Report on Descriptive statistic of the companies

 The following tables explain the descriptive statistic of five years (2013- 2017) each year in table. These results table also give the values of Mean, Standard deviation Minimum and Max values of observations of companies in five years (203- 2017).

Table 3.6

 Above table (seeTab 3.6) reports showed the results study variables values of 2013. The overall observations showed the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of the study variables. In 2013, number of branches was minimum 4 and maximum 2080 (M = 660. 333, S.D = 801. 85), number of deposit was minimum175 and maximum 8528862 (M = 3595171, S.D = 4041087), deposit (Mn) was minimum130 and maximum 152610 (M = 43621. 83, S.D = 59832. 19), number of borrowers were minimum 4439 and maximum 5362009 (M = 1421908 , S.D = 2033809 ), loan portfolio (Mn) was minimum 743 and maximum 98066 (M = 32306. 33, S.D = 38959.71).

Table 3.7

           Above table (see.Tab 3.7) reports showed the results study variables values of 2014. The overall observations showed the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of the study variables. In 2014, number of branches was minimum 8 and maximum 2185 (M =812.8 , S.D = 862. 814), number of deposit was minimum 40244 and maximum 9104024 (M = 4677584, S.D = 4397241), deposit (Mn) was minimum 328 and maximum 89634 (M = 43467.8 , S.D = 41285.08), number of borrowers were minimum 7677 and maximum 6618730 (M = 1806092, S.D = 2741566 ), loan portfolio (Mn) was minimum 2768 and maximum 128026 (M = 40051.6 S.D = 51251.89).

Table 3.8

Above tables (seeTab 3.8)  reports showed the results study variables values of 2015. The overall observations showed the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of the study variables. In 2015, number of branches was minimum 8 and maximum 2210 (M = 818. 2, S.D = 872. 606), number of deposit was minimum 56145 and maximum 9631080 (M = 3970249, S.D = 4005049), deposit (Mn) was minimum 350 and maximum 94685 (M = 49381. 8, S.D = 45980. 51), number of borrowers were minimum 8555 and maximum 1599058 (M = 615732. 4, S.D = 650864. 3), loan portfolio (Mn) was minimum 976 and maximum 41276 (M = 24669. 8, S.D = 20580. 84).

Table 3.9

           Above tables (seeTab 3) reports showed the results study variables values of 2016. The overall observations showed the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of the study variables. In 2016, number of branches was minimum 8 and maximum 2227 (M = 825. 6, S.D = 877. 5559), number of deposit was minimum 63987 and maximum 9394710 (M = 4625598, S.D = 4165804), deposit (Mn) was minimum 323 and maximum 101225 (M = 44539. 4, S.D = 45190. 45), number of borrowers were minimum 8848 and maximum 1272504 (M = 593145. 2, S.D = 448945. 1), loan portfolio (Mn) was minimum 1207 and maximum 106802 (M = 40890. 6, S.D = 42958. 22).

Table 3.10

Above table (seeTab 3.10) reports showed the results study variables values of 2017. The overall observations showed the mean, standard deviation, minimum and maximum values of the study variables. In 2017, number of branches was minimum 8 and maximum 2227 (M = 825.6, S.D = 877. 55), number of deposit was minimum 63987 and maximum 9394710 (M = 4625598, 4165804 S.D =), deposit (Mn) was minimum 323 and maximum 101225 (M = 44539. 4, S.D = 45190. 45), number of borrowers were minimum 8848 and maximum 1272504 (M = 593145. 2, S.D = 448945. 1), loan portfolio (Mn) was minimum 1207 and maximum 106802 (M = 40890. 6, S.D = 42958. 22).

 1.1Comparative analysis of The microfinancing industry of Sri Lanka.

Comparative analysis is a better analysis for understing or examine the factors .reaseacher used this comparative  analysis for understanding the relationship of factors and compare to each companies. Blow the the figure(seeTab 3.1) shows that number of companies and their number of branchers. as per the efficiency result department cooperative societies has les efficiency comparing with other companies and also this comparative  analysis can help to examine the result .

        Above the figure(seeTab 3-1) releavel that department of cooperative societies have huge numbers of branches all of the district in srilanka. As per the result its showing cooperative societies have  number of branches above 2150 from 2013 to 2017. Cooperative rural bank is one of the olderest micro finance institution in srilanka also one of the  wider finance provider in srilanka. Secondly got place high place for samurdthi authority, its has approximately 1000 branches in all of the district in srilanka. samudhi also one of the olderest micro fiancé institution in srilanka.third and fourth  are department of agrarian development and regional bank nearly 1000 and 500 branches .lankaputhra bank has only 8 branches in srilnka. Comparing the all companies with number of branches cooparative societies and samurdhi banks are very large amout of branches and srilanka

Below the figure(seeTab3-2) shows that number of deposit line chart , here the  horizontal axes is represended by years as a number and  vertical axes is represended by amount of deposit number

Above the line chart (seeFig3-2) shows that  samurdhi bank has the top in the end of year as number of deposit , they have above  14,000,000 deposit in all of the district in the end of the year 2017. Here also shows that samurdhi bank has  8,528,862 in the year of 2013 then declined in the 2015 as 4,234,029 after 2013 can see samurdhi bank rapidly increasing and the end of the year of 2017 above 14,000,000 in  total deposit in all of the destrict. Secondly here chat shows that cooperative banks are slightly increasing their number of deposit all the disctric of in srilanka. Nearly 2013 in 8000,000 and 2017 in 10,000,000. Thirdly regional development bank slightly getting more their number of deposit in all destric in srilanka. Nearly 4500,000 to 6200,000 in year of 2013 and 2017. Lankaputhra development company got number of deposit in 2013 that 175 with 4 branches after that branchers increased as 8 also custmobers deposit also increased.then agrarian bank shows that their customers number of deposit increasing from 2013 to 2017 that 33000 from nearly 700,000. Most of the companies their number of deposit depending on their number of branches. overall this number of deposit comparative analysis  result shows that samurdhi bank has more number of deposits than others companies secondly cooperative societies.

        Below the figure(seeTab3-3) shows that deposit  chart , here the  horizontal axes is represended by years as a number and  vertical axes is represended by deposi

           Above the chart(seeFig3-3) presended that totals deposit in (Mn) and years. Here the indicated are shows that cooperative development bank has higher total amount of deposit in 2013 . its 152,610 after that indicated shows that got down in 2014 then slightly increasing and in the end of the study year in 113,387 deposits (Mn). Samurdhi authority and reginal developmenttbanks statistis indicates that both banks are dramatically  increasing the deposits from 2013 to 2017 and specially regional development bank has 62,647 total deposit amount in 2013 then dramatically increasing finally in the end of study year got 136,582 and also the samurdhi authority banks has good result in 2013 to 2017 . here the satistic shows that 2013 in 45,848 then dramatically increasing and the end of the 2017 in 87,407. and lankathra bank and department of agrarian development bank also have good sign from 2013 to 2017 . overall this total deposit amount indicates are shows that reginal development bank have very good efficiency  and samurdhi, lankaputhra, agrarian bank, also have better situation but cooperative societies have huge impact after 2013.

           Below the figure(seeFig3-3) shows that number of deposit line chart , here the  horizontal axes is represended by years as a number and  vertical axes is represended by number of the borrowers. Generally there should be the  possive relationship with size of the companies and others factors  like if the companies has more branches then they should have more number of deposit and number of borrowers ,in the aspect of this can come up to the conclusion lankaputhra bank, agrarian banks and regional and  bnaks  are more efficiency like like they have medium branches even they are more effectiveness .the statistic indicates that they are maximum  utilizing input factors to get output results.below the chart show the  each companies of number of borrowers all the disctrict of the srilanka.

Above the chart shows that samurdhi bank in earlier they have more borrowers then got down.all and other companies have same level between the 500,000 to 1500,000 borrowers in the end of the years . as per the result  we can see that lankaputhra bank, regional bank , agrarian bank and samudhi bank are more efficiency because they use the input factors efficiency and cooperative societies have not use the input factors efficiently.

           Below the figure(seeFig3-4) shows that loan portfolio line chart , here the  horizontal axes is represended by years as a number and  vertical axes is represended by loan portfolio

As the chart reveals that according the size of companies as a samurdhu bank  and department of cooperative socities has less efficiency comparing others bank , specially cooperative bank has huge amount of branches even throuth their loan portfolio has showing that average percentage its means they didn’t use the input factors to get the output results.at the same time lankaputhra bank , regional bank, agrarian banks are more efficiency because they use the input factors efficiently .

   Above the chart (seeFig3-5) loan portfolio shows that companies output factors efficiency, as per the overall factors results agrarian bank, lankaputhra bank, and regional bank have DEA efficiency  score equal to 1 , its means they are ultilizing their input factors to get output result. Samurdhi bank also nearly to the equalt to 1 , but the department of cooperative development have less DEA efficiency because changing the input and output  factors could  impact on the company efficiency.

           According to the companrative analysis shows that cooperative societies only the micro finance in srilanaka institution and as per the DEA result show the cooperative department has less efficiency and to get more understand researcher carried out the cooperative department statistic analysis. Below the figures shows  that cooperative department net profit s and total income statistic, that would also more support to the reseach conclusion.below the total income of cooperative department proved  that they do not have proper total income . total income of cooperative societies has illustrated the year of 2013 to 2017 and the study year proved that cooperative societies have fluctuate with total income .below the figure(seeFig3-6) shows that department of cooperative have total income 161.6 in 2013 the increased by the 5 percentage then dropped it dowm for the 2 years then in the 2017 was increased by 181.3. overall this cooperative department total income statistic report shows that company has fluctuate with total income and 2017 can see that company has 181.3 (Mm) total income , it was the highest value of all of the year.

Below the figure (seeFig3-7) shows that net profit of the cooperative income, this satistic shows that cooperative rural bank has decreased net profit during the 2013 to 2015 then 2015 to 2017 can see the improvement.

     The  spearman test analysis showed the correlation coefficient and significant p value of three inputs factors Desposit (Mn), Number of deposit and number of branches and two outputs Number of Borrowers and Loan Portfolio (Mm)

Table 3.11

Spearman correlation coefficient test result

Above the result shows that hypothesis test result  , table shows that number of btanches as a input factor got less than 0.05 p value  and loan portfolio (Mm) also got .001 , its means result shows that number of branchers has negative relationship correlation coefficient with hypotheis , loan portfolio(Mn) has positive relationship of correlation coefficient with hypothesis ,its means if the loan portfolio is increasing also efficiency (TE) increased, other input  factors are the number of deposit , deposit , shows that size of the deposit and size of the number of deposit has no impact on  efficiency.

Also number of borrowers has no impact on efficiency because p value is greater than 0.05 .

Following the hypothesis question result are

H1- is there a relation between the number of branches and the efficiency (TE)?

The spearman correlation analysis showed that there is negative relationship between number of branches and the efficiency. The significant p value is also less than 0. 05. It means that with the increase of number of branches of institute decrease the efficiency of institutes. 

 H2- is there a relationship between number of deposit and efficiency (TE)?

The spearman correlation analysis showed there is no relationship between number of deposit and the efficiency.  The significant p values is also greater than 0. 05. It means that number of deposits is not influence the efficiency of institutes. 

H3- is there a relationship between the size of the deposit (Mn) and the efficiency (TE)?

 The spearman correlation analysis showed there is no relationship between number of deposit and the efficiency. The significant p values is also greater than 0. 05. It means that number of deposits is not influence the efficiency of institutes. 

H4- Is there a relationship between the size of the number of borrowers and the efficiency (TE)?

  The spearman correlation analysis showed there is no relationship between number of deposit and the efficiency. The significant p values is also greater than 0. 05. It means that number of deposits is not influence the efficiency of institutes. 

H5- Is there a relationship between loan portfolio size (Mm) and efficiency (TE)?

   The spearman correlation analysis showed that there is positive relationship between Loan portfolio size (Mm) and the efficiency. The significant p value is also less than 0. 05. It means that as the Loan portfolio size (Mm) of institute increase the efficiency of institutes also increase

Conclusion of The microfinancing industry of Sri Lanka.

The focus of this research paper is to determine the factors which could evaluate the efficiency of microfinance. We have determined & evaluated the indicators of financial and social performances of these MFIs. The scope of this study has focused on micro-financial industry of Sri Lanka.  Over a period of time, different institutions have been established in many countries to provide microfinance. The purpose of these institutes is to generate opportunities for poor households by delivering them short & long term loans and arrangement of securities against their credits. Many lending model groups have been created and tested in different countries to evaluate the efficiency of microfinance. The focus of the present study was to find out the key factors which affect micro-financing and determining the efficiency of institutes in Sri Lanka The sample of the present study was taken from five banks Regional development bank, Cooperative rural bank, Samurdhi Authority, Department of Agrarian and Lankaputhra development bank. The data is collected from the annual reports of the organizations. The data employment analysis (DEA) was done for technical analysis. The researcher identified three inputs (Deposit, Number of deposit and number of branches) and two outputs (number of Borrowers and Loan Portfolio). The DEA (Data Envelopment Analysis) model was used for the construction of and measurement of efficiency score.  The results of descriptive statistic correlation values of input and output factors showed positive relationship with passing of year. Results reported that p value is less than .05. It explained the significant relationship between the correlation three inputs (Deposit, Number of deposit and number of branches) and two outputs (number of Borrowers and Loan Portfolio.

The results findings of the present research revealed that the influence of the number of borrowers on loan portfolios (Mn). The number of borrowers showed strong relation with loan portfolio (Mn) in 2013 and 2015 whereas weak relationship was measured in 2014, 2016 and 2017. It means that loan portfolio (Mn) was more influenced by number of borrowers in 2013 and 2015 as compared to 2014, 2016, 2017. The comparative results have revealed that cooperative societies have huge numbers of branches all of the district in Sri Lanka. As per the result its shows cooperative societies have the number of branches above 2150 from 2013 to 2017. The cooperative rural bank is one of the older microfinance institutions in Sri Lanka also one of the wider finance providers in Sri Lanka.

Secondly got place high place for Samurdthi authority, it has approximately 1000 branches in all of the districts in Sri Lanka. Samudhi also one of the older micro fiancé institutions in Sri Lanka. Third and fourth are department of agrarian development and regional bank nearly 1000 and 500 branches .Lankaputhra bank has only 8 branches in Sri Lanka. Comparing all companies with number of branches, cooperative societies and samurdhi banks are very large amount of branches and Sri Lanka. Loan portfolio (Mn) has positive relationship of correlation coefficient with hypothesis, its means if the loan portfolio is increasing also efficiency (TE) increased, other input factors are the number of deposit, deposit, shows that size of the deposit and size of the number of deposit has no impact on efficiency.

DEA analysis compares the relativity efficiency of the organization for an example in a company efficiency factor can consider as input and output, input are such as staffs, assets, branches, operating expenses and output factors are such as sales volume and revenue those efficiency factors are taking to the one model and calculating the organization efficiency. The DEA Analysis have shown that Cooperative development has lower efficiency. The reason behind lower efficiency of the bank is the change in the input and output factors of the corporation. When the input & output factors experience rapid change, then the efficiency of the organization decline.

In the study the cooperative development’s total income and net profit have been analysed to understand why cooperative development’s efficiency is lower. The results have revealed that the total income & net profit of the organization which is output factors have experienced fluctuation in the period of 2013 to 2017. As discussed earlier the change in the factors has impact on the efficiency of the organization and that is why the efficiency of the corporation declined. If the output factors experienced stability in the specified period than the results might be different because continuous growth in net income indicates higher efficiency.

Now if the inputs factors are analysed such as number of branches than it can be seen that the Cooperative development have the highest number of branches than all the other microfinance institution. The results of correlation coefficient test reveal that there is a negative relationship between the number of branches and the efficiency of the institution. The higher will be the number of branches, the lower will be the efficiency of the institution. As Cooperative development has the highest number of branches than other microfinance institutions, its efficiency is also lower as a result, and the correlation coefficient test results confirm that.

The reason for failure of the cooperative development is that the cooperative development has huge number of branches. In Sri Lanka Cooperative development bank is the one which has the largest number of branches. As discussed earlier the number of branches have negative relationship with the efficiency. As cooperative development has high number of branches it efficiency declines which become the main reason for the failure of the institution. Furthermore the loan portfolio has also lowered which decreases the efficiency and become another reason for the failure of the cooperative development.

References of  Descriptive statistic of the companies 

(n.d.). Retrieved from www.cbsl.gov.lk: https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/

Gunatilaka & Silva. (2010). Microfinance and women's empowerment : the impact of loan ownership on women's empowerment in microfinance households in Sri Lanka.

Stevenson & St-Onge. (2005). Support for Growth-oriented Women Entrepreneurs in Tanzania.

annual report of divineguma. (2017). department of divineguma development.

Atapattu, A. (2009). State of Microfinance in Sri Lanka.

Beatriz Armendáriz,Bert D’Espallier ,Marek Hudon . (2011). Subsidy Uncertainty and Microfinance Mission Drift.

Bernstein & Seibel. (2011). Reparations, Microfinance, and Gender:A Plan, with Strategies for Implementation. 75-113.

CBS. (2010). Annual Report of the Monetary Board To the Hon Minister of Finance.

Chandradasa, A. J. (2019). Microfinance and Shelter: An Impact Assessment of microfinance on improving housing conditions of rural srilanka.

charitonenko, S. (2002). Commercialization of micro finance in sri lanka. 3-20.

Chavan, P & Ramakumar, R. (2002). Micro-Credit and Rural Poverty:An Analysis of Empirical Evidence.

CRB. (2017). cooperative rural bank annual report.

crbbank.lk. (2017). Colombo District Cooperative Rural Bank Union Limited. Retrieved from https://www.crbbank.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/CRB-Bank-Annual-Report-2017.pdf

DCS. (2009). Household Income and Expenditure. colombo.

DDF. (2017). department of finance , performance report. department of finance.

Demirguc-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D. and Oudheusden. (2015). The Global Findex Database 2014: Measuring Financial Inclusion around the World.

divineguma, P. r. (2015). department of divineguma development.

economicshelp.org. (2019). Technical Efficiency Definition. Retrieved from https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/technical-efficiency/

Fixing Sri Lanka’s labour market: Comparative lessons. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ft.lk/columns/Fixing-Sri-Lanka-s-labour-market--Comparative-lessons/4-658844: ft.lk

Fletschner, D. (2009). Rural Women's Access to Credit: Market Imperfections and Intrahousehold Dynamics. world department, 618-631.

G Tilakaratna,U Wickramasinghe, . (2005). Microfinance in srilanak: A household level analysis of outreach and impact on poverty.

Harker, M. M. (2006). The Microfinance Movement: An Analysis of the Reach and Scope of Microfinance Institutions in the Developing World.

herath. (2015). Impact of Microfinance on Poverty Reduction:evidance from srilanka.

herath, H.M.W.A.,Guneratne,L.H.P.,& sanderatne,N. (2015). impact of microfinance on wowen's empowerment:a case study on two microfinance institution in srilanka. srilanka journal od social science , 51-61.

Hofstetter, S. (2008). The Interaction of Customary Law and Microfinance: Women's Entry into the World Economy. william & marry journal of women and the law.

Hossain, M. (1988). Credit For Alleviation of Rural Poverty: The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.

Hudom, & Hermes. (2018). Determinants of the Performance of Microfinance Institutions: a Systematic Review.

IMF. (2009). International Monetary Fund. Washington, D.C.

Irigoyen, c. (2017, may 30). the samurdhi programme in srilanka. Retrieved from https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/case-study/samurdhi-programme-srilanka/

Jayamaha, A. (2012). Efficiency of Small Financial Institutions in Sri Lanka using Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences. 565-573.

karim, L. (2011). Microfinance and its discontents:Women in Debt in Bangladesh.

kelegama, S. (2014). Kelegama, S. (2014). Financial Inclusion in Sri Lanka: Issues and Challenges. Seminar of the Association of Professional Bankers -.

Kingsley Bernard, Aye Aye Khin & Kevin. (2016). Entrepreneurial Success through Microfinance Services among Women Entrepreneurs in Sri Lanka: A Pilot Study and Overview of the Findings.

kobbekaduwa, H. (2016). Microfinance institution in srilanka:examination of different models to identify the success factors .

KUMAR, S. (2008). An Examination of Technical, Pure Technical. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 33-69.

Makokha, M. G. (2014). FACTORS THAT DETERMINE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS .

Manyumbu, Mutanga, & Siwadi. (2014). Factors Affecting the Sustainability of Growth of Micro-Finance Institutions in Zimbawe.

microfinance industry. (2010). micro finance industry report in srilanka.

Microfinance sector in Sri Lanka: Opportunities and growth strategies. (2012).

modoran, c. (2009). micro finance institution in srilanka. In c. modpran. colombo.

Mukama, Therese Fish & Jako Volschenk. (2005). Problems Affecting the Growth of Microfinance Institutions in Tanzania.

mulunga, A. (2010). Factors affecting the growth of microfinance institutions in Namibia.

OCDE. (2005). annual report 2005 iin journal of management .

RDB. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.rdb.lk.

Reed, L. (2011). State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report. Microcredit Summit Campaign 750 First Street, NE, Suite 1040, Washington, DC, 20002.

Robinson, M. S. (2001). The Microfinance revolution :Sustainable Finance for the Poor.

Roy Mersland,Ludovic Urgeghe. (2013). International Debt Financing and Performance ofMicronance Institutions. Wiley Online Library.

sanasa.coop. (2019). federation of thrift and credit cooperative societies in srilanka. Retrieved from https://sanasa.coop/

Sarker, A. E. (2001). The secrets of success: the grameen bank experience in bangladesh. labour and management development .

Schreiner, M. (2003). A Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh.

Shankar, S. (2007). Transaction costs in group microcredit in India.

Silva, I. D. (2012). Evaluating the Impact of Microfinance on Savings and Income in Sri Lanka:Quasi-experimental Approach Using Propensity Score Matching. 47-74.

Srikanthan. (2010). POVERTY DIMENSIONS ( WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SRI LANKA ). COLOMBO.

Suresh de Mel & David McKenzie. (2009). Are Women More Credit Constrained? Experimental Evidence on Gender and Microenterprise Returns.

Suresh de Mel, David McKenzie & Christopher Woodruff . (2007). Who Does Microfinance Fail to Reach? Experimental Evidence on Gender and Microenterprise Returns .

Thrikawala, S. (2017). Does gender diversity influence the operational sustainability of microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Sri Lanka? journal of business and technology .

Van Dame,p.,Wijesiri,M.,& Meoli. (2016). Governance and Efficiency of Microfinance Institutions: Empirical Evidence from Sri Lanka. south asian econamic journal, 236-247.