KIVA –LOOKING TO IMPROVE

IMPOVERISHED LIVES
A 2017 DATASET STUDY

Date of Submission: 10th June, 2020

Course Title: Business Analytics

Course Code: K502

Course Instructor: Mr. Fairuz Chowdhury

Lecturer
Institute of Business Admnistration
University of Dhaka

Group Name – Depressed Analysts

Group Members: Fatima Nafsia Taslim (14)

Irfan Ahnaf (29)
G.M. Asif Ahmed (54)
Khaled Atifi (55)
Saad Feroz Mehdi (58)

Batch –MBA 61D

MBA Program, Spring 2020

Institute of Business Adminitration, University of Dhaka
 KIVA – AIDING PEOPLE IN ACHIEVING THE POWER TO IMPROVE LIFE
Over 1.7 billion people around the globe are unbanked and do not have access to the financial services
they need. Kiva is an international nonprofit which was founded in 2005 in San Francisco. Its mission is to
expand financial access to help underserved communities flourish. Kiva achieves this by crowdfunding
loans and unlocking capital for the underserved. They also look to improve the quality and the cost of
financial services and overcome the underlying barriers to financial access around the world.
(contributors, 2020)

A borrower applies for a loan The loan goes through the underwriting and approval Loans are posted to Kiva website
process

Lenders crowdfund the loan in increments of $25 or more Fundraising complete Borrowers repay the loan

Lenders use repayments to fund new loans, donate, or withdraw the money

Fig-01: Loan Distribution

800 A dataset containing a sample of Kiva’s real-time

entries that were posted on their website from May
700 6, 2017, to May 12, 2017, was obtained. This was
given a 2-month (61 days) period for funding. The
600
loans ranged from as low as $50 to as high as
500 $50,000. Statistical analysis demonstrated that
Frequency

2.1% of the loans were outliers. (Appendix A)

400
According to a 2010 interview of Kiva co-founder
300 Kiva Jessica Jackley, the average loan size of the
organization was about $500-600. Approximately 6
200 years since, on March 15, 2016, the average loan
100 size had decreased to $411. This is somewhat
supported by our data as the average loan within
0 our sample is $475 and the sample is highly
100
600
1100
1600
2100
2600
3100
3600
4100
4600
5100

positively skewed (2.64) – this means that majority

of the loans are in the lower side of the distribution,
Loan Amount as is characteristic of microfinance loans. The most
frequently occurring loan sizes were in the range of
$200-300 (mode = $225). The distribution of the loan sizes in the dataset is depicted in figure 01. It was
observed that, of all the loans, 96.7% were fully funded. Based on the sample analyzed it can be said with
95% confidence that the full-funding would be within 96.2% to 97.3% of all loans. (Appendix B)

However, this rather long funding period of 61 days is an anomaly - Kiva generally operates in 30-day
periods after which the loans expire. For public funding, Kiva promises a 93% chance of full-funding for
the 30-day period model. 88% of the loans in the dataset got fully funded within 30 days. There was no
statistical implication that the proportion of loan that gets fully funded within 30 days is at least 93%

1
(Appendix C). This might be due to the fact that when a 60-day period is used instead of a 30-day period,
this causes for some delay due to relative inaction as there is more time for funding.

The means of the amount of loans and amount of funded loans were analyzed using statistical techniques.
The mean of the loan amount was significantly higher than the crowdfunded amount and this will hold
true for 99% within all samples. (Appendix D)
Fig-02: Weekly Performance

900000 1200 The characteristics of the loans within

each day of the week make for an
800000
1000 interesting viewing. Although the
700000
observation was made analyzing data

Count of loans
600000 800
Sum of loans

from just the one week, it provides

500000 valuable insight with regards to
600
400000 seasonality. As is expected, loans were
300000 400 made at a significantly higher
200000 frequency on weekdays relative to
200
100000 weekends. This difference (between
0 0 the frequency of loans on weekdays
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri compared to that on weekends) is
Days of week significant at a 95% statistical
confidence. However, there were no
Sum of loans Count of loans statistically significant indications of
the average amount of loans being
higher on weekdays. (Appendix E) The results are shown in figure 02.

With the help of these loans Kiva hopes to change the lives of people spanning the globe. Presently, Kiva
lends to entrepreneurs in 77 countries. (contributors, 2020) Of these 77 countries, 59 were reached within
the week in question. Cambodia, Philippines, the United States, Peru, Rwanda, Kenya and Lebanon were
the top performers in borrowing and accounted for 51% of total loans disbursed. The loan amount in
Cambodia was a whopping $460,800 and 94% of this amount was funded within due time. (Appendix F)
Fig-03: Country-wise total loan amount with cumulative

Nigeria, Madagascar and Togo were the countries with the smallest average loan sizes of $169, $218 and

2
$279 respectively. Here comes the success of Kiva in achieving its goal. With average loans even as small
as these, underprivileged people are getting a shot at changing their lives. The highest average loan
($4,653) was observed in the US and this is expected as the lenders from there would need the money for
bigger businesses compared to those from low-income countries.
Fig-04: Country-wise average loan amount with cumulative

Fig-05: Proportion of total funded amount to total loan amount

Loans from the majority of the countries got fully

funded. The ones that did not are shown in figure
05. US loans performed badly, with only 59% of the
funding. This is due to the fact that all US loans are
direct loans and do not involve Field Partners.
Instead loan funds are sent straight to a borrower's
digital account. Lenders in this case face a higher risk
as the loans are made in the absence of mediators.
Direct loans on Kiva are currently only available to
businesses in the US and social enterprises internationally. A total of 50 direct loans (49 US loans and 1
Puerto Rican loan) were recorded during the period.
Fig-06: Sector-wise total loan amount with cumulative

Of the sole borrowers, 80% were females.

This corroborates Kiva’s claim that 81% of
their borrowers are women. The total
amount of loans availed by women
entrepreneurs was nearly 3 times as that of
their male counterparts. The loans were
categorized into 14 sectors. Agriculture,
food and retail were the major sectors. This
is reflective of the fact that majority of
borrowers are farmers and small business
owners. However, the highest average loan belongs to the education sector as students avail the loans to
pay tuition. (Appendix G) There is statistical evidence that borrowers’ gender and the sector are related
with each other. Women were primality dominant in arts, clothing, food and retail sectors, whereas men
were prominent in construction and transportation sectors. (Appendix M)

3
Kiva deals with three types of repayment plans: monthly, irregular and bullet. Loan size is observed to
play an important role in determining the type of repayment plan. It was observed that in 95 cases out
100, the average loan amount of these different repayment plans would be different (Appendix H).
Fig 07: Continent-wise total loan amount with

$1,500,000 2500 Looking into loan properties among continents,

2000 by arranging the countries accordingly,
$1,000,000
1500 provides a clearer picture as to Kiva’s impact
1000 regionally. Asian countries had the greatest
$500,000
500
number of loans and as a result the biggest
$0 0
amount as well. But rather counterintuitively,
Asia Africa South North Europe Asian loans had the lowest average, whereas
America America South American loans had the highest.
Sum of loan_amount Count of continent (Appendix J) The loans belonging to the
different continents had statistically significant
different average values. (Appendix I)

Different people across the globe contribute to the specific loans they deem worthy. The number of
lenders contributing to a loan was strongly and positively related to the loan/funded amount, and
moderately to the duration of the loan in months. (Appendix K). Based on these correlations and factoring
in other variables, a model might be generated to predict the lender count of individual loans.

Lender count= -8.55 - 0.01*Duration + 0.46*term in months+ 2.40*interval monthly + 6.66*interval bullet
+ 0.03*loan amount + 1.70*subcontinent Asia + 2.89*subcontinent Africa - 3.50*subcontinent NA -
5.91*subcontinent SA

The relationship between the duration and the lender count is inverse. With an increase of unit additional
month in the loan duration, almost 46 additional lenders can be expected. Considering the reference
category as an irregular loan interval, there are a requirement 2 and 7 more lenders respectively
compared to irregular loan intervals. On the other hand, keeping the reference category as Europe, we
see that in Asia and Africa, Kiva needs more lenders than they need in Europe. Meanwhile, for processing
loans in North American and South American countries, Kiva needs a smaller number of lenders compared
to European countries. Considering the lender count differences based on different subcontinents, Kiva
might want to extend the funding deadlines for the loans going to Asian and African nations. (Appendix L)

Despite the valiant efforts of Kiva to change peoples’ lives, some people argue that the interest rates of
many microcredit institutions are unreasonably high. As of November 2018, the most frequent interest
rate lay between 20.5-30%. Assuming a 25% interest for the observed loan, the interests can be projected.
For instance, due to longer term and compound interest a borrower from Kenya to fund education might
end up paying more than the principal in the form of interest. So naturally it begs the question, does Kiva
actually helps the borrowers to get funded or maybe it is actually a platform by which microfinance
institutions can conveniently finance themselves for lending. Whatever it is, as the data suggest, Kiva is
helping millions of people across the globe in getting that money, as little as it may be, that might change
their lives.

4
References
contributors, K., 2020. KIVA. [Online]
Available at: https://www.kiva.org/about

Tables of Appendices
Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics of Loans Posted ...................................................................................... A
Appendix B: Confidence Interval of Proportion of Loans Funded ................................................................ B
Appendix C: Z test for Proportion of Loan Funded Within 30 Days .............................................................. C
Appendix D: Comparison of Means of Loan Amount and Funded Amount .................................................D
Appendix E: Comparison of Weekday and Weekend Properties ................................................................. E
Appendix F: Country-Wise Performance ....................................................................................................... I
Appendix G: Sector-Wise Performance ........................................................................................................ K
Appendix H: Comparison of Means of Repayment Term ............................................................................. L
Appendix I: Comparison of Means of Loans from Different Continents .....................................................M
Appendix J: Continent-Wise Performance ................................................................................................... N
Appendix K: Correlation Matrix ................................................................................................................... O
Appendix L: Regression Model of Number of Lenders ................................................................................. P
Appendix M: Relationship Between Gender and Sector ............................................................................. Q

5
Appendix A: Descriptive Statistics of Loans Posted

loan_amount

Mean 821.8412
Standard Error 22.38504
Median 475
Mode 225
Standard Deviation 1427.738
Sample Variance 2038435
Kurtosis 385.1119
Skewness 14.0647
Range 49950
Minimum 50
Maximum 50000
Sum 3343250
Count 4068
Confidence Level(95.0%) 43.88694

loan_amount

Mean 702.9386
Standard Error 11.30178
Median 475
Mode 225
Standard Deviation 715.4127
Sample Variance 511815.3
Kurtosis 9.377523
Skewness 2.637568
Range 5025
Minimum 50
Maximum 5075
Sum 2816675
Count 4007
Confidence Level(95.0%) 22.15778

The average loan amount with outliers is 821.84 whereas without outliers 702.94. Without the outliers,
loan amounts show relatively low yet high positive skewness (2.63). A total of 61 outliers were found.

A
Appendix B: Confidence Interval of Proportion of Loans Funded

Sample size 4068

Fully funded loans 3934
Proportion of fully funded loans 96.7%
Standard Deviation 0.178
CL 0.95
alpha 0.05
1-alpha/2 0.975
Z value 1.96
Standard Error 0.003
Confidence Interval 0.005
Upper limit 97.3%
Lower limit 96.2%

96.7% of the total loan has been fully funded. The confidence interval at 95% confidence level is 0.005. It
can be said with 95% confidence that from at least 96.2% to maximum 97.3% of the loans will be fully
funded

B
Appendix C: Z test for Proportion of Loan Funded Within 30 Days

Loans funded within 30 days 3578

Loans funded within 30 days 4068
Proportion of loans funded within 30 days 88%
Population proportion 0.93
Standard deviation 0.26
Z value -12.61
Z Critical -1.64

This dataset has a timeframe of 60 days and 88% of the loans have been funded within 30 days of
posting.

Here, H0: 93% or more of all loans are funded within 30 days

H1: Less than 93% of all loans are funded within 30 days

Here Z value exceeds Z Critical. We successfully reject the null hypothesis. We do have significant
statistical evidence (95% C.L.) that 93% or more of all loans are not funded within 30 days.

C
Appendix D: Comparison of Means of Loan Amount and Funded Amount

t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

funded_amount loan_amount
Mean 776.6654376 821.8411996
Variance 1870446.113 2038434.512
Observations 4068 4068
Pearson Correlation 0.964118599
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4067
t Stat -7.599941548
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.82775E-14
t Critical one-tail 2.32726513
P(T<=t) two-tail 3.65549E-14
t Critical two-tail 2.577038726

H0: Means of Funded amounts and Loan amounts are equal

H1: Means of Funded amounts and Loan amounts are not equal

As P-value<0.001, we reject the null hypothesis. At 99% confidence level, there is significant statistical
evidence that the means of loan amount and funded amount are different.

D
Appendix E: Comparison of Weekday and Weekend Properties

Weekly Performance

Days Dates Sum of loans Count of loans Averages

Sat 2017-05-06 $145375 149 $975.671
Sun 2017-05-07 $118875 140 $849.107
Mon 2017-05-08 $471875 566 $833.701
Tue 2017-05-09 $661025 757 $873.217
Wed 2017-05-10 $544925 663 $821.908
Thu 2017-05-11 $569450 792 $719.003
Fri 2017-05-12 $831725 1001 $830.894

E
 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 144.5 755.8
Variance 40.5 26517.7
Observations 2 5
df 1 4
F 0.001527282
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.029301017
F Critical one-tail 0.004452692

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Variable
Variable 1 2
Mean 144.5 755.8
Variance 40.5 26517.7
Observations 2 5
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4
-
t Stat 8.378069095
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000555115
t Critical one-tail 2.131846786
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001110231
t Critical two-tail 2.776445105

For F Test: H0: Variances of loan counts for weekends and weekdays are equal

H1: Variances of loan counts for weekends and weekdays are not equal

P<0.05 attests to the fact we do not have significant statistical evidence that Variances of loan counts for
weekends and weekdays are equal. We reject the null hypothesis.

For Two-sample T-Test assuming Unequal variances

H0: Means of loan counts for weekdays and weekends are equal

H1: Means of loan counts for weekdays and weekends are not equal

As P-value<0.05, we do not have significant statistical evidence to accept H0. This means that the means
for both of the samples are not equal.

F
 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 132125 615800
Variance 351125000 19138725000
Observations 2 5
df 1 4
F 0.018346311
P(F<=f) one-tail 0.101199998
F Critical one-tail 0.004452692

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 132125 615800
Variance 351125000 19138725000
Observations 2 5
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4
-
t Stat 7.644413402
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000786602
t Critical one-tail 2.131846786
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001573203
t Critical two-tail 2.776445105

For F Test: H0: Variances of loan amounts for weekends and weekdays are equal

H1: Variances of loan amounts for weekends and weekdays are not equal

P>0.05 attests to the fact we do have significant statistical evidence that Variances of loan amounts for
weekends and weekdays are equal. We fail to reject the null hypothesis.

For Two-sample T-Test assuming Equal variances

H0: Means of loan amounts for weekdays and weekends are equal

H1: Means of loan counts for weekdays and weekends are not equal

As P-value<0.05, we do not have significant statistical evidence to accept H0. This means that the means
for both of the samples are not equal.

G
 F-Test Two-Sample for Variances

Weekends Weekdays
Mean 914.3598616 814.7658111
Variance 1011780.926 2116531.847
Observations 289 3779
df 288 3778
F 0.478037185
P(F<=f) one-tail 7.99361E-15
F Critical one-tail 0.862914526

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal

Variances

Weekends Weekdays
Mean 914.3598616 814.7658111
Variance 1011780.926 2116531.847
Observations 289 3779
Pooled Variance 2038280.921
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 4066
t Stat 1.143005371
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.126551828
t Critical one-tail 1.645228472
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.253103656
t Critical two-tail 1.960547596

For F Test: H0: Variances of the average loan for weekends and weekdays are equal

H1: Variances of the average loan for weekends and weekdays are not equal

As P<0.05, we reject the null hypothesis. It attests to the fact that; we do not have significant statistical
evidence that variances of average loans for weekends and weekdays are equal.

For Two-sample T-Test assuming Unequal variances

H0: Means of the average loan for weekdays and weekends are equal

H1: Means of the average loan for weekdays and weekends are not equal

As P-value>0.05, we fail to reject H0. It is can be said with significant statistical evidence that the average
loan for weekdays and weekends are equal.

H
Appendix F: Country-Wise Performance

Country Number of Sum of loan Sum of funded Mean loan Funded

loans amount amount amount proportion
Albania 15 $20,600 $19,025 $1,373 92%
Armenia 39 $54,875 $50,200 $1,407 91%
Bolivia 26 $96,925 $96,925 $3,728 100%
Brazil 16 $38,525 $38,525 $2,408 100%
Burkina Faso 18 $21,600 $21,600 $1,200 100%
Cambodia 630 $460,800 $434,050 $731 94%
Cameroon 93 $40,000 $38,750 $430 97%
Colombia 67 $41,150 $35,925 $614 87%
Congo 12 $39,250 $37,100 $3,271 95%
Costa Rica 5 $6,225 $6,225 $1,245 100%
Cote D'Ivoire 1 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 100%
Dominican Republic 1 $1,125 $1,125 $1,125 100%
Ecuador 104 $112,025 $112,025 $1,077 100%
Egypt 14 $7,400 $7,400 $529 100%
El Salvador 142 $89,575 $85,725 $631 96%
Georgia 2 $1,625 $1,625 $813 100%
Ghana 31 $25,275 $25,275 $815 100%
Guatemala 33 $54,450 $54,450 $1,650 100%
Haiti 2 $1,750 $1,750 $875 100%
Honduras 14 $11,500 $11,500 $821 100%
India 112 $40,975 $40,975 $366 100%
Indonesia 21 $11,025 $11,025 $525 100%
Israel 1 $4,175 $4,175 $4,175 100%
Jordan 10 $10,900 $10,900 $1,090 100%
Kenya 430 $193,050 $188,575 $449 98%
Kosovo 9 $11,775 $9,700 $1,308 82%
Kyrgyzstan 22 $26,325 $23,375 $1,197 89%
Lebanon 105 $154,650 $154,650 $1,473 100%
Lesotho 6 $4,300 $4,300 $717 100%
Liberia 48 $17,350 $17,350 $361 100%
Madagascar 52 $11,325 $11,325 $218 100%
Malawi 14 $17,050 $17,050 $1,218 100%
Mali 20 $53,225 $53,225 $2,661 100%
Mexico 14 $8,625 $8,625 $616 100%
Moldova 2 $5,475 $3,825 $2,738 70%
Mozambique 27 $10,000 $9,700 $370 97%
Myanmar (Burma) 2 $5,925 $5,925 $2,963 100%

I
Nicaragua 117 $104,025 $101,250 $889 97%
Nigeria 35 $5,925 $5,925 $169 100%
Pakistan 198 $92,575 $92,575 $468 100%
Palestine 57 $94,450 $94,450 $1,657 100%
Paraguay 3 $6,050 $6,050 $2,017 100%
Peru 131 $222,300 $222,300 $1,697 100%
Philippines 778 $246,100 $246,100 $316 100%
Puerto Rico 1 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 100%
Rwanda 46 $203,650 $178,600 $4,427 88%
Senegal 39 $54,525 $54,525 $1,398 100%
Sierra Leone 52 $47,050 $44,125 $905 94%
Tajikistan 124 $73,225 $70,650 $591 96%
Tanzania 1 $2,475 $2,475 $2,475 100%
Thailand 1 $400 $400 $400 100%
Togo 28 $7,825 $7,825 $279 100%
Turkey 26 $10,675 $10,675 $411 100%
Uganda 141 $73,125 $72,150 $519 99%
United States 49 $228,000 $135,450 $4,653 59%
Vietnam 57 $69,925 $69,925 $1,227 100%
Yemen 7 $4,375 $4,375 $625 100%
Zambia 5 $8,250 $8,250 $1,650 100%
Zimbabwe 12 $17,500 $17,500 $1,458 100%

J
Appendix G: Sector-Wise Performance

Sector Sum of loan amount Count of sector Average amount

Agriculture 985250 1220 808
Arts 103900 96 1082
Clothing 222275 181 1228
Construction 24725 22 1124
Education 226300 178 1271
Entertainment 6450 6 1075
Food 664625 748 889
Health 62000 73 849
Housing 121250 191 635
Manufacturing 12050 19 634
Personal Use 119225 365 327
Retail 526025 648 812
Services 229750 255 901
Transportation 39425 66 597

K
Appendix H: Comparison of Means of Repayment Term

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
monthly 2458 2015225 819.8637 927036.3
irregular 1410 1077000 763.8298 3801480
bullet 200 251025 1255.125 3085416

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
3.05E-
Between Groups 42301689 2 21150845 10.42411 05 2.997941
Within Groups 8.25E+09 4065 2029031

Total 8.29E+09 4067

H0: Means of loans pertaining to different payment terms are equal

H1: Means of loans pertaining to different payment terms are not equal

As P-value<0.05, we reject H0. It is can be said with significant statistical evidence that the average loan
of different payment terms are not equal.

L
Appendix I: Comparison of Means of Loans from Different Continents

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Asia 2151 1306500 607.3919 325337.2
Africa 1125 910150 809.0222 4170508
Europe 67 94350 1408.209 475878.6
North America 378 515275 1363.161 3417129
South America 347 516975 1489.841 3455997

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
5.27E-
Between Groups 3.88E+08 4 96936704 49.83872 41 2.374119
Within Groups 7.9E+09 4063 1945008

Total 8.29E+09 4067

H0: Means of loans from different continents are equal

H1: Means of loans from different continents are not equal

As P-value<0.05, we reject H0. It is can be said with significant statistical evidence that the loans from
different continents are not equal.

M
Appendix J: Continent-Wise Performance

Continent Sum of loan amount Count of continent Average

Asia $1,306,500 2151 $607
Africa $910,150 1125 $809
South America $516,975 347 $1,490
North America $515,275 378 $1,363
Europe $94,350 67 $1,408

N
Appendix K: Correlation Matrix

funded_amount loan_amount duration term_in_months lender_count

funded_amount 1
loan_amount 1 1
duration 0.148 0.148 1.000
term_in_months 0.266 0.266 0.240 1.000
lender_count 0.922 0.922 0.134 0.328 1

O
Appendix L: Regression Model of Number of Lenders

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.93
R Square 0.86
Adjusted R Square 0.86
Standard Error 14.69
3934.0
Observations 0

ANOVA
Signific
df SS MS F ance F
5352540 59472 275
Regression 9 .55 6.73 7.13 0
3 846426. 215.7
Residual 924 45 1
3 6198967
Total 933 .00

P-
Coeffic Standar valu Lower Upper Lower Upper
ients d Error t Stat e 95% 95% 99.0% 99.0%
Intercept -8.55 2.22 -3.85 0.00 -12.91 -4.20 -14.28 -2.83
Duration in hours (from
posted to funded) -0.01 0.00 -5.59 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00
term_in_months 0.46 0.04 12.24 0.00 0.38 0.53 0.36 0.55
IntervalMonthly 2.40 0.53 4.56 0.00 1.37 3.43 1.04 3.75
IntervalBullet 6.66 1.26 5.30 0.00 4.19 9.12 3.42 9.90
144.6
loan_amount 0.03 0.00 6 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
SubcontinentAsia 1.70 2.06 0.82 0.41 -2.34 5.74 -3.61 7.00
SubcontinentAfrica 2.89 2.10 1.37 0.17 -1.24 7.01 -2.53 8.31
SubcontinentNA -3.50 2.18 -1.61 0.11 -7.77 0.77 -9.11 2.12
SubcontinentSA -5.91 2.23 -2.65 0.01 -10.28 -1.54 -11.65 -0.17

The regression shown above is intended to retrieve the impacts of different variables on Lender count.
The adjusted R square shows that it is a good fit to the model. The negative value of the intercept denotes
that intercept does not have any managerial interpretation, but is there just to fit the model.

P
Appendix M: Relationship Between Gender and Sector

Observed Frequency
Agricul Ar Cloth Constru Educa Entertain Fo Hea Hous Manufact Persona Ret Servi Transport Grand
ture ts ing ction tion ment od lth ing uring l Use ail ces ation Total
52
female 689 86 132 9 118 2 7 44 139 11 87 490 182 29 2545
male 237 6 6 10 53 4 75 26 42 5 44 73 40 33 654
Grand 60
Total 926 92 138 19 171 6 2 70 181 16 131 563 222 62 3199

Expected Frequency

AgriculArt Cloth Constru Educa Entertain Foo Hea Hous Manufac Persona Ret Servi Transpor Grand
ture s ing ction tion ment d lth ing turing l Use ail ces tation Total
73. 109. 136.0 478. 55. 144. 447. 176. 2545.0
female 736.69 19 79 15.12 4 4.77 93 69 00 12.73 104.22 90 61 49.32 0
18. 28.2 123. 14. 37.0 115. 45.3
male 189.31 81 1 3.88 34.96 1.23 07 31 0 3.27 26.78 10 9 12.68 654.00
Grand
Total 926 92 138 19 171 6 602 70 181 16 131 563 222 62 3199

Chi Square Statistic

Row Agricul Art Cloth Constru Educa Entertain Fo Hea Hous Manufact Persona Ret Servi Transpor Grand
Labels ture s ing ction tion ment od lth ing uring l Use ail ces tation Total
2.2 4.8 2.4 3.9
female 3.09 4 4.49 2.47 2.39 1.61 3 5 0.17 0.23 2.84 6 0.16 8.38 39.33
8.7 17.4 18. 9.5 15.
male 12.01 2 9 9.63 9.31 6.27 78 5 0.67 0.91 11.07 40 0.64 32.59 153.05
192.38
Grand 10. 21.9 23. 12. 19.
Total 15.10 96 8 12.10 11.70 7.88 60 00 0.85 1.15 13.91 36 0.80 40.97

Q
 DOF 13
Observed Chi 192.38
Chi Critical 5.89
P value 5.0E-34

H0: Borrowers’ gender and sector of the loan are not dependent.

H1: Borrowers’ gender and sector of the loan are dependent.

Here, degree of freedom is 13. As p<.05 or Chi critical< Chi observed, we reject the null hypothesis. So, we have significant statistical evidence
that there is relationship between the borrowers’ gender and sector.