2

Our blog has moved!

3

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://investeddevelopment.com
and update your bookmarks.

4

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Mobile Phones at the Base of the Pyramid: Accessibility and Affordability

This is our first post in a series on mobile technology’s proliferation and impact on the poor in emerging markets. We will highlight the players that helped create demand and the innovative ideas that continue to drive it.
Why Mobile Matters
Numerous studies have proven that connectivity increases income. For example, Robert Jensen, economics professor at Harvard, developed a study that tracked fishermen in southern India. The study found that by investing in cell phones, fishermen were able to quickly contact potential buyers for their daily catch, enabling faster and more efficient trading that increased their revenues by 8% and decreased the overall market price of fish by 4%[1]. Inspired by Jensen’s study, scholars at the London Business School have extrapolated the findings to conclude that for every 10 additional mobile phones per 100 habitants, the GDP of a country increases by 0.5% yearly[2].
Grameen Telecom – A Pioneer in Mobile Accessibility
 In 1996 Grameen Telecom pioneered the concept that mobile phones had a market at the bottom of the pyramid. Created through a joint initiative between Dr. Muhammad Yunus and Iqbal Quadir, the Village Phone combined microfinance and mobile technology in order to microfranchise access to mobile services.
The model enabled entrepreneurial women in Bangladesh to start a business through the purchase of a mobile phone with financing from the Grameen Bank.  These Village Phone operators would then charge other villagers for its use, generating revenue that enabled them to pay back the loan and eventually realize profitability. Since 1996, Grameen Telecom has grown to over 270,000 Village Phone operators in 50,000 villages across three countries.[3]  
The success of the Grameen Phone is important not only because of how it directly increased access to mobile services, but also in that it proved the viability of a previously untapped market. It showed the world that there was a vastly unmet demand for mobile technology at the BOP and demonstrated how mobile connectivity can benefit both businesses and the people they serve.
Demonstrated market growth
Since 1996 the explosion of mobile access has been global.  Mobile penetration in Bangladesh jumped from 0.0034% to 28% in 2008.  In Angola, it went from 0.25% to 39%. The growth trend has been even greater in Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda and Colombia, which now boast 88% penetration rates (comparable to those of the United States and France at 88% and 94% respectively[4].) Looking at mobile penetration increases in the last decade, and extrapolating the trend[5], it is clear a vast majority of the world will be connected via mobile very soon.[6] 


Ultra Low Cost Handsets and Prepaid Minutes
Obviously the main barrier to increasing mobile penetration rates is the high upfront cost of mobile phones. Although the Village Phone is relatively inexpensive to access, it only allows people to communicate on a limited basis. People using the Grameen Phone cannot receive text messages and lack a unique phone number that they can provide to others.
To benefit from accessibility, users at the BOP need to own a mobile handset or at least have greater flexibility than what can be provided by a Village Phone Operator. Yet despite a growing array of ultra low cost handsets (ULCHs) like the Vodafone 150 (retailing for $15 in India and Africa), mobile handsets are still too expensive for many users.
Phone Sharing Beyond the Village Phone
Until phone prices drop further, phone sharing will remain a prevalent method of enabling accessibility.  However, sharing a number is no longer required. Today, users are able to purchase Sim cards that come loaded with minutes – an individual can then swap Sim cards in and out of shared phones in order to access their own contact lists and use only their own minutes.
More recently a technology known as the Virtual Sim has surfaced. The Virtual Sim functions just like a traditional SIM card except that it is cloud-based and is virtually transferred from phone to phone with a code. Using a borrowed handset, Virtual Sim users input a code to “flash” the handset and access their own information. Privacy is protected as they cannot access the phone’s original phonebook and call log. When they are done using the phone, they log out and it returns to the owner’s original settings.
Companies like Comviva[7] and Movirtu[8] have developed Virtual SIM platforms that allow phone-sharing on any handset. In Movirtu’s case, when the owner of a mobile handset shares their phone with a friend they receive a small payment from the telecom operator –transforming virtually any mobile phone owner into a Village Phone operator.
Where we go from here
The Village Phone, Comviva and Movirtu have shown that the world is now well on the path to increasing accessibility and affordability and that soon enough the entire world will be connected.  Innovative technologies and business models continue to drive down the cost of mobile ownership both by lowering the upfront costs of handsets and by creating flexibility with pay-as-you-go airtime and phone sharing.  This is good for social and financial inclusion of the poor, and will ultimately provide a powerful platform to bridge the gap between the developed and developing world.
In the next post of our mobile series we will explore how companies, NGOs and governments are leveraging this growing mobile penetration to drive economic development and create social benefit.






[4] UN data, accessed from Gapminder World on June 3, 2010
[5] Mobile phone penetration in the last 10 years, Developed vs. Developing World – A graph Ray Kurzweil would love, showing the exponential growth of cell phone penetration http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/ict/graphs/mobile.jpg Accessed on June 20, 2010
[6] Mobile and fixed phone penetration in Africa 1996-2006 http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/ict/graphs/af1.jpg Accessed on June 20, 2010
[8] http://www.movirtu.com/index-4c.html Accessed on June 20, 2010


Sunday, June 27, 2010

Weekly Review - June 21st - June 25th

Every week at ID, we look for articles related to impact investing, social entrepreneurship, or even our investees/investors. This week we join the community to announce the Echoing Green Fellows, share great news for funding social enterprises, great partnerships and investing in Africa. Come join us next week for more!

ID portfolio company, Promethean Power Systems has learned that strange bedfellows can lead to greater impact.  Learn how Promethean is working with Raytheon to provide solar powered daily coolers in rural India - and keep an eye out for the blurb about us!

Africa presents many opportunities for impact investors but, as this article illustrates, it is still not easy. The added risk associated with investing in these “muddy waters” increases the cost of capital. We need more people working to reduce those risks so that “market rate returns” in Africa don’t have to come at the expense of the people and environment.

Echoing Green 2010 fellows were announced this week. Invested Development is well represented by investee Jamie Yang (EGG-energy) and our friend Anna Elliot (Bamyan). 

The Ignia Fund, Latin America’s first and largest impact investing fund (co-founded by Invested Development ally Michael Chu), announced that they closed their first fund at $102 million. This is great news for impact Angel investors who will look to large impact funds to push portfolio companies through their growth stage.

We are a little partial because of the Kirin lamp that sits on our filing case (a gift from early D. Light investor Gray Ghost Ventures (aka – Gray Matters Capital)), but this is good news for the entire industry. An impact enterprise raising tech start-up dollars and garnering mainstream media attention for it is a signal for the fence sitters to cone one down.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Impact Maximization - Incorporating the full costs of doing business

Capitalism

The businesses our industry is supporting are often referred to as social enterprises, social ventures, social businesses or impact enterprises. They are, by and large, businesses that not only do-no-harm, but intend to do-good[1]. Nomenclature aside, it is an industry that requires the belief that capitalism is the most effective way we know to efficiently bring products and services to the masses.

Before you label me as a Reagan Republican[2], let me also say that traditional capitalism alone (profit maximizing business models) often fails miserably when it comes to providing essential products and services to the poor[3]. This is why we support a new breed of capitalism. Impact enterprises are businesses that are impact maximizing, not profit maximizing, a distinction – we believe- that will help them correct the market failure that has expanded poverty[4] despite the lack of real scarcity[5].

Impact Maximization vs. Profit Maximization

Impact maximization, from the most basic economic standpoint, is very similar to profit maximization. In fact, it can be argued that the impact enterprise model is the real profit maximization model because it incorporates the full costs of production. It should come as no surprise then that proponents of impact enterprises are also proponents of Full Cost Accounting[6].  Let me explain.

Profit maximization occurs for most firms at the point where marginal revenue equals marginal cost[7]. The problem arises when firms fail to accurately incorporate all the costs associated with doing business. That failure leads to external costs that are absorbed by others, called externalities. Now, since externalities are not equally distributed, companies that can create more (offsetting the largest possible amount of their costs on to others) garner greater profits. This creates a competitive environment where companies attempt to achieve the greatest offset, not the most efficient production. 

A large scale example of this is the recent shift in auto manufacturing from the union controlled Midwestern states to the “Right-to-Work”[8] dominated Southern states. With a desperate need for jobs, many Southern states have offered companies offsets, such as tax-exemptions, lax environmental protection rules, and Right-to-Work legislation that dramatically limit the power of unions to seek fair wages for their members. Of course, not all manufacturers are given the same opportunity. Those that get the best deal reap the biggest profits. But the cost of building, shipping and selling a car hasn’t really changed. They have been shifted to tax payers (through tax exemptions), future generations (through environmental degradation) and workers (through low wages).  In this environment even good companies have to seek offsets or risk becoming uncompetitive.  That’s not good business… even if it is profitable.
   
Impact enterprises more accurately internalize their costs by incorporating indirect costs that can be attributed to the business such as environmental decay and social welfare[9]. Impact maximization is when ALL Marginal Costs (including environmental costs, social costs and public costs) equal Marginal Revenue. 

Need for Support

Economic theory suggests that impact enterprises should compete well in the market place, even dominate it. But theories are academic and reality tells us different. Traditional enterprises have deep advantages over impact enterprises. By displacing costs of production, they can provide better margins (and lower prices, conflating the two methods by suggesting an end benefit to the poor consumer. I can dispute the claim but it will take more than this post to do so). This makes them more attractive for financing and, consequently, expansion. Passive investors (most people invest passively, with very little direct knowledge of the companies they are buying shares of) compare companies by looking at their revenue and profitability. 

Socially Responsible Investing is attempting to change that by curating companies that do no harm, but in most cases these indices don’t dig deep enough to see if a company is actually doing good. And they never look deep enough to see if the company practices Full Cost Accounting. We need to do more.   


[1] We will save the details on this distinction for another post, but take our word for it, there is a big difference. In the meantime you can still check this attempt at defining the difference. http://alifereinvented.com/do-no-harm-vs-do-good/
[2] Ironically, not even Reagan himself was a Reagan Republican: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/10/even-reagan-wasn-t-a-reagan-republican.html
[3] Michael Moore has made a career out pointing out this failure, but this Forbes article is more accurate: http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/27/capitalism-michael-moore-love-story-opinions-columnists-michael-maiello.html
[4] I use the U.N definition of poverty, See my Investing in Development post for more details on that discussion.
[5] See: Arnold Plant, ‘The Economic Theory Concerning Property for inventions' for a discussion on scarcity created by property rights (included patents and copyright protection) and http://www.icc.ge/res/LPI_2010.pdf on the impact of logistics and poverty.
[6] Full Cost Accounting (FCA) is an accounting method that recognizes economic, environmental, health and social costs of an action or decision.
[7] Sourcing Wikipedia might be ill-advised, but when I checked this article (06/10/2010) it was clear, easy-to-understand a pretty accurate description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_maximization.
[8] “Right-to-Work” is a euphemism for an anti-union agenda that has dominated Southern public policy.
[9] I’ll let someone infinitely smarter than I am explain this in more detail. Jeffery Hollender not only preaches full cost accounting, but as a founder of Seventh Generation he practices it as well. http://blogs.hbr.org/what-business-owes-the-world/2010/04/full-cost-accounting-is-the-so.html   

Friday, June 18, 2010

Weekly Review - June 14th - June 18th

Each week at Invested Development, we scan the web for articles about social entrepreneurship, angel investors, and we look out for great announcements. This week we are announcing the Unreasonable TV, the MIT Global Challenge, The Billionaire Pledge and a PBS documentary about Acumen Fund.


Engineering for Good. Our friends at MIT are really on to something. Not only have they added a BoP focused track to their amazing $100K business plan competition, but they are also expanding the IDEAS Competition. The MIT Global Challenge benefits directly from the robust project development ecology at MIT to help alleviate poverty. The cash prize is $25,000 so you can be sure that this competition will attract many impact investing aficionados and hopefully more than one viable idea will be funded. Teams will also benefit from the support of the D-Lab at MIT, the Sloan Entrepreneurs for International Development (SEID), the Global Poverty Initiative, and the International Development Initiative.

This is sure to make big headlines (and for good reasons). When the richest people in the world hold clandestine meetings, it attracts attention. When giving away 50% of their wealth is listed on the agenda, it quickens the pulse. But what we really like is Nathaniel Whittemore’s more sober take on what it all means. Let’s face it, if we don’t change how people land on the Fortune 400 in the first place, there will never be enough money to solve our global ills.

The Unreasonable Institute launched the Unreasonable TV!!! Check out interviews from the fellows, including pitches, and a review of their first weeks. Those folks are doing a great job and I am sure more is going to come out of it. Stay tuned!

PBS launched another documentary examining our industry, The New Recruits, this time focusing directly on social entrepreneurship. They are claiming that it takes on the hard issues (e.g. “ Is it appropriate to send an evangelical Christian--social entrepreneur in to a Muslim community, or should Acumen--as a secular venture--screen out faith-based Fellows?”), and isn’t just a long commercial for Acumen and a few Fellows. Let’s hope so. There is a lot of hype (some deserved) in our industry and it will come back to haunt us if we are not honest with ourselves.


Friday, June 11, 2010

Weekly Review - June 7th - June 11th

Every week at Invested Development, we scan the web for articles that relate to what we do and what we like. This week we are talking about a great analogy between angel investors and rock stars, another initiative by the Grameen Foundation, how solar panels are not “so green”, and some insights from the last World Economic Forum in May.

The title alone makes it obvious why we liked this article. The analogy with the rock star was pretty funny and well maintained throughout the article. It also helps emphasize the importance of Angels and illustrates how they give hope to entrepreneurs looking for funding. And best of all, it helps differentiate Angel Investors and VCs by comparing Angels to Prince (the artist, not the son of a King.)

This provides an interesting collection of articles illustrating the role of the Grameen Foundation in many fields and in the field of mobile technology in particular. It also introduces the Grameen Community Knowledge Worker. The role of the CKW is to “harness the power of the mobile phone, a technology that is oblivious to such bottlenecks and combines it with a network of human intermediaries that can be trained to fully leverage its capabilities for the benefit of the farmer.“ (If you want to read the 113 pages Pilot Report it’s here. Or you can just take our word for it.)

Proof that no good deed goes unpunished… at least not initially. Solar panels for sure help the environment by reducing our footprint but studies have shown that it lures insects and eventually kill them! How so? Well apparently the reflection that solar panels have on the sun’s light is similar to the one that water has, therefore insects are attracted to it and fly over without being able to leave. They eventually die of exhaustion. Luckily, they have figured out that “when white borders or grids of white stripes crisscross the panels, dividing the panel into smaller segments, the attractiveness was reduced by 10 to 26-fold.”

Very interesting insights from very interesting people on why we need to focus on innovation in Africa. The NextBillion’s Heather Fleming was at the World Economic Forum in Dar-Es-Salaam last May where the main rallying cry at the conference was that we should stop “thinking” about unleashing Africa’s potential and start building success stories to serve the poor. She interviewed Nick Moon, of Kickstart, who mentions that very little work is done for innovation in Africa and that design thinking should be applied systematically. Bruce McNamer of Technoserve wants to focus on entrepreneurship, provide better supply chain and also mentions that we are now building a middle-class (aka the biggest consumerist class of all.) Overall four interesting insights that make us want to read more about the conference.