections for Lenddo in U.S. Dollars, 2012–2017
Management Upside Case Projections:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Core Revenue $745,146 $3,500,000 $10,800,000 $29,750,000 $67,500,000 $124,875,000
Cross Sell Revenue — 224,000 720,000 2,040,000 4,725,000 8,880,000
Operating Revenue 745,146 3,724,000 11,520,000 31,790,000 72,225,000 133,755,000
Salaries and Benefits 2,634,149 3,638,896 4,612,968 5,432,741 6,430,624 7,646,483
Technology Related Expenses 406,157 812,314 1,624,628 3,249,256 6,498,512 12,997,024
Marketing Expenses 885,528 1,328,291 1,992,437 2,988,655 4,482,983 6,724,474
Other Expenses 721,905 1,082,857 1,624,286 2,436,429 3,654,643 5,481,954
Total Costs 4,647,738 6,862,358 9,854,318 14,107,081 21,066,762 32,849,946 Net Income (3,902,592) (3,138,358) 1,665,682 17,682,919 51,158,238 100,905,054
ON Base Case Projections:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Core Revenue $735,000 $2,565,000 $6,325,000 $13,625,000 $27,580,000 $46,732,500
Cross Sell Revenue — 216,000 575,000 1,308,000 1,758,000 4,824,000
Operating Revenue 735,000 2,781,000 6,900,000 14,933,000 30,338,000 51,556,500
Salaries and Benefits 2,634,149 3,338,896 4,162,968 4,982,741 6,130,624 7,496,483
Technology Related Expenses 406,157 812,314 1,624,628 3,249,256 6,498,512 12,997,024
Marketing Expenses 885,528 1,328,291 1,992,437 2,988,655 4,482,983 6,724,474
Other Expenses 721,905 1,082,857 1,624,286 2,436,429 3,654,643 5,481,965
Total Costs 4,647,738 6,562,358 9,404,318 13,657,081 20,766,762 32,699,946 Net Income (3,912,738) (3,781,358) (2,504,318) 1,275,919 9,571,238 18,856,554
Source: Company documents.
Note: Some company numbers were masked for purposes of the case.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
20
Endnotes
1 Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investing,” https://thegiin.org/impact-investing/, accessed October 2017.
2 Global Impact Investing Network, “GIIN History,” https://thegiin.org/giin/history, accessed October 2017.
3 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” Harvard Business Review, September 1, 2011, https://hbr.org/2011/09/ebays-founder-on-innovating-the-business-model-of-social-change, accessed June 2017.
4 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” accessed June 2017.
5 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.”
6 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.”
7 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.”
8 Matt Bannick, Paula Goldman, Michael Kubsansky, and Yasemin Saltuk, “Across the Returns Continuum,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2017, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/across_the_returns_continuum, accessed June 2017.
9 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
10 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
11 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
12 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
13 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
14 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
15 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
16 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
17 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview,” http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/overview, accessed September 2017.
18 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.”
19 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.”
20 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.”
21 Mark R. Rosenzweig and Hans P. Binswanger, “Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments,” The Economic Journal 103, no. 416 (1993): 56-78.
22 Pascaline Dupas and Jonathan Robinson, “Savings Constraints and Microenterprise Development: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Kenya,” Applied Economics 5, no. 1 (2013), https://web.stanford.edu/~pdupas/SavingsConstraints.pdf, accessed March 2018.
23 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015,” https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf, accessed March 2018.
24 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015.”
25 “The closing of American bank branches,” The Economist, July 27, 2017, https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21725596-banks-have-shuttered-over-10000-financial-crisis-closing-american, accessed March 2018.
26 Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor,” Yale Journal on Regulation 21, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 121-237, via ProQuest, accessed March 2018.
27 Gosia Ginska, “Fighting Financial Exclusion: How To Serve 88 Million Americans Who Have No Bank,” Forbes, June 5, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/darden/2014/06/05/fighting-financial-exclusion-how-to-serve-88-million-americans-who- have-no-bank/#2addfee02a5c, accessed March 2018.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
21
28 Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor.”
29 Shawn Cole, “Financial Services for the World’s Poor,” HBS No. 213-107 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2013), pp. 3-6.
30 “Wireless Market Statistics 2015,” Global Reward Solutions, https://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp- content/uploads/GRS-Mobile-Top-up_Wireless-Market-Statistics-2015.pdf, accessed June 2017.
31 Arunjay Katakam and Alex Lazarow, “Mobile-led Insurance: Evolving Approaches in an Advancing Field,” Omidyar Network, December 20, 2015, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/mobile-led-insurance-evolving-approaches-advancing-field, accessed June 2017.
32 Omidyar Network, “Omidyar Network Grants $4.5 Million to Opportunity International to Scale Technology-based Microfinance Services in Africa,” February 23, 2009, https://www.omidyar.com/news/omidyar-network-grants-45-million- opportunity-international-scale-technology-based-microfinance, accessed June 2017.
33 MicroEnsure, “Our History,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-history/, accessed June 2017.
34 “Insurance in Developing Countries: Exploring Opportunities in Microinsurance,” Lloyd’s 360º Risk Insight, accessed August 2017.
35 Emanuel Were and Jevans Nyabiage, “How Equity Bank Lost yuMobile—and What it Means for Nakumatt,” Standard Digital, March 18, 2014, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2000107162/how-equity-bank-lost-yumobile- and-what-it-means-for-nakumatt, accessed January 2018.
36 Lenddo, “Our Products,” https://www.lenddo.com/products.html#creditscore, accessed June 2017.
37 Arjuna Costa, “Why We Invested: Lenddo,” Omidyar Network, October 10, 2016, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/why- we-invested-lenddo, accessed June 2017.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
- Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
- Impact Investing
- Omidyar Network
- Impact Investment Framework
- Category A: CommercialInvestments in this category were expected to achieve risk-adjusted financial returns, while having a strong positive impact. While Category A investments were not required to have evidence or likelihood of market-level impact, O…
- Category B: SubcommercialON accepted potential below-market financial returns in commercial entities in which it anticipated market-level impact. ON recognized that entrepreneurs in new markets, however promising, often had to overcome significant mar…
- Category C: GrantsAnytime it made a grant, ON required evidence of potential for significant market-level impact. While there was never an expectation of returned capital on grant funding, ON divided Category C grants into three subcategories (C1, C2,…
- Financial Inclusion
- ON’s Financial Inclusion Initiative
- MicroEnsure
- Investing in Insurance
- The Opportunity
- Lenddo
- The Investment Case
- Table 1Comparable Valuations
- The Decision
- Exhibit 1Impact Investing Definition
- Exhibit 2ON Returns Continuum Framework
- Exhibit 3Omidyar Network Initiative Descriptions
- EducationON made education investments in India, Africa, South America, and the U.S. The initiative focused its investments on three specific areas to address multifaceted issues: innovative K12 teaching and pedagogical models for both private and pub…
- Emerging TechnologyThe emerging technologies initiative focused on investing in entrepreneurs developing accessible mobile and online technologies, as well as policies aimed at increasing technology accessibility in emerging markets. Many of these inv…
- Governance & Citizen EngagementBased on Omidyar’s foundational premise that everyone should have equal opportunity, this initiative invested in organizations and civic groups aimed at increasing opportunity and resource accessibility. Investments incl…
- Property RightsON operated a property rights initiative on the principle that owning property catalyzed social identity, inclusion, economic stability, and environmental awareness. In turn, ON invested in research efforts aimed at improving property r…
- Financial InclusionON invested in businesses and technology intended to improve economic development. Under the premise that more than 2.5 billion people did not have access to financial services around the globe, and that such services enable financi…
- Exhibit 4ON Financial Inclusion Strategy, 2012
- Exhibit 5MicroEnsure Model for Delivering Insurance Products to the Mass Market
- Exhibit 6Financial Projections for MicroEnsure (2013–2017) in U.S. Dollars
- Exhibit 7Lenddo: Target Market
- Exhibit 8Financial Projections for Lenddo in U.S. Dollars, 2012–2017
- Management Upside Case Projections:
- ON Base Case Projections:
- Endnotes
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP 51 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.5 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo true /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 2.66667 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 2.66667 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 300 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description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> /CHS <FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e9ad88d2891cf76845370524d53705237300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5efa768400200050004400460020658768633002> /CHT <FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc9ad854c18cea76845370524d5370523786557406300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b555f5df25efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002> /CZE <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> /DAN <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> /DEU <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> /ESP <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> /ETI <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> /FRA <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> /GRE <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a stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN <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> /ITA <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> /JPN <FEFF9ad854c18cea306a30d730ea30d730ec30b951fa529b7528002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020658766f8306e4f5c6210306b4f7f75283057307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103055308c305f0020005000440046002030d530a130a430eb306f3001004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d3067958b304f30533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a306b306f30d530a930f330c8306e57cb30818fbc307f304c5fc59808306730593002> /KOR <FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020ace0d488c9c80020c2dcd5d80020c778c1c4c5d00020ac00c7a50020c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b807ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb2940020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c8b2e4002e> /LTH <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> /LVI <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> /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR <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> /POL <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> /PTB <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> /RUM <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> /RUS <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> /SKY <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> /SLV <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> /SUO <FEFF004b00e40079007400e40020006e00e40069007400e4002000610073006500740075006b007300690061002c0020006b0075006e0020006c0075006f00740020006c00e400680069006e006e00e4002000760061006100740069007600610061006e0020007000610069006e006100740075006b00730065006e002000760061006c006d0069007300740065006c00750074007900f6006800f6006e00200073006f00700069007600690061002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e007400740065006a0061002e0020004c0075006f0064007500740020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e00740069007400200076006f0069006400610061006e0020006100760061007400610020004100630072006f0062006100740069006c006c00610020006a0061002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0030003a006c006c00610020006a006100200075007500640065006d006d0069006c006c0061002e> /SVE <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> /TUR <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> /UKR <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> /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
Vikram S. Gandhi
Caitlin Lindsay Reimers Brumme
James Barnett
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
9-318-004
REV: February 13, 2020
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
Senior Lecturer Vikram S. Gandhi, Program Director Caitlin Lindsay Reimers Brumme (Impact Collaboratory), and Associate Case Researcher James Barnett (Case Research & Writing Group) prepared this case. It was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company. Certain details have been disguised. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.
Copyright © 2018, 2020 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
1
1
It was early March 2012 and Arjuna Costa (HBS 2001), Director at the impact investing firm Omidyar Network (ON) and lead investor for ON’s new financial inclusion initiative, had just left the company office in Redwood City, California. He and Matt Bannick (HBS 1993), ON’s Managing Partner and the Chair of the investment committee, had spent the day discussing how they would apply their newly adopted financial inclusion strategy and what investments would align with ON’s company mission: ON only made investments intended to create social impact around the world. Several months prior, ON had launched its financial inclusion initiative in order to better serve the more than 2.5 billion people worldwide who lacked access to basic financial services. Costa, who joined ON in 2010 to focus on investments primarily related to financial services, took the initial lead.
That day, Costa and Bannick had discussed investing in two different companies—MicroEnsure and Lenddo—both of which, despite intriguing characteristics, raised questions for the financial inclusion team. MicroEnsure, a nonprofit entity intended to deliver microinsurance to underserved populations in emerging markets, was requesting a bridge loan on commercial terms that would enable it to spin off from its parent nonprofit into a standalone commercial enterprise. While MicroEnsure’s product seemed aligned with ON’s financial inclusion strategy, the team wondered if its return and impact potential warranted risky interim funding and a long-term commitment on a for-profit basis.
At the same time, ON was considering an investment in Lenddo, a credit scoring and verification service that used online data to provide loan opportunities for those with limited or no credit history. While Costa and Bannick were excited by Lenddo’s innovative model for leveraging big data, they were concerned that traditional banks and lenders might not accept Lenddo’s unconventional credit scoring system. Furthermore, Lenddo largely targeted the aspiring middle class that had a social media presence in markets where much of the population was well below the poverty line.
Costa and Bannick used ON’s investment framework to evaluate MicroEnsure and Lenddo. The framework categorized investments by looking at both their financial and impact potential. Costa and Bannick had to decide: Should ON make an investment into one, or both, of these companies? What type of investment made the most sense given their impact and financial goals?
Impact Investing
The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defined impact investing as “investments made into companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.”[endnoteRef:1] Impact investing as an established field had only existed since the mid-2000s. The GIIN was launched at the annual Clinton Global Initiative conference in 2009.[endnoteRef:2] Although the GIIN and other organizations had begun to establish industry infrastructure, clear consensus on what constituted an impact investment and how to measure impact did not exist. Impact investment strategies included those seeking risk-adjusted returns (an investment return that considered the risk taken in the investment over time) and sub-market returns. (See Exhibit 1 for characteristics that define an impact investment business.) Impact investing was sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, social investing, or social impact investing. [1: Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investing,” https://thegiin.org/impact-investing/, accessed October 2017.] [2: Global Impact Investing Network, “GIIN History,” https://thegiin.org/giin/history, accessed October 2017.]
Omidyar Network
In 1995, before launching ON, Pierre Omidyar founded the online marketplace that would become eBay. Following the company’s initial public offering (IPO) in 1998, Omidyar became a billionaire, and shortly thereafter, he and his fiancée, Pam, agreed they would use their newfound fortune in an altruistic fashion.[endnoteRef:3] Omidyar moved out of his day-to-day role at eBay (he remained board chairman), and, in 2000, he and Pam founded the Omidyar Family Foundation (OFF). At first, the foundation ran as a nonprofit donating to charities in need of consistent financial support. However, within three years, Omidyar realized OFF could make a greater impact if it were run more like a business and less like a charity.[endnoteRef:4] His belief that philanthropy differs considerably from charity added to the underpinning for what came to be ON. In 2011, Omidyar explained: [3: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” Harvard Business Review, September 1, 2011, https://hbr.org/2011/09/ebays-founder-on-innovating-the-business-model-of-social-change, accessed June 2017.] [4: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” accessed June 2017.]
Most people don’t distinguish between charity and philanthropy, but to me there’s a significant difference. . . . Charity is inherently not self-sustaining, but there are problems in the world, such as natural disasters, that require charity. . . . Philanthropy is much more. Philanthropy is a desire to improve the state of humanity and the world. It requires thinking about the root causes of issues so that we can prevent tomorrow’s suffering. . . . In thinking about philanthropy, I began looking for ways to harness the incredible power of business in order to make the world better.[endnoteRef:5] [5: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.” ]
In 2004, the Omidyars decided to create an innovative hybrid structure that gave them more flexibility to achieve their philanthropic goals. They established ON as both a limited liability company (LLC) and a private foundation, with operations conducted from the limited liability company. This change enabled ON to fund potentially impactful organizations and causes beyond what fell under the traditional notion of being charitable as defined by the United States tax code. The ON LLC made for-profit investments, and the foundation provided grants. The 2004 establishment of ON helped pioneer the growing impact investment industry.
The transition from a traditional charity to ON’s for-profit/nonprofit blended structure proved difficult. ON struggled to match its culture with the new company vision. Philanthropies were generally risk averse, so the new personnel and previous OFF staff approached investments with different philosophies.[endnoteRef:6] In 2007, the Omidyars led a restructuring intended to shift the organization to run more like a business; Omidyar remarked that he wanted ON to operate similarly to a venture capital (VC) partnership model, with an egalitarian team of investors collaborating and willing, when necessary, to take risks on both nonprofit and for-profit investments.[endnoteRef:7] [6: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.” ] [7: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.” ]
As part of the restructuring, Matt Bannick came on as Managing Partner. Bannick knew Omidyar from his time at eBay, when he joined just after the IPO and went on to serve as President of eBay International. Bannick had also been President at PayPal for three years.
Over time, ON continued to adjust its strategy for advancing scalable change worldwide. The organization operated under a set of beliefs inspired by Omidyar: primarily that people were inherently good but often lacked access to opportunity. Moreover, businesses could be a catalyst for good, particularly when driving large-scale social change.
ON’s flexibility to invest in both for-profit and nonprofit entities, however, required a way for investment teams to rigorously evaluate investment opportunities with specific expectations for financial return.
Impact Investment Framework
To address this challenge, ON developed a proprietary framework to guide how it would make investments across a “returns continuum.” Bannick explained, “We believe that for investors seeking impact there is a broad range of investment profiles. Many impact investments can be fully commercial, as success scales both financial return and social impact in tandem, while others involve a trade-off between returns and impact.”
Omidyar and Bannick remained intentional about, if not wary of, potential investments that, while fitting with ON’s social mission, were likely to deliver below-market returns. Omidyar did not want social impact to cover up for underperformance. Perhaps more importantly, Omidyar saw the potential for subsidies to distort a market—and an investment with below risk-adjusted market rate returns had the potential to do exactly that.
As a result, ON determined it would accept below-market returns in certain circumstances, namely where an investment had the potential to not only deliver value to its customers (direct impact) but also accelerate the development of a new market paradigm to reach the underserved (market-level impact). According to ON, market-level impact could be achieved in three ways: first, an investment could pioneer a new service or model previously undeveloped in a given market; second, an investment could develop infrastructure that might catalyze future growth; or third, the investment influenced policy critical to a market’s development.[endnoteRef:8] [8: Matt Bannick, Paula Goldman, Michael Kubsansky, and Yasemin Saltuk, “Across the Returns Continuum,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2017, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/across_the_returns_continuum, accessed June 2017.]
ON’s investment framework integrated these concepts into all investment decisions. ON began by confirming the investment’s potential for direct impact and then assigned an investment to one of the categories on the continuum: commercial (A1, A2), subcommercial (B1, B2), or grant (C1, C2, C3). Investments that were not expected to generate commercial returns faced greater expectations for their market-level impact (see Exhibit 2 for ON’s breakdown of its investment framework).
Category A: CommercialInvestments in this category were expected to achieve risk-adjusted financial returns, while having a strong positive impact. While Category A investments were not required to have evidence or likelihood of market-level impact, ON sought to avoid investment in companies where the financial or business model put them at higher risk of “mission drift,”[endnoteRef:9] such as targeting more affluent customers.[endnoteRef:10] ON often sought to make Category A investments in companies where impact was implicit in the business model, and therefore impact could be achieved simply through growth in customers. ON invested in Category A companies due to their capacity to scale massively through retained earnings, in addition to their ability to raise substantial outside capital. ON believed that Category A investments that scaled were also likely to deliver market impact, as high levels of profitability would attract competitors, driving up quality and continuing the cycle of innovation. [9: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ] [10: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
Category A investments were subdivided into A1 investments and A2 investments. A1 investments involved commercial co-investors alongside ON.[endnoteRef:11] A1 investments generally occurred in established VC markets like the U.S., Europe, and India before being adapted into emerging markets upon productive returns.[endnoteRef:12] ON made A1 investments because it believed that it could bring value beyond financial capital, a fact recognized by entrepreneurs. [11: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ] [12: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
A2 investments were those for which ON expected commercial returns but commercial co-investors were absent. These investments tended to be in sectors or regions in which ON had relative expertise or familiarity and therefore presented a lower risk profile than a commercial investor might perceive.[endnoteRef:13] ON found A2 investments attractive because they were not likely to get funded without ON involvement, and they had the potential to generate both direct and market-level impact. These investments were often in regions outside the U.S. and in companies serving mass-market customers, which traditional investors might not see as viable. [13: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
Category B: SubcommercialON accepted potential below-market financial returns in commercial entities in which it anticipated market-level impact. ON recognized that entrepreneurs in new markets, however promising, often had to overcome significant market-level barriers before becoming viable commercial entities. Companies building market infrastructure or seeking to influence policy might never achieve commercial returns but were critical to market creation.
Category B investments were subdivided into B1 and B2 investments. ON anticipated positive absolute returns with B1 investments and capital preservation with B2 investments. B2 investments were distinguished from B1 in that their financial returns were harder to estimate, often because they existed in emerging markets that had previously received little to no private-sector investments.[endnoteRef:14] Few of ON’s investments fell within the B2 subcategory.[endnoteRef:15] [14: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ] [15: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
Category C: GrantsAnytime it made a grant, ON required evidence of potential for significant market-level impact. While there was never an expectation of returned capital on grant funding, ON divided Category C grants into three subcategories (C1, C2, and C3) reflecting the extent to which ON expected the respective nonprofits to eventually cover their own costs through operations. C1 grants went to organizations expected to earn revenue that would cover 80% to 100% of their costs over time; C2 grants went to organizations expected to cover 20% to 80% of their costs over time; C3 grants went to organizations expected to cover less than 20% of their costs over time, sometimes not covering any costs at all.[endnoteRef:16] [16: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
By 2012, the organization was starting to organize itself according to different impact priorities, which it called initiatives, each with its own specific mission, metrics, and team. Each initiative developed an impact portfolio that represented a different mix of Category A, B, and C investments. The portfolio reflected a number of factors, including the team’s strategy, the relative maturity of the sector and consequent need for catalytic capital, and the structure of the markets in which they operated. The five initiatives were: education, emerging technologies, financial inclusion, governance and citizen engagement, and property rights. (See Exhibit 3 for a description of each initiative.)
Financial Inclusion
Financial inclusion was the term used in the broader economic development ecosystem for making financial services available to all individuals and businesses; it represented the evolution of the economic development narrative beyond microfinance.[endnoteRef:17] The World Bank stated: “Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services to meet their needs—transactions, payments, savings, credit, and insurance—delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.”[endnoteRef:18] The World Bank estimated that more than 2 billion adults worldwide did not have access to a bank account.[endnoteRef:19] [17: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview,” http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/overview, accessed September 2017.] [18: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.” ] [19: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.” ]
Financial inclusion gained relevance as studies revealed negative correlations between poverty and access to formal financial services.[endnoteRef:20] Experts on the topic argued that those without access to formal financial services, also referred to as “unbanked populations,” reinforced poverty. Unbanked individuals generally used cash and had greater difficulties accessing loans. Formal financial services eased the ability to access loans and created a platform to build credit history. Academic research provided evidence that access to financial services improved the lives of those previously without such access. In one such study, poor farmers who were offered rainfall insurance began planting different crops that yielded profits up to 35% higher.[endnoteRef:21] Another study found that when offered banking services, entrepreneurs in Kenya saved more money and invested it back into their businesses.[endnoteRef:22] [20: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.” ] [21: Mark R. Rosenzweig and Hans P. Binswanger, “Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments,” The Economic Journal 103, no. 416 (1993): 56-78.] [22: Pascaline Dupas and Jonathan Robinson, “Savings Constraints and Microenterprise Development: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Kenya,” Applied Economics 5, no. 1 (2013), https://web.stanford.edu/~pdupas/SavingsConstraints.pdf, accessed March 2018.]
Financial exclusion was not limited to developing nations. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Federal Reserve, 46% of American adults would be unable to come up with $400 for an emergency expense, or would need to sell something or borrow funds to do so.[endnoteRef:23] The same report found 8% did not have a bank account.[endnoteRef:24] In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the number of bank branches serving low-income postal codes dropped by 10%, compared to a 3% decline for high-income communities.[endnoteRef:25] These same regions, sometimes called “banking deserts,” were often populated by companies operating in the alternative financial services industry—check cashers and payday lenders—which often charged high fees.[endnoteRef:26] “Those places are open during convenient hours. They are friendly and accessible. They are also deathly expensive and often result in a spiral of debt for their users,” noted one financial inclusion expert.[endnoteRef:27] Managing money outside the commercial bank system was costly for individuals and businesses. Unbanked and underbanked people paid high fees to cash paychecks and government benefit checks, and lacked a secure, reliable method for saving money.[endnoteRef:28] [23: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015,” https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf, accessed March 2018.] [24: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015.” ] [25: “The closing of American bank branches,” The Economist, July 27, 2017, https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21725596-banks-have-shuttered-over-10000-financial-crisis-closing-american, accessed March 2018.] [26: Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor,” Yale Journal on Regulation 21, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 121-237, via ProQuest, accessed March 2018.] [27: Gosia Ginska, “Fighting Financial Exclusion: How To Serve 88 Million Americans Who Have No Bank,” Forbes, June 5, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/darden/2014/06/05/fighting-financial-exclusion-how-to-serve-88-million-americans-who-have-no-bank/#2addfee02a5c, accessed March 2018.] [28: Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor.” ]
Traditionally, populations with limited or no access to financial services did not receive attention from banks due to assumptions of high customer acquisition costs, high lending costs, and low transaction values because of limited incomes. However, some argued that firms could in fact offer financial services to unbanked and underserved populations profitably. Doing so would require an understanding of customer needs, innovative product design that might differ from traditional financial services, and the ability to manage challenges and opportunities when introducing financial services to new populations (through engaging governments and other stakeholders).[endnoteRef:29] [29: Shawn Cole, “Financial Services for the World’s Poor,” HBS No. 213-107 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2013), pp. 3-6.]
ON’s Financial Inclusion Initiative
In 2011, ON expanded its microfinance investing into the financial inclusion initiative that Costa described as a natural evolution stemming from recent investments and developments in the field:
Initially, our financial inclusion investments were not categorized as a separate initiative. Many of our initial investments that fell under the financial inclusion umbrella stemmed from our work in the microfinance space. As a reaction to the evolution of microfinance and the landscape at large, we decided to create the initiative to better focus our investments and structure our investment strategy.
Each investment from the team had to align with the stated goal of the financial inclusion initiative: “To accelerate ubiquitous access to an affordable and complete suite of financial products and services by financially educated individuals from a commercially viable industry.” (See Exhibit 4 for ON’s financial inclusion approach.) Equally, Costa recognized the financial services industry had many unique attributes: it was heavily regulated in each local jurisdiction; it was dominated by incumbent banks with significant market power; and scale invariably required large amounts of capital best raised through the capital markets. Costa believed market-level impact could therefore come in two forms: (1) scaling a direct-to-consumer business, and/or (2) building new products and services for incumbent service providers, altering how they approached mass-market customers. The returns continuum framework would have to be thoughtfully applied in every investment decision that the financial inclusion team would make—with investments in both emerging and developed markets.
MicroEnsure
Founded in 2005 by Opportunity International, a faith-based charity aiming to end global poverty, MicroEnsure worked to provide affordable insurance products in developing markets. MicroEnsure operated as an insurance broker, meaning the majority of its products were offered on behalf of other insurers. MicroEnsure was responsible for intermediation between insurers and insurance customers, administration throughout the process, and claims management. Historically, MicroEnsure offered insurance products through partnerships with microfinance institutions; however, in Ghana, MicroEnsure had pioneered an innovative partnership model with mobile phone operators. Given the scale benefits, the company shifted to emphasize growth through this type of partnership. The company offered a range of insurance including credit, life, health, property, and weather.
Before MicroEnsure, the majority of companies that tried to offer insurance to low-income populations in developing markets failed, due to either high subsidy requirements or high churn rates. However, MicroEnsure’s unique partnership approach with mobile carriers had significant promise. The vast majority of cell phones in developing markets were prepaid.[endnoteRef:30] Capitalizing on this, MicroEnsure and its partner mobile carrier offered subscribers free insurance products as an add-on if they spent a pre-specified amount on airtime each month. Each subsequent month, customers had to spend the same or greater amount on airtime to keep the insurance coverage. This created an embedded loyalty program for the mobile operator’s services and also provided the insurance providers a low-cost sales method to reach previously inaccessible markets. Moreover, customers submitted claims via text messages, which also reduced claims-management costs and settlement time. After spending time using the free add-on service, many customers saw the benefits of insurance and paid for upgraded plans with more expansive coverage options.[endnoteRef:31] [30: “Wireless Market Statistics 2015,” Global Reward Solutions, https://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/GRS-Mobile-Top-up_Wireless-Market-Statistics-2015.pdf, accessed June 2017.] [31: Arunjay Katakam and Alex Lazarow, “Mobile-led Insurance: Evolving Approaches in an Advancing Field,” Omidyar Network, December 20, 2015, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/mobile-led-insurance-evolving-approaches-advancing-field, accessed June 2017.]
MicroEnsure had the potential to have a meaningful impact on its customers and the market. Its insurance products sought to help minimize the financial distress of unexpected life events for low-income families, often the hard-to-reach “last mile” customers. As a true pioneer, MicroEnsure had the potential to demonstrate to the insurance ecosystem that a company could profitably serve mass-market and low-income consumers in the emerging markets. Moreover, MicroEnsure was committed to developing and selling products beyond the typical “credit life”[footnoteRef:1] product to the mass market. If successful, MicroEnsure would generate both direct and market-level impact. [1: Credit life insurance was a product covering the outstanding principal and interest of a loan upon death of a borrower.]
Most of MicroEnsure’s revenues came from a small commission earned on a per-policy basis when providing sales and front-office support for the insurance provider. However, MicroEnsure also had some revenues related to its back-office support. Per policy, earned monthly commissions averaged $0.02 per month. While commissions through partnerships with mobile carrier partners were low, they resulted in significantly more scale. (See Exhibit 5 for MicroEnsure’s business model.) MicroEnsure’s business model thus required scale to be a compelling financial investment.
The company projected it would sell 27.1 million policies by 2016, of which 19 million would come from mobile carrier partnerships. Major costs included staff on the ground and in the central office. (See Exhibit 6 for financial projections for MicroEnsure.)
Investing in Insurance
In 2009, ON had made a $4.5 million grant to MicroEnsure’s parent organization, Opportunity International, to fund electronic and mobile banking technology in Africa.[endnoteRef:32] Upon joining ON, Costa had been tasked with managing this grant. While Costa ultimately decided not to renew the grant, he remained interested in MicroEnsure and continued to communicate with the CEO, Richard Leftley. [32: Omidyar Network, “Omidyar Network Grants $4.5 Million to Opportunity International to Scale Technology-based Microfinance Services in Africa,” February 23, 2009, https://www.omidyar.com/news/omidyar-network-grants-45-million-opportunity-international-scale-technology-based-microfinance, accessed June 2017.]
MicroEnsure’s primary funding had been in the form of grants from Opportunity International and a multiyear $24.2 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates) in 2007.[endnoteRef:33] By 2011, MicroEnsure’s funding was under pressure. Opportunity International faced competing demands on funding, and the Gates grant had been not been renewed due to a shift in focus at both Gates and MicroEnsure in terms of product and geography. [33: MicroEnsure, “Our History,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-history/, accessed June 2017.]
At the same time, Costa believed MicroEnsure was showing signs of commercial promise. Costa remarked on the situation: “When I looked at Opportunity International’s portfolio, I found that MicroEnsure could be an intriguing potential addition to our growing financial inclusion portfolio. However, because the Gates Foundation was not going to renew their grant, and the partnership with mobile operators showed commercial promise, I thought this represented a unique opportunity to try and create a standalone commercial entity.”
In May 2011, Telenor, a multinational telecommunications company interested in expanding into microinsurance, approached MicroEnsure about an acquisition. Leftley was concerned about making such a significant decision with an untested partner and instead opted to form an Asia-focused joint venture (JV). When finalized, this JV would give MicroEnsure access to approximately 130 million potential customers.
These factors encouraged Leftley to focus on spinning out MicroEnsure as a for-profit entity and raising external capital to fund growth. The company had received a term sheet from one other investment fund, but that deal would be complex and remove management from any ownership position. MicroEnsure’s leadership was not convinced this was the right partner to help navigate the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. Therefore, MicroEnsure continued discussions with Telenor and several other commercial investors to seek funding as it pursued independent growth.
In November 2011, Leftley approached Costa to see if ON would provide a short-term $1 million bridge loan that would convert into equity when the company raised its priced Series A. The company would run out of cash in the summer of 2012, so a decision would need to be made quickly. Based on valuation negotiations at the time, ON had an opportunity to secure a 20% ownership stake in the company upon conversion of the $1 million note and a further infusion of $250,000 in MicroEnsure’s A round. Costa felt that the valuation seemed reasonable. While MicroEnsure had been in operation since 2005, in many ways, the new commercial business model was unproven. Additionally, there were no comparables to look at, as there were no precedents for a spinoff from a nonprofit.
The Opportunity
Costa and Bannick believed MicroEnsure offered a promising alternative insurance model with a large potential market. In addition to the potential for massive customer scale, the partnership delivery model offered the opportunity for a viable and compelling future business model, one that could spur the microinsurance industry and solidify a symbiosis between financial inclusion and mobile businesses. Along the key dimensions of reach, engagement, and influence, MicroEnsure’s business model and market potential were exciting.
The partnership model also underpinned the financial case. In 2012, MicroEnsure served 4 million people, which Costa estimated represented only 2% to 3% of its market potential. Total potential premium volume was upwards of $40 billion.[endnoteRef:34] If able to execute, MicroEnsure might be uniquely positioned to capitalize on the $40 billion market potential due to its innovative partnership model. [34: “Insurance in Developing Countries: Exploring Opportunities in Microinsurance,” Lloyd’s 360º Risk Insight, accessed August 2017.]
MicroEnsure’s experience with one of the leading telecom operators in Ghana showed it had a compelling value proposition: the partnership had reduced churn and increased average revenue per user (ARPU) for the partner. (MicroEnsure had begun negotiating its JV with Telenor.) If MicroEnsure were successful, the insurance product would be able to reduce churn and increase ARPU by 5%, and the incremental revenues could be significant.
Moreover, financial services companies sometimes sold at multiples of up to 6x EBITDA. If MicroEnsure was able to grow the Telenor JV over the next five years and, assuming no dilution ( implying that ON would need to invest additional capital) and an exit multiple at peak trading multiples of 6x EBITDA, an investment could deliver up to a 15% internal rate of return. (See Exhibit 6 for company financials.)
Additionally, ON was uniquely positioned to be a strategic long-term partner to MicroEnsure as it navigated the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. In addition to funding, ON offered executive coaching and talent development resources, both of which Costa anticipated would be invaluable should ON invest. Given ON’s own impact thesis, Costa envisioned it could act as an ally to MicroEnsure management in its effort to balance mission, profitability, and growth.
However, Costa and Bannick knew there were significant risks that threatened both the financial and impact thesis. First, the financial case had several optimistic assumptions. The financial projections were premised on a successful Telenor partnership. While conversations to date had been productive, there was always risk in a concentrated partner relationship. Would such a tight relationship with a single operator dissuade other operators from working with MicroEnsure, constraining growth? Moreover, the return projections assumed ON would be able to maintain a 20% ownership stake. ON’s experience was that this type of investment would likely require several more equity rounds, which could dilute its ownership stake over time. This would certainly be the case if the Telenor relationship turned out not to be as profitable as anticipated. In addition, ON would have to make decisions in the future as to what degree it would continue to support the company with additional investments. Under some scenarios, its ownership could drop to below 5%. Moreover, a five-year timeline to exit could be ambitious in a market with shallow private capital reserves.
Second, ON had not yet invested in a microinsurance company, and an investment in MicroEnsure would represent a markedly different approach from its experience with microcredit institutions. Previous investors in microinsurance usually took established insurance providers down market. The impact and return potential depended on MicroEnsure’s ability to build profitable, long-term relationships with incumbent telecom operators—a notoriously challenging group. If MicroEnsure was unable to continue forging new partnerships with mobile carriers and maintain some pricing power, both growth and profitability would be significantly threatened. While mobile operators had a history of building successful partnerships with value-added services (VAS) providers around products like ringtones and games, partnerships around financial services had been much more challenging, as evidenced by the termination of the M-Kesho product (a suite of financial products) jointly offered by the mobile payment company M-Pesa and Equity Bank.[endnoteRef:35] [35: Emanuel Were and Jevans Nyabiage, “How Equity Bank Lost yuMobile—and What it Means for Nakumatt,” Standard Digital, March 18, 2014, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2000107162/how-equity-bank-lost-yumobile-and-what-it-means-for-nakumatt, accessed January 2018.]
Moreover, there remained customer adoption risk. While MicroEnsure sought to address a significant unmet need—insurance for a market that ON believed to be more than 1.5 billion people—customer acceptance and uptake of new products was notoriously difficult in Africa and Asia, particularly for more complex products. MicroEnsure would need to execute on its ambitious sales and distribution model, while also improving its technology, in order to tap into the market.
Finally, this would be the first time ON would be financing a company as it transitioned from nonprofit to for-profit. The transition, and subsequent introduction of corporate partners and for-profit investors, would bring new and unforeseen pressures and challenges. Did MicroEnsure have the right leadership and talent in place to navigate the startup and venture world? Would the organization make the cultural transitions successfully? Would it be able to execute well under the time-bound pressures of demanding new investors?
ON considered that a $1 million bridge loan convertible into equity would allow it to earn a financial return if the business was profitable and would likely lead ON to take a more proactive role in MicroEnsure’s future direction, including an assumed board seat. While the MicroEnsure management team had presented projections that would make MicroEnsure a Category A2 investment, there were significant risks that threatened commercial returns. The investment terms came with requirements for additional capital in later funding rounds ($250,000 immediately and potentially up to several million dollars in subsequent rounds)—a significant commitment given that MicroEnsure was still at such an early stage. If financial risks were too high, was the potential market-level impact compelling enough to warrant the risk of a Category B investment? Would MicroEnsure eventually attract commercial capital and influence the incumbent insurance companies to consider the mass market as an attractive segment? Costa considered whether perhaps a grant would be a more prudent form of capital to test the viability of this new market and ensure that the company would continue to innovate without being concerned about near-term profitability. Or should Costa convince his partners and the investment committee that the sector-creation potential was worth a for-profit ON investment, with all the commitments that entailed?
Lenddo
Lenddo was founded in 2011 as an online credit scoring and verification service. The software-as-a-service (SaaS) was first offered in the Philippines, using an algorithm that drew upon opt-in, permissioned, online user data to determine a customer’s identity, character, and capacity to repay. Unlike traditional credit scores, which typically used credit and financial history, Lenddo drew upon customers’ digital data and network in order to determine a “LenddoScore.”[endnoteRef:36] Customers gained access to Lenddo’s credit scoring services after opting to allow the use of their data during a credit application. In doing so, Lenddo assured customers that it would not share their data. Lenddo had made the strategic decision to fund all loans (ranging from $300 to $1,000 per individual) independently at first, arguing this would allow it to more quickly build its technology and algorithms as well as license services to other lenders. [36: Lenddo, “Our Products,” https://www.lenddo.com/products.html#creditscore, accessed June 2017.]
The company started with a belief that when assessing credit risk, personal character was as important as past financial history—and that online data taken from sources such as social media provided a modern, data-driven opportunity to leverage that belief.[endnoteRef:37] Because the LenddoScore system could potentially enable consumers without traditional credit histories to get credit, it opened up potential opportunity for new customers in emerging markets, as many individuals in low- to middle-income communities had limited or no prior credit and had difficulty applying for a loan or credit card through traditional channels. However, these same customers, referred to as the aspiring middle class, increasingly had access to the internet, mobile phones, and social media platforms. Lenddo’s initial customer base was young Filipino professionals. (See Exhibit 7 for Lenddo’s target customer market.) Before Lenddo, this target customer base had to work with payday lenders and pawnshops to access capital. Traditional banks typically did not provide loans to the aspiring middle class, and emerging microfinance organizations typically targeted low-income individuals. [37: Arjuna Costa, “Why We Invested: Lenddo,” Omidyar Network, October 10, 2016, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/why-we-invested-lenddo, accessed June 2017.]
From its launch in February 2011 through December of that year, Lenddo had 25,000 members throughout the Philippines and extended approximately 550 loans. In order to qualify for a loan, each potential borrower had to have at least three members in their network, including one work colleague, one friend, and one family member. These individuals had to sign up to be a Lenddo member, affirmatively opting into the Lenddo network. Any repayment failure had an impact on both the borrower’s and this trusted network’s scores. The average loan was around $400, with maturities ranging from 6 to 12 months. Every loan carried a 2% flat monthly interest rate (a 42% APR), less than half the typical rates being charged in the Philippines at that time. To that point, default rates, defined as outstanding loans 30 days past due, were below 2%. In sum, Lenddo earned roughly $24 for every $100 loaned. By the end of 2012, Lenddo expected to extend about $2.1 million in loans, which would require $1.4 million in funding, accounting for interest repayments.
The Investment Case
Lenddo sought to secure $6 million in its first round of funding by the end of March 2012. Costa and Bannick considered a $1 million investment with a 5% ownership stake, assuming a $14 million pre-money valuation. The sector had already seen a few high-profile raises, with valuations above what was being proposed by the lead investor in the round. However, these “comparable deals” had been in U.S. or European markets, where the financial services infrastructure was well developed. There were no comparable companies that had surmounted the challenges of expanding across multiple emerging markets with an untested client segment. On the other hand, the competition for such customers was lower, and the potential of the aspiring middle class in the emerging markets was attractive to a number of potential investors, as it provided uncorrelated risk and growth opportunities.
Table 1Comparable Valuations
Source: Company documents.
The company projected a high financial return potential through its strategy targeting emerging-market, middle-class consumers. While the investment was still in a very early stage, Lenddo’s cofounders had past experience as entrepreneurs, particularly in building companies reliant on big data and in the context of emerging markets.
Costa and Bannick believed there were many compelling elements to the model. First, Lenddo’s credit risk assessment model did not rely on past financial data, which meant Lenddo had the potential to reach many customers who typically did not have such information available for potential lenders. ON also believed that access to the internet, social media, and smartphones would increase and that an early investment could produce greater returns than even some of the most optimistic projections, as access to the internet and social media extended beyond the aspiring middle class.
Second, it believed Lenddo had significant growth potential. Lenddo planned to use proceeds from this investment round to improve its loan underwriting algorithm and build credibility with lenders and customers alike. If successful, Lenddo could establish itself as a leading alternative to traditional loan underwriting, resulting in unprecedented access to credit for the emerging middle class, a segment forecasted to reach 1.2 billion people by 2030. Costa commented, “One of the most appealing aspects of investing in Lenddo was that they had the potential to fundamentally disrupt traditional loan underwriting.” Third, Lenddo’s model could be highly profitable at scale. An optimistic model forecasted Lenddo’s operating profit as having the potential to increase to more than $51 million by 2016. The ON team ran a number of sensitivities on management’s projections; even if the company were to achieve a fraction of the expected growth, and ON’s stake were diluted down to 4% due to future capital raises, the deal had the potential to produce an internal rate of return (IRR) of 44%. (See Exhibit 8 for Lenddo’s financial projections.)
However, the financial case rested on uncertain assumptions. Lenddo’s growth was constrained to the size of its loan book, as its profitability was driven primarily through underwriting loans. Even if Lenddo raised sufficient funding in its first round, it would need several additional rounds to prove out its algorithm and reach scale. Based on Lenddo’s burn rate, a $6 million equity raise would last only 16 to 18 months before additional external capital would be required. While Lenddo had started conversations with venture debt funders for access to credit to expand the loan portfolio, additional and costly equity would likely be required. The company’s aggressive growth strategy relied on the growth of mobile web and social media usage in emerging markets, as well as the ability to adhere to different country’s regulations. Anticipated growth in new markets relied upon a foundation that community bonds were the same online and offline; with just a year of data in a single market, the ON team was unsure of this assumption. Lenddo would need to build a straightforward user interface for new members across very diverse markets. Would user attitudes to data sharing and privacy be the same across markets? And could the management team handle the complexity of managing operations across multiple geographies, each with its own set of regulations?
The team was also concerned that, given Lenddo’s reliance on big data—still a nascent concept—investors and partners might be skeptical. Costa reflected further: “We did not know if big data would become mainstream. And even if it did, would Lenddo be able to convince lending organizations of an unconventional and somewhat unproven credit scoring approach?”
As importantly, the financial inclusion team was concerned with mission alignment. While its “reach” numbers were compelling, should ON invest in products for the aspiring middle class when so many others lacked basic financial services? After all, Lenddo operated in, and planned to expand to, markets with huge populations below the poverty line. While some growth projections included low-income customers, users needed digital data, which required ownership of or access to a computer, smartphone, or other internet-enabled device. Costa explained some of their chief concerns as the financial inclusion team deliberated on Lenddo’s fit within ON’s impact investment strategy:
We looked at two levels when considering drawbacks with an investment in Lenddo. First, we were not sure if delivering credit to the emerging middle class aligned with ON’s vision of direct impact. Second, establishing credit scores via online data would only work if major creditors and banks bought in, which was not a given. If they did not, Lenddo would end up as a fringe idea that produced little of the promising financial return and impact.
The Decision
Costa and Bannick considered ON’s mission and strategy in light of the financial inclusion initiative: “[M]ake catalytic investments in organizations with potential for massive impact, in an efficient and scalable manner through innovation.” With limited capital, any investment needed to be in service of this newly defined mission. Moreover, their returns framework had been met with significant curiosity by the market, and other investors were waiting to see how it was applied in practice. ON was excited at the prospect of influencing the impact investing field away from the impact-versus-returns debate, but was also keenly aware that real-world complexities were hard to fit into its idealized framework. Costa and Bannick knew they would have to be able to explain their decisions not only to their internal investment team, but likely to the field. Should they make the investments, and if so, how should they be classified?
Exhibit 1Impact Investing Definition
Source: JP Morgan Global Research Team, The Rockefeller Foundation, and Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class,” November 29, 2010, p. 7, https://thegiin.org/assets/documents/Impact%20Investments%20an%20Emerging%20Asset%20Class2.pdf, accessed August 2017.
Exhibit 2ON Returns Continuum Framework
Source: Company documents.
Exhibit 3Omidyar Network Initiative Descriptions
EducationON made education investments in India, Africa, South America, and the U.S. The initiative focused its investments on three specific areas to address multifaceted issues: innovative K12 teaching and pedagogical models for both private and public schools; educational technology (ed-tech) for K12 schools; and online and offline skills-training programs directly associated with partnering employers. In the U.S., ON focused on investments that would impact child development before kindergarten (from birth to age five).
Emerging TechnologyThe emerging technologies initiative focused on investing in entrepreneurs developing accessible mobile and online technologies, as well as policies aimed at increasing technology accessibility in emerging markets. Many of these investments focused on making an impact in emerging markets both in the U.S. and in the emerging markets.
Governance & Citizen EngagementBased on Omidyar’s foundational premise that everyone should have equal opportunity, this initiative invested in organizations and civic groups aimed at increasing opportunity and resource accessibility. Investments included organizations that tracked government programs or monitored budget expenditures to reduce corruption. Investments in this initiative were focused primarily in India, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, and the U.S.
Property RightsON operated a property rights initiative on the principle that owning property catalyzed social identity, inclusion, economic stability, and environmental awareness. In turn, ON invested in research efforts aimed at improving property rights policies around the globe.
Financial InclusionON invested in businesses and technology intended to improve economic development. Under the premise that more than 2.5 billion people did not have access to financial services around the globe, and that such services enable financial stability, ON also invested in financial inclusion research and policy reform. This initiative aimed to work with financially underserved populations in both emerging markets and the U.S.
Source: Casewriter, adapted from the company website.
Exhibit 4ON Financial Inclusion Strategy, 2012
Source: Company documents.
Exhibit 5MicroEnsure Model for Delivering Insurance Products to the Mass Market
Source: MicroEnsure, “Our Model,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-model/https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-model/, accessed June 2017.
Exhibit 6Financial Projections for MicroEnsure (2013–2017) in U.S. Dollars
Source: Company documents.
Note: All in USD except “Policies,” which indicated the total number of MicroEnsure policies. “Admin revenue” reflected revenue from insurance companies outsourcing their existing back-office operations to MicroEnsure. (Source: company documents.)
Exhibit 7Lenddo: Target Market
Source: Company documents.
Exhibit 8Financial Projections for Lenddo in U.S. Dollars, 2012–2017
Management Upside Case Projections:
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Core Revenue |
$745,146 |
$3,500,000 |
$10,800,000 |
$29,750,000 |
$67,500,000 |
$124,875,000 |
Cross Sell Revenue |
— |
224,000 |
720,000 |
2,040,000 |
4,725,000 |
8,880,000 |
Operating Revenue |
745,146 |
3,724,000 |
11,520,000 |
31,790,000 |
72,225,000 |
133,755,000 |
Salaries and Benefits |
2,634,149 |
3,638,896 |
4,612,968 |
5,432,741 |
6,430,624 |
7,646,483 |
Technology Related Expenses |
406,157 |
812,314 |
1,624,628 |
3,249,256 |
6,498,512 |
12,997,024 |
Marketing Expenses |
885,528 |
1,328,291 |
1,992,437 |
2,988,655 |
4,482,983 |
6,724,474 |
Other Expenses |
721,905 |
1,082,857 |
1,624,286 |
2,436,429 |
3,654,643 |
5,481,954 |
Total Costs |
4,647,738 |
6,862,358 |
9,854,318 |
14,107,081 |
21,066,762 |
32,849,946 |
Net Income |
(3,902,592) |
(3,138,358) |
1,665,682 |
17,682,919 |
51,158,238 |
100,905,054 |
ON Base Case Projections:
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Core Revenue |
$735,000 |
$2,565,000 |
$6,325,000 |
$13,625,000 |
$27,580,000 |
$46,732,500 |
Cross Sell Revenue |
— |
216,000 |
575,000 |
1,308,000 |
1,758,000 |
4,824,000 |
Operating Revenue |
735,000 |
2,781,000 |
6,900,000 |
14,933,000 |
30,338,000 |
51,556,500 |
Salaries and Benefits |
2,634,149 |
3,338,896 |
4,162,968 |
4,982,741 |
6,130,624 |
7,496,483 |
Technology Related Expenses |
406,157 |
812,314 |
1,624,628 |
3,249,256 |
6,498,512 |
12,997,024 |
Marketing Expenses |
885,528 |
1,328,291 |
1,992,437 |
2,988,655 |
4,482,983 |
6,724,474 |
Other Expenses |
721,905 |
1,082,857 |
1,624,286 |
2,436,429 |
3,654,643 |
5,481,965 |
Total Costs |
4,647,738 |
6,562,358 |
9,404,318 |
13,657,081 |
20,766,762 |
32,699,946 |
Net Income |
(3,912,738) |
(3,781,358) |
(2,504,318) |
1,275,919 |
9,571,238 |
18,856,554 |
Source: Company documents.
Note: Some company numbers were masked for purposes of the case.
Endnotes
6
21
image2.png
image3.jpeg
image4.png
image5.png
image6.png
image7.jpeg
image8.png
image9.png
image1.png
,
9-318-004
R E V : F E B R U A R Y 1 3 , 2 0 2 0
Senior Lecturer Vikram S. Gandhi, Program Director Caitlin Lindsay Reimers Brumme (Impact Collaboratory), and Associate Case Researcher James Barnett (Case Research & Writing Group) prepared this case. It was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company. Certain details have been disguised. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management. Copyright © 2018, 2020 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545- 7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
V I K R A M S . G A N D H I
C A I T L I N L I N D S A Y R E I M E R S B R U M M E
J A M E S B A R N E T T
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
It was early March 2012 and Arjuna Costa (HBS 2001), Director at the impact investing firm Omidyar Network (ON) and lead investor for ON’s new financial inclusion initiative, had just left the company office in Redwood City, California. He and Matt Bannick (HBS 1993), ON’s Managing Partner and the Chair of the investment committee, had spent the day discussing how they would apply their newly adopted financial inclusion strategy and what investments would align with ON’s company mission: ON only made investments intended to create social impact around the world. Several months prior, ON had launched its financial inclusion initiative in order to better serve the more than 2.5 billion people worldwide who lacked access to basic financial services. Costa, who joined ON in 2010 to focus on investments primarily related to financial services, took the initial lead.
That day, Costa and Bannick had discussed investing in two different companies—MicroEnsure and Lenddo—both of which, despite intriguing characteristics, raised questions for the financial inclusion team. MicroEnsure, a nonprofit entity intended to deliver microinsurance to underserved populations in emerging markets, was requesting a bridge loan on commercial terms that would enable it to spin off from its parent nonprofit into a standalone commercial enterprise. While MicroEnsure’s product seemed aligned with ON’s financial inclusion strategy, the team wondered if its return and impact potential warranted risky interim funding and a long-term commitment on a for-profit basis.
At the same time, ON was considering an investment in Lenddo, a credit scoring and verification service that used online data to provide loan opportunities for those with limited or no credit history. While Costa and Bannick were excited by Lenddo’s innovative model for leveraging big data, they were concerned that traditional banks and lenders might not accept Lenddo’s unconventional credit scoring system. Furthermore, Lenddo largely targeted the aspiring middle class that had a social media presence in markets where much of the population was well below the poverty line.
Costa and Bannick used ON’s investment framework to evaluate MicroEnsure and Lenddo. The framework categorized investments by looking at both their financial and impact potential. Costa and Bannick had to decide: Should ON make an investment into one, or both, of these companies? What type of investment made the most sense given their impact and financial goals?
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
2
Impact Investing The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defined impact investing as “investments made into
companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.”1 Impact investing as an established field had only existed since the mid- 2000s. The GIIN was launched at the annual Clinton Global Initiative conference in 2009.2 Although the GIIN and other organizations had begun to establish industry infrastructure, clear consensus on what constituted an impact investment and how to measure impact did not exist. Impact investment strategies included those seeking risk-adjusted returns (an investment return that considered the risk taken in the investment over time) and sub-market returns. (See Exhibit 1 for characteristics that define an impact investment business.) Impact investing was sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, social investing, or social impact investing.
Omidyar Network In 1995, before launching ON, Pierre Omidyar founded the online marketplace that would become
eBay. Following the company’s initial public offering (IPO) in 1998, Omidyar became a billionaire, and shortly thereafter, he and his fiancée, Pam, agreed they would use their newfound fortune in an altruistic fashion.3 Omidyar moved out of his day-to-day role at eBay (he remained board chairman), and, in 2000, he and Pam founded the Omidyar Family Foundation (OFF). At first, the foundation ran as a nonprofit donating to charities in need of consistent financial support. However, within three years, Omidyar realized OFF could make a greater impact if it were run more like a business and less like a charity.4 His belief that philanthropy differs considerably from charity added to the underpinning for what came to be ON. In 2011, Omidyar explained:
Most people don’t distinguish between charity and philanthropy, but to me there’s a significant difference. . . . Charity is inherently not self-sustaining, but there are problems in the world, such as natural disasters, that require charity. . . . Philanthropy is much more. Philanthropy is a desire to improve the state of humanity and the world. It requires thinking about the root causes of issues so that we can prevent tomorrow’s suffering. . . . In thinking about philanthropy, I began looking for ways to harness the incredible power of business in order to make the world better.5
In 2004, the Omidyars decided to create an innovative hybrid structure that gave them more flexibility to achieve their philanthropic goals. They established ON as both a limited liability company (LLC) and a private foundation, with operations conducted from the limited liability company. This change enabled ON to fund potentially impactful organizations and causes beyond what fell under the traditional notion of being charitable as defined by the United States tax code. The ON LLC made for- profit investments, and the foundation provided grants. The 2004 establishment of ON helped pioneer the growing impact investment industry.
The transition from a traditional charity to ON’s for-profit/nonprofit blended structure proved difficult. ON struggled to match its culture with the new company vision. Philanthropies were generally risk averse, so the new personnel and previous OFF staff approached investments with different philosophies.6 In 2007, the Omidyars led a restructuring intended to shift the organization to run more like a business; Omidyar remarked that he wanted ON to operate similarly to a venture capital (VC) partnership model, with an egalitarian team of investors collaborating and willing, when necessary, to take risks on both nonprofit and for-profit investments.7
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
3
As part of the restructuring, Matt Bannick came on as Managing Partner. Bannick knew Omidyar from his time at eBay, when he joined just after the IPO and went on to serve as President of eBay International. Bannick had also been President at PayPal for three years.
Over time, ON continued to adjust its strategy for advancing scalable change worldwide. The organization operated under a set of beliefs inspired by Omidyar: primarily that people were inherently good but often lacked access to opportunity. Moreover, businesses could be a catalyst for good, particularly when driving large-scale social change.
ON’s flexibility to invest in both for-profit and nonprofit entities, however, required a way for investment teams to rigorously evaluate investment opportunities with specific expectations for financial return.
Impact Investment Framework
To address this challenge, ON developed a proprietary framework to guide how it would make investments across a “returns continuum.” Bannick explained, “We believe that for investors seeking impact there is a broad range of investment profiles. Many impact investments can be fully commercial, as success scales both financial return and social impact in tandem, while others involve a trade-off between returns and impact.”
Omidyar and Bannick remained intentional about, if not wary of, potential investments that, while fitting with ON’s social mission, were likely to deliver below-market returns. Omidyar did not want social impact to cover up for underperformance. Perhaps more importantly, Omidyar saw the potential for subsidies to distort a market—and an investment with below risk-adjusted market rate returns had the potential to do exactly that.
As a result, ON determined it would accept below-market returns in certain circumstances, namely where an investment had the potential to not only deliver value to its customers (direct impact) but also accelerate the development of a new market paradigm to reach the underserved (market-level impact). According to ON, market-level impact could be achieved in three ways: first, an investment could pioneer a new service or model previously undeveloped in a given market; second, an investment could develop infrastructure that might catalyze future growth; or third, the investment influenced policy critical to a market’s development.8
ON’s investment framework integrated these concepts into all investment decisions. ON began by confirming the investment’s potential for direct impact and then assigned an investment to one of the categories on the continuum: commercial (A1, A2), subcommercial (B1, B2), or grant (C1, C2, C3). Investments that were not expected to generate commercial returns faced greater expectations for their market-level impact (see Exhibit 2 for ON’s breakdown of its investment framework).
Category A: Commercial Investments in this category were expected to achieve risk-adjusted financial returns, while having a strong positive impact. While Category A investments were not required to have evidence or likelihood of market-level impact, ON sought to avoid investment in companies where the financial or business model put them at higher risk of “mission drift,”9 such as targeting more affluent customers.10 ON often sought to make Category A investments in companies where impact was implicit in the business model, and therefore impact could be achieved simply through growth in customers. ON invested in Category A companies due to their capacity to scale massively through retained earnings, in addition to their ability to raise substantial outside capital. ON believed that Category A investments that scaled were also likely to deliver market impact, as high
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
4
levels of profitability would attract competitors, driving up quality and continuing the cycle of innovation.
Category A investments were subdivided into A1 investments and A2 investments. A1 investments involved commercial co-investors alongside ON.11 A1 investments generally occurred in established VC markets like the U.S., Europe, and India before being adapted into emerging markets upon productive returns.12 ON made A1 investments because it believed that it could bring value beyond financial capital, a fact recognized by entrepreneurs.
A2 investments were those for which ON expected commercial returns but commercial co-investors were absent. These investments tended to be in sectors or regions in which ON had relative expertise or familiarity and therefore presented a lower risk profile than a commercial investor might perceive.13 ON found A2 investments attractive because they were not likely to get funded without ON involvement, and they had the potential to generate both direct and market-level impact. These investments were often in regions outside the U.S. and in companies serving mass-market customers, which traditional investors might not see as viable.
Category B: Subcommercial ON accepted potential below-market financial returns in commercial entities in which it anticipated market-level impact. ON recognized that entrepreneurs in new markets, however promising, often had to overcome significant market-level barriers before becoming viable commercial entities. Companies building market infrastructure or seeking to influence policy might never achieve commercial returns but were critical to market creation.
Category B investments were subdivided into B1 and B2 investments. ON anticipated positive absolute returns with B1 investments and capital preservation with B2 investments. B2 investments were distinguished from B1 in that their financial returns were harder to estimate, often because they existed in emerging markets that had previously received little to no private-sector investments.14 Few of ON’s investments fell within the B2 subcategory.15
Category C: Grants Anytime it made a grant, ON required evidence of potential for significant market-level impact. While there was never an expectation of returned capital on grant funding, ON divided Category C grants into three subcategories (C1, C2, and C3) reflecting the extent to which ON expected the respective nonprofits to eventually cover their own costs through operations. C1 grants went to organizations expected to earn revenue that would cover 80% to 100% of their costs over time; C2 grants went to organizations expected to cover 20% to 80% of their costs over time; C3 grants went to organizations expected to cover less than 20% of their costs over time, sometimes not covering any costs at all.16
By 2012, the organization was starting to organize itself according to different impact priorities, which it called initiatives, each with its own specific mission, metrics, and team. Each initiative developed an impact portfolio that represented a different mix of Category A, B, and C investments. The portfolio reflected a number of factors, including the team’s strategy, the relative maturity of the sector and consequent need for catalytic capital, and the structure of the markets in which they operated. The five initiatives were: education, emerging technologies, financial inclusion, governance and citizen engagement, and property rights. (See Exhibit 3 for a description of each initiative.)
Financial Inclusion
Financial inclusion was the term used in the broader economic development ecosystem for making financial services available to all individuals and businesses; it represented the evolution of the
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
5
economic development narrative beyond microfinance.17 The World Bank stated: “Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services to meet their needs—transactions, payments, savings, credit, and insurance—delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.”18 The World Bank estimated that more than 2 billion adults worldwide did not have access to a bank account.19
Financial inclusion gained relevance as studies revealed negative correlations between poverty and access to formal financial services.20 Experts on the topic argued that those without access to formal financial services, also referred to as “unbanked populations,” reinforced poverty. Unbanked individuals generally used cash and had greater difficulties accessing loans. Formal financial services eased the ability to access loans and created a platform to build credit history. Academic research provided evidence that access to financial services improved the lives of those previously without such access. In one such study, poor farmers who were offered rainfall insurance began planting different crops that yielded profits up to 35% higher.21 Another study found that when offered banking services, entrepreneurs in Kenya saved more money and invested it back into their businesses.22
Financial exclusion was not limited to developing nations. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Federal Reserve, 46% of American adults would be unable to come up with $400 for an emergency expense, or would need to sell something or borrow funds to do so.23 The same report found 8% did not have a bank account.24 In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the number of bank branches serving low-income postal codes dropped by 10%, compared to a 3% decline for high-income communities.25 These same regions, sometimes called “banking deserts,” were often populated by companies operating in the alternative financial services industry—check cashers and payday lenders—which often charged high fees.26 “Those places are open during convenient hours. They are friendly and accessible. They are also deathly expensive and often result in a spiral of debt for their users,” noted one financial inclusion expert.27 Managing money outside the commercial bank system was costly for individuals and businesses. Unbanked and underbanked people paid high fees to cash paychecks and government benefit checks, and lacked a secure, reliable method for saving money.28
Traditionally, populations with limited or no access to financial services did not receive attention from banks due to assumptions of high customer acquisition costs, high lending costs, and low transaction values because of limited incomes. However, some argued that firms could in fact offer financial services to unbanked and underserved populations profitably. Doing so would require an understanding of customer needs, innovative product design that might differ from traditional financial services, and the ability to manage challenges and opportunities when introducing financial services to new populations (through engaging governments and other stakeholders).29
ON’s Financial Inclusion Initiative
In 2011, ON expanded its microfinance investing into the financial inclusion initiative that Costa described as a natural evolution stemming from recent investments and developments in the field:
Initially, our financial inclusion investments were not categorized as a separate initiative. Many of our initial investments that fell under the financial inclusion umbrella stemmed from our work in the microfinance space. As a reaction to the evolution of microfinance and the landscape at large, we decided to create the initiative to better focus our investments and structure our investment strategy.
Each investment from the team had to align with the stated goal of the financial inclusion initiative: “To accelerate ubiquitous access to an affordable and complete suite of financial products and services by financially educated individuals from a commercially viable industry.” (See Exhibit 4 for ON’s
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
6
financial inclusion approach.) Equally, Costa recognized the financial services industry had many unique attributes: it was heavily regulated in each local jurisdiction; it was dominated by incumbent banks with significant market power; and scale invariably required large amounts of capital best raised through the capital markets. Costa believed market-level impact could therefore come in two forms: (1) scaling a direct-to-consumer business, and/or (2) building new products and services for incumbent service providers, altering how they approached mass-market customers. The returns continuum framework would have to be thoughtfully applied in every investment decision that the financial inclusion team would make—with investments in both emerging and developed markets.
MicroEnsure
Founded in 2005 by Opportunity International, a faith-based charity aiming to end global poverty, MicroEnsure worked to provide affordable insurance products in developing markets. MicroEnsure operated as an insurance broker, meaning the majority of its products were offered on behalf of other insurers. MicroEnsure was responsible for intermediation between insurers and insurance customers, administration throughout the process, and claims management. Historically, MicroEnsure offered insurance products through partnerships with microfinance institutions; however, in Ghana, MicroEnsure had pioneered an innovative partnership model with mobile phone operators. Given the scale benefits, the company shifted to emphasize growth through this type of partnership. The company offered a range of insurance including credit, life, health, property, and weather.
Before MicroEnsure, the majority of companies that tried to offer insurance to low-income populations in developing markets failed, due to either high subsidy requirements or high churn rates. However, MicroEnsure’s unique partnership approach with mobile carriers had significant promise. The vast majority of cell phones in developing markets were prepaid.30 Capitalizing on this, MicroEnsure and its partner mobile carrier offered subscribers free insurance products as an add-on if they spent a pre-specified amount on airtime each month. Each subsequent month, customers had to spend the same or greater amount on airtime to keep the insurance coverage. This created an embedded loyalty program for the mobile operator’s services and also provided the insurance providers a low- cost sales method to reach previously inaccessible markets. Moreover, customers submitted claims via text messages, which also reduced claims-management costs and settlement time. After spending time using the free add-on service, many customers saw the benefits of insurance and paid for upgraded plans with more expansive coverage options.31
MicroEnsure had the potential to have a meaningful impact on its customers and the market. Its insurance products sought to help minimize the financial distress of unexpected life events for low- income families, often the hard-to-reach “last mile” customers. As a true pioneer, MicroEnsure had the potential to demonstrate to the insurance ecosystem that a company could profitably serve mass- market and low-income consumers in the emerging markets. Moreover, MicroEnsure was committed to developing and selling products beyond the typical “credit life”a product to the mass market. If successful, MicroEnsure would generate both direct and market-level impact.
Most of MicroEnsure’s revenues came from a small commission earned on a per-policy basis when providing sales and front-office support for the insurance provider. However, MicroEnsure also had some revenues related to its back-office support. Per policy, earned monthly commissions averaged $0.02 per month. While commissions through partnerships with mobile carrier partners were low, they
a Credit life insurance was a product covering the outstanding principal and interest of a loan upon death of a borrower.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
7
resulted in significantly more scale. (See Exhibit 5 for MicroEnsure’s business model.) MicroEnsure’s business model thus required scale to be a compelling financial investment.
The company projected it would sell 27.1 million policies by 2016, of which 19 million would come from mobile carrier partnerships. Major costs included staff on the ground and in the central office. (See Exhibit 6 for financial projections for MicroEnsure.)
Investing in Insurance
In 2009, ON had made a $4.5 million grant to MicroEnsure’s parent organization, Opportunity International, to fund electronic and mobile banking technology in Africa.32 Upon joining ON, Costa had been tasked with managing this grant. While Costa ultimately decided not to renew the grant, he remained interested in MicroEnsure and continued to communicate with the CEO, Richard Leftley.
MicroEnsure’s primary funding had been in the form of grants from Opportunity International and a multiyear $24.2 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates) in 2007.33 By 2011, MicroEnsure’s funding was under pressure. Opportunity International faced competing demands on funding, and the Gates grant had been not been renewed due to a shift in focus at both Gates and MicroEnsure in terms of product and geography.
At the same time, Costa believed MicroEnsure was showing signs of commercial promise. Costa remarked on the situation: “When I looked at Opportunity International’s portfolio, I found that MicroEnsure could be an intriguing potential addition to our growing financial inclusion portfolio. However, because the Gates Foundation was not going to renew their grant, and the partnership with mobile operators showed commercial promise, I thought this represented a unique opportunity to try and create a standalone commercial entity.”
In May 2011, Telenor, a multinational telecommunications company interested in expanding into microinsurance, approached MicroEnsure about an acquisition. Leftley was concerned about making such a significant decision with an untested partner and instead opted to form an Asia-focused joint venture (JV). When finalized, this JV would give MicroEnsure access to approximately 130 million potential customers.
These factors encouraged Leftley to focus on spinning out MicroEnsure as a for-profit entity and raising external capital to fund growth. The company had received a term sheet from one other investment fund, but that deal would be complex and remove management from any ownership position. MicroEnsure’s leadership was not convinced this was the right partner to help navigate the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. Therefore, MicroEnsure continued discussions with Telenor and several other commercial investors to seek funding as it pursued independent growth.
In November 2011, Leftley approached Costa to see if ON would provide a short-term $1 million bridge loan that would convert into equity when the company raised its priced Series A. The company would run out of cash in the summer of 2012, so a decision would need to be made quickly. Based on valuation negotiations at the time, ON had an opportunity to secure a 20% ownership stake in the company upon conversion of the $1 million note and a further infusion of $250,000 in MicroEnsure’s A round. Costa felt that the valuation seemed reasonable. While MicroEnsure had been in operation since 2005, in many ways, the new commercial business model was unproven. Additionally, there were no comparables to look at, as there were no precedents for a spinoff from a nonprofit.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
8
The Opportunity
Costa and Bannick believed MicroEnsure offered a promising alternative insurance model with a large potential market. In addition to the potential for massive customer scale, the partnership delivery model offered the opportunity for a viable and compelling future business model, one that could spur the microinsurance industry and solidify a symbiosis between financial inclusion and mobile businesses. Along the key dimensions of reach, engagement, and influence, MicroEnsure’s business model and market potential were exciting.
The partnership model also underpinned the financial case. In 2012, MicroEnsure served 4 million people, which Costa estimated represented only 2% to 3% of its market potential. Total potential premium volume was upwards of $40 billion.34 If able to execute, MicroEnsure might be uniquely positioned to capitalize on the $40 billion market potential due to its innovative partnership model.
MicroEnsure’s experience with one of the leading telecom operators in Ghana showed it had a compelling value proposition: the partnership had reduced churn and increased average revenue per user (ARPU) for the partner. (MicroEnsure had begun negotiating its JV with Telenor.) If MicroEnsure were successful, the insurance product would be able to reduce churn and increase ARPU by 5%, and the incremental revenues could be significant.
Moreover, financial services companies sometimes sold at multiples of up to 6x EBITDA. If MicroEnsure was able to grow the Telenor JV over the next five years and, assuming no dilution ( implying that ON would need to invest additional capital) and an exit multiple at peak trading multiples of 6x EBITDA, an investment could deliver up to a 15% internal rate of return. (See Exhibit 6 for company financials.)
Additionally, ON was uniquely positioned to be a strategic long-term partner to MicroEnsure as it navigated the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. In addition to funding, ON offered executive coaching and talent development resources, both of which Costa anticipated would be invaluable should ON invest. Given ON’s own impact thesis, Costa envisioned it could act as an ally to MicroEnsure management in its effort to balance mission, profitability, and growth.
However, Costa and Bannick knew there were significant risks that threatened both the financial and impact thesis. First, the financial case had several optimistic assumptions. The financial projections were premised on a successful Telenor partnership. While conversations to date had been productive, there was always risk in a concentrated partner relationship. Would such a tight relationship with a single operator dissuade other operators from working with MicroEnsure, constraining growth? Moreover, the return projections assumed ON would be able to maintain a 20% ownership stake. ON’s experience was that this type of investment would likely require several more equity rounds, which could dilute its ownership stake over time. This would certainly be the case if the Telenor relationship turned out not to be as profitable as anticipated. In addition, ON would have to make decisions in the future as to what degree it would continue to support the company with additional investments. Under some scenarios, its ownership could drop to below 5%. Moreover, a five-year timeline to exit could be ambitious in a market with shallow private capital reserves.
Second, ON had not yet invested in a microinsurance company, and an investment in MicroEnsure would represent a markedly different approach from its experience with microcredit institutions. Previous investors in microinsurance usually took established insurance providers down market. The impact and return potential depended on MicroEnsure’s ability to build profitable, long-term relationships with incumbent telecom operators—a notoriously challenging group. If MicroEnsure was unable to continue forging new partnerships with mobile carriers and maintain some pricing power,
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
9
both growth and profitability would be significantly threatened. While mobile operators had a history of building successful partnerships with value-added services (VAS) providers around products like ringtones and games, partnerships around financial services had been much more challenging, as evidenced by the termination of the M-Kesho product (a suite of financial products) jointly offered by the mobile payment company M-Pesa and Equity Bank.35
Moreover, there remained customer adoption risk. While MicroEnsure sought to address a significant unmet need—insurance for a market that ON believed to be more than 1.5 billion people— customer acceptance and uptake of new products was notoriously difficult in Africa and Asia, particularly for more complex products. MicroEnsure would need to execute on its ambitious sales and distribution model, while also improving its technology, in order to tap into the market.
Finally, this would be the first time ON would be financing a company as it transitioned from nonprofit to for-profit. The transition, and subsequent introduction of corporate partners and for-profit investors, would bring new and unforeseen pressures and challenges. Did MicroEnsure have the right leadership and talent in place to navigate the startup and venture world? Would the organization make the cultural transitions successfully? Would it be able to execute well under the time-bound pressures of demanding new investors?
ON considered that a $1 million bridge loan convertible into equity would allow it to earn a financial return if the business was profitable and would likely lead ON to take a more proactive role in MicroEnsure’s future direction, including an assumed board seat. While the MicroEnsure management team had presented projections that would make MicroEnsure a Category A2 investment, there were significant risks that threatened commercial returns. The investment terms came with requirements for additional capital in later funding rounds ($250,000 immediately and potentially up to several million dollars in subsequent rounds)—a significant commitment given that MicroEnsure was still at such an early stage. If financial risks were too high, was the potential market-level impact compelling enough to warrant the risk of a Category B investment? Would MicroEnsure eventually attract commercial capital and influence the incumbent insurance companies to consider the mass market as an attractive segment? Costa considered whether perhaps a grant would be a more prudent form of capital to test the viability of this new market and ensure that the company would continue to innovate without being concerned about near-term profitability. Or should Costa convince his partners and the investment committee that the sector-creation potential was worth a for-profit ON investment, with all the commitments that entailed?
Lenddo Lenddo was founded in 2011 as an online credit scoring and verification service. The software-as-
a-service (SaaS) was first offered in the Philippines, using an algorithm that drew upon opt-in, permissioned, online user data to determine a customer’s identity, character, and capacity to repay. Unlike traditional credit scores, which typically used credit and financial history, Lenddo drew upon customers’ digital data and network in order to determine a “LenddoScore.”36 Customers gained access to Lenddo’s credit scoring services after opting to allow the use of their data during a credit application. In doing so, Lenddo assured customers that it would not share their data. Lenddo had made the strategic decision to fund all loans (ranging from $300 to $1,000 per individual) independently at first, arguing this would allow it to more quickly build its technology and algorithms as well as license services to other lenders.
The company started with a belief that when assessing credit risk, personal character was as important as past financial history—and that online data taken from sources such as social media
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
10
provided a modern, data-driven opportunity to leverage that belief.37 Because the LenddoScore system could potentially enable consumers without traditional credit histories to get credit, it opened up potential opportunity for new customers in emerging markets, as many individuals in low- to middle- income communities had limited or no prior credit and had difficulty applying for a loan or credit card through traditional channels. However, these same customers, referred to as the aspiring middle class, increasingly had access to the internet, mobile phones, and social media platforms. Lenddo’s initial customer base was young Filipino professionals. (See Exhibit 7 for Lenddo’s target customer market.) Before Lenddo, this target customer base had to work with payday lenders and pawnshops to access capital. Traditional banks typically did not provide loans to the aspiring middle class, and emerging microfinance organizations typically targeted low-income individuals.
From its launch in February 2011 through December of that year, Lenddo had 25,000 members throughout the Philippines and extended approximately 550 loans. In order to qualify for a loan, each potential borrower had to have at least three members in their network, including one work colleague, one friend, and one family member. These individuals had to sign up to be a Lenddo member, affirmatively opting into the Lenddo network. Any repayment failure had an impact on both the borrower’s and this trusted network’s scores. The average loan was around $400, with maturities ranging from 6 to 12 months. Every loan carried a 2% flat monthly interest rate (a 42% APR), less than half the typical rates being charged in the Philippines at that time. To that point, default rates, defined as outstanding loans 30 days past due, were below 2%. In sum, Lenddo earned roughly $24 for every $100 loaned. By the end of 2012, Lenddo expected to extend about $2.1 million in loans, which would require $1.4 million in funding, accounting for interest repayments.
The Investment Case
Lenddo sought to secure $6 million in its first round of funding by the end of March 2012. Costa and Bannick considered a $1 million investment with a 5% ownership stake, assuming a $14 million pre-money valuation. The sector had already seen a few high-profile raises, with valuations above what was being proposed by the lead investor in the round. However, these “comparable deals” had been in U.S. or European markets, where the financial services infrastructure was well developed. There were no comparable companies that had surmounted the challenges of expanding across multiple emerging markets with an untested client segment. On the other hand, the competition for such customers was lower, and the potential of the aspiring middle class in the emerging markets was attractive to a number of potential investors, as it provided uncorrelated risk and growth opportunities.
Table 1 Comparable Valuations
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
11
The company projected a high financial return potential through its strategy targeting emerging- market, middle-class consumers. While the investment was still in a very early stage, Lenddo’s cofounders had past experience as entrepreneurs, particularly in building companies reliant on big data and in the context of emerging markets.
Costa and Bannick believed there were many compelling elements to the model. First, Lenddo’s credit risk assessment model did not rely on past financial data, which meant Lenddo had the potential to reach many customers who typically did not have such information available for potential lenders. ON also believed that access to the internet, social media, and smartphones would increase and that an early investment could produce greater returns than even some of the most optimistic projections, as access to the internet and social media extended beyond the aspiring middle class.
Second, it believed Lenddo had significant growth potential. Lenddo planned to use proceeds from this investment round to improve its loan underwriting algorithm and build credibility with lenders and customers alike. If successful, Lenddo could establish itself as a leading alternative to traditional loan underwriting, resulting in unprecedented access to credit for the emerging middle class, a segment forecasted to reach 1.2 billion people by 2030. Costa commented, “One of the most appealing aspects of investing in Lenddo was that they had the potential to fundamentally disrupt traditional loan underwriting.” Third, Lenddo’s model could be highly profitable at scale. An optimistic model forecasted Lenddo’s operating profit as having the potential to increase to more than $51 million by 2016. The ON team ran a number of sensitivities on management’s projections; even if the company were to achieve a fraction of the expected growth, and ON’s stake were diluted down to 4% due to future capital raises, the deal had the potential to produce an internal rate of return (IRR) of 44%. (See Exhibit 8 for Lenddo’s financial projections.)
However, the financial case rested on uncertain assumptions. Lenddo’s growth was constrained to the size of its loan book, as its profitability was driven primarily through underwriting loans. Even if Lenddo raised sufficient funding in its first round, it would need several additional rounds to prove out its algorithm and reach scale. Based on Lenddo’s burn rate, a $6 million equity raise would last only 16 to 18 months before additional external capital would be required. While Lenddo had started conversations with venture debt funders for access to credit to expand the loan portfolio, additional and costly equity would likely be required. The company’s aggressive growth strategy relied on the growth of mobile web and social media usage in emerging markets, as well as the ability to adhere to different country’s regulations. Anticipated growth in new markets relied upon a foundation that community bonds were the same online and offline; with just a year of data in a single market, the ON team was unsure of this assumption. Lenddo would need to build a straightforward user interface for new members across very diverse markets. Would user attitudes to data sharing and privacy be the same across markets? And could the management team handle the complexity of managing operations across multiple geographies, each with its own set of regulations?
The team was also concerned that, given Lenddo’s reliance on big data—still a nascent concept— investors and partners might be skeptical. Costa reflected further: “We did not know if big data would become mainstream. And even if it did, would Lenddo be able to convince lending organizations of an unconventional and somewhat unproven credit scoring approach?”
As importantly, the financial inclusion team was concerned with mission alignment. While its “reach” numbers were compelling, should ON invest in products for the aspiring middle class when so many others lacked basic financial services? After all, Lenddo operated in, and planned to expand to, markets with huge populations below the poverty line. While some growth projections included low-income customers, users needed digital data, which required ownership of or access to a computer,
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
12
smartphone, or other internet-enabled device. Costa explained some of their chief concerns as the financial inclusion team deliberated on Lenddo’s fit within ON’s impact investment strategy:
We looked at two levels when considering drawbacks with an investment in Lenddo. First, we were not sure if delivering credit to the emerging middle class aligned with ON’s vision of direct impact. Second, establishing credit scores via online data would only work if major creditors and banks bought in, which was not a given. If they did not, Lenddo would end up as a fringe idea that produced little of the promising financial return and impact.
The Decision
Costa and Bannick considered ON’s mission and strategy in light of the financial inclusion initiative: “[M]ake catalytic investments in organizations with potential for massive impact, in an efficient and scalable manner through innovation.” With limited capital, any investment needed to be in service of this newly defined mission. Moreover, their returns framework had been met with significant curiosity by the market, and other investors were waiting to see how it was applied in practice. ON was excited at the prospect of influencing the impact investing field away from the impact-versus-returns debate, but was also keenly aware that real-world complexities were hard to fit into its idealized framework. Costa and Bannick knew they would have to be able to explain their decisions not only to their internal investment team, but likely to the field. Should they make the investments, and if so, how should they be classified?
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
13
Exhibit 1 Impact Investing Definition
Source: JP Morgan Global Research Team, The Rockefeller Foundation, and Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class,” November 29, 2010, p. 7, https://thegiin.org/assets/documents/Impact%20Investments%20an%20Emerging%20Asset%20Class2.pdf, accessed August 2017.
Exhibit 2 ON Returns Continuum Framework
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
14
Exhibit 3 Omidyar Network Initiative Descriptions
Education ON made education investments in India, Africa, South America, and the U.S. The initiative focused its investments on three specific areas to address multifaceted issues: innovative K12 teaching and pedagogical models for both private and public schools; educational technology (ed-tech) for K12 schools; and online and offline skills-training programs directly associated with partnering employers. In the U.S., ON focused on investments that would impact child development before kindergarten (from birth to age five).
Emerging Technology The emerging technologies initiative focused on investing in entrepreneurs developing accessible mobile and online technologies, as well as policies aimed at increasing technology accessibility in emerging markets. Many of these investments focused on making an impact in emerging markets both in the U.S. and in the emerging markets.
Governance & Citizen Engagement Based on Omidyar’s foundational premise that everyone should have equal opportunity, this initiative invested in organizations and civic groups aimed at increasing opportunity and resource accessibility. Investments included organizations that tracked government programs or monitored budget expenditures to reduce corruption. Investments in this initiative were focused primarily in India, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, and the U.S.
Property Rights ON operated a property rights initiative on the principle that owning property catalyzed social identity, inclusion, economic stability, and environmental awareness. In turn, ON invested in research efforts aimed at improving property rights policies around the globe.
Financial Inclusion ON invested in businesses and technology intended to improve economic development. Under the premise that more than 2.5 billion people did not have access to financial services around the globe, and that such services enable financial stability, ON also invested in financial inclusion research and policy reform. This initiative aimed to work with financially underserved populations in both emerging markets and the U.S.
Source: Casewriter, adapted from the company website.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
15
Exhibit 4 ON Financial Inclusion Strategy, 2012
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
16
Exhibit 5 MicroEnsure Model for Delivering Insurance Products to the Mass Market
Source: MicroEnsure, “Our Model,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-model/, accessed June 2017.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
17
Exhibit 6 Financial Projections for MicroEnsure (2013–2017) in U.S. Dollars
Source: Company documents.
Note: All in USD except “Policies,” which indicated the total number of MicroEnsure policies. “Admin revenue” reflected revenue from insurance companies outsourcing their existing back-office operations to MicroEnsure. (Source: company documents.)
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
18
Exhibit 7 Lenddo: Target Market
Source: Company documents.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
19
Exhibit 8 Financial Projections for Lenddo in U.S. Dollars, 2012–2017
Management Upside Case Projections:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Core Revenue $745,146 $3,500,000 $10,800,000 $29,750,000 $67,500,000 $124,875,000
Cross Sell Revenue — 224,000 720,000 2,040,000 4,725,000 8,880,000
Operating Revenue 745,146 3,724,000 11,520,000 31,790,000 72,225,000 133,755,000
Salaries and Benefits 2,634,149 3,638,896 4,612,968 5,432,741 6,430,624 7,646,483
Technology Related Expenses 406,157 812,314 1,624,628 3,249,256 6,498,512 12,997,024
Marketing Expenses 885,528 1,328,291 1,992,437 2,988,655 4,482,983 6,724,474
Other Expenses 721,905 1,082,857 1,624,286 2,436,429 3,654,643 5,481,954
Total Costs 4,647,738 6,862,358 9,854,318 14,107,081 21,066,762 32,849,946 Net Income (3,902,592) (3,138,358) 1,665,682 17,682,919 51,158,238 100,905,054
ON Base Case Projections:
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Core Revenue $735,000 $2,565,000 $6,325,000 $13,625,000 $27,580,000 $46,732,500
Cross Sell Revenue — 216,000 575,000 1,308,000 1,758,000 4,824,000
Operating Revenue 735,000 2,781,000 6,900,000 14,933,000 30,338,000 51,556,500
Salaries and Benefits 2,634,149 3,338,896 4,162,968 4,982,741 6,130,624 7,496,483
Technology Related Expenses 406,157 812,314 1,624,628 3,249,256 6,498,512 12,997,024
Marketing Expenses 885,528 1,328,291 1,992,437 2,988,655 4,482,983 6,724,474
Other Expenses 721,905 1,082,857 1,624,286 2,436,429 3,654,643 5,481,965
Total Costs 4,647,738 6,562,358 9,404,318 13,657,081 20,766,762 32,699,946 Net Income (3,912,738) (3,781,358) (2,504,318) 1,275,919 9,571,238 18,856,554
Source: Company documents.
Note: Some company numbers were masked for purposes of the case.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
20
Endnotes
1 Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investing,” https://thegiin.org/impact-investing/, accessed October 2017.
2 Global Impact Investing Network, “GIIN History,” https://thegiin.org/giin/history, accessed October 2017.
3 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” Harvard Business Review, September 1, 2011, https://hbr.org/2011/09/ebays-founder-on-innovating-the-business-model-of-social-change, accessed June 2017.
4 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” accessed June 2017.
5 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.”
6 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.”
7 Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.”
8 Matt Bannick, Paula Goldman, Michael Kubsansky, and Yasemin Saltuk, “Across the Returns Continuum,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2017, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/across_the_returns_continuum, accessed June 2017.
9 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
10 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
11 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
12 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
13 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
14 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
15 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
16 Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.”
17 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview,” http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/overview, accessed September 2017.
18 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.”
19 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.”
20 The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.”
21 Mark R. Rosenzweig and Hans P. Binswanger, “Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments,” The Economic Journal 103, no. 416 (1993): 56-78.
22 Pascaline Dupas and Jonathan Robinson, “Savings Constraints and Microenterprise Development: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Kenya,” Applied Economics 5, no. 1 (2013), https://web.stanford.edu/~pdupas/SavingsConstraints.pdf, accessed March 2018.
23 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015,” https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf, accessed March 2018.
24 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015.”
25 “The closing of American bank branches,” The Economist, July 27, 2017, https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21725596-banks-have-shuttered-over-10000-financial-crisis-closing-american, accessed March 2018.
26 Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor,” Yale Journal on Regulation 21, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 121-237, via ProQuest, accessed March 2018.
27 Gosia Ginska, “Fighting Financial Exclusion: How To Serve 88 Million Americans Who Have No Bank,” Forbes, June 5, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/darden/2014/06/05/fighting-financial-exclusion-how-to-serve-88-million-americans-who- have-no-bank/#2addfee02a5c, accessed March 2018.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
21
28 Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor.”
29 Shawn Cole, “Financial Services for the World’s Poor,” HBS No. 213-107 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2013), pp. 3-6.
30 “Wireless Market Statistics 2015,” Global Reward Solutions, https://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp- content/uploads/GRS-Mobile-Top-up_Wireless-Market-Statistics-2015.pdf, accessed June 2017.
31 Arunjay Katakam and Alex Lazarow, “Mobile-led Insurance: Evolving Approaches in an Advancing Field,” Omidyar Network, December 20, 2015, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/mobile-led-insurance-evolving-approaches-advancing-field, accessed June 2017.
32 Omidyar Network, “Omidyar Network Grants $4.5 Million to Opportunity International to Scale Technology-based Microfinance Services in Africa,” February 23, 2009, https://www.omidyar.com/news/omidyar-network-grants-45-million- opportunity-international-scale-technology-based-microfinance, accessed June 2017.
33 MicroEnsure, “Our History,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-history/, accessed June 2017.
34 “Insurance in Developing Countries: Exploring Opportunities in Microinsurance,” Lloyd’s 360º Risk Insight, accessed August 2017.
35 Emanuel Were and Jevans Nyabiage, “How Equity Bank Lost yuMobile—and What it Means for Nakumatt,” Standard Digital, March 18, 2014, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2000107162/how-equity-bank-lost-yumobile- and-what-it-means-for-nakumatt, accessed January 2018.
36 Lenddo, “Our Products,” https://www.lenddo.com/products.html#creditscore, accessed June 2017.
37 Arjuna Costa, “Why We Invested: Lenddo,” Omidyar Network, October 10, 2016, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/why- we-invested-lenddo, accessed June 2017.
For the exclusive use of B. Williams, 2023.
This document is authorized for use only by Bianca Williams in FIN 447 – Investments taught by Akash Dania, Delaware State University from Oct 2023 to Mar 2024.
- Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
- Impact Investing
- Omidyar Network
- Impact Investment Framework
- Category A: CommercialInvestments in this category were expected to achieve risk-adjusted financial returns, while having a strong positive impact. While Category A investments were not required to have evidence or likelihood of market-level impact, O…
- Category B: SubcommercialON accepted potential below-market financial returns in commercial entities in which it anticipated market-level impact. ON recognized that entrepreneurs in new markets, however promising, often had to overcome significant mar…
- Category C: GrantsAnytime it made a grant, ON required evidence of potential for significant market-level impact. While there was never an expectation of returned capital on grant funding, ON divided Category C grants into three subcategories (C1, C2,…
- Financial Inclusion
- ON’s Financial Inclusion Initiative
- MicroEnsure
- Investing in Insurance
- The Opportunity
- Lenddo
- The Investment Case
- Table 1Comparable Valuations
- The Decision
- Exhibit 1Impact Investing Definition
- Exhibit 2ON Returns Continuum Framework
- Exhibit 3Omidyar Network Initiative Descriptions
- EducationON made education investments in India, Africa, South America, and the U.S. The initiative focused its investments on three specific areas to address multifaceted issues: innovative K12 teaching and pedagogical models for both private and pub…
- Emerging TechnologyThe emerging technologies initiative focused on investing in entrepreneurs developing accessible mobile and online technologies, as well as policies aimed at increasing technology accessibility in emerging markets. Many of these inv…
- Governance & Citizen EngagementBased on Omidyar’s foundational premise that everyone should have equal opportunity, this initiative invested in organizations and civic groups aimed at increasing opportunity and resource accessibility. Investments incl…
- Property RightsON operated a property rights initiative on the principle that owning property catalyzed social identity, inclusion, economic stability, and environmental awareness. In turn, ON invested in research efforts aimed at improving property r…
- Financial InclusionON invested in businesses and technology intended to improve economic development. Under the premise that more than 2.5 billion people did not have access to financial services around the globe, and that such services enable financi…
- Exhibit 4ON Financial Inclusion Strategy, 2012
- Exhibit 5MicroEnsure Model for Delivering Insurance Products to the Mass Market
- Exhibit 6Financial Projections for MicroEnsure (2013–2017) in U.S. Dollars
- Exhibit 7Lenddo: Target Market
- Exhibit 8Financial Projections for Lenddo in U.S. Dollars, 2012–2017
- Management Upside Case Projections:
- ON Base Case Projections:
- Endnotes
<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP 51 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.5 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo true /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 2.66667 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 2.66667 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 300 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description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> /CHS <FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e9ad88d2891cf76845370524d53705237300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5efa768400200050004400460020658768633002> /CHT <FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc9ad854c18cea76845370524d5370523786557406300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b555f5df25efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002> /CZE <FEFF005400610074006f0020006e006100730074006100760065006e00ed00200070006f0075017e0069006a007400650020006b0020007600790074007600e101590065006e00ed00200064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074016f002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002c0020006b00740065007200e90020007300650020006e0065006a006c00e90070006500200068006f006400ed002000700072006f0020006b00760061006c00690074006e00ed0020007400690073006b00200061002000700072006500700072006500730073002e002000200056007900740076006f01590065006e00e900200064006f006b0075006d0065006e007400790020005000440046002000620075006400650020006d006f017e006e00e90020006f007400650076015900ed007400200076002000700072006f006700720061006d0065006300680020004100630072006f00620061007400200061002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0030002000610020006e006f0076011b006a016100ed00630068002e> /DAN <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> /DEU <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> /ESP <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> /ETI <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> /FRA <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> /GRE <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a stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN <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> /ITA <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> /JPN <FEFF9ad854c18cea306a30d730ea30d730ec30b951fa529b7528002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020658766f8306e4f5c6210306b4f7f75283057307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103055308c305f0020005000440046002030d530a130a430eb306f3001004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d3067958b304f30533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a306b306f30d530a930f330c8306e57cb30818fbc307f304c5fc59808306730593002> /KOR <FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020ace0d488c9c80020c2dcd5d80020c778c1c4c5d00020ac00c7a50020c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b807ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb2940020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c8b2e4002e> /LTH <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> /LVI <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> /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR <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> /POL <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> /PTB <FEFF005500740069006c0069007a006500200065007300730061007300200063006f006e00660069006700750072006100e700f50065007300200064006500200066006f0072006d00610020006100200063007200690061007200200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f0073002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020006d00610069007300200061006400650071007500610064006f00730020007000610072006100200070007200e9002d0069006d0070007200650073007300f50065007300200064006500200061006c007400610020007100750061006c00690064006100640065002e0020004f007300200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f00730020005000440046002000630072006900610064006f007300200070006f00640065006d0020007300650072002000610062006500720074006f007300200063006f006d0020006f0020004100630072006f006200610074002000650020006f002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0030002000650020007600650072007300f50065007300200070006f00730074006500720069006f007200650073002e> /RUM <FEFF005500740069006c0069007a00610163006900200061006300650073007400650020007300650074010300720069002000700065006e007400720075002000610020006300720065006100200064006f00630075006d0065006e00740065002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002000610064006500630076006100740065002000700065006e0074007200750020007400690070010300720069007200650061002000700072006500700072006500730073002000640065002000630061006c006900740061007400650020007300750070006500720069006f006100720103002e002000200044006f00630075006d0065006e00740065006c00650020005000440046002000630072006500610074006500200070006f00740020006600690020006400650073006300680069007300650020006300750020004100630072006f006200610074002c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020015f00690020007600650072007300690075006e0069006c006500200075006c0074006500720069006f006100720065002e> /RUS <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> /SKY <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> /SLV <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> /SUO <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> /SVE <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> /TUR <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> /UKR <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> /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
Vikram S. Gandhi
Caitlin Lindsay Reimers Brumme
James Barnett
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
9-318-004
REV: February 13, 2020
318-004 Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network
Financial Inclusion at Omidyar Network 318-004
Senior Lecturer Vikram S. Gandhi, Program Director Caitlin Lindsay Reimers Brumme (Impact Collaboratory), and Associate Case Researcher James Barnett (Case Research & Writing Group) prepared this case. It was reviewed and approved before publication by a company designate. Funding for the development of this case was provided by Harvard Business School and not by the company. Certain details have been disguised. HBS cases are developed solely as the basis for class discussion. Cases are not intended to serve as endorsements, sources of primary data, or illustrations of effective or ineffective management.
Copyright © 2018, 2020 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.
1
1
It was early March 2012 and Arjuna Costa (HBS 2001), Director at the impact investing firm Omidyar Network (ON) and lead investor for ON’s new financial inclusion initiative, had just left the company office in Redwood City, California. He and Matt Bannick (HBS 1993), ON’s Managing Partner and the Chair of the investment committee, had spent the day discussing how they would apply their newly adopted financial inclusion strategy and what investments would align with ON’s company mission: ON only made investments intended to create social impact around the world. Several months prior, ON had launched its financial inclusion initiative in order to better serve the more than 2.5 billion people worldwide who lacked access to basic financial services. Costa, who joined ON in 2010 to focus on investments primarily related to financial services, took the initial lead.
That day, Costa and Bannick had discussed investing in two different companies—MicroEnsure and Lenddo—both of which, despite intriguing characteristics, raised questions for the financial inclusion team. MicroEnsure, a nonprofit entity intended to deliver microinsurance to underserved populations in emerging markets, was requesting a bridge loan on commercial terms that would enable it to spin off from its parent nonprofit into a standalone commercial enterprise. While MicroEnsure’s product seemed aligned with ON’s financial inclusion strategy, the team wondered if its return and impact potential warranted risky interim funding and a long-term commitment on a for-profit basis.
At the same time, ON was considering an investment in Lenddo, a credit scoring and verification service that used online data to provide loan opportunities for those with limited or no credit history. While Costa and Bannick were excited by Lenddo’s innovative model for leveraging big data, they were concerned that traditional banks and lenders might not accept Lenddo’s unconventional credit scoring system. Furthermore, Lenddo largely targeted the aspiring middle class that had a social media presence in markets where much of the population was well below the poverty line.
Costa and Bannick used ON’s investment framework to evaluate MicroEnsure and Lenddo. The framework categorized investments by looking at both their financial and impact potential. Costa and Bannick had to decide: Should ON make an investment into one, or both, of these companies? What type of investment made the most sense given their impact and financial goals?
Impact Investing
The Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) defined impact investing as “investments made into companies, organizations, and funds with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.”[endnoteRef:1] Impact investing as an established field had only existed since the mid-2000s. The GIIN was launched at the annual Clinton Global Initiative conference in 2009.[endnoteRef:2] Although the GIIN and other organizations had begun to establish industry infrastructure, clear consensus on what constituted an impact investment and how to measure impact did not exist. Impact investment strategies included those seeking risk-adjusted returns (an investment return that considered the risk taken in the investment over time) and sub-market returns. (See Exhibit 1 for characteristics that define an impact investment business.) Impact investing was sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, social investing, or social impact investing. [1: Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investing,” https://thegiin.org/impact-investing/, accessed October 2017.] [2: Global Impact Investing Network, “GIIN History,” https://thegiin.org/giin/history, accessed October 2017.]
Omidyar Network
In 1995, before launching ON, Pierre Omidyar founded the online marketplace that would become eBay. Following the company’s initial public offering (IPO) in 1998, Omidyar became a billionaire, and shortly thereafter, he and his fiancée, Pam, agreed they would use their newfound fortune in an altruistic fashion.[endnoteRef:3] Omidyar moved out of his day-to-day role at eBay (he remained board chairman), and, in 2000, he and Pam founded the Omidyar Family Foundation (OFF). At first, the foundation ran as a nonprofit donating to charities in need of consistent financial support. However, within three years, Omidyar realized OFF could make a greater impact if it were run more like a business and less like a charity.[endnoteRef:4] His belief that philanthropy differs considerably from charity added to the underpinning for what came to be ON. In 2011, Omidyar explained: [3: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” Harvard Business Review, September 1, 2011, https://hbr.org/2011/09/ebays-founder-on-innovating-the-business-model-of-social-change, accessed June 2017.] [4: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change,” accessed June 2017.]
Most people don’t distinguish between charity and philanthropy, but to me there’s a significant difference. . . . Charity is inherently not self-sustaining, but there are problems in the world, such as natural disasters, that require charity. . . . Philanthropy is much more. Philanthropy is a desire to improve the state of humanity and the world. It requires thinking about the root causes of issues so that we can prevent tomorrow’s suffering. . . . In thinking about philanthropy, I began looking for ways to harness the incredible power of business in order to make the world better.[endnoteRef:5] [5: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.” ]
In 2004, the Omidyars decided to create an innovative hybrid structure that gave them more flexibility to achieve their philanthropic goals. They established ON as both a limited liability company (LLC) and a private foundation, with operations conducted from the limited liability company. This change enabled ON to fund potentially impactful organizations and causes beyond what fell under the traditional notion of being charitable as defined by the United States tax code. The ON LLC made for-profit investments, and the foundation provided grants. The 2004 establishment of ON helped pioneer the growing impact investment industry.
The transition from a traditional charity to ON’s for-profit/nonprofit blended structure proved difficult. ON struggled to match its culture with the new company vision. Philanthropies were generally risk averse, so the new personnel and previous OFF staff approached investments with different philosophies.[endnoteRef:6] In 2007, the Omidyars led a restructuring intended to shift the organization to run more like a business; Omidyar remarked that he wanted ON to operate similarly to a venture capital (VC) partnership model, with an egalitarian team of investors collaborating and willing, when necessary, to take risks on both nonprofit and for-profit investments.[endnoteRef:7] [6: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.” ] [7: Pierre Omidyar, “How I Did It: eBay’s Founder on Innovating the Business Model of Social Change.” ]
As part of the restructuring, Matt Bannick came on as Managing Partner. Bannick knew Omidyar from his time at eBay, when he joined just after the IPO and went on to serve as President of eBay International. Bannick had also been President at PayPal for three years.
Over time, ON continued to adjust its strategy for advancing scalable change worldwide. The organization operated under a set of beliefs inspired by Omidyar: primarily that people were inherently good but often lacked access to opportunity. Moreover, businesses could be a catalyst for good, particularly when driving large-scale social change.
ON’s flexibility to invest in both for-profit and nonprofit entities, however, required a way for investment teams to rigorously evaluate investment opportunities with specific expectations for financial return.
Impact Investment Framework
To address this challenge, ON developed a proprietary framework to guide how it would make investments across a “returns continuum.” Bannick explained, “We believe that for investors seeking impact there is a broad range of investment profiles. Many impact investments can be fully commercial, as success scales both financial return and social impact in tandem, while others involve a trade-off between returns and impact.”
Omidyar and Bannick remained intentional about, if not wary of, potential investments that, while fitting with ON’s social mission, were likely to deliver below-market returns. Omidyar did not want social impact to cover up for underperformance. Perhaps more importantly, Omidyar saw the potential for subsidies to distort a market—and an investment with below risk-adjusted market rate returns had the potential to do exactly that.
As a result, ON determined it would accept below-market returns in certain circumstances, namely where an investment had the potential to not only deliver value to its customers (direct impact) but also accelerate the development of a new market paradigm to reach the underserved (market-level impact). According to ON, market-level impact could be achieved in three ways: first, an investment could pioneer a new service or model previously undeveloped in a given market; second, an investment could develop infrastructure that might catalyze future growth; or third, the investment influenced policy critical to a market’s development.[endnoteRef:8] [8: Matt Bannick, Paula Goldman, Michael Kubsansky, and Yasemin Saltuk, “Across the Returns Continuum,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2017, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/across_the_returns_continuum, accessed June 2017.]
ON’s investment framework integrated these concepts into all investment decisions. ON began by confirming the investment’s potential for direct impact and then assigned an investment to one of the categories on the continuum: commercial (A1, A2), subcommercial (B1, B2), or grant (C1, C2, C3). Investments that were not expected to generate commercial returns faced greater expectations for their market-level impact (see Exhibit 2 for ON’s breakdown of its investment framework).
Category A: CommercialInvestments in this category were expected to achieve risk-adjusted financial returns, while having a strong positive impact. While Category A investments were not required to have evidence or likelihood of market-level impact, ON sought to avoid investment in companies where the financial or business model put them at higher risk of “mission drift,”[endnoteRef:9] such as targeting more affluent customers.[endnoteRef:10] ON often sought to make Category A investments in companies where impact was implicit in the business model, and therefore impact could be achieved simply through growth in customers. ON invested in Category A companies due to their capacity to scale massively through retained earnings, in addition to their ability to raise substantial outside capital. ON believed that Category A investments that scaled were also likely to deliver market impact, as high levels of profitability would attract competitors, driving up quality and continuing the cycle of innovation. [9: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ] [10: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
Category A investments were subdivided into A1 investments and A2 investments. A1 investments involved commercial co-investors alongside ON.[endnoteRef:11] A1 investments generally occurred in established VC markets like the U.S., Europe, and India before being adapted into emerging markets upon productive returns.[endnoteRef:12] ON made A1 investments because it believed that it could bring value beyond financial capital, a fact recognized by entrepreneurs. [11: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ] [12: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
A2 investments were those for which ON expected commercial returns but commercial co-investors were absent. These investments tended to be in sectors or regions in which ON had relative expertise or familiarity and therefore presented a lower risk profile than a commercial investor might perceive.[endnoteRef:13] ON found A2 investments attractive because they were not likely to get funded without ON involvement, and they had the potential to generate both direct and market-level impact. These investments were often in regions outside the U.S. and in companies serving mass-market customers, which traditional investors might not see as viable. [13: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
Category B: SubcommercialON accepted potential below-market financial returns in commercial entities in which it anticipated market-level impact. ON recognized that entrepreneurs in new markets, however promising, often had to overcome significant market-level barriers before becoming viable commercial entities. Companies building market infrastructure or seeking to influence policy might never achieve commercial returns but were critical to market creation.
Category B investments were subdivided into B1 and B2 investments. ON anticipated positive absolute returns with B1 investments and capital preservation with B2 investments. B2 investments were distinguished from B1 in that their financial returns were harder to estimate, often because they existed in emerging markets that had previously received little to no private-sector investments.[endnoteRef:14] Few of ON’s investments fell within the B2 subcategory.[endnoteRef:15] [14: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ] [15: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
Category C: GrantsAnytime it made a grant, ON required evidence of potential for significant market-level impact. While there was never an expectation of returned capital on grant funding, ON divided Category C grants into three subcategories (C1, C2, and C3) reflecting the extent to which ON expected the respective nonprofits to eventually cover their own costs through operations. C1 grants went to organizations expected to earn revenue that would cover 80% to 100% of their costs over time; C2 grants went to organizations expected to cover 20% to 80% of their costs over time; C3 grants went to organizations expected to cover less than 20% of their costs over time, sometimes not covering any costs at all.[endnoteRef:16] [16: Matt Bannick et al., “Across the Returns Continuum.” ]
By 2012, the organization was starting to organize itself according to different impact priorities, which it called initiatives, each with its own specific mission, metrics, and team. Each initiative developed an impact portfolio that represented a different mix of Category A, B, and C investments. The portfolio reflected a number of factors, including the team’s strategy, the relative maturity of the sector and consequent need for catalytic capital, and the structure of the markets in which they operated. The five initiatives were: education, emerging technologies, financial inclusion, governance and citizen engagement, and property rights. (See Exhibit 3 for a description of each initiative.)
Financial Inclusion
Financial inclusion was the term used in the broader economic development ecosystem for making financial services available to all individuals and businesses; it represented the evolution of the economic development narrative beyond microfinance.[endnoteRef:17] The World Bank stated: “Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services to meet their needs—transactions, payments, savings, credit, and insurance—delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.”[endnoteRef:18] The World Bank estimated that more than 2 billion adults worldwide did not have access to a bank account.[endnoteRef:19] [17: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview,” http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/overview, accessed September 2017.] [18: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.” ] [19: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.” ]
Financial inclusion gained relevance as studies revealed negative correlations between poverty and access to formal financial services.[endnoteRef:20] Experts on the topic argued that those without access to formal financial services, also referred to as “unbanked populations,” reinforced poverty. Unbanked individuals generally used cash and had greater difficulties accessing loans. Formal financial services eased the ability to access loans and created a platform to build credit history. Academic research provided evidence that access to financial services improved the lives of those previously without such access. In one such study, poor farmers who were offered rainfall insurance began planting different crops that yielded profits up to 35% higher.[endnoteRef:21] Another study found that when offered banking services, entrepreneurs in Kenya saved more money and invested it back into their businesses.[endnoteRef:22] [20: The World Bank, “Financial Inclusion Overview.” ] [21: Mark R. Rosenzweig and Hans P. Binswanger, “Wealth, Weather Risk and the Composition and Profitability of Agricultural Investments,” The Economic Journal 103, no. 416 (1993): 56-78.] [22: Pascaline Dupas and Jonathan Robinson, “Savings Constraints and Microenterprise Development: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Kenya,” Applied Economics 5, no. 1 (2013), https://web.stanford.edu/~pdupas/SavingsConstraints.pdf, accessed March 2018.]
Financial exclusion was not limited to developing nations. According to a 2015 report by the U.S. Federal Reserve, 46% of American adults would be unable to come up with $400 for an emergency expense, or would need to sell something or borrow funds to do so.[endnoteRef:23] The same report found 8% did not have a bank account.[endnoteRef:24] In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the number of bank branches serving low-income postal codes dropped by 10%, compared to a 3% decline for high-income communities.[endnoteRef:25] These same regions, sometimes called “banking deserts,” were often populated by companies operating in the alternative financial services industry—check cashers and payday lenders—which often charged high fees.[endnoteRef:26] “Those places are open during convenient hours. They are friendly and accessible. They are also deathly expensive and often result in a spiral of debt for their users,” noted one financial inclusion expert.[endnoteRef:27] Managing money outside the commercial bank system was costly for individuals and businesses. Unbanked and underbanked people paid high fees to cash paychecks and government benefit checks, and lacked a secure, reliable method for saving money.[endnoteRef:28] [23: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015,” https://www.federalreserve.gov/2015-report-economic-well-being-us-households-201605.pdf, accessed March 2018.] [24: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2015.” ] [25: “The closing of American bank branches,” The Economist, July 27, 2017, https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21725596-banks-have-shuttered-over-10000-financial-crisis-closing-american, accessed March 2018.] [26: Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor,” Yale Journal on Regulation 21, no. 1 (Winter 2004): 121-237, via ProQuest, accessed March 2018.] [27: Gosia Ginska, “Fighting Financial Exclusion: How To Serve 88 Million Americans Who Have No Bank,” Forbes, June 5, 2014, https://www.forbes.com/sites/darden/2014/06/05/fighting-financial-exclusion-how-to-serve-88-million-americans-who-have-no-bank/#2addfee02a5c, accessed March 2018.] [28: Michael S. Barr, “Banking the Poor.” ]
Traditionally, populations with limited or no access to financial services did not receive attention from banks due to assumptions of high customer acquisition costs, high lending costs, and low transaction values because of limited incomes. However, some argued that firms could in fact offer financial services to unbanked and underserved populations profitably. Doing so would require an understanding of customer needs, innovative product design that might differ from traditional financial services, and the ability to manage challenges and opportunities when introducing financial services to new populations (through engaging governments and other stakeholders).[endnoteRef:29] [29: Shawn Cole, “Financial Services for the World’s Poor,” HBS No. 213-107 (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2013), pp. 3-6.]
ON’s Financial Inclusion Initiative
In 2011, ON expanded its microfinance investing into the financial inclusion initiative that Costa described as a natural evolution stemming from recent investments and developments in the field:
Initially, our financial inclusion investments were not categorized as a separate initiative. Many of our initial investments that fell under the financial inclusion umbrella stemmed from our work in the microfinance space. As a reaction to the evolution of microfinance and the landscape at large, we decided to create the initiative to better focus our investments and structure our investment strategy.
Each investment from the team had to align with the stated goal of the financial inclusion initiative: “To accelerate ubiquitous access to an affordable and complete suite of financial products and services by financially educated individuals from a commercially viable industry.” (See Exhibit 4 for ON’s financial inclusion approach.) Equally, Costa recognized the financial services industry had many unique attributes: it was heavily regulated in each local jurisdiction; it was dominated by incumbent banks with significant market power; and scale invariably required large amounts of capital best raised through the capital markets. Costa believed market-level impact could therefore come in two forms: (1) scaling a direct-to-consumer business, and/or (2) building new products and services for incumbent service providers, altering how they approached mass-market customers. The returns continuum framework would have to be thoughtfully applied in every investment decision that the financial inclusion team would make—with investments in both emerging and developed markets.
MicroEnsure
Founded in 2005 by Opportunity International, a faith-based charity aiming to end global poverty, MicroEnsure worked to provide affordable insurance products in developing markets. MicroEnsure operated as an insurance broker, meaning the majority of its products were offered on behalf of other insurers. MicroEnsure was responsible for intermediation between insurers and insurance customers, administration throughout the process, and claims management. Historically, MicroEnsure offered insurance products through partnerships with microfinance institutions; however, in Ghana, MicroEnsure had pioneered an innovative partnership model with mobile phone operators. Given the scale benefits, the company shifted to emphasize growth through this type of partnership. The company offered a range of insurance including credit, life, health, property, and weather.
Before MicroEnsure, the majority of companies that tried to offer insurance to low-income populations in developing markets failed, due to either high subsidy requirements or high churn rates. However, MicroEnsure’s unique partnership approach with mobile carriers had significant promise. The vast majority of cell phones in developing markets were prepaid.[endnoteRef:30] Capitalizing on this, MicroEnsure and its partner mobile carrier offered subscribers free insurance products as an add-on if they spent a pre-specified amount on airtime each month. Each subsequent month, customers had to spend the same or greater amount on airtime to keep the insurance coverage. This created an embedded loyalty program for the mobile operator’s services and also provided the insurance providers a low-cost sales method to reach previously inaccessible markets. Moreover, customers submitted claims via text messages, which also reduced claims-management costs and settlement time. After spending time using the free add-on service, many customers saw the benefits of insurance and paid for upgraded plans with more expansive coverage options.[endnoteRef:31] [30: “Wireless Market Statistics 2015,” Global Reward Solutions, https://www.globalrewardsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/GRS-Mobile-Top-up_Wireless-Market-Statistics-2015.pdf, accessed June 2017.] [31: Arunjay Katakam and Alex Lazarow, “Mobile-led Insurance: Evolving Approaches in an Advancing Field,” Omidyar Network, December 20, 2015, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/mobile-led-insurance-evolving-approaches-advancing-field, accessed June 2017.]
MicroEnsure had the potential to have a meaningful impact on its customers and the market. Its insurance products sought to help minimize the financial distress of unexpected life events for low-income families, often the hard-to-reach “last mile” customers. As a true pioneer, MicroEnsure had the potential to demonstrate to the insurance ecosystem that a company could profitably serve mass-market and low-income consumers in the emerging markets. Moreover, MicroEnsure was committed to developing and selling products beyond the typical “credit life”[footnoteRef:1] product to the mass market. If successful, MicroEnsure would generate both direct and market-level impact. [1: Credit life insurance was a product covering the outstanding principal and interest of a loan upon death of a borrower.]
Most of MicroEnsure’s revenues came from a small commission earned on a per-policy basis when providing sales and front-office support for the insurance provider. However, MicroEnsure also had some revenues related to its back-office support. Per policy, earned monthly commissions averaged $0.02 per month. While commissions through partnerships with mobile carrier partners were low, they resulted in significantly more scale. (See Exhibit 5 for MicroEnsure’s business model.) MicroEnsure’s business model thus required scale to be a compelling financial investment.
The company projected it would sell 27.1 million policies by 2016, of which 19 million would come from mobile carrier partnerships. Major costs included staff on the ground and in the central office. (See Exhibit 6 for financial projections for MicroEnsure.)
Investing in Insurance
In 2009, ON had made a $4.5 million grant to MicroEnsure’s parent organization, Opportunity International, to fund electronic and mobile banking technology in Africa.[endnoteRef:32] Upon joining ON, Costa had been tasked with managing this grant. While Costa ultimately decided not to renew the grant, he remained interested in MicroEnsure and continued to communicate with the CEO, Richard Leftley. [32: Omidyar Network, “Omidyar Network Grants $4.5 Million to Opportunity International to Scale Technology-based Microfinance Services in Africa,” February 23, 2009, https://www.omidyar.com/news/omidyar-network-grants-45-million-opportunity-international-scale-technology-based-microfinance, accessed June 2017.]
MicroEnsure’s primary funding had been in the form of grants from Opportunity International and a multiyear $24.2 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates) in 2007.[endnoteRef:33] By 2011, MicroEnsure’s funding was under pressure. Opportunity International faced competing demands on funding, and the Gates grant had been not been renewed due to a shift in focus at both Gates and MicroEnsure in terms of product and geography. [33: MicroEnsure, “Our History,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-history/, accessed June 2017.]
At the same time, Costa believed MicroEnsure was showing signs of commercial promise. Costa remarked on the situation: “When I looked at Opportunity International’s portfolio, I found that MicroEnsure could be an intriguing potential addition to our growing financial inclusion portfolio. However, because the Gates Foundation was not going to renew their grant, and the partnership with mobile operators showed commercial promise, I thought this represented a unique opportunity to try and create a standalone commercial entity.”
In May 2011, Telenor, a multinational telecommunications company interested in expanding into microinsurance, approached MicroEnsure about an acquisition. Leftley was concerned about making such a significant decision with an untested partner and instead opted to form an Asia-focused joint venture (JV). When finalized, this JV would give MicroEnsure access to approximately 130 million potential customers.
These factors encouraged Leftley to focus on spinning out MicroEnsure as a for-profit entity and raising external capital to fund growth. The company had received a term sheet from one other investment fund, but that deal would be complex and remove management from any ownership position. MicroEnsure’s leadership was not convinced this was the right partner to help navigate the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. Therefore, MicroEnsure continued discussions with Telenor and several other commercial investors to seek funding as it pursued independent growth.
In November 2011, Leftley approached Costa to see if ON would provide a short-term $1 million bridge loan that would convert into equity when the company raised its priced Series A. The company would run out of cash in the summer of 2012, so a decision would need to be made quickly. Based on valuation negotiations at the time, ON had an opportunity to secure a 20% ownership stake in the company upon conversion of the $1 million note and a further infusion of $250,000 in MicroEnsure’s A round. Costa felt that the valuation seemed reasonable. While MicroEnsure had been in operation since 2005, in many ways, the new commercial business model was unproven. Additionally, there were no comparables to look at, as there were no precedents for a spinoff from a nonprofit.
The Opportunity
Costa and Bannick believed MicroEnsure offered a promising alternative insurance model with a large potential market. In addition to the potential for massive customer scale, the partnership delivery model offered the opportunity for a viable and compelling future business model, one that could spur the microinsurance industry and solidify a symbiosis between financial inclusion and mobile businesses. Along the key dimensions of reach, engagement, and influence, MicroEnsure’s business model and market potential were exciting.
The partnership model also underpinned the financial case. In 2012, MicroEnsure served 4 million people, which Costa estimated represented only 2% to 3% of its market potential. Total potential premium volume was upwards of $40 billion.[endnoteRef:34] If able to execute, MicroEnsure might be uniquely positioned to capitalize on the $40 billion market potential due to its innovative partnership model. [34: “Insurance in Developing Countries: Exploring Opportunities in Microinsurance,” Lloyd’s 360º Risk Insight, accessed August 2017.]
MicroEnsure’s experience with one of the leading telecom operators in Ghana showed it had a compelling value proposition: the partnership had reduced churn and increased average revenue per user (ARPU) for the partner. (MicroEnsure had begun negotiating its JV with Telenor.) If MicroEnsure were successful, the insurance product would be able to reduce churn and increase ARPU by 5%, and the incremental revenues could be significant.
Moreover, financial services companies sometimes sold at multiples of up to 6x EBITDA. If MicroEnsure was able to grow the Telenor JV over the next five years and, assuming no dilution ( implying that ON would need to invest additional capital) and an exit multiple at peak trading multiples of 6x EBITDA, an investment could deliver up to a 15% internal rate of return. (See Exhibit 6 for company financials.)
Additionally, ON was uniquely positioned to be a strategic long-term partner to MicroEnsure as it navigated the transition from nonprofit to for-profit. In addition to funding, ON offered executive coaching and talent development resources, both of which Costa anticipated would be invaluable should ON invest. Given ON’s own impact thesis, Costa envisioned it could act as an ally to MicroEnsure management in its effort to balance mission, profitability, and growth.
However, Costa and Bannick knew there were significant risks that threatened both the financial and impact thesis. First, the financial case had several optimistic assumptions. The financial projections were premised on a successful Telenor partnership. While conversations to date had been productive, there was always risk in a concentrated partner relationship. Would such a tight relationship with a single operator dissuade other operators from working with MicroEnsure, constraining growth? Moreover, the return projections assumed ON would be able to maintain a 20% ownership stake. ON’s experience was that this type of investment would likely require several more equity rounds, which could dilute its ownership stake over time. This would certainly be the case if the Telenor relationship turned out not to be as profitable as anticipated. In addition, ON would have to make decisions in the future as to what degree it would continue to support the company with additional investments. Under some scenarios, its ownership could drop to below 5%. Moreover, a five-year timeline to exit could be ambitious in a market with shallow private capital reserves.
Second, ON had not yet invested in a microinsurance company, and an investment in MicroEnsure would represent a markedly different approach from its experience with microcredit institutions. Previous investors in microinsurance usually took established insurance providers down market. The impact and return potential depended on MicroEnsure’s ability to build profitable, long-term relationships with incumbent telecom operators—a notoriously challenging group. If MicroEnsure was unable to continue forging new partnerships with mobile carriers and maintain some pricing power, both growth and profitability would be significantly threatened. While mobile operators had a history of building successful partnerships with value-added services (VAS) providers around products like ringtones and games, partnerships around financial services had been much more challenging, as evidenced by the termination of the M-Kesho product (a suite of financial products) jointly offered by the mobile payment company M-Pesa and Equity Bank.[endnoteRef:35] [35: Emanuel Were and Jevans Nyabiage, “How Equity Bank Lost yuMobile—and What it Means for Nakumatt,” Standard Digital, March 18, 2014, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/business/article/2000107162/how-equity-bank-lost-yumobile-and-what-it-means-for-nakumatt, accessed January 2018.]
Moreover, there remained customer adoption risk. While MicroEnsure sought to address a significant unmet need—insurance for a market that ON believed to be more than 1.5 billion people—customer acceptance and uptake of new products was notoriously difficult in Africa and Asia, particularly for more complex products. MicroEnsure would need to execute on its ambitious sales and distribution model, while also improving its technology, in order to tap into the market.
Finally, this would be the first time ON would be financing a company as it transitioned from nonprofit to for-profit. The transition, and subsequent introduction of corporate partners and for-profit investors, would bring new and unforeseen pressures and challenges. Did MicroEnsure have the right leadership and talent in place to navigate the startup and venture world? Would the organization make the cultural transitions successfully? Would it be able to execute well under the time-bound pressures of demanding new investors?
ON considered that a $1 million bridge loan convertible into equity would allow it to earn a financial return if the business was profitable and would likely lead ON to take a more proactive role in MicroEnsure’s future direction, including an assumed board seat. While the MicroEnsure management team had presented projections that would make MicroEnsure a Category A2 investment, there were significant risks that threatened commercial returns. The investment terms came with requirements for additional capital in later funding rounds ($250,000 immediately and potentially up to several million dollars in subsequent rounds)—a significant commitment given that MicroEnsure was still at such an early stage. If financial risks were too high, was the potential market-level impact compelling enough to warrant the risk of a Category B investment? Would MicroEnsure eventually attract commercial capital and influence the incumbent insurance companies to consider the mass market as an attractive segment? Costa considered whether perhaps a grant would be a more prudent form of capital to test the viability of this new market and ensure that the company would continue to innovate without being concerned about near-term profitability. Or should Costa convince his partners and the investment committee that the sector-creation potential was worth a for-profit ON investment, with all the commitments that entailed?
Lenddo
Lenddo was founded in 2011 as an online credit scoring and verification service. The software-as-a-service (SaaS) was first offered in the Philippines, using an algorithm that drew upon opt-in, permissioned, online user data to determine a customer’s identity, character, and capacity to repay. Unlike traditional credit scores, which typically used credit and financial history, Lenddo drew upon customers’ digital data and network in order to determine a “LenddoScore.”[endnoteRef:36] Customers gained access to Lenddo’s credit scoring services after opting to allow the use of their data during a credit application. In doing so, Lenddo assured customers that it would not share their data. Lenddo had made the strategic decision to fund all loans (ranging from $300 to $1,000 per individual) independently at first, arguing this would allow it to more quickly build its technology and algorithms as well as license services to other lenders. [36: Lenddo, “Our Products,” https://www.lenddo.com/products.html#creditscore, accessed June 2017.]
The company started with a belief that when assessing credit risk, personal character was as important as past financial history—and that online data taken from sources such as social media provided a modern, data-driven opportunity to leverage that belief.[endnoteRef:37] Because the LenddoScore system could potentially enable consumers without traditional credit histories to get credit, it opened up potential opportunity for new customers in emerging markets, as many individuals in low- to middle-income communities had limited or no prior credit and had difficulty applying for a loan or credit card through traditional channels. However, these same customers, referred to as the aspiring middle class, increasingly had access to the internet, mobile phones, and social media platforms. Lenddo’s initial customer base was young Filipino professionals. (See Exhibit 7 for Lenddo’s target customer market.) Before Lenddo, this target customer base had to work with payday lenders and pawnshops to access capital. Traditional banks typically did not provide loans to the aspiring middle class, and emerging microfinance organizations typically targeted low-income individuals. [37: Arjuna Costa, “Why We Invested: Lenddo,” Omidyar Network, October 10, 2016, https://www.omidyar.com/blog/why-we-invested-lenddo, accessed June 2017.]
From its launch in February 2011 through December of that year, Lenddo had 25,000 members throughout the Philippines and extended approximately 550 loans. In order to qualify for a loan, each potential borrower had to have at least three members in their network, including one work colleague, one friend, and one family member. These individuals had to sign up to be a Lenddo member, affirmatively opting into the Lenddo network. Any repayment failure had an impact on both the borrower’s and this trusted network’s scores. The average loan was around $400, with maturities ranging from 6 to 12 months. Every loan carried a 2% flat monthly interest rate (a 42% APR), less than half the typical rates being charged in the Philippines at that time. To that point, default rates, defined as outstanding loans 30 days past due, were below 2%. In sum, Lenddo earned roughly $24 for every $100 loaned. By the end of 2012, Lenddo expected to extend about $2.1 million in loans, which would require $1.4 million in funding, accounting for interest repayments.
The Investment Case
Lenddo sought to secure $6 million in its first round of funding by the end of March 2012. Costa and Bannick considered a $1 million investment with a 5% ownership stake, assuming a $14 million pre-money valuation. The sector had already seen a few high-profile raises, with valuations above what was being proposed by the lead investor in the round. However, these “comparable deals” had been in U.S. or European markets, where the financial services infrastructure was well developed. There were no comparable companies that had surmounted the challenges of expanding across multiple emerging markets with an untested client segment. On the other hand, the competition for such customers was lower, and the potential of the aspiring middle class in the emerging markets was attractive to a number of potential investors, as it provided uncorrelated risk and growth opportunities.
Table 1Comparable Valuations
Source: Company documents.
The company projected a high financial return potential through its strategy targeting emerging-market, middle-class consumers. While the investment was still in a very early stage, Lenddo’s cofounders had past experience as entrepreneurs, particularly in building companies reliant on big data and in the context of emerging markets.
Costa and Bannick believed there were many compelling elements to the model. First, Lenddo’s credit risk assessment model did not rely on past financial data, which meant Lenddo had the potential to reach many customers who typically did not have such information available for potential lenders. ON also believed that access to the internet, social media, and smartphones would increase and that an early investment could produce greater returns than even some of the most optimistic projections, as access to the internet and social media extended beyond the aspiring middle class.
Second, it believed Lenddo had significant growth potential. Lenddo planned to use proceeds from this investment round to improve its loan underwriting algorithm and build credibility with lenders and customers alike. If successful, Lenddo could establish itself as a leading alternative to traditional loan underwriting, resulting in unprecedented access to credit for the emerging middle class, a segment forecasted to reach 1.2 billion people by 2030. Costa commented, “One of the most appealing aspects of investing in Lenddo was that they had the potential to fundamentally disrupt traditional loan underwriting.” Third, Lenddo’s model could be highly profitable at scale. An optimistic model forecasted Lenddo’s operating profit as having the potential to increase to more than $51 million by 2016. The ON team ran a number of sensitivities on management’s projections; even if the company were to achieve a fraction of the expected growth, and ON’s stake were diluted down to 4% due to future capital raises, the deal had the potential to produce an internal rate of return (IRR) of 44%. (See Exhibit 8 for Lenddo’s financial projections.)
However, the financial case rested on uncertain assumptions. Lenddo’s growth was constrained to the size of its loan book, as its profitability was driven primarily through underwriting loans. Even if Lenddo raised sufficient funding in its first round, it would need several additional rounds to prove out its algorithm and reach scale. Based on Lenddo’s burn rate, a $6 million equity raise would last only 16 to 18 months before additional external capital would be required. While Lenddo had started conversations with venture debt funders for access to credit to expand the loan portfolio, additional and costly equity would likely be required. The company’s aggressive growth strategy relied on the growth of mobile web and social media usage in emerging markets, as well as the ability to adhere to different country’s regulations. Anticipated growth in new markets relied upon a foundation that community bonds were the same online and offline; with just a year of data in a single market, the ON team was unsure of this assumption. Lenddo would need to build a straightforward user interface for new members across very diverse markets. Would user attitudes to data sharing and privacy be the same across markets? And could the management team handle the complexity of managing operations across multiple geographies, each with its own set of regulations?
The team was also concerned that, given Lenddo’s reliance on big data—still a nascent concept—investors and partners might be skeptical. Costa reflected further: “We did not know if big data would become mainstream. And even if it did, would Lenddo be able to convince lending organizations of an unconventional and somewhat unproven credit scoring approach?”
As importantly, the financial inclusion team was concerned with mission alignment. While its “reach” numbers were compelling, should ON invest in products for the aspiring middle class when so many others lacked basic financial services? After all, Lenddo operated in, and planned to expand to, markets with huge populations below the poverty line. While some growth projections included low-income customers, users needed digital data, which required ownership of or access to a computer, smartphone, or other internet-enabled device. Costa explained some of their chief concerns as the financial inclusion team deliberated on Lenddo’s fit within ON’s impact investment strategy:
We looked at two levels when considering drawbacks with an investment in Lenddo. First, we were not sure if delivering credit to the emerging middle class aligned with ON’s vision of direct impact. Second, establishing credit scores via online data would only work if major creditors and banks bought in, which was not a given. If they did not, Lenddo would end up as a fringe idea that produced little of the promising financial return and impact.
The Decision
Costa and Bannick considered ON’s mission and strategy in light of the financial inclusion initiative: “[M]ake catalytic investments in organizations with potential for massive impact, in an efficient and scalable manner through innovation.” With limited capital, any investment needed to be in service of this newly defined mission. Moreover, their returns framework had been met with significant curiosity by the market, and other investors were waiting to see how it was applied in practice. ON was excited at the prospect of influencing the impact investing field away from the impact-versus-returns debate, but was also keenly aware that real-world complexities were hard to fit into its idealized framework. Costa and Bannick knew they would have to be able to explain their decisions not only to their internal investment team, but likely to the field. Should they make the investments, and if so, how should they be classified?
Exhibit 1Impact Investing Definition
Source: JP Morgan Global Research Team, The Rockefeller Foundation, and Global Impact Investing Network, “Impact Investments: An Emerging Asset Class,” November 29, 2010, p. 7, https://thegiin.org/assets/documents/Impact%20Investments%20an%20Emerging%20Asset%20Class2.pdf, accessed August 2017.
Exhibit 2ON Returns Continuum Framework
Source: Company documents.
Exhibit 3Omidyar Network Initiative Descriptions
EducationON made education investments in India, Africa, South America, and the U.S. The initiative focused its investments on three specific areas to address multifaceted issues: innovative K12 teaching and pedagogical models for both private and public schools; educational technology (ed-tech) for K12 schools; and online and offline skills-training programs directly associated with partnering employers. In the U.S., ON focused on investments that would impact child development before kindergarten (from birth to age five).
Emerging TechnologyThe emerging technologies initiative focused on investing in entrepreneurs developing accessible mobile and online technologies, as well as policies aimed at increasing technology accessibility in emerging markets. Many of these investments focused on making an impact in emerging markets both in the U.S. and in the emerging markets.
Governance & Citizen EngagementBased on Omidyar’s foundational premise that everyone should have equal opportunity, this initiative invested in organizations and civic groups aimed at increasing opportunity and resource accessibility. Investments included organizations that tracked government programs or monitored budget expenditures to reduce corruption. Investments in this initiative were focused primarily in India, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa, and the U.S.
Property RightsON operated a property rights initiative on the principle that owning property catalyzed social identity, inclusion, economic stability, and environmental awareness. In turn, ON invested in research efforts aimed at improving property rights policies around the globe.
Financial InclusionON invested in businesses and technology intended to improve economic development. Under the premise that more than 2.5 billion people did not have access to financial services around the globe, and that such services enable financial stability, ON also invested in financial inclusion research and policy reform. This initiative aimed to work with financially underserved populations in both emerging markets and the U.S.
Source: Casewriter, adapted from the company website.
Exhibit 4ON Financial Inclusion Strategy, 2012
Source: Company documents.
Exhibit 5MicroEnsure Model for Delivering Insurance Products to the Mass Market
Source: MicroEnsure, “Our Model,” https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-model/https://microensure.com/about-microensure/our-model/, accessed June 2017.
Exhibit 6Financial Projections for MicroEnsure (2013–2017) in U.S. Dollars
Source: Company documents.
Note: All in USD except “Policies,” which indicated the total number of MicroEnsure policies. “Admin revenue” reflected revenue from insurance companies outsourcing their existing back-office operations to MicroEnsure. (Source: company documents.)
Exhibit 7Lenddo: Target Market
Source: Company documents.
Exhibit 8Financial Projections for Lenddo in U.S. Dollars, 2012–2017
Management Upside Case Projections:
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Core Revenue |
$745,146 |
$3,500,000 |
$10,800,000 |
$29,750,000 |
$67,500,000 |
$124,875,000 |
Cross Sell Revenue |
— |
224,000 |
720,000 |
2,040,000 |
4,725,000 |
8,880,000 |
Operating Revenue |
745,146 |
3,724,000 |
11,520,000 |
31,790,000 |
72,225,000 |
133,755,000 |
Salaries and Benefits |
2,634,149 |
3,638,896 |
4,612,968 |
5,432,741 |
6,430,624 |
7,646,483 |
Technology Related Expenses |
406,157 |
812,314 |
1,624,628 |
3,249,256 |
6,498,512 |
12,997,024 |
Marketing Expenses |
885,528 |
1,328,291 |
1,992,437 |
2,988,655 |
4,482,983 |
6,724,474 |
Other Expenses |
721,905 |
1,082,857 |
1,624,286 |
2,436,429 |
3,654,643 |
5,481,954 |
Total Costs |
4,647,738 |
6,862,358 |
9,854,318 |
14,107,081 |
21,066,762 |
32,849,946 |
Net Income |
(3,902,592) |
(3,138,358) |
1,665,682 |
17,682,919 |
51,158,238 |
100,905,054 |
ON Base Case Projections:
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Core Revenue |
$735,000 |
$2,565,000 |
$6,325,000 |
$13,625,000 |
$27,580,000 |
$46,732,500 |
Cross Sell Revenue |
— |
216,000 |
575,000 |
1,308,000 |
1,758,000 |
4,824,000 |
Operating Revenue |
735,000 |
2,781,000 |
6,900,000 |
14,933,000 |
30,338,000 |
51,556,500 |
Salaries and Benefits |
2,634,149 |
3,338,896 |
4,162,968 |
4,982,741 |
6,130,624 |
7,496,483 |
Technology Related Expenses |
406,157 |
812,314 |
1,624,628 |
3,249,256 |
6,498,512 |
12,997,024 |
Marketing Expenses |
885,528 |
1,328,291 |
1,992,437 |
2,988,655 |
4,482,983 |
6,724,474 |
Other Expenses |
721,905 |
1,082,857 |
1,624,286 |
2,436,429 |
3,654,643 |
5,481,965 |
Total Costs |
4,647,738 |
6,562,358 |
9,404,318 |
13,657,081 |
20,766,762 |
32,699,946 |
Net Income |
(3,912,738) |
(3,781,358) |
(2,504,318) |
1,275,919 |
9,571,238 |
18,856,554 |
Source: Company documents.
Note: Some company numbers were masked for purposes of the case.
Endnotes
6
21
image2.png
image3.jpeg
image4.png
image5.png
image6.png
image7.jpeg
image8.png
image9.png
image1.png