瑕不掩瑜 (评论: 穷人的银行家)

2007-06-03 11:17:42 　　来自: Saga (沈阳)

穷人的银行家的评论

　　两天时间看完这本书，上面各位哥哥姐姐说了太多恭维的话，我就来提供点负面意见。
　　
　　1.吴大姐的翻译实在不怎么样，读起来很吃力，很多句子不多看几遍简直不只所云。
　　
　　2.书中数据不准确，有自相矛盾之处。体现在两个地方，一处是说九八年洪水GM（格莱珉）从中央银行借款10亿，到附录又变成30亿；另一处是说贷款者死亡保险，前文说是只需交2.5%未偿还贷款即可，附录处变成3%，不过根据吴大姐所说，附录ms是作者后来单独提供的，并非原书中所有，后一处矛盾之处还情有可原。
　　
　　3.名不副实。除了开头四五章讲个人经历以外，几乎全部是GM的介绍，对自己的描述很少，还不如说叫GM的发展史呢。
　　
　　上面列的几条都可算是鸡蛋里挑骨头的问题，下面是对书中一些主要观点不能苟同之处。
　　
　　1.真实性的问题。
　　
　　之前看过chairman毛的自传，后来又看了一些新近出版的海外传记，方知自传这东西大部分都是骗人的，绝大部分内容都是经过美化的。同毛的自传一样，我不得不怀疑作者写这本书是否为了宣传的目的。
　　书中对GM的美化，我相信绝不是一点点。但没有调查就没有发言权，我只能推测，借用上面一个哥们的话，借给朋友的钱都收不回98%呢，何况借给没有创富能力的穷人？
　　
　　还有利率的问题，书中说的利率怎么算的真没太弄懂，脑中印象是一年的利率10%，我不知道这个利率是怎么算出来的，如果再高的话，穷人是否能承受得起，是否会变成另一种形式的剥削；或者如果更低的话，是否够抵销整个系统运作的成本，须知每个人只管450个借贷者，每周都需要一个大学生上门到穷人那里收一次钱！
　　对GM的盈利能力很怀疑。
　　我十分感觉书中对GM的模式肯定有些神话了，至少也是夸张成放之四海皆准的真理了。
　　
　　2.书中的政治观点。
　　
　　毫无疑问，尤同志（这个哥哥居然和我一个姓，兴奋～）是一个有政治抱负的人，不然年轻的时候也不会为祖国独立而积极奔走，也不会为建设祖国而毅然回国（和我国的老一辈无产阶级革命家很像啊）。
　　
　　但是其“右倾”的自由化观点是否合时宜呢（比如让政府退出除国防等一切领域）？总不能因为政府有问题就不要政府了吧？
　　另外，作者毫不掩饰自己通过贷款给穷人从而提高他们的政治参与意识的倾向，虽然书中说不会控制穷人选民的选票流向，但我真的无法相信会没有一点影响。
　　
　　尤同志肯定精通心理学，对群体偏移一定深有研究，并且非常懂得宣传的作用和媒体的影响。
　　
　　3.小组担保模式。
　　
　　GM的精髓之一便是它的小组模式。虽然感觉很不错，不过我总感觉有点不对劲的地方。虽然GM不要求其小组成员互相担保，但是彼此间的制约作用还是非常强的。而且，那些真正没有劳动能力是没有机会和别人结成小组的。
　　
　　4.漠视培训的作用。
　　我相信GM在孟加拉肯定是取得了非常非常大的成就，不过不能因此就抹杀其他扶贫方式的作用。要想一个人从根本上摆脱贫穷，掌握一种技能还是非常重要的。
　　
　　不过总的来说，尤同志还是非常伟大的，书中对于GM发展过程中所遇到的困难，大部分只是轻描淡写，不过设身处地一想，方知其不易。尤其是尤先生对理想的坚持，对待乞丐的态度，都无法令人不钦佩，令人不感动。更为难得可贵的是，尤同志不只对穷人提供钱，还尽可能的提供发展的机会，为他们提供通讯和连接世界的通道。
　　
　　看的时候就在想，GM的模式在中国是否能行得通呢？外国的好东西，到中国会不会有一次走味呢？
　　
　　有功夫看看费孝通的乡土中国、江村经济，比照一下。
　　

8/10人推荐

2007-06-04 02:11:24 森纳乔

　　推荐楼主去看《经济学人》3月17日的一篇文章，题目叫做Time to take the credit，相信你阅读后会对Microfinance的盈利情况有更好的了解。
　　
　　此番话针对你的
　　
　　书中对GM的美化，我相信不是一点点。没有调查就没有发言权，我只能推测，借用一个哥们的话，借给朋友的钱都能收回98%呢，何况借给没有创富能力的穷人？

2007-06-04 15:02:17 Saga

　　拜读完毕，直接给贴上来好了。
　　
　　Time to take the credit
　　Mar 15th 2007
　　From The Economist print edition
　　
　　Aid donors have shown microfinance can work. They should now leave their successes behind
　　
　　
　　ReutersSUCCESS has many fathers. No wonder, then, that paternity suits are flying in microfinance—lending small amounts to help the poor pull themselves out of poverty. Thanks first to charities and, later, international financial institutions (IFIs) like the World Bank, microfinance has been shown to work (see article). Now philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay, are using their own charities to pour money into the field. So, increasingly, is the for-profit sector, including “socially responsible” investors and capitalists more interested in the bottom line than the poverty line.
　　
　　Microfinance is a promising way to get credit to parts of the economy that are starved of capital. So it is a pity that all these lenders are competing to support the same, small group of microfinance institutions that cater to the most creditworthy borrowers. It would be better for the poor if the IFIs and donors left the best credit risks to profit-seeking lenders and concentrated instead on those still stuck outside the system.
　　
　　Micromanagement
　　No doubt that sounds ungrateful. Microfinance is in vogue thanks partly to the IFIs, which provided grants, loans and training to untested microcredit institutions. The private sector shunned the risk—out of ignorance, a lack of expertise and fears that making money from the poor would look predatory. The pioneering work of donors means there are now some 10,000 microfinance institutions lending an average of less than $300 to 40m poor borrowers worldwide.
　　
　　
　　As a result, microfinance has become profitable. Top-tier microlenders no longer need subsidies or even commercial loans from IFIs or philanthropists. ProCredit, made up of 19 microfinance banks in countries from Moldova to Ecuador, was established in 1998 by some IFIs. Now wildly successful, it boasts over 2.2m customer accounts and arrears by volume of a minuscule 1.2%. So many of its banks make money that it could even list its shares on the stockmarket.
　　
　　The Inter-American Development Bank has acknowledged that the best microlenders can finance themselves either by gathering deposits to finance loans or by attracting commercial investors. It is busily selling equity stakes in its portfolio of microfinance investments. But other development groups are less willing to cut the apron strings. They continue to devote scarce aid dollars to the microlenders that need them least. Having nurtured these outfits when for-profit groups would not, they now want to bask in their successes. Some philanthropists, too, prefer to take the safe route and invest in stable, profitable top-tier microfinance groups.
　　
　　This trophy lending is harmful. By subsidising microfinance groups that do not need it, aid bodies and philanthropists discourage private money, which cannot compete with their soft terms. In the long run, this harms microfinanciers, because it slows their integration into the financial-services industry and thus hampers their transformation into lenders able to stand alone.
　　
　　Aid money is better spent where commercial cash fears to tread—such as on the next generation of microfinance institutions. Subsidies are often needed to lend to the rural poor, where small, scattered populations make it hard for commercial lenders to cover their costs. Donor funds could be used to invest in technology such as mobile payments, which promise to cut the cost of providing microcredit. Top microfinance institutions themselves may need help in expanding into insurance and other financial products for the poor, as well as in tapping the capital markets. IFIs, in particular, can press foreign governments to get rid of interest-rate caps and other misguided regulations that impede microlending.
　　
　　Only a fraction of the world's 500m impoverished “micro-entrepreneurs” have access to the financial system. There is not enough donor or “socially responsible” money in the world to meet the demand. That's why microfinance needs private-sector capital. Aid agencies, philanthropists and well-meaning “social” investors can help attract it by investing only where commercial outfits will not. When the children come of age, the best parents step aside.
　　