Conclusiones: Deportistas, de victimas a tramposos

This subsection deals with the research findings and analysis of data related to the first hypothesis.

Table 4.6: Frequency on small size and social living conditions Frequency Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly agree 6 4.3 4.3 4.3

Agree 8 5.8 5.8 10.1 Neither agree nor disagree 7 5.0 5.0 15.1 Disagree 28 20.1 20.1 35.3 Strongly disagree 90 64.7 64.7 100.0 Total 139 100.0 100.0

Source: Primary data, September 2011

Table 4.6, clearly shows that, most of the respondents strongly disagree that there is no correlation between small size of the board of directors and the social living conditions of MFIs’. Respondents represent 90 (64.7 %) while the respondents who only disagree represent 28 (20.1%). The neutral respondents - who do not lean to any position, are at 5%, meaning that they don’t have any knowledge about that relationship. Only 10.1 %, representing the respondents who agree and those who

strongly agree that there is no correlation between small size of the board of directors and the social living conditions of customers of MFIs.

The possible reasons for many respondents strongly disagree on that correlation are that even the regulations in Rwanda say that an effective board of directors should not have more than five members. Respondents choosing this alternative were basing themselves on the law on board of directors in Rwanda. Those who strongly disagreed that there was no relationship based on what is observed in the social living conditions of MFIs’ customers knowing that the boards are not large. That is why many respondents - 90 out of 139 respondents strongly disagreed. When one compares with the remaining alternatives, those who disagreed come second level in terms of numbers and this once again confirms that relationship. The rest of the respondents (15.1 %) did not recognize the relationship. One other reason could be that a small size of the board takes a reasonable amount of money in terms of remuneration and this low remuneration could be extended to customers in terms of lower charges for services offered by MFIs.

Table 4.7: Frequency on small size and economic living conditions Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Strongly agree 5 3.6 3.6 3.6 Agree 13 9.4 9.4 12.9 Neither agree nor disagree 7 5.0 5.0 18.0 Disagree 32 23.0 23.0 41.0 Strongly disagree 82 59.0 59.0 100.0 Total 139 100.0 100.0

Throughout Table 4.7, it is clear to any who is reading it, those who strongly disagreed that small size of the board of directors has no correlation with the economic living conditions of MFIs’ customers represent 82 (59%) while respondents who only disagreed were 32 (23%). This shows to the researcher that most of the respondents think that the small size of the board of directors has a correlation with the economic living of MFIs’ customers. The neutral respondents – i.e. those who did not have any position, were 7 (5%), meaning that they didn’t have any knowledge about that relationship. Only 18 (13%) respondents agreed and strongly agreed that there was no correlation between small size of the board of directors and the economic living conditions of customers of MFIs.

Comparing the two preceding Tables, it is obvious that if there is an improvement on the economic living conditions, the social ones will improve also according to the majority of the respondents. As Table 4.7 shows it, 82 out of 139 respondents strongly disagreed that there was no relationship between the small size and the economic living conditions change. Most of the respondents were of the opinion that small size of Board of Directors of their MFIs had an impact on the economic changes of the customers of MFIs. That is why they strongly agreed. One other reason could be that a small size of the board takes a reasonable amount of money in terms of remuneration and this low remuneration could be extended to customers in terms of lower charges for services offered by MFIs.

Table 4.8: Frequency on small size and number of customers Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly agree 9 6.5 6.5 6.5

Agree 14 10.1 10.1 16.5

Neither agree nor

disagree 6 4.3 4.3 20.9

Disagree 29 20.9 20.9 41.7

Strongly disagree 81 58.3 58.3 100.0

Total 139 100.0 100.0

Source: Primary data, September 2011

According to Table 4.8, it is clear that those who strongly disagreed that small size of the board of directors does not correlate to the increase of the number of customers of MFIs were 81 (58.3 %); while respondents who disagreed represent 29 (20.9%). Both total to 110 (79.2%). This shows to the researcher that the majority of respondents think that small size of the board of directors has correlation with the increase of the numbers of MFIs’ customers at 79.2%. The respondents who did not have any position were 6 (4.3%), meaning that they don’t have any knowledge about that relationship. A total of 23 (16.6%) of the respondents, agree and strongly agree on no correlation between small size of the board of directors and the increase of the MFIs’ customers.

In Table 4.8, the researcher found that most of the respondents said that small size of the board of directors of MFIs had a correlation with the increase of the number of customers. This might be a consequence of socio economic changes on the customers. Rwanda, being a small country as stated in the methodological part, citizens are located close to each other. This means that the information on why the

living conditions have changed from a household is spread easily without any other marketing strategy. As it is known, a satisfied customer brings another while a disappointed one goes with others and makes barriers for entry to new customers. Another reason could be due to the general belief that a small number of people reach consensus quite easily and that improves the quality of decision making and that could attract more customers.

Table 4.9: Frequency on small size of a board and number of loans extended to customers Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly agree 5 3.6 3.6 3.6

Agree 6 4.3 4.3 7.9 Neither agree nor disagree 13 9.4 9.4 17.3 Disagree 28 20.1 20.1 37.4 Strongly disagree 87 62.6 62.6 100.0 Total 139 100.0 100.0

Source: Primary data, September 2011

Table 4.9, show 87 (62.6%) of respondents strongly disagree that small size of the board of directors has no correlation with the increased number of loans to MFIs’. While the respondents who only disagree were 28(20.1%). Both totaled 115(82.7%). This shows to the researcher that most of the respondents were of the view that small size of the board of directors has correlation with the increase of the loans to MFIs’ customers at 82.7%. The respondents who did not have any position formed 13(9.4%), meaning that they didn’t have any knowledge about that relationship. A

total of 11(7.9 %) of respondents agreed and strongly agreed that there was no relationship between small size of board and the increase of loans to customers of MFIs.

The strong disagreement that there was no correlation between the small size of board of directors of MFIs and the increase of the number of laons issued by customers is possibly explained by the fact that MFIs have different categories of customers. Some are grouped in order to have a strong and convincing collateral toward the loans’ officers of MFIs. These loan are sometimes of very short term, like a week, two weeks or a month or a quarter year or even a year, and rarely of more that three years. Once any category of customer pays back the loan issued, the MFI trusts this customer and may consider them for another loan. Given that a small sized board makes candid discussions and makes quick resolutions hence the respondents tended to associate the increase of customers with the small size of board of directeors of MFIs. Another reason could be due to the general belief that a small number of people reach consensus quite easily and that could result in an increase in number of loans that are extended to customers.

Table 4.10: Frequency on small size and debt recovery

Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent Valid

Valid Strongly agree 10 7.2 7.2 7.2

Agree 11 7.9 7.9 15.1 Neither agree nor disagree 9 6.5 6.5 21.6 Disagree 26 18.7 18.7 40.3 Strongly disagree 83 59.7 59.7 100.0 Total 139 100.0 100.0

Table 4.10 shows that 83 (59.7 strongly disagreed that small size of the board of directors had no correlation with the debt recovery by MFIs from customers. While the respondents who only disagree were 26 (18.7%) Both make a total of 78.4%. This shows to the researcher that the small size of the board of directors has a correlation with the debt recovery by MFIs from their customers at 78.4% according to the respondents’ opinions. The respondents who do not have any position were 9 (6.5%), meaning that they didn’t have any knowledge about that relationship. Only 11 (7.9%) represent respondents who agreed; and those who strongly agreed on no correlation between small size of the board of directors and the debt recovery by MFIs were 10 (7.2%).

A big portion of respondents, that is 83 out of 139, strongly disagreed that there was no correlation between the small size of the board of directors and the debt recovery. The reasons may be because it is very easy for a small number of persons to set strategies and make a follow up of the implementation of the strategies. If the MFIs in Rwanda have not failed since 2006, it means that the debt recovery was efficient Central Bank of Rwanda (2008).

Table 4.11: Frequency on small size and profitability Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Strongly agree 7 5.0 5.0 5.0

Agree 9 6.5 6.5 11.5 Neither agree nor disagree 9 6.5 6.5 18.0 Disagree 27 19.4 19.4 37.4 Strongly disagree 87 62.6 62.6 100.0 Total 139 100.0 100.0

Table 4.11 shows that those who strongly disagreed that small size of the board of directors had no correlation with the profitability of MFIs were 87(62.6%) while the respondents who disagreed were 27(19.4%). Both made a total of 114(82%). This shows to the researcher that respondents are of the view that the small size of the board of directors has a correlation with the profitability of MFIs. The respondents who did not have any position were 9(6.5%), meaning that they did’t have any knowledge about that relationship. Only16 (11.5 %) respondents agreed and those who strongly agreed on no relationship between small size of the board of directors and the profitability of MFIs.

Given that some of the MFIs started as small and with the time they grew to become big, it is an indicator of profitability. If customers get their living conditions changing positively, and the loans increasing, the profitability increases also provided the loans are recovered. This small size of the board of directors of MFIs has a correlation with the performance of MFIs as the survey indicated through the various tables above under the subsection of small size of the board and the performance of MFIs in Rwanda. In a summary, a small board is seen to lead to profitability because less money is spent on it in terms of remuneration and it is seen to be effective in debt collection and takes quick decisions on other matters.