CROWDFUNDING · 2 Crowdfunding for nergy ccess in India Acknowledgement This report is the product of a two-month placement at the Indo-German Energy Programme – Access to Energy

1

Crowdfunding for Energy Access in India

for Energy Access in India

March 20, 2018

Fynn Hauschke

CROWDFUNDING

2


AcknowledgementThis report is the product of a two-month placement at the Indo-German Energy Programme – Access to Energy in Rural Areas (IGEN-ACCESS) in New Delhi, India, which the author completed in the course of the ASApreneur Programe by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The stay was made possible through a collaboration between the bettervest GmbH in Frankfurt am Main, Germany and the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH in New Delhi.

The author would like to take the opportunity to thank everyone, who contributed in making this valuable experience possible: First and foremost, Mr. Harald Schottenloher, CEO, CFO and Key Account Manager at bettervest, and Dr. rer nat. Harald Richter, Program head of the IGEN-ACCESS, who have both committed themselves in making the ASApreneur program possible; the whole IGEN-ACCESS team, for their hospitality and the valuable advice during the research process and finally, all interview partners who have willingly sacrificed their time to make this project a success.

DisclaimerWhile care has been taken in the collection, analysis, and compilation of the data and has been prepared in good faith on the basis of information available at the date of publication without any independent verification. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, reliability, completeness or currency of the information in this publication. GIZ shall not be liable for any loss, damage, cost or expense incurred or arising by reason of any person using or relying on information in this publication.

3


Acknowledgement 2

Tables and Figures 3

Abbreviations 4

Context, Objective, Approach 6

Crowdfunding: an Overview 8

The Indian Crowdfunding Market 12

Financing Barriers for Micro-, Small and Medium Enterprises 12

Institutional Capacity For Crowdfunding 14

Clear Regulations for Crowdfunding 17

Demand and Technical Capability for

Off-Grid Renewable Energy Projects 18

Interest of the Crowd 19

Interim Conclusion 21

Case Study: Mera Gao Power 24

Conclusion and Recommendations 31

Sources 33

Annex 36

Tables and Figures

Fig 1: Methodological approach 7

Fig 2: Different types of crowdfunding 8

Fig 3: Location of the identified villages 25

Fig 4: Crowdfunding for 200 micro grids on bettervest.com 28

Fig 5: The bettervest business model 28

Fig 6: Summary of SWOT analysis 29

Table 1: Price comparison between MGP’s micro grid and current energy supply 26

Table 2: Composition of the subordinate-loan provided by bettervest 26

Table 3: Repayment plan 26

Table 4: Cash flow analysis 27

Table 5: Market segmentation and financial needs of MSMEs in the Indian off-grid RE market according to Gupta et al. (2016) 36

Table 6: Segment descriptions 39

Table 7: Summary of the identified CFPs 40

Table 8: List of interviewees 48

Contents

4


Abbreviation Full Name

BM Built-maintain business model

BOM Built-own-maintain business model

BOP Base of the pyramid

CAF Charities Aid Foundation

CF Crowdfunding

CFP Crowdfunding platform

CGTMSE Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises

CI Crowdinvesting

CLEAN Clean Energy Access Network

CP Consumer products

DFID Department for International Development

DISCOM Distribution company

DO Development organization

DRE Decentralized renewable energy

ECB External commercial borrowing

EE Energy efficiency

ESCO Energy service company

FI Financial institution

FOREX Foreign exchange

GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH

HNI High net worth individuals

IGEN-ACCESS Indo-German Energy Program – Access to Energy in Rural Areas

IGEP Indo-German Energy Program

InfoDef Information for Development Program (World Bank)

IREDA Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd

Abbreviations

5


ISE Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

MFI Microfinance institutions

MGP Mera Gao Power

MSME Micro-, small and medium enterprise

NBFC Non-banking financial company

NPO Non-profit-organization

P2C Peer-to-company

P2P Peer-to-peer

PAYG Pay-as-you-go

QIB Qualified institutional buyers

RBI Reserve Bank of India

RE Renewable energies

REMMP Renewable Energy Microfinance and Microenterprise Program

SEBI Securities and Exchange Board India

SME Small and medium enterprise

SWOT Strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

SWP Solar water pump

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

6


Context and Objectives

The off-grid renewable energy (RE) sector plays an increasingly important role in India to provide electricity to the remaining 300 Million unelectrified people. The sector is driven by Micro-, Small- and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) that provide energy access to millions of base of the pyramid (BOP) consumers by setting up off-grid or decentralized renewable energy (DRE) utilities that provide electricity to small communities, or by providing consumer products (CP) such as solar home systems (SHSs), solar portable lanterns (SPLs) and clean cooking stoves (Gupta et al. 2016)

To address the lack of access to finance, solutions in the form of new financial products are needed. One proposed way to bridge the financing gap is to turn to Crowdfunding (CF) as an alternative financing method. CF has undergone a rapid development in the last few years on an international level, offering advantages over conventional financial instruments in multiple

Context, Objective, Approach

ways, by for example “(i) tapping into new funding sources, such as small investors with risk appetite for venture capital and small impact investors, (ii) empowering responsible investors seeking greater control over their investments, (iii) Encouraging investors to increase their risk tolerance by offering greater diversification and smaller amounts per investor, and (iv) Increase speed of decision and transaction processing, through standardized online processes” (von Ritter and Bleyl 2016). Through this, theoretically, CF offers significant potential for both, enterprise and consumer finance for MSMEs in the off-grid sector. However, since CF for RE projects is still in a nascent stage globally and even more so in India, research on the development stage of CF in India is necessary to determine the potential of CF for the off-grid RE sector in India.

Objective The aim of the report is threefold: First, to provide an overview of the CF market in India, especially with regard to CF for RE. Second,

to determine if CF is a suitable financial product to bridge the financing gap for debt capital identified by Gupta et al. (2016) for MSMEs active in the market for DRE utilities and CP and thirdly, based on the results, develop recommendations for development organizations (DOs) how CF for RE could be promoted with the aim to contribute to energy access for rural populations in a sustainable manner.

Approach The findings of the report are based on desk research covering mainly online sources like crowdfunding platforms (CFPs), online blogs and newspaper articles as well as few available scientific sources and reports by DO. The intention of the desk research was to ensure that the report builds on an existing knowledge base of the Indian CF market and to identify relevant stakeholders for interviews. Subsequently, semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant stakeholders from crowdfunding platforms and MSMEs to validate the information

7


garnered during desk research and to gather further information on the perspective of crowdfunding practitioners on the RE sector as well as the off-grid sectors perspective on the potential of crowdfunding. The research on the Indian CF market was structured according to a framework developed by von Ritter and Bleyel (2016). The latter have identified five essential conditions for scaling up CF for energy efficiency (EE) in developing countries, namely (1) financing barriers for undertaking EE measures, (2) institutional capacity for CF, (3) clear regulations for CF, (4) demand and technical capability for EE and (5) presence of interested crowd investors. The framework by von Ritter and Colleagues aims to answer the question “under what conditions is debt or equity crowdfunding, potentially, a usefully instrument to finance EE in developing countries” and to provide simple guidance to development organizations, to determine whether it may make sense to support scaling up crowdfunding for EE. This work uses the framework developed by von Ritter for the RE sector. Finally, a case study of debt-crowdfunding for an off-grid RE project in India is presented and analyzed through a strength, weaknesses, opportunities and hreats (SWOT) Analysis.

Scope Based on the objectives of the report that are presented above, the report focusses on CF as a financing option for MSMEs in the Indian off-grid sector. However, the market research tries to give an insight into the current state of the whole CF market, including all kinds of crowdfunding (i.e. donation-, reward-, debt-, equity-based CF) as well as cross-border CF projects (i.e. renewable energy projects in India that are funded through crowdfunding platforms based in other countries). The definition of MSMEs as well as the market segmentation of MSMEs in the RE sector into DRE utilities and CP was adopted from Gupta et al. (2016). The latter has further sub-divided the market into ten distinct segments including five DRE segments and five CP segments. See Table 6 for a detailed description of the segments.

Limitations The limitations of the report lie in the limited availability of information on the Indian crowdfunding market. Since the market is still in a nascent stage, there is a very limited number of valid sources available and up to now, no institution like a CF association that aggregates information on the market. Therefore, information was

gathered through a variety of “grey literature” sources like blogs and newspaper articles. Furthermore, due to time restrictions, only 10 interviews could be conducted. As a result, rather than painting a clear picture of the whole CF market, the information presented in this report can only give a glimpse of the rapidly evolving Indian crowdfunding ecosystem.

The following section of the report will give a brief introduction to CF, including information on CF for RE and energy access, CF within the scope of development cooperation and the advantages of CF over other means of funding energy access projects. The second section will give detailed information on the Indian Crowdfunding market structured into the five essential conditions mentioned above as well as first conclusions on the state and potential of the Indian CF market with regard to energy access. The third section will then present a case study on CF for an off-grid RE project in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India. Finally, the fourth section will summarize the results and based on this, give recommendations for DO how CF for RE could be promoted with the aim to contribute to energy access for rural populations in a sustainable manner.

Literature anddesk research

Semi-structuredinterviews

Case study andSWOT analysis

Figure 1: Methodological approach

8


The idea of crowdfunding is that with many small contributions of money sufficient financial means can be collected for the implementation of a project using the possibilities of the World Wide Web. The process of individuals pooling their financial contributions is usually facilitated via an internet-based crowdfunding platform. New communication channels like Social Media are the quintessence for crowdfunding a project, because these allow the initiator of a project to reach out to the multitude of Internet users (the “Crowd”). CF is also based on the approach that people like to help other people realizing a project and that the contributor feels emotionally or regionally connected to a project (Sixt 2014). This is of particular importance for sustainability related CF projects, including RE and EE. Especially people who have high interest in environmental and climate protection or public participation are motivated to contribute by both financial and intrinsic objectives (Adhami, Giudici, and Nguyen Anh 2017).

Depending on the reward investors get in return for their financial contribution, CF can be categorized into financial- and non-financial-return based CF (see Figure 2). Non-financial-return based CF can be subcategorized into reward-based CF and donation-based CF. With reward-based crowdfunding the investor gets a material return. These returns can be prereleases of products, for example. In this case the material value of the return can deviate from the monetary value of the rendered contribution. With donation-based CF the contributor does not get anything in return

for his contribution. Financial-return based CF, also referred to as “Crowdinvesting” (CI), can be subcategorized into equity-based CF and lending-based CF. With equity-based CF the Investor gets a holding in the equity as well as a share of the financial success of the company. With Lending-based CF the contributor usually grants short-term credits without the usually involved financial intermediary (i.e. bank), in the form of peer-to-peer (“Peer2Peer” or “P2P”) or peer-to-company (“Peer2Company” or “P2C”) lending (Sixt 2014).

Crowdfunding: an overview

Figure 2: Different types of crowdfunding

Crowdfunding

Crowdinvesting

Non-financialreturn CF

reward-based=

non-moneyreward

donation-based=

earmarkeddonation

lending-based=

loanagreement

equity-based=

equityholding

9


CF for RE projects is a fairly recent phenomenon, with first specialized CFPs starting in 2012. Since then, the market for energy CF developed fast. By the second half of 2015 already 29 CFPs were active in the energy sector and 13 new CFPs were in a developing stage. More than 80 % of the 29 CFPs specialized on energy projects were CI platforms either following a lending (~60 %), equity (~25 %) or hybrid model (~15%). Lending-based CF is the most frequently used CF model for energy projects. Lending platforms have raised approximately 75 % of the total amount raised until the end of 2015 and have the largest average project size. In terms of RE projects, the UK is market leader, followed by the Netherlands, US and Germany. By the end of 2015, CFPs raised approximately 165 million € for RE projects worldwide, accounting for 0,75 % of the total amount crowdfunded over the same amount of time (Candelise 2016).

The CF market for energy access projects, i.e. CF campaigns for off-grid energy projects, is still very small. In 2016, organizations in the energy access sector raised 8.7 million US$ for projects in Africa, Asia and the Americas for various energy technologies. This constitutes a growth of 156% compared to 2015. Debt and equity CF are the major CF models utilized, with 53 % and 39 % percent of the funding volume respectively. The top three CFPs in terms of volume in the energy access space in 2016 were US based debt CFP

The development of CF started in the early 21st century in the US, with the first internet-based CF platform ArtistShare established in 2003. The purpose of the platform was the pre-financing of music albums as a reaction to music piracy. Since then, the US has served as a hub for the CF market. The most renowned and successful CF platform by monetary means is Kickstarter. As of February 16, 2018, since its launch in 2009, more than 14,213,137 people contributed 3,512,892,955 US$ and through this, enabled 139,010 projects in fields like film, music, journalism, technology, food and others (Kickstarter 2018). From a barely known concept at the start of the 21st century, crowdfunding has emerged into an industry worth over 140 billion US$ in 2015 (Cogan and Collings 2016).

The first CF platform in Europe was launched in August 2006. In Germany, CF has existed since 2009 and experienced a rapid growth. In 2015, projects worth 270 million € were financed through CF (Dorfleitner and Hornuf 2016). In particular CI (financial reward-based CF) experienced high growth rates: In 2011, projects worth 1.4 million € were funded. Within 5 years, the financial contribution of CI rose to 64,8 million € (2016). By now, there are numerous CI platforms in Germany; some of them highly specialized on projects from specific sectors as well as CI platforms operated by banks. Specialized CI platforms include ten focused on environmental projects, RE and EE (Harms 2017).

10


Kiva (2.5 million US$ raised through 4,000 campaigns), Germany based debt CFP bettervest (1.1 million US$ raised through five campaigns) and Netherland based CFP Lendahand (0.65 million US$ raised through 16 campaigns). Whereas the latter two provided SME loans/Working capital (WC) loans to RE enterprises in the range of 10,000 US$ to 385,000 US$ (with an average campaign size of 80,000 US$), Kiva, still the dominant platform in the energy access space, mediates microloans to consumers, cooperatives and entrepreneurs. Microloans accounted for 55 % of debt CF for energy access projects, however, the volume of WC loans provided through CFPs grew 10-fold in 2016, amounting to 2 million US$. This indicates a general shift from micro lending to WC loans in the energy access segment. Reasons for this are the development of pay-as-you-go (PAYG) solar companies that need capital for consumer lease financing models and the reduction of the administrative burden that is associated with microloans and which can be reduced through consolidating end-user loans into larger loans. Still, energy access micro lending through CFPs is expected to grow moderately over the short to medium term, focusing on P2P lending and microloans facilitated through microfinance institutions (MFIs). However, the administrative burden associated with microloans is likely to limit its scalability for social enterprises. On the other side, WC loans for social enterprises show more scalability (Cogan and Collings 2017, 2016).

The amount raised for energy access projects through equity campaigns increased from only 75,000 US$ in 2015 to 3.3 million US$ in 2016, with an average project size of 1.1 million US$. The size of equity campaigns is large compared to other forms of CF in the energy access space. Although equity crowdfunding constitutes the highest growth area of energy access CF, there was only one campaign in 2015 and three campaigns in 2016, which does not allow for the prediction of a particular trend. Success stories of CF filling the gap for seed capital, early-stage financing and WC needs of energy access businesses in 2016 include a 1.35 million US$ equity raise for the solar clean-tech company Renovagen (various countries) through Crowdcube, a 719,550 US$ equity raise for Buffalo Grid (India and Uganda) through Oneplanetcrowd and a 384,615 debt-crowdfunding campaign for Mobile Solarkraftwerke Afrika (Mali) through bettervest (Cogan and Collings 2017, 2016).

The development cooperation sector became aware of CFs potential not only for energy access but for development in general early on. In the report “Crowdfunding’s Potential for the Developing World” by the Information for Development Program (infoDef) of the World Bank in 2013, even the

possibility for developing countries to “leapfrog the development of traditional capital market structures and financial regulatory regimes of the developed world” (The World Bank 2013) through CF was discussed. Although this position was questioned later on (Winkler and Moslener 2015), DO like the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, the Department for International Development (DFID) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have put forward several programs supporting CF for different development purposes, including EE, RE and energy access (Gumpelmaier, Wenzlaff, and Eisfeld-Reschke 2014; Kumar Jain 2015; Drescher 2017; von Ritter and Bleyl 2016; “Crowdfunding in the Energy Access Space” 2014; Cogan and Collings 2016).

Debt crowdfunding for SMEs has some important advantages over conventional financing mechanisms, which make it particularly interesting for RE and energy access: First and foremost, crowdfunding offers the possibility to fund energy projects where conventional banks do not offer loans at all due to for example a lack of collaterals by the project owner, missing track records with banks or a lack of understanding by banks of the various technologies used in rural electrification projects. CF possesses several characteristics that make this possible:

11


1. It opens projects and companies to private investors who have a higher risk appetite and at the same time, besides financial returns, appreciate positive social and environmental impacts caused by the implementation of the project.

2. CF increases the risk tolerance of investors through offering greater diversification and allowing investors to reduce their average investment size.

3. CFPs for SME loans generally offer sub-ordinated loans, which shift the risk from project owners to investors and at the same time do not require collaterals, which are typically scares with young companies, especially in the energy access sector.

4. CFPs specialized on EE and RE projects do have in-house expertise to assess the quality of projects and technologies.

Further advantages of CF for energy access as well as development projects include the opening of new funding channels which have not yet been tapped into for such kind of projects, reduced cost for debt financing in countries where debt financing is potentially available, but only at an unbearable cost (e.g. Nigeria) and a reduced amount of bureaucracy and time that tend to be high for availing bank loans. In addition, the process of funding over a public internet platform constitutes a further due diligence of the project through utilizing the “crowd wisdom” of numerous investors, who are interested in RE and EE and who are granted the possibility to provide feedback on the project. Finally, a CF campaign can be used as a highly effective communication and marketing tool that gives especially environmentally and socially oriented enterprises a (international) platform to

spread their idea and gain supporters. Several examples in the energy access space like GravityLight and BuffaloGrid have gained international exposure and subsequently supporters through successful crowdfunding campaigns.

The next section summarizes the findings of the desk research and the interviews that were conducted in the course of the research.

12


Although the Indian Crowdfunding sector is still in a nascent stage, CF is not a new concept in India. Similar to the Statue of Liberty in the US, whose pedestal was funded through 160,000 single contributions by New York citizens after publisher Robert Pulitzer launched a campaign in his newspaper “The New York World”, India has its own early CF story: In 1976, director Shyam Benegal crowdfunded the production of the famous movie “Manthan”. In total, over 500,000 farmers contributed 50 Singaporean cents (2 INR ₹) to fund the production target of the film (BBC News 2013; Crowdsourcing Week 2015). To give an insight into the fast-developing Indian CF market, the following section will present information structured according to a framework developed by von Ritter and colleagues. The framework initially aimed to answer the question “under what conditions is debt or equity crowdfunding, potentially, a usefully instrument to finance energy efficiency in developing countries” and to provide simple guidance to DO, to

The Indian Crowd-funding Market

determine whether it may make sense to support scaling up CF for EE. This report uses the framework on the RE sector, with a focus on energy access. Therefore, the following section will present information on each of the five conditions identified by von Ritter with a focus on the off-grid RE sector for rural electrification:

1. Financing barriers for MSMEs providing energy access to BOP consumers by setting up DRE utilities or by providing CP

2. Institutional capacity for CF

3. Regulations for CF

4. Demand and technical capability for off-grid RE projects

5. Interest of the crowd

The presented information was garnered during desk research and 10 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of the CF market as well as MSMEs active in rural electrification.

3.1 Financing barriers for micro-, small and medium enterprises

Description of the condition: To create an enabling environment for CF in the off-grid RE sector for rural electrification, access to affordable and attractive financing of the upfront investment in off-grid RE through regular financial mechanisms such as banks is highly restricted and limited to large borrowers and corporations. Furthermore, no (or only limited) grant based financing support mechanisms are available or accessible which would offer generous and cheap financing.

As per the scope of this report, the following section focuses on debt financing needs of MSMEs in the off-grid RE sector. To identify financing barriers mainly three sources were analyzed: A report by the Indo-German Energy Program – Access to Energy in Rural Areas (IGEN-ACCESS) on “Access to Finance for MSMEs in the Renewable Energy Sector in India” (Gupta et al. 2016), a survey among the members of the Clean Energy Access Network (CLEAN) on debt needs (“Debt Needs:

13


Survey of CLEAN Members” 2017) and conducted interviews with representatives of MSME (see Annex for a complete list of interviewees).

The report by IGEN-ACCESS provides a comprehensive insight into the enterprise financing needs of MSMEs in the Indian RE sector with regard to debt, equity/hybrid, subsidies and grants for ten different company segments, each of which has its own distinct financing needs. A description of the segments as well as a summary of the detailed needs for debt financing, the current availability of debt financing, the intended application of debt financing as well as the stated barriers that currently prevent the access to debt finance for each segment is provided in Table 5 and Table 6 in the Annex. The results of the report were obtained through detailed discussion with over 40 MSMEs. Main results of the report are:

• A lack of supply and access to enterprise and consumer finance is a major hindering factor for the overall market development.

• Debt financing to support either growth capital or WC is the primary unmet need for the majority of MSMEs.

• The preferred form of debt for most DRE utility MSMEs is in the form of either long-term debt or soft loans for growth and expansion. On the other side, the primary objective of debt financing for CP players as well

as biomass utilities was to cover WC and operational costs.

• For most MSMEs debt is difficult to access because they lack fixed assets such as land or property that are considered acceptable forms of collateral by financial institutions (FIs), the tenure of available loans is in many cases too short, the majority of companies lack three-year positive cash flows, and the cost of traditional debt products is often too high. On the other hand, many FIs are wary of extending loans because there is no suitable assessment framework to assess RE MSMEs effectively. Furthermore, FIs may not be equipped with the technical expertise and suitable market information to evaluate investments properly.

• In total, across all segments, the amount of debt need is expected to be between 30-90 million US$. Considering estimates from other reports, the IGEN estimates that just about 25 million US$ debt capital is currently available per year to seed and grow MSMEs in this sector, indicating that a significant gap of about 5 to 65 Million US$ exists.

The CLEAN network is an all India representative organization with the objective to support, unify and grow the decentralized energy sector in India. A survey with 28 of its member companies, all MSMEs in the distributed RE sector with a focus on SHS and minigrid

companies, showed the following results:

• Only 6 % of the surveyed companies were able to access debt with tenures of over 6 years and 61 % reported loans of tenures of 4 years and less. Considering that 60 % of the companies surveyed focus on technologies with long asset lives like micro and mini grids, this indicates a mismatch. Therefore, Companies experience difficulties accessing long-term debt and instead have to rely on expensive and short termed loans.

• 77 % of the respondents reported high interest rates (12%-16%, with some companies reporting even higher rates) and a lack of collaterals were the key barriers to accessing debt finance. Further challenges mentioned were time for loan approval and inadequacy of balance sheets.

• Future debt needs will focus around short term working capital as well as a growing need for long-term finance for equipment and capital expenses.

• The respondents are planning to quadruple debt needs over the course of the next three years, from around 27 crores (=270 million) ₹ to 103 crores (=1,03 billion) ₹.

It is important to note that the survey is not a complete snapshot of the sector. However, it is instructive in understanding the needs of MSMEs, which currently predominantly make up CLEAN’s members.

14


Interviews conducted with the purpose to validate the garnered information from the desk research supports the presented information on financing barriers. In general, interviewees stated that the lack of financing is a major barrier to the development of the whole sector. The lack of collaterals was seen as the “single biggest challenge” to access term loans. Since the whole sector consists of mainly young companies, which did not have the chance to build significant immovable assets that could serve as collaterals, this seems to be a sector wide challenge. Especially the access to long-term debt financing (> 5 years) for equipment with long asset life was reported to be difficult. Furthermore, interviewees reported that FIs do not consider financing off-grid projects due to a lack of understanding of the particularities of different off-grid technologies like for example SWPs as well as due to a lack of a considerable track records. In addition, Interviewees stated that even loans specifically aimed at off-grid solutions like provided by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) that has received a 20 million € credit line from KfW Development Bank for “Access to Energy”, are very difficult to avail for small companies due to the set standard loaning system by IREDA. The latter has not yet provided a single loan for rural electrification. Finally, one interviewee mentioned that the lack of a strong political statement that off-grid technologies

play a substantial role in electrifying rural communities, hinders the access to finance due to the uncertainties around grid extension vs. decentralized electrification.

3.2 Institutional capacity for crowdfunding

Description of the condition: To create an enabling environment for CF in the off-grid RE sector, ideally, CFPs already exist in the country. Alternatively, international CFPs exist willing to operate in a cross-border mode. In addition, the country has high internet penetration and suitable infrastructure that allows to handle financial transactions online with a large number of investors in a swift and cost-effective manner. Finally, to enable CF in a cross-border mode, the country has few restrictions on transferring money in and out of the country.

i. Crowdfunding platforms

CFPs are already present in India. In 2016, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) estimated the number of P2P lending platforms to be around 30 (RBI 2016b). However, thus far, there is no institution like a CF association that gathers information on the market. Therefore, information on market size and number of platforms and projects is scattered around the internet and extensive research would be necessary to find exact numbers. This kind of research would go well beyond the possibilities of this report. Still, the sources analyzed -mainly blog articles of CFPs, newspaper articles, publications

of DOs as well as interviews with representatives of CFPs – allow for a rough snapshot of the current market situation as well as an educated guess of its future development.

The Indian CF market is still in a nascent stage, however, a considerable number of CFPs with different models are already active and the market is growing rapidly. During desk research, a total number of 43 CFPs were identified. Of these, five are exclusively donation-based CFPs, three offer donation and reward based CF, seven offer exclusively reward-based CF and 25 offer P2P lending. Five more organizations engage in connecting entrepreneurs with exclusively qualified institutional buyers, companies, high net worth individuals and eligible retail investors as defined by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). These will be referred to as “quasi-equity CFPs”, since they only offer investments to a very restricted “crowd”. An overview of the CFPs including information on their CF model, specialization and a short description is provided Table 7 in the Annex.

All exclusively donation-based platforms focused on social projects, with two also being engaged in creative and entrepreneurship projects and one in environmental projects. Donation and reward-based platforms as well as exclusively reward based platforms are focused around

15


creative and social projects, with a majority also being engaged in entrepreneurship and fewer in environmental projects.

The P2P lending segment can be classified into two areas: The large majority of platforms are active in the commercial space, connecting lenders and borrowers without aiming at specific purposes. Interest rates are agreed upon mutually between lenders and borrowers and the platform only acts as a facilitator. Five P2P platforms only mediate or used to mediate loans for specific purposes, namely MicroGraam, RangDe, Milaap, Ignite Intent (not active anymore) and Vote4Edu. Social projects dominate, followed by entrepreneurship, environmental as well as energy access projects. These platforms usually partner with field organizations like MFIs or Non-Profit-Organizations (NPOs). One platform, Lytyfy, is specifically aimed at providing product finance for low and middle-income customers for CPs like SHSs. However, the latter does not mediate loan agreements, but rather collects money from the crowd to pre-finance SHSs, which are then sold to unelectrified communities in a hire purchase model.

According to interviewees, if the publicly available traffic numbers of platforms in the non-commercial segment are considered and given that traffic numbers directly correlate with investments/donations facilitated, Milaap is

most likely the biggest platform by volume. Together with Kiva and Zidisha, Milaap is one of the largest micro lending platforms globally (Cogan and Collings 2017). Milaap also acts as an access point for global CF into India, through having partnered up with Kiva (US) and Lendahand (Netherlands) who mediate European and US based lenders to Milaap. According to representatives of Milaap, the platform is growing threefold a year, mirroring the rapid development of the whole CF market.

Regarding the volume of the Indian crowdfunding market, sources vary widely from one another. One source estimates the whole industry to stand at approx. 300 crore ₹ (= 39 million €) in early 2017 (Dubey 2017). Interviewees estimated the reward and donation-based CF segment to be between 15 and 20 million US$ in 2016. Again other sources assume that as per September 2016, CFPs in India had raised 52-60 million US$ over the past 18 months (Agarwal 2017). However, for most sources, differentiation between types of crowdfunding and the time period to which the figures refer are not clear.

Regarding the future development interviewees reported that they expect CF to follow the “typical evolution of technology businesses”. Accordingly, innovations develop in the US, subsequently in the EU and China, and finally come to India. With numbers for CF in the US, EU and China in mind, interviewees estimate the CF

The Indian CF market is still in a nascent stage, however, a considerable number of CFPs with different models are already active and the market is growing rapidly.

16


market to be anywhere between 0.5 and 2 billion US$ within 5 years. Other sources estimate only the P2P lending market to grow into a 4 to 5 billion US$ industry by 2023 (Sukanya 2017b). Some predict the Indian CF market to become the biggest market in the world after the US and China (Babu 2016). Main potential for CF is seen in SME and MSME financing (“What the Future Holds for P2P Lending in India and the World” 2017).

In Addition to CFPs based in India, there are international CFPs operating in a cross-border mode. These Include but are not limited to P2P lending platforms Landahand and Kiva, who have partnered up with local CFPs to fund projects in India, donation-based platform Cool Effect, reward-based platform crowdera, debt-based platform bettervest and equity-based platform OurCrowd (White 2017).

International platforms are also engaging in energy access projects. On the consumer finance side, in 2016, Kiva has funded 72 energy access projects in India amounting to a total volume of 142,100 US$ and US based donation platform Cool Effect supports community biogas programs that built biogas digesters for rural communities (Cogan and Collings 2017; “Community Biogas Program - India” n.d.). On the company finance side, UK’s largest equity CFP Crowdcube has raised a total of 719,550 US$ for Buffalo Grid in 2016, a company providing off-grid mobile charging stations

to entrepreneurs in India and Uganda (Cogan and Collings 2017, 2016). Finally, Germany based CFP bettervest has raised a 200,000 € WC loan for Mera Gao Power, a company that builds, owns, and operates micro grids in the state of Uttar Pradesh serving off-grid villages with lighting and mobile phone charging services.

ii. Suitable Infrastructure

According to the Currency of Trust report by the Omidyar Network “India gives every indication of being digitally ready” (“Currency of Trust - Consumer Behaviors and Attitudes Toward Digital Financial Services in India” 2017). There are over 460 million internet users, which makes India the second largest online market behind China. According to recent estimations, there will be 635.8 million internet users by 2021 (“Internet Usage in India” 2017). Furthermore, with 241 million people, India is the number one country in terms of Facebook users. There are over a billion mobile subscribers – mobile phone penetration lays at 72 % including more than 250 million smartphones and it is assumed to reach 85 to 90 % in 2020 with smartphone ownership surpassing basic feature phones (“Will Crowdfunding Become a Big Deal in India?” 2017; “Currency of Trust - Consumer Behaviors and Attitudes Toward Digital Financial Services in India” 2017). Smartphone and internet penetration, social media usage and a positive attitude towards digital financial service providers

provide ideal breeding ground for an evolving CF ecosystem.

According to interviewees, the market for digital payment providers has “exploded” in the last three years, with market leaders like PayTM. The infrastructure for CFPs, which are dependent on payment gateways that enable the handling of financial transaction online with a large number of investors for relatively small amounts in a swift and cost-effective manner, is very mature. Furthermore, India has a strong and well-regulated banking system. This also provides security during day-to-day business for CFPs. Another circumstance that strengthened the CF market in the long run was the demonetization of banknotes that the Indian government announced in late 2016. This led to a further push towards digitalization of the banking system as well as to more acceptance among especially less privileged social classes, which have had less contact with digital payments before and were till then distrustful.

iii. Cross-border financial transactions

When it comes to regulations on cross-border transactions to enable international CFPs to fund projects and companies in India, interviewees stated that “India is special in how complicated it is to get money into the country” for financial-return based CF. Decisive for such cross-border transactions are the regulations on “External

17


Commercial Borrowings (ECB), Trade Credit, Borrowing and Lending in Foreign Currency by Authorised Dealers and Persons other than Authorised Dealers” (RBI 2016a) by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) – the central bank responsible for monetary policy. Vice versa, interviewees mentioned issues with the outflow of money, making it difficult for national platforms to take on international projects. However, both, international CFPs as well as Indian CFPs have managed to enable cross-border transaction from an international crowd based in the US or EU into India.

3.3 Clear regulations for crowdfunding

Description of the condition: To create an enabling environment for CF in the off-grid RE sector, ideally, an enabling crowdfunding regulation has been enacted, creating regulatory certainty for investors and CFPs. Where explicit crowdfunding legislation does not (yet) exist, current legislation does at least not prohibit or seriously obstruct crowdfunding.

i. Donation and reward-based crowdfunding

In the course of donation and reward-based CF, only donations or grants are mediated by a CFP and no financial return is expected by the donor. Hence, such funding mostly falls outside the supervision of the securities market regulator. In the Indian context, payment of donations are governed by the regulations of the Income Tax Act

(SEBI 2014). Therefore, no specific regulations on donation and reward-based CF do exist. However, all relevant regulations for online marketplaces apply to donation-based CFPs. Beside others, these including regulations on privacy and data security and regulations on online payments.

ii. P2P-lending

The regulation of P2P-lending falls under the domain of the RBI, while equity based crowdfunding falls under the purview of the capital market regulator SEBI (RBI 2016b). Building upon a consultation paper issued by SEBI in 2014 on Crowdfunding in general, the RBI released a consultation paper specifically on P2P lending in 2016 to invite comments and suggestions from industry and market participants (SEBI 2014; RBI 2016b). Subsequently, RBI issued the “Master Directions – Non-Banking Financial Company – Peer to Peer Lending Platform Directions”(RBI 2017) in October 2017. According to the master directions, P2P-lending platforms need to get registered with RBI as Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs). NBFC-P2P lending platforms in India are only allowed to act as intermediaries between lenders and borrowers, therefore, lending and borrowing is not reflected on their balance sheets. Further regulations contained in the master directions include regulations on the registration process, a minimum requirement on the net-owned funds (2 crore INR

₹), the requirement of an escrow account mechanism to facilitate transactions between borrower and lender, a cap on the possible lending/borrowing amount and the tenure of loans mediated (max. 36 month) as well as regulations on operational guidelines and reporting (RBI 2017).

In general, the introduction of the regulations was welcomed by the industry. Various online sources as well as interviewees stated that regulations will move P2P lending from an regulatory grey area to legality, increasing transparency and subsequently credibility. Regulations are believed to give a boost to market growth, similarly to other countries like the US, UK and China, where the introduction of a legal framework has accelerated the market development immensely (“RBI Regulatory Guidelines: Bringing Structure to the P2P Lending Industry” 2017; Singh 2017; Patel 2017; “Impact of RBI Guidelines on P2P Lending Platforms” 2017). However, interviewees also raised concerns on for example the cap on lending, borrowing and tenures, which are expected to impede growth. According to the regulations, “the aggregate exposure of a lender to all borrowers at any point of time, across all P2Ps” as well as “the aggregate loans taken by a borrower at any point of time, across all P2Ps, shall be subject to a cap of 10,00,000 INR (₹)”. Furthermore, “the exposure of a single lender to the same borrower,

18


across all P2Ps, shall not exceed 50,000 INR (₹)” (RBI 2017). In addition, interviewees also mention that the regulations are formulated vaguely, creating uncertainties for platforms. One example is the requirement of “necessary technological, entrepreneurial and managerial resources” (RBI 2017), which is not further defined.

The mentioned caps will also limit the possibility of loan-based crowdfunding for MSME finance. The maximum amount of 1 million INR (₹) (= 12,588 €) that a borrower is allowed to take across all P2P platforms lies well below the stated financial needs of MSMEs outlined in section 3.1 (also see Annex Table 6). The cap on the tenure of loans further limits the possibilities for MSME finance, as there is a lack of long term finance in particular. However, these regulations are specifically aimed at P2P lending platforms, not at P2B lending. Furthermore, interviewees and online sources stated that regulations are still very young and that adjustments will probably be made in favor of platform operators in near future (Parmar 2017).

iii. Equity crowdfunding

As of now, there are no special regulations on equity crowdfunding. The offering of securities falls under the Companies Act (2013), which regulates the incorporation, responsibility and dissolution of companies. The current regulative regime is giving the aim of investor protection priority to the promotion

of equity crowdfunding. This attitude was likely influenced by multiple scandals including the illegal offering of securities by companies belonging to the Sahara Group that took place during the reformation process of the former Companies Act as well as by former affairs around chit funds causing the market regulator SEBI to introduce further checks and balances on fundraising possibilities for Indian companies and through this, shifting the regulative regime to the detriment of equity crowdfunding (Majumdar and Varottil 2016). However, since SEBI has also recognized the chances of crowdfunding for seed financing for small businesses and start-ups, it has issued the earlier mentioned consultation paper in 2014. In the latter, SEBI tries to “strike a balance between retail investor protection and capital market access” (SEBI 2014), however, critics describe the proposed regulations on eligibility for issuers and investors as well as the proposed regulations on investment and offer limits as too restrictive, making it to cost intensive for MSMEs to utilize equity crowdfunding. Beside others, proposed regulations contained in the consultation paper include the restriction of CF to only “accredited investors”, which are qualified institutional buyers (QIBs), high net worth individuals (HNIs) with a minimum net worth of 20 million ₹, and companies with a minimum net worth of 200 million ₹ as well as a ban on advertisement (Majumdar and Varottil 2016). These exemplary regulations would restrict “the

crowd” to an exclusive, and essentially wealthy small group. This impedes one of the core ideas of crowdfunding: to open the capital market for participants who would otherwise not be able to participate. SEBI has further issued a press release in August 2016 warning investors who invest through such “quasi-equity CFPs” active under the Companies Act that “all dealings on such unauthorized electronic platforms would be in contravention of the relevant securities laws” (Sunjay 2017). In July 2017, SEBI has further mandated these quasi-equity CFPs to show a disclaimer on platforms saying that their portals are neither stock exchanges nor authorized by the market regulator to solicit investments (Sukanya 2017a). Without going into more details, this highlights that equity crowdfunding remains a regulatory grey area. Next steps of the market regulator SEBI need to be awaited before a prognosis on its potential development can be made. Interviewees and online sources predict that regulations won’t come within the next two years (“India’s Crowdfunding Landscape: What Are the Emerging Trends?” 2016).

3.4. Demand and technical capability for off-grid renewable energy projects

Description of the condition: To create an enabling environment for CF in the off-grid RE sector, incentives in the country are conducive for undertaking off-grid rural electrification measures and render rural electrification projects profitable with attractive pay back periods. Furthermore, consumers

19


are willing to adopt off-grid RE technologies and are willing to pay for the provided product or service. Finally, Technical capacity for off-grid RE technology exists in the form of specialized companies.

According to interviewees from MSME in the off-grid RE sector, the payback period for rural electrification projects heavily depends on the used technology. Whereas CPs like SPLs and SHSs reach short payback periods of below two years, DRE technologies like micro grids and SWPs demand investments in infrastructure leading to longer pay back periods of 5-7 and 2-10 years respectively. The payback time further depends on numerous factors like the current source of power for the local population, the availability of grants, the integration of productive uses and how much people can work/earn more through the implementation of the project. Therefore, a general statement on pay back periods for off-grid RE projects can hardly be made. However, the popping up of numerous private businesses active in the field of off-grid RE within the last few years indicates that decent margins are possible in the sector. Furthermore, the development of new payment technologies like PAYG systems and the improvement of established technologies like micro and mini-grids are likely to increase profitability of off-grid technologies in near future.

Considering that 304 million people in India lack access to electricity and further 500 million people still depend on biomass for cooking, the group of customers that are willing to adopt off-grid RE technologies is large (CLEAN 2017). The substitution of e.g. kerosene used for lighting with RE sources is a further motivational factor for customers to adapt RE. However, interviewees from MSMEs highlighted the fact that the rural population needs to be informed about the advantages in the form of health benefits and cost savings that come along with the usage of RE. Subsequently, people also need to be adequately trained to use the respective technology. Furthermore, independent from the payment system chosen by the company, a seamless and reliable after sales service guaranteeing that the used technology is working at all times is key to ensure the repayment by the customer. High repayment rates of above 98 % on India’s leading P2P lending platforms for social causes including Kiva, Milaap, RangDe and Microgram also indicate that repayment by low income customers is less of an issues as often stated if the aspects mentioned above are considered (Kumar Jain 2015; Cogan and Collings 2017).

India currently employs more than 385,000 people in the RE sector and it is estimated that a further 300,000 people will be employed in the sector within the next five

years indicating the presence of considerable resources in terms of know-how (IRENA 2017; Kuldeep et al. 2017). Furthermore, in 2013, there were at least 250 companies active in the Indian off-grid RE sector (USAID 2013). The report by Gupta et al. (2016) has further identified 175 companies active in the sector. Although interviewees mentioned that genuine capability is only present with a limited number of companies, the numbers show that specific knowledge on the application of RE in an off-grid setting is available. Finally, the sector receives extensive technical and entrepreneurial support from various development agencies like GIZ, USAID and DFID as well as from foundations active in the energy access space like the Rockefeller and Shakti Foundation.

3.5. Interest of the crowd

Description of the condition: To create an enabling environment for CF in the off-grid RE sector a crowd must exist, which has disposable income to lend or invest, is computer and internet enabled, and is interested in dual returns, e.g. from RE projects, in the form of reasonable financial returns combined with social-environmental benefits, such as energy savings and CO2 reduction.

In the case of India, Satish Kataria, founder of the Indian CFP Catapooolt, is right when he says that “India sits on a lot of positive demographics” (Crowdsourcing Week 2015) for CF: India has one of the youngest populations, a huge

20


penetration of social media and internet (also see section 3.2) as well as a large and wealthy diaspora in countries like the US, UK, Canada and also Germany, which have more developed crowdfunding markets (Ministry of External Affairs India 2017).

India’s “crowd” of 1.3 billion people, of which 24.5 million household actively invest in the securities market, presents unparalleled opportunities for CF as well as CI (Majumdar and Varottil 2016). Furthermore, India is not only the country with the highest number of people who donate money (265 million) but also the country with the largest volunteering population (256 million) (Gautam, Vishwanathan, and Varma 2017; Charities Aid Foundation 2017). In total, Indian philanthropy is estimated to be in the range of eight billion US Dollar, of which 1.9 billion US Dollar originate from the Indian diaspora. Within the last three years, individual giving has grown by 36 % (Gautam, Vishwanathan, and Varma 2017). The latter demonstrates the importance of philanthropy in India’s society. This also holds high potential for CF through shifting offline-donations – currently the prevailing way how donations are done – to online CFPs, especially when considering the fast Indian development with regard to digitalization. A report by the Charities Aid Foundation India (CAF) predicts that within the next eight years 50 % of all giving in India will occur online (CAF 2015). It also shows that a large number

of Indians appreciate social-environmental benefits that are characteristic for CF in the energy access space. However, until now, the Indian masses have not been moved. According to interviewees, CF is still predominantly driven by institutions like foundations and international CFP like Kiva and Lendahand that together with Indian CFPs bring European and US crowd-investors and donors together with Indian grassroots organizations. For example Ketto, one of India’s leading reward- and donation-based CFPs for social causes, sees approximately 40 % of its funding come from foreign countries (Allied Crowds 2015). The above indicates a high and untapped potential for CF within India.

On the other side, cross-border crowdfunding also holds high potential, especially for RE projects. Of the entirety of potential investors and donors that Indian individuals and organizations gain access to through cross-border crowdfunding, one group of people is of particular interest and importance: the Indian diaspora. The population of overseas Indians (non-resident Indians and persons of Indian origin) accounts for approximately 31.2 million people, the largest diaspora of all countries (Ministry of External Affairs India 2017; Balachandran 2016). The majority lives in countries of the middle east. Further countries with large Indian communities are the US (4.46 million), the UK (1.82 million) and Canada (1.01 million). Germany has a community of

The importance of diaspora communities for the development of countries is undoubted: through the remittance of knowledge, skills, values and resources the Indian diaspora can contribute substantially to the social, economic and political development of their home country.

21


169,602 Indians (Ministry of External Affairs India 2017). The US, UK, Canada and Germany have far advanced crowdfunding markets, allowing for cross-border donations and investments into projects in India.

The importance of diaspora communities for the development of countries is undoubted: through the remittance of knowledge, skills, values and resources the Indian diaspora can contribute substantially to the social, economic and political development of their home country. In this realm, cross-border CF can play an important role in channeling social remittance (e.g. innovations in the form of new manufacturing processes or the way a service is performed) or financial remittance (Michaella 2018; Allied Crowds 2015). Multiple CFPs including Zafen (a Kiva partner), Afrikstart, LelapaFund and ISupportJamaica have been set up in the past exclusively to capture remittance funding for different developing countries. One key advantage of CF is that it can break down information asymmetries, which is beneficial for both, the recipient of funding, and interested investors who are considering funding projects in their home country. The marketplace structure of most CFPs enables investors to scan through investment opportunities and subsequently filter projects according to regional and sector/cause preferences. With 72.2 billion US Dollar of received remittance in 2015, India is the top remittance-receiving country in

the world (The World Bank 2016). As mentioned above, 1.9 billion US Dollar of remittance were exclusively channeled to charitable causes (Gautam, Vishwanathan, and Varma 2017). On a global scale, international migrant’s remittance accounts for more than three times the amount of development aid and supports millions of households in developing countries (The World Bank 2015). Hence, remittance offers a substantial source of funding for development projects and CF can play an important role to channel payments.

Furthermore, apart from India’s diaspora community, cross-border CF for RE projects in developing countries represents an asset class that an increasing number of private investors in ‘developed countries’ is interested in. On one side, this is driven by the fact that sustainable investment opportunities are on the rise in general. For example, between 2008 and 2016, the sum of sustainable investment funds and mandates in Germany, Austria and Switzerland rose tenfold from 22.7 billion € to 242.2 billion € showing an increasing interest in returns that go beyond financial yields such environmental and social benefits (FNG 2017). And on the other side, by low interest politics and subsequently low returns on regular investments in the EU as well as the US, which further motivates investors to turn to investments with a higher risk-return profile such as CI.

3.6 Interim Conclusion

The following interim conclusion will first summaries the results of the previous section and subsequently derive a conclusion for each subsection/condition:

i. Financing barriers for MSMEs providing energy access to BOP consumers by setting up DRE utilities or by providing CP

• The financing of the upfront investment of off-grid RE through regular financial mechanisms (e.g. banks) is highly restricted and limited to large borrowers and corporations.

• Conclusion: Considering the characteristics of crowdfunding for SMEs presented in section 2 and that the typical range of SME loans/WC loans provided by CFPs to RE enterprises in the energy access space lies between 10,000 US$ and 385,000 US$ (with an average campaign size of 80,000 US$), CF can play a catalytic role helping MSMEs access finance with long tenures without collateral requirements, and through this, help companies develop track records so that over a period of time, conventional financing sources can step in and play a more active role.

ii. Institutional capacity for CF

• CFPs already exist in India, however, CFPs in the energy access space are restricted to reward and donation-based platforms as well as few P2P lending platforms all of which

22


focus on consumer finance. Few quasi-equity CFPs exist which operate in a legal grey area and thus far, have not been engaged in the energy access space.

• International CFPs exist that operate in a cross-border mode and have funded projects in the energy excess space, namely bettervest, Landahand, Kiva, Cool Effect, crowdera and OurCrowd.

• The industry agrees that CF will grow exponentially over the next few years, creating more opportunities for CF in the energy access space.

• With currently more than 460 million internet users, India has considerable internet penetration, which is predicted to reach 635.8 million users in 2021. Furthermore, infrastructure that allows to handle financial transactions online with a large number of investors in a swift a cost-effective manner is present.

• India has strict regulations on transferring money in and out of the country. However, both, international CFPs as well as Indian CFPs have managed to enable cross-border transaction from an international crowd based in the US or EU into India.

• Conclusion: The institutional capacity for crowdfunding in India is well developed and offers good development opportunities for the market. Due to the fact that, until now, CF for energy access is restricted to consumer finance, greater potential for MSME

finance lies in cross-border CF. This is despite the fact that cross-border transactions are strictly regulated and remain a challenge for CFPs.

iii. Regulations for CF

• In India, payment of donations is governed by the regulations of the Income Tax Act (SEBI 2014). Therefore, no specific regulations for donation and reward-based crowdfunding do exist.

• The Reserve Bank of India issued Master Directions on P2P lending in October 2017. These regulations moved P2P lending from an regulatory grey area to legality, increasing transparency and credibility. The NBFC-P2P lending norms are predicted to give a boost to the Indian CF market. However, caps on lending, borrowing and tenures introduced through the directions limit the possibility of lending-based CF for MSME finance in India.

• Equity CF remains a regulatory grey area.

• Conclusion: Regulatory restrictions in the form of caps on lending and borrowing amounts as well as tenure for P2P lending platforms combined with the fact that equity CF remains a regulatory grey area further supports the conclusion of ii. that greater potential for MSME finance lies in cross-border CF.

iv. Demand and technical capability for off-grid RE projects

• The payback time for rural electrification projects depends on numerous factors, therefore, a general statement on attractive pay back periods for off-grid RE projects can hardly be made. However, the increasing activity of the private sector indicates that decent margins are possible. Furthermore, technological progress is likely to increase profitability of distributed RE in the medium term.

• With 304 million people in India still lacking access to electricity, there is an extensive group of customers that are willing to adopt off-grid RE technologies. If education and training of the customer as well as operation and maintenance of the technology are taken care of properly, high repayment rates are possible.

• There is an extensive amount of know-how on RE as well as companies specialized on off-grid RE in India. Furthermore, the sector receives extensive technical and entrepreneurial support from various development agencies and foundations active in the rural electrification sector.

• Conclusion: Demand and technical capability is available; however, due diligence processes of CFPs need to consider special aspects when funding rural electrification projects including education and training

23


of the customer, operation and maintenance as well as in depth due diligence on the technical capability of the executing company.

v. Interest of the crowd

• With many young and digitally affine people, India’s demographics are in favor of CF. However, the Indian masses of people have not been moved yet leaving a high and untapped potential for CF within India.

• With the largest diaspora of all countries, there is high and thus far only marginally exploited potential for cross-border crowdfunding. Furthermore, the increasing demand for sustainable investment opportunities as well as low interest politics in ‘developed countries’ makes CI also an interesting financial product for private investors that do not belong to the Indian diaspora.

• Conclusion: Both, the Indian and foreign crowd yield high potential for CF in India. However, building on the conclusions regarding institutional capacity and regulations (ii. and iii.), it becomes apparent that the international crowd – the Indian diaspora and other private investors alike – yield more potential for funding energy access projects.

The following section will introduce a case study of debt crowdfunding by Germany based CFP bettervest for an off-grid RE project in the state of Uttar Pradesh, India.

24


i. Context

Through identifying and promoting affordable and decentralized energy solutions for rural regions, the global Solar for All initiative aims at bringing affordable solar energy to the world’s 1.1 billion people without access to electricity. To achieve this goal, the initiative in collaboration with the German Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE) has launched the “Solar for All” contest 2016. To participate in the contest, MSMEs from around the world had to submit proposals for innovative approaches to provide rural low-income communities in remote regions without access to energy with affordable and clean solutions, focusing on scalability, technical standards and a developed market approach. The first price of the contest was a 400,000 € loan provided by the Germany based debt-crowdfunding platform bettervest.com to implement the proposed project.

From a number of high-quality submissions from mostly Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Oceania, Boond Engineering and

Mera Gao PowerCase Study:

Mera Gao Power (MGP), both Indian based companies, were awarded the first prize, both receiving a 200,000 € loan for 8 years at 5 percent interest and no collateral required made available through a crowdfunding campaign on bettervest.com. It is in this context that the case study of the MGP project has been selected as an example for an off-grid RE project financed through cross-border crowdfunding.

ii. Description of the case

MGP builds, owns, and operates micro grids in Uttar Pradesh, India serving off-grid villages with high quality, dependable lighting and mobile phone charging services. With the price money, the Lucknow based company aimed at implementing 200 micro grids serving 4,000 households and 24,000 people in rural, remote hamlets of Uttar Pradesh with priority electricity services. By combining a small set of standardized components with a corresponding number of customers, MGP supplies electricity for 7 hours during the night. MGP’s

25


Kheri

Banda

Kaushambi

Gonda

Etah

Hardoi

Jhansi

Deoria

Kushinagar

Sitapur

Hamirpur

Mobaba

BastiSantKabirNagar

Bahraich

Saravasti

Unnao

Agra

Allahabad

Badaun

Jalaun

Bijnor

Aligarh

Sonbhadra

Lalitpur

States with 50% < Rural un-eletri�cation < 90%States with 25% < Rural un-eletri�cation < 50%States with 3% < Rural un-eletri�cation < 25%

EtawahAuriya

VaranasiChandauliSant Ravidas

Nagar

Meerut

Mau

Faizabad

Moradabad

Ballia

Pilibhit

Mirzapur

Jaunpur

Bareilly

Fatehpur

Rae BareliSultanpur

Ghazipur

Mainpuri

Pratapgarh

Gorakhpur

MathuraMahamayaNagar

Barabanki

Azamgarh

KanpurDehat

Rampur

BulandshahrGautam BudhaNagar

Shahjahanpur

Farrukhabad

Kannuaj

Saharanpur

Lucknow

Muzaffarnagar

Ghaziabad

Firozabad

Siddharthnagar Maharajganj

Balrampur

Kanpur Nagar

Chitrakoot

Uttar Pradesh Assam

Himachal Pradesh

Rajasthan

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

Karnataka

Tamilnadu

WestBengal

Odisa

Chatisgarh

Districts with 85.64% < un-electri�cation < 93.46%Districts with 77.55% < un-electri�cation < 85.64%Districts with 69.61% < un-electri�cation < 77.55%Districts with 32.12% < un-electri�cation < 69.61%

micro grids are fully automated and generate electricity through centrally located solar panels (240 Wp), store the generated electricity in deep cycle batteries (75 Ah 24 VDC battery bank), and distribute it during pre-set hours across the village to power LED lights and mobile phone chargers in customer households. Each customer receives two LED lights and one phone charger which operate for 7 hours each night.

₹ (1.73 €). As a comparison: In an off-grid setting in Uttar Pradesh, households consume a minimum of three litres of kerosene per month for three hours of low quality lighting per night. Below poverty line households may receive up to two litres of subsidized kerosene per month for approximately 18 ₹ (0.24 €) per litre while open-market kerosene prices vary between 40 to 90 ₹ (0.53 € to 1.20 €) per litre. On average, Kerosene expenses

per month per household are approximately 80 ₹ (1.06 €). In addition, mobile phone charging is a primary energy need for which households pay a minimum of 60 ₹ (0.80 €) per month. Therefore, with merely 1.73 € per month, the service offered by MGP is less expensive than the cost of kerosene and external phone charging, which will amount to approximately 147 ₹ (= 1.86 €).

Figure 3: Location of the identified villages

(Source: World Resources Institute).

iii. Economic feasibility analysis

The total investment cost for 200 micro grids is 200,000 €. Therefore, one micro grid costs approximately 1,000 € to build and serves 20 or more households. In return for the service described above, customers pay a one-time connection fee of 100 ₹ (1.30 €) and thereafter a flat fee of 30 ₹ (0.40 €) per week. Considering that a year has 52 weeks and a month has an average of 4.3 weeks, the monthly costs are as follows: ₹ 30 (0,40 €) * 4,3 = 130

26


Table 1: Price comparison between MGP‘s micro grid and current energy supply

MGP KEROSENE / LOCAL PHONE CHARGING

PRICE PER MONTH 130 ₹ (1.73 €) 87 + 60 = 147 ₹ (1.86 €)+ Travel costs to purchase both

PROVIDED HOURS OF LIGHT

7 3

LIGHT POINTS 2 1

LUMENS PER LIGHT 73.5 1-6

In addition to being cost competitive with kerosene, MGP’s base package is cheaper and more reliable than the most subsidized grid connection in Uttar Pradesh, which costs 180 ₹ (2.40 €) per month and only delivers unreliable power a few hours per night.

The composition of the subordinate-loan provided by bettervest is shown in Table 2. The repayment does not include the bettervest handling fee (usually 1 % of the funding amount/year), trustee fee (usually 0,75% of the funding amount) and listing/marketing cost (usually 10 % of the funding amount) as these costs were covered by the Canopus Foundation as part of the first prize. The repayment plan with the annuity amount of 30,944.36 € is shown in Table 3.

Composition of Funding-Loan Amount Investment Cost 200.000 €Listing and Marketing Cost 0 €Trustee Fee 0 €Funding (Loan) Amount 200.000 € Composition of Repaymentbettervest Handling Fee 0 €/YearRepayment to the Investors (Annuity) 30.944 €/YearTotal Annual Repayments 30.944 €/Year

Years Amount paid towards Interest

Amount paid towards Principle

Loan

Annuitized Repayments

Balance Amount

Total € 47.554,90 € 200.000,00 € 247.554,90

0 - - - € 200.000,00

1 € 10.000,00 € 20.944,36 € 30.944,36 € 179.055,64

2 € 8.952,78 € 21.991,58 € 30.944,36 € 157.064,06

3 € 7.853,20 € 23.091,16 € 30.944,36 € 133.972,90

4 € 6.698,64 € 24.245,72 € 30.944,36 € 109.727,18

5 € 5.486,36 € 25.458,00 € 30.944,36 € 84.269,17

6 € 4.213,46 € 26.730,90 € 30.944,36 € 57.538,27

7 € 2.876,91 € 28.067,45 € 30.944,36 € 29.470,82

8 € 1.473,54 € 29.470,82 € 30.944,36 € 0,00

Table 2: Composition of the subordinate-loan provided by bettervest

Table 3: Repayment plan

27


Table 4 shows a cash flow analysis for the project. After five years, warranty of the batteries expires. This is the largest anticipated replacement cost for the micro grids. Therefore, additional investments for the battery replacement will be required in year six as shown in Table 4. This cost will be covered by MGP.

The financial model provides detailed information on key financial metrics such as CAPEX, revenue, OPEX, and cash flow for 200 micro grids and corresponding 4000 customers. The projections show that even with poorer performance, MGP will be able to service the loan. Therefore, each micro grid is commercially viable despite being solar powered and serving BOP customers.

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CAPEX -200.000,00 €

0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € -72.917,36 € 0,00 € 0,00 €

Connection Fees

5.159,50 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 €

Energy Fee 38.387,80 € 64.061,59 € 60.956,15 € 58.001,26 € 55.189,61 € 52.514,25 € 49.968,58 € 47.546,32 €

Revenue 43.547,31 € 64.061,59 € 60.956,15 € 58.001,26 € 55.189,61 € 52.514,25 € 49.968,58 € 47.546,32 €

Collections Costs

-10.578,65 € -11.299,12 € -10.751,38 € -10.230,20 € -9.734,29 € -9.262,41 € -8.813,41 € -8.386,17 €

New Connection Incentives

-2.579,75 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 € 0,00 €

Maintenance Costs

-6.353,54 € -6.456,64 € -6.143,65 € -5.845,83 € -5.562,45 € -5.292,81 € -5.036,23 € -4.792,10 €

COGS -19.511,95 € -17.755,75 € -16.895,03 € -16.076,03 € -15.296,73 € -14.555,21 € -13.849,64 € -13.178,27 €

Gross Profit 24.035,36 € 46.305,83 € 44.061,12 € 41.925,23 € 39.892,87 € 37.959,04 € 36.118,94 € 34.368,05 €

Branch Costs -3.095,33 € -3.375,06 € -3.211,45 € -3.055,77 € -2.907,64 € -2.766,69 € -2.632,58 € -2.504,96 €

Area Management Costs

-2.390,37 € -2.274,50 € -2.164,24 € -2.059,33 € -1.959,50 € -1.864,51 € -1.774,13 € -1.688,13 €

Total Field Management Costs

-5.485,71 € -5.649,56 € -5.375,69 € -5.115,10 € -4.867,14 € -4.631,20 € -4.406,70 € -4.193,09 €

Project Earnings

18.549,66 € 40.656,27 € 38.685,43 € 36.810,13 € 35.025,73 € 33.327,83 € 31.712,24 € 30.174,97 €

Project Cash Flow (for IRR)

30.944,36 € 30.944,36 € 30.944,36 € 30.944,36 € 30.944,36 € 30.944,36 € 30.944,36 € 30.944,36 €

Loan Payment -12.394,70 € 9.711,91 € 7.741,07 € 5.865,77 € 4.081,37 € 2.383,47 € 767,88 € -769,39 €

MGP Earnings (after loan payment)

-12.394,70 € -2.682,79 € 5.058,28 € 10.924,05 € 15.005,42 € 17.388,89 € 18.156,77 € 17.387,38 €

Table 4: Cash flow analysis

28


iv. Rational for considering crowdfunding

Despite being a profitable project, MGP faces difficulties raising the necessary debt finance from banks due to the reasons elaborated on in detail in section 3.1. So far, MGP had to rely on unconventional means of debt and equity finance including DO such as the USAID Development Innovation Venture, Non-Banking Financial Companies specialized on venture debt for social enterprises such as intellegrow, investments by private and public impact funds such as insitor impact fund and ElectrifFI as well as on crowdfunding. MGP has already received small loans from SunFunder as well as Milaap in 2014. In this case, debt crowdfunding through bettervest bridges the financing gap to pre-finance the components for 200 micro grids.

v. Description of the crowdfunding instrument

The 200,000 € loan was provided through a crowdfunding campaign on bettervest.com. In total, 350 individual investors participated in the campaign and jointly provided the necessary 200,000 €. It took 98 days to fully fund the project. The investors were offered 5 % interest over 8 years term.

bettervest is the world’s first crowd-investing platform that enables people to jointly invest individual sums of money in RE and EE projects initiated by established enterprises, NGOs and local municipalities in Germany as well as in developing countries. In return, they benefit financially from the resulting cost and energy savings. To this end, bettervest only finances projects that are ecologically sound and achieve high

savings in both cost and energy. Each individual project is verified by certified energy consultants who calculate and forecast the savings. The project owners receive the necessary capital with the help of private investors i.e. “the crowd”. The investors receive a part of their investment plus a fixed interest rate annually throughout the contract period. Figure 5 illustrates the bettervest business model.

Figure 4: Crowdfunding for 200 micro grids on bettervest.com.

Figure 5: The bettervest business model.

Individual Investments50 - 10,000 €

• Sustainable investment• Interest rate between 4

to 12%• Additional rewards:

coupons, discounts, etc.

Crowd

• No capital needed• No collaterals required • Project size from 50,000

up to 2.5 million €• Financial & technical

due diligence

ProjectsMoney transferred to

escrow account

One - time comission + yearly handling fee

Money distributed by escrow account

Up to 100% FinancingINVESTMENTS

RETURNS

29


Key features of debt crowdfunding as practiced by bettervest include the following elements:

• The listing of the project on the CFP to communicate the targeted amount (200,000 €), the tenure (8 years), the interest (5 %) as well as the achieved CO2 savings (7,001.28 tons) to the crowd.

• A contract between the project developer MGP and bettervest, regulating the fees and conditions. In this case, the fee payed by MGP accounts for 5 % interest annually paid to the investors. The bettervest listing fee (10 % of the funding amount), the annual handling fee (1 % of the funding amount) as well as the trusty fee (0,75 % of the funding amount) is paid by the Canopus Foundation as part of the prize for the Solar for All contest.

• Loan agreements between MGP and the individual investors, regulating their rights and obligations.

vi. SWOT analysis

The following SWOT analysis aims to provide a short qualitative assessment of the presented case study.

Figure 6: Summary of SWOT analysis.

STRENGTH• Access to finance• Technical expertise• Specialization on EE and RE• Social and environmental impact• CO2 Reductions

THREATS• Regulations on cross-border transactions• Operational challenges• Risks inherent to off-grid rural electrification projects

OPPORTUNITIES• New source of funding• Cooperation possibilities• Integrating CFPs into Development/Climate Finance• Increasing importance of offgrid RE• Large crowd interested in RE/rural electrification• Indian diaspora

WEAKNESSES• FOREX risk• Relatively high costs

a) Strength

• The key strength lies in the fact that bettervest provides access to long-term and collateral free debt finance, since MGP faces difficulties raising the necessary capital from banks and other financial institutions.

• Through the focus on RE and EE, bettervest has significant technical expertise at its disposal to assess the technical and economic viability of such projects.

• A further strength specific to bettervest is the large crowd that is interested in energy projects. CFPs with this kind of specialization are few on an

international level and non-existent in India.

• Through the implementation of the project the end customer profits in the form of reduced health risks through substituting kerosene as a source of light, cheaper electricity supply and less time spent to avail services like charging phones at local markets.

• Further “global benefits” include CO2 savings through the deployment of RE.

• In a nutshell: Provided that the project is successful and that the loan is repaid, the campaign constitutes a win-win-win situation: i) investors are offered

30


a sustainable and lucrative investment opportunity, ii) MGP gains access to finance of 100 % of the project cost and iii) the end customer gains access to cheap, clean and reliable electricity.

b) Weaknesses

• If all transaction cost (listing/marketing cost, trusty fee and annual handling fee) are included/carried by MGP, the loan cost will increase substantially and might be unbearable for MSMEs in the off-grid RE sector.

• Cross-border CF involves a Foreign Exchange Risk. Therefore, the success of the campaign also depends on the development of the two respective currencies towards each other.

c) Opportunities

• CF offers the opportunity to tap into a new source of finance for rural electrification projects: small private investors.

• An extensive network of DO and foundations active in the Indian energy access sector offers opportunities for cooperation’s similar to the one between the Canopus Foundation, bettervest and MGP.

• Integrating socially and environmentally oriented CFPs into the realm of development finance along with for example MFIs and development banks could make them more amenable for support by governments, DO etc.

• With 304 million people still living without electricity and with the Indian government more and more realizing that off-grid RE plays an important role in electrifying those people, the demand for such kind of financing options is likely to increasing in future.

• The strong social and environmental character of rural electrification attracts a large number of investors willing to invest despite high risks.

• Engaging the large Indian diaspora holds further opportunities in the form of (social and economic) remittance that can be channeled through CF.

d) Threats

• Due to ECB regulations by RBI, cross-border transactions remain a significant challenge.

• With respect to cross-border CF in general, distance between the CFP and the implementing company can cause operational challenges in terms of communication, due diligence processes, legal particularities of the country etc.

• General risks of off-grid rural electrification projects including uncertainties with regards to grid extension, technical failure, theft and willingness to pay.

31


The objective of this report was threefold: first, to provide an overview of the CF market in India. This was achieved in section three. Second, to determine if CF is a suitable financial product to bridge the financing gap for debt capital identified by Gupta et al. (2016) for MSMEs active in the market for DRE utilities and CP. Based on the findings presented in section three, it was concluded that CF has the potential to play a catalytic role in helping MSMEs access debt finance with long tenures without collateral requirements, and through this, help companies develop track records so that over a period of time, conventional financing sources can step in and play a more active role. However, because until now CF for energy access in India is restricted to consumer finance due to the early stage of the market, regulations on lending-based CF (e.g. caps on lending and borrowing amounts) and CF partially remaining a regulatory grey area, greater potential for MSME finance lies in cross-border CF, especially when considering the potent international crowd, both the Indian diaspora and other private investors.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the findings, the final part of the report will focus on the third objective: to develop recommendations for DOs on how to promote CF for RE with the aim of contributing to improved access to energy for the rural population in a sustainable way. On one side, recommendations will be given on the basis of the results presented in section two to four, therefore, recommendations that are more specific to the Indian market and to the presented case study (i.e. bettervest) and on the other side, literature based recommendations that are more in general:

• Although specialized CFPs like bettervest do have expertise to assess the technical and economic viability of off-grid RE projects, the multitude of different technologies utilized for rural electrification, local environmental conditions as well as cultural particularities constitute a challenge. This is all the more important for cross-border CF, where the spatial distance between

CFP and the implementing company can be large. Here, a strong local partner for CFPs is necessary. DOs, based on their local knowledge, could support due diligence processes through i) selecting trustworthy and competent local partner companies and through ii) supporting financial and technical feasibility studies on proposed projects. In a further step, CFPs and DOs together could develop guidelines on how CFPs can check the credibility of local MSMEs and proposed projects.

• DOs active in rural electrification are usually well connected in the sector and could together with CFP develop a pipeline of projects that are in need of financing.

• Since CF is still a very nascent model, a key challenge is the lack of awareness on behalf of MSMEs. The majority of companies simply does not know of CF and its potential for rural electrification projects, especially in India. Therefore, a set of

32


awareness building measures that DOs could initiate and/or support include:

o Workshops with participants from MSMEs and CFPs on crowdfunding for rural electrification projects.

o Webinars hosted by CFPs with MSME that introduce crowdfunding as a financing option for rural electrification projects. Here, DOs that are well connected in the rural electrification sector could promote such events through their channels.

o Include CF into ongoing discussion about Development and Climate Finance, promote networking and establish partnerships with other key actors in the market such as development banks, MFIs, government organizations etc.

o Showcasing examples of successful CF campaigns. This could include developing brochures and video material.

• Similar to creating awareness, a lack of knowledge on key issues related to crowdfunding on one side and off-grid RE technologies on the other restrains the market development. With capacity building being at the core business of DOs, workshops and other events like international exchanges on key issues including legal aspects of CF and the assessment of off-grid RE projects from a financial, technological and environmental perspective could be organized by DOs.

• A further possibility to support CF for energy access that has been explored by DO is through supporting the funding through incentives like match funding, lump-sum contributions, gift vouchers, and first-loss protections (guarantees). However, if investors are incentivized to invest in projects, it is important to not alter the market mechanism inherent to CF. The achievement of the funding goal through the financial contributions of the crowd and the risk assessment of the project/company which is expressed through their willingness to invest, is an important indicator for the financial viability of the project.

• With legal hurdles remaining one of the key obstacles for both CF in India and cross-border CF, DOs could support through

o advising CFPs on how to comply with the RBI guidelines on ECB for cross-border CF, and

o through contributing to establishing an enabling legal and regulatory environment for CF in India through policy advice.

• With FOREX risks being one of the main challenges for cross-border CF, DO could support through de-risking. This could be done by for example allocating funds to hedge FOREX risk or through supporting CFPs to find economically viable solutions.

• The research for this report has shown that there is very limited

data available on the Indian CF market in general and even less on CF for energy access. To achieve more transparency, DOs could support through initiating a platform that aggregates information on CF in general and/or CF for energy access in particular. Furthermore, DOs could commission research on specific subjects related to CF for energy access.

• Finally, DOs have already engaged in supporting CF for development purposes on multiple levels. On a global scale, the majority has supported CF in one way or another. A showcase example for energy access includes the Crowd Power program funded by DFID, which was set up with the intention to fund and research energy access related crowdfunding. A further example is a development partnership between bettervest and GIZ to pioneer CF for RE mini grids in Nigeria. In the case of India, the Renewable Energy Microfinance and Microenterprise Program (REMMP) by USAID together with Milaap explored the potential of CF for microfinance, including microfinance in the energy access space. Furthermore, DFID supported a policy paper on CF in microfinance. To support CFPs more efficiently and to allow for mutual learning, DO could make an effort to connect different programs. This could start at a national level, e.g. India.

33


• Adhami, Saman, Giancarlo Giudici, and Huy Pham Nguyen Anh. 2017. “Crowdfunding for Green Projects in Europe: Success Factors and Effects on the Local Environmental Performance and Wellbeing.” Milan: Università Bocconi. http://www.crowdfundres.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Crowdfunding-for-green-projects-in-Europe-2017.pdf.

• Agarwal, Meha. 2017. “Crowdfunding To Be Put Under Purview of SEBI, Not Companies Act: Govt.” Inc42 (blog). November 20, 2017. https://inc42.com/buzz/crowdfunding-sebi-govt/.

• Allied Crowds. 2015. “Diaspora Crowdfunding.” Special Report. Developing World Crowdfunding. London: Allied Crowds. https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/LW8v7hifQ0aMhIKeEdx8.

• Babu, Venkatesha. 2016. “Herd Mentality.” Business Today, June 5, 2016, sec. Corporate. http://www.businesstoday.in/magazine/corporate/crowdfunding-platforms-are-proliferating-with-models/story/232543.html.

• Balachandran, Manu. 2016. “Which Country Has the Largest Diaspora?” World Economic Forum. January 15, 2016. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/which-country-has-the-largest-diaspora/.

• BBC News. 2013. “Statue of Liberty and Early Crowdfunding,” April 25, 2013, sec. Magazine. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21932675.

• Charities Aid Foundation. 2015. “Online Giving in India: Insights to Improve Results.” New Delhi: Charities Aid Foundation India. http://cafindia.org/images/Online_giving_research_report.pdf.

• Candelise, Chiara. 2016. “Smart Financing and Empowerment: The Use of Crowdfunding in the Energy Sector.” Mailand: Center for Research on Energy and Environmental Economics Bocconi University. http://www.siecon.org/online/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CANDELISE.pdf.

• Charities Aid Foundation. 2017. “CAF World Giving Index 2017.” CAF World Giving Index. Charities Aid Foundation. https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publications/cafworldgivingindex2017_2167a_web_210917.pdf?sfvrsn=ed1dac40_10.

• CLEAN. 2017. “State of the Indian Decentralized Renewable Energy Sector: Spotlight on Last Mile Energy Delivery 2016-17.” New Delhi: Clean Energy Access Network (CLEAN). http://thecleannetwork.org/downloads/115-State-of-the-Sector-Report.pdf.

• Cogan, Davinia, and Simon Collings. 2016. “Crowd Power: Mapping the Market for Energy Access.” London: GVEP International. www.energy4impact.org/file/1697/download?token=CLBAAi7Q.

• ———. 2017. “Crowd Power: Can the Crowd Close the Financing Gap?” Crowd Power. London: Energy4Impact. https://www.energy4impact.org/publications.

• “Community Biogas Program - India.” n.d. Cool Effect. Accessed January 7, 2018. https://cooleffect.org/.

• “Crowdfunding in the Energy Access Space.” 2014. Renewable Energy Microfinance and Microenterprise Program (REMMP) Briefing Note. ArcFinance. www.arcfinance.org/knowledge.

• Crowdsourcing Week. 2015. Crowdfunding In The Worlds Largest

Democracy: Lessons, Challenges & Surprises (CSW Global 2015). Interview. Singapore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZTNk_BrVKc.

• “Currency of Trust - Consumer Behaviors and Attitudes Toward Digital Financial Services in India.” 2017. Omidyar Network. https://www.omidyar.com/sites/default/files/file_archive/CofTrust/17-05-15_Currency_of_Trust_Report_DIGITAL_FINAL.pdf.

• “Debt Needs: Survey of CLEAN Members.” 2017. Summary of Findings. CLEAN.

• Dorfleitner, Gregor, and Lars Hornuf. 2016. “FinTech- Markt in Deutschland.” Abschlussbericht. Bundesministeriums der Finanzen. http://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/Content/DE/Standardartikel/Themen/Internationales_Finanzmarkt/2016-11-21-Gutachten-Langfassung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1.

• Drescher, Rolf. 2017. “Supporting SMEs in Africa.” Development and Cooperation, September 2017.

• Dubey, Anshulika. 2017. “Trends That Can Put Indian Crowdfunding on the Global Map.” Faircent Knowledge Center (blog). March 1, 2017. https://www.faircent.com/trends-in-crowd-funding.html.

• FNG. 2017. “Marktbericht Nachhaltige Geldanlagen 2017: Deutschland, Österreich und die Schweiz.” Marktbericht Nachhaltige Geldanlagen. Berlin: Forum Nachhaltige Geldanlagen e.V. (FNG). http://www.forum-ng.org/images/stories/Publikationen/fng_marktbericht_2017_online.pdf.

• Gautam, John, Radhika Vishwanathan, and Samyuktha Varma. 2017. “Why Philanthropy Must Support Crowdfunding

Sources

34


in India.” Rohini Nilekani Philanthropies. https://archive.rohininilekani.org/why-philanthropy-must-support-crowdfunding-in-india/.

• Gumpelmaier, Wolfgang, Karsten Wenzlaff, and Jörg Eisfeld-Reschke. 2014. “Crowdfunding: What‘s in It for Development Aid?” Bonn: Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. http://10innovations.alumniportal.com/fileadmin/10innovations/dokumente/GIZ-10innovations-02_Crowdfunding-Brochure.pdf.

• Gupta, Gaurav, Shyam Sundarams, Vibhor Goyal, and Kira Intrator. 2016. “Access to Finance for MSMEs in the Renewable Energy Sector in India.” New Delhi: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. www.igen-access.in.

• Harms, Michel. 2017. “Marktreport 2016 Crowdinvesting in Deutschland - Entwicklung, Volumen Und Marktanteile.” Berlin: crowdfunding.de. http://www.crowdfunding.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Crowdinvesting-Marktreport-2016-crowdfunding.de_.pdf.

• “Impact of RBI Guidelines on P2P Lending Platforms.” 2017. Peer to Peer (P2P) Lending Blog (blog). October 14, 2017. https://www.i2ifunding.com/blog/impact-rbi-guidelines-p2p-lending-platforms/.

• “India’s Crowdfunding Landscape: What Are the Emerging Trends?” 2016. AlliedCrowds (blog). July 13, 2016. https://blog.alliedcrowds.com/indias-crowdfunding-landscape-emerging-trends/.

• “Internet Usage in India.” 2017. Statista. 2017. https://www.statista.com/topics/2157/internet-usage-in-india/.

• IRENA. 2017. “Renewable Energy and Jobs.” Annual Review. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). http://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_RE_Jobs_Annual_Review_2017.pdf.

• Kickstarter. 2018. “Statistiken.” Kickstarter. February 16, 2018. https://www.kickstarter.com/help/stats?ref=hello.

• Kuldeep, Neeraj, Kanika Chawla, Arunabha Ghosh, Anjali Jaiswal, Nehmat Kaur, Sameer Kwatra, and Karan Chouksey. 2017. “Greening India’s Workforce: Gearing up for Expansion of Solar and Wind Power in India.” Issue Paper. New Delhi: Council on Energy,

Environment and Water (CEEW) and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/greening-india-workforce.pdf.

• Kumar Jain, Jayesh. 2015. “Crowd-Funding in Microfinance in India: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities.” Poorest States Inclusive Growth (PSIG) Programme - UKAID. http://www.accessdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/1033-1006-FILE.pdf.

• Majumdar, Arjya B., and Umakanth Varottil. 2016. “Regulating Equity Crowdfunding in India: Walking a Tightrope.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2804427. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2804427.

• Malo, Ify. 2017. “Policy Spotlight: Nigeria & India Lead on Mini-Grids.” Power for All (blog). September 28, 2017. http://www.powerforall.org/blog/2017/9/28/policy-spotlight-nigeria-india-lead-on-mini-grids.

• Michaella, Vanore. 2018. “Diaspora als Impulsgeberin für Entwicklung.” Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. January 26, 2018. http://m.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/kurzdossiers/262806/diaspora-als-impulsgeberin-fuer-entwicklung.

• Ministry of External Affairs India. 2017. “Population of Overseas Indians.” Ministry of External Affairs (India). http://mea.gov.in/images/attach/NRIs-and-PIOs_1.pdf.

• Parmar, Beena. 2017. “RBI Likely to Issue Clarifications on P2P Lending Norms Soon.” Moneycontrol. November 16, 2017. http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/economy/rbi-likely-to-issue-clarification-on-p2p-lending-norms-soon-2440811.html.

• Patel, Bhavin. 2017. “RBI Guidelines on P2P Lending.” Lendenclub.Com (blog). October 10, 2017. https://www.lendenclub.com/Blog/rbi-guidelines-on-p2p-lending.

• RBI. 2016a. Master Direction - External Commercial Borrowings, Trade Credit, Borrowing and Lending in Foreign Currency by Authorised Dealers and Persons Other than Authorised Dealers. RBI/FED/2015-16/15. https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx?id=10204.

• ———. 2016b. “Consultation Paper on Peer to Peer Lending.” https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/CPERR280416.pdf.

• “RBI Regulatory Guidelines: Bringing Structure to the P2P Lending Industry.” 2017. Faircent Knowledge Center (blog). October 12, 2017. https://www.faircent.com/RBI-regulatory-guidelines-Bringing-Structure-to-the-P2P-Lending-Industry.html.

• RBI. 2017. Non-Banking Financial Company – Peer to Peer Lending Platform (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2017. RBI/DNBR/2017-18/57. https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11137&Mode=0.

• Ritter, Konrad von, and Jan Bleyl. 2016. “CF4EE - Crowdfunding for Energy Efficiency: Can Debt or Equity Crowdfunding Contribute to Scaling up Energy Efficiency in Developing Countries?” Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. http://www.ieadsm.org/wp/files/2016-10-28-CF4EE-Feasibility-Study-final.pdf.

• SEBI. 2014. “Consultation Paper on Crowdfunding in India.” http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/attachdocs/1403005615257.pdf.

• Singh, Arti. 2017. “P2P Lending Norms Will Bring Order to Industry.” Faircent Knowledge Center (blog). October 10, 2017. https://www.faircent.com/p2p-lending-norms-will-bring-order-industry.

• Sixt, Elfriede. 2014. Schwarmökonomie und Crowdfunding. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02929-6.

• Sukanya, Mukherjee. 2017a. “SEBI Mandates Disclaimer For Crowdfunding Portals & Angel Networks.” Inc42. September 8, 2017. https://inc42.com/buzz/sebi-crowdfunding-angel-networks/.

• ———. 2017b. “RBI Releases Guidelines For P2P Lending; Levies Multiple Restrictions.” Inc42 Media. October 5, 2017. https://inc42.com/buzz/rbi-p2p-lending-borrowers-lenders/.

• Sunjay, Priyanka. 2017. “Regulation of Equity Based Crowdfunding in India.” IndiaCorpLaw (blog). October 11, 2017. https://indiacorplaw.in/2017/10/regulation-equity-based-crowdfunding-india.html.

• The World Bank. 2013. “Crowdfunding’s Potential for the Developing World.” Information for Development Program (InfoDev). Washington DC: Weltbank. https://www.infodev.org/infodev-files/wb_crowdfundingreport-v12.pdf.

35


• ———. 2015. “International Migration at All-Time High.” The World Bank. December 18, 2015. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/12/18/international-migrants-and-remittances-continue-to-grow-as-people-search-for-better-opportunities-new-report-finds.

• ———. 2016. “Migration and Remittances Factbook 2016.” Migration and Remittances Factbook. Washington DC: The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/research/brief/migration-and-remittances.

• USAID. 2013. “Developing Effective Networks for Energy Access - An Analysis.” Washington DC: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). http://ceew.in/pdf/an_analysis_on_developing_effective_networks_for_energy_access.pdf.

• “What the Future Holds for P2P Lending in India and the World.” 2017. Faircent Knowledge Center (blog). June 16, 2017. https://www.faircent.com/what-the-future-holds-for-the-p2p-lending-market.html.

• White, Spencer. 2017. “Global Startup Crowdfunding Platform OurCrowd Expands To India.” Benzinga. June 8, 2017. https://www.benzinga.com/fintech/17/06/9584180/global-startup-crowdfunding-platform-ourcrowd-expands-to-india-australia.

• “Will Crowdfunding Become a Big Deal in India?” 2017. Little India (blog). October 19, 2017. http://littleindia.com/will-crowdfunding-become-big-deal-india/.

• Winkler, Alfred, and Ulf Moslener. 2015. “Crowdfunding - a Significant Contribution to Financial System Development in Developing Countries?” Research paper prepared for the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Frankfurt a. M.: Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaboration Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance. http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/crowdfunding-significant-contribution-financial-system-development-developing-countries.

36


AnnexSegment Sub-types Product availability

Stated need for Product

Intended application

Barriers to finacial access and supply

DRE1Soft loansLonger-term debt of up to 5-10 years

No MSME has yet been able to access debt financing of any kind

All MSMEs stated a need for debt products (particularly soft loans and longer-term debt), for loans up to $1-2 million

Growth and expansion

Lack of assets that are considered collateralTenure requirements are too long Less than three years of operationsUnstable cash flows of MSMEsFIs’ inability to assess project’s viabilityLack of reliable sector data in public domainLack of clarity in subsidy disbursementUncertainty around grid extension policy

DRE2 N/ANo MSME has actively sought debt financing

MSMEs believed that any sort of debt was inappropriate for their operations due to its high cost and short tenure

No stated need N/A

DRE3Soft loansLonger-term debt of up to 5-10 years

Limited number of MSMEs have been able to access debt financing of any kind; those who have accessed it have been given unfavorable terms

All MSMEs stated a need for debt products (particularly soft loans and longer-term debt), for loans up to $1 million


FIs’ inability to assess project’s viabilityLack of reliable sector data in public domainPerceived delay and uncertainty in subsidy disbursement Uncertainty around grid extension and interactivity policyLack of assets that are considered collateralSlow revenue growth due to difficulties in utility sale Tenure requirements are misaligned

Table 5: Market segmentation and financial needs of MSMEs in the Indian off-grid RE market according to Gupta et al. (2016)

37


DRE4

Soft loansLonger-term debt of up to 5-10 yearsDebt for working capital

Some MSMEs have accessed debt as a part of the financing for certain projects. However, all MSMEs have found access very difficult for larger ticket sizes

All MSMEs stated a need for debt products (particularly soft loans & longer-term debt) for up to $2 million across multiple projects

Growth and expansionIndividual project set-up

Lack of assets that are considered collateral Tenure requirements are too longCost of capital offered is too highUnstable cash flows of MSMEsFIs’ inability to assess project’s viabilityLack of reliable sector data in public domainDelay and uncertainty in subsidy disbursement Uncertainty around grid extension and interaction policy

DRE5Soft loansUnsecured loans

Most players have been able to access debt, although only of a low-ticket size

All players stated a need for larger- ticket debt products (particularly soft or unsecured loans), of $300k – 1.5 million


Lack of adequate assets that are considered collateralUnavailability of high risk capital to match “testing” phaseSlow revenue growth due to difficulties in utility saleFIs’ inability to assess project’s viabilityLack of reliable sector data in public domainMisalignment in government tendering processDelay and uncertainty in subsidy disbursement

CP1

Working capitalSoft loansLonger-term debt of up to 5-10 years CGTMSE

No player has yet been able to access CGTMSE loans, while working capital is very hard to access. However, some players have accessed soft loans

All players stated a need for debt products (particularly working capital), for loans up to $200K

Inventory costs Growth and expansion

Lack of assets that are considered collateralLess than three years of operationsLack of access to collateral-free loans under CGTMSELack of reliable sector data in public domainLimited understanding of how to approach banks by players

CP2

Working capitalSoft loansCollateral-free loans (e.g., CGTMSE)

Two players were able to secure debt in the form of a long-term loan and working capital loan with a ticket size between $200K-$1.3m

Debt is the highest need for players in this segment. Players seek working capital between $400K to $2m, and soft loans between $200k to $3m

Operational costs (particularly around maintaining and scaling inventory)

Lack of assets that are considered collateral Cost of debt is too high for playersLack of access to CGTMSE collateral-free loans

CP3


One player was able to secure debt in the form of a collateral- free loan between $40-$60K

Debt is the highest need for players in this segment, primarily for working capital, for up to $600K

Working capital for Inventory Costs Marketing Geographic expansion

Lack of assets that are considered collateralCost of debt is too high for playersLack of access to CGTMSE collateral-free loansTenure of debt products is too short (2 to 3 years, instead of preferred 5 years)

38


CP4


Access to debt financing was limited – only two players were able to access it (in the form of CGTMSE loan or a working capital loan)

Debt is the highest need for players in this segment. The ideal form is collateral-free loans with a ticket size between $300K - $800K

Inventory costsGeographic Expansion

Lack of assets that are considered collateralCost of debt is too high for playersLack of access to CGTMSE collateral-free loansTenure of debt products is too short (2 to 3 years, instead of preferred 5 years)

CP5

Revolving overdraft facility or structured guarantees for working capital Collateral-free or low collateral loans Unsecured loans

Players have been able to access debt in the form of an overdraft facility and a low- collateral loan. However, working capital remains hard to access for all players

Debt is the highest need for players in this segment for ticket sizes between $200K-$800K

Inventory costs and inventory cycle Marketing campaigns for all RE products Geographic expansion

Lack of assets that are considered collateralCost of debt is too high for players (e.g., 13-18%, instead of preferred 7-10%)

39


Table 6: Segment descriptions

Segment Title Description

DRE1 MSMEs own and operate solar-pico plants that provide basic amount of power to households in rural areas – usually just enough to power 1-2 lights and a cell phone charger. The majority of players in this segment have been operating for less than 3 years.

Technology: SolarCapacity: < 2Kw (Pico)Business Model: Bom

DRE2MSMEs own and operate solar-micro plants that provide lighting and other household appliances (e.g. TV, fan) solutions to households in rural areas. MSMEs in the segment are a mix of new entrants and some established players with more than 3 years of operations.

Technology: SolarCapacity: 2- 10 Kw (Micro)Business Model: Bom

DRE3 MSMEs build and maintain micro and mini wind-solar plants to provide lighting + ‘products’ (e.g. TV, fan) solutions to consumers, usually in semi-urban or higher income rural areas. These MSMEs are diversified across different RE technologies. Some are early-stage enterprises, whereas some are mature, having transitioned from pure solar or wind technologies, and have some more experience in the sector. However, the technology is still not very widespread.

Technology: SolarCapacity: 11-25 Kw (Mini)Business Model: Bm

DRE4

MSMEs own and operate micro biomass projects, to serve up to 250 households for part or all of the day for lighting and appliances. Players have been in the sector for some time (5-7 years).

Technology: BiomassCapacity: 26-100 KW (small)Business Model: Bom

DRE5MSMEs manufacture turbines and provide turnkey solutions to rural communities, along with small businesses and individuals in rural and semi-urban areas. Most actors have been active for 3-5 years, but still have a low turnover and growth rate.

Technology: HydroCapacity: < 100 Kw Business Model: All

CP1

Enterprises focused on the design, assembly, and distribution of clean cookstoves (from basic to advanced models) throughout India – there are over 15 players in this space and the majority of them are recent entrants (<3 years).

Technology: clean cookstoves Role: cross-market players Price range: < $120

CP2

Enterprises that derive majority of their revenue from design, assembly, and sales of SPLs. Most MSMEs have been operational for 5-6 years, but a select few are well established at this point of time.

Technology: SPLsRole: cross-market players Price range: < $120

CP3

Enterprises that design, assemble and distribute SHSs – from basic to advanced models – to provide lighting solutions to individual homes/businesses. These MSMEs are more mature and many have been operational for 5+ years and are growing fairly quickly.

Technology: SHSsRole: cross-market players Price range: $120-$600

CP4

Consists of 10 MSMEs involved in the procurement of SWPs; most have been around on average for 3 years and are undergoing significant growth.

Technology: SWPs Role: ProcurersPrice range: across price $1000

CP5Comprises a limited number of RE-focused distributors who procure and distribute RE products – they focus on lighting products such as SPLs and the range of SHSs across India; a few players also distribute improved cookstoves. Players in this segment are fairly well established, and on average have been operational for over a decade.

Technology: Multiple Role: Distribution only Price range: < $120 (across price ranges)

40


Tabl

e 7:

Sum

mar

y of

the

iden

tified

CFP

s

Nam

eCr

owdf

undi

ng

Mod

elSp

ecia

lisa

tion

D

escr

ipti

on1

Furt

her

Info

rmat

ion2

UR

L

Mic

roG

raam

P2P

lend

ing

soci

al;

envi

ronm

enta

l; en

trep

rene

ursh

ip

Mic

roG

raam

is a

pee

r-to

-pee

r le

ndin

g pl

atfo

rm th

at e

mpo

wer

s ru

ral e

ntre

pren

eurs

with

acc

ess

to lo

ans

from

soc

ially

min

ded

inve

stor

s. W

e ai

m to

pro

vide

affo

rdab

le, m

icro

-loa

ns to

rur

al

Indi

ans

who

wou

ld n

ot o

ther

wis

e ha

ve a

cces

s to

fina

ncia

l se

rvic

es. W

e be

lieve

that

acc

ess

to lo

w-c

ost c

redi

t is

the

first

st

ep to

end

ing

syst

emic

fina

ncia

l exc

lusi

on a

nd im

prov

ing

the

lives

of m

illio

ns o

f peo

ple.

Mic

roG

raam

was

form

ed in

20

09-1

0 by

Dr.

Ran

gan

Vard

an

and

Sekh

ar S

aruk

kai.

Its fo

cus

is to

con

nect

soc

ial i

nves

tors

w

ith in

divi

dual

bor

row

ers

in n

eed

of lo

ans

for

inco

me

gene

ratin

g ac

tiviti

es, m

icro

ente

rpris

es a

nd

empl

oym

ent t

rain

ing

prog

ram

s.

Mic

roG

raam

is a

for

prof

it m

odel

whe

re M

icro

Gra

am

char

ges

2% fe

es fo

r fu

nd r

aisi

ng

and

7.5%

AP

R a

s tr

ansa

ctio

n pr

oces

sing

fees

. (K

umar

Jai

n 20

15) 7

5-80

% o

f Mic

rogr

aam

’s

port

folio

is in

inco

me

gene

ratio

n / m

icro

ente

rpris

e se

ctor

. R

emai

ning

por

tfolio

con

sist

s of

edu

catio

n lo

an a

nd m

icro

-ve

ntur

es fo

cusi

ng o

n es

sent

ial

serv

ices

like

wat

er p

lant

s,

wat

er-s

anita

tion,

cle

an e

nerg

y an

d ha

ndic

rafts

. (K

umar

Jai

n 20

15)

http

s://

ww

w.m

icro

graa

m.c

om

Ran

gDe

P2P

lend

ing

soci

al; e

nviro

nmen

tal;

entr

epre

neur

ship

; ene

rgy

acce

ss

Ran

g D

e be

gan

its o

pera

tions

on

26 J

anua

ry 2

008.

The

in

spira

tion

for

star

ting

Ran

g D

e w

as th

e th

ough

t tha

t the

pee

r-to

-pee

r le

ndin

g m

odel

cou

ld b

e tr

ansf

orm

ed to

low

er th

e co

st

of m

icro

-cre

dit.

Ran

g D

e is

a n

on-p

rofit

org

aniz

atio

n. T

hey

earn

a n

omin

al c

omm

issi

on o

f on

all t

he lo

ans

repa

id b

y th

e bo

rrow

ers.

(Kum

ar J

ain

2015

)

http

s://

ww

w.r

angd

e.or

g

Mila

apP

2P le

ndin

g so

cial

; env

ironm

enta

l; en

trep

rene

ursh

ip; e

nerg

y ac

cess

Mila

ap is

a fo

r pr

ofit

soci

al e

nter

pris

e th

at e

nabl

es p

eopl

e ar

ound

the

wor

ld to

pro

vide

loan

s to

the

wor

king

poo

r in

Indi

a.

Bas

ed in

Ban

galo

re a

nd S

inga

pore

, it i

s th

e w

orld

’s fi

rst a

nd

curr

ently

, the

onl

y on

line

mic

ro-l

endi

ng p

latfo

rm th

at e

nabl

es

non-

Indi

ans

and

non-

resi

dent

Indi

ans

(NR

Is) t

o pr

ovid

e lo

ans

to

wor

king

poo

r in

Indi

a. (K

umar

Jai

n 20

15)

Mila

ap w

as fo

rmed

in J

une

2010

. The

foun

ding

mem

bers

of

Mila

ap s

hare

d a

com

mon

vis

ion

i.e. t

o ch

ange

peo

ple’

s co

ncep

t of

giv

ing

and

mak

e it

a pe

rson

al,

tran

spar

ent a

nd s

usta

inab

le

proc

ess.

It d

oes

not c

harg

e an

y co

mm

issi

on fr

om th

e fu

nds

you

lend

on

Mila

ap. I

nste

ad, M

ilaap

ch

arge

s its

fiel

d pa

rtne

rs a

5%

fe

e fo

r th

e fu

nds

rais

ed. (

Kum

ar

Jain

201

5)

http

s://

ww

w.m

ilaap

.org

41


Lyty

fyP

2P le

ndin

g en

ergy

acc

ess

Lyty

fy is

a fi

nanc

ial t

echn

olog

y co

mpa

ny o

fferin

g fle

xibl

e fin

anci

ng o

ptio

ns to

the

unba

nked

and

und

erba

nked

po

pula

tion

in In

dia

to h

elp

them

acc

ess

esse

ntia

l pro

duct

s an

d se

rvic

es. W

e ar

e on

a m

issi

on to

pro

vide

sim

pler

and

af

ford

able

way

s to

pur

chas

e an

d fin

ance

ess

entia

l con

sum

er

prod

ucts

like

s so

lar

hom

e sy

stem

s, s

mar

tpho

nes

and

lapt

ops

to th

e lo

w a

nd m

iddl

e in

com

e cu

stom

er s

egm

ent i

n In

dia.

Lyty

fy d

oes

not m

edia

te

loan

agr

eem

ents

, but

rat

her

colle

cts

mon

ey fr

om th

e cr

owd

to p

re-f

inan

ce S

HSs

, whi

ch

are

then

sol

d to

une

lect

rifie

d co

mm

uniti

es in

a h

ire p

urch

ase

mod

el (s

ee s

ectio

n 3.

2.)

http

s://

ww

w.ly

tyfy

.org

Igni

te In

tent

P2P

lend

ing

crea

tive;

ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p

Igni

te In

tent

was

form

ed in

Apr

il 20

12. I

t is

a pl

atfo

rm

whe

re p

eopl

e ca

n sh

owca

se th

eir

tale

nts

and

tell

the

wor

ld

abou

t the

ir id

ea a

nd s

ubse

quen

tly g

et fu

nded

. Ign

iteIn

tent

en

able

s ar

tists

, tea

cher

s, fi

lmm

aker

s, b

usin

ess

star

t-up

s,

mus

icia

ns, d

esig

ners

, hou

sew

ives

, spo

rts

pers

ons,

jour

nalis

ts,

rese

arch

ers,

writ

ers,

exp

lore

rs, d

ance

rs, c

urat

ors,

per

form

ers

and

othe

rs to

tran

sfor

m th

eir

drea

ms

into

a r

ealit

y. (K

umar

Jai

n 20

15)

not a

ctiv

e an

ymor

e?ht

tp://

ww

w.ig

nite

inte

nt.c

om

Fund

Dre

ams

Indi

ado

natio

nso

cial

; ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p;

crea

tive

Fund

Dre

amsI

ndia

.com

is a

cro

wdf

undi

ng p

latfo

rm th

at e

nabl

es

peop

le to

rai

se fu

nds

for

pers

onal

cau

ses,

life

eve

nts

and

soci

al

caus

es.

not a

ctiv

e an

ymor

e?ht

tp://

ww

w.fu

nddr

eam

sind

ia.c

om

Vote

4Edu

P2P

lend

ing

soci

al

ww

w.v

ote4

edu.

in is

Indi

a’s

first

pee

r to

pee

r on

line

mar

ket

plac

e fo

r le

nder

s / i

nves

tors

to e

arn

bette

r re

turn

s on

thei

r id

le c

ash

and

borr

ower

s (p

aren

ts /

guar

dian

s) to

ava

il K

-12

educ

atio

n lo

ans

for

thei

r ch

ild /

war

d st

udyi

ng a

t any

sch

ool

affil

iate

d to

any

rec

ogni

zed

boar

d, a

t any

loca

tion

(in In

dia)

, an

d at

any

sta

ndar

d / c

lass

ran

ging

from

kin

derg

arte

n to

+ 2

/ In

term

edia

te; w

ithou

t any

doc

umen

ts, c

olla

tera

l or

guar

anto

r;

post

one

tim

e m

embe

rshi

p ap

prov

al.

http

://w

ww

.vot

e4ed

u.in

l

Fairc

ent

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

Fairc

ent i

s a

peer

-to-

peer

lend

ing

plat

form

and

a v

irtua

l m

arke

tpla

ce w

here

bor

row

ers

and

lend

ers

can

inte

ract

dire

ctly

, w

ithou

t the

invo

lvem

ent o

f ban

ks. I

n pr

actic

e th

e pl

atfo

rm

allo

ws

lend

ers

and

borr

ower

s to

neg

otia

te d

irect

ly th

e te

rms

of

loan

s in

clud

ing

inte

rest

rat

es a

nd th

e du

ratio

n of

the

loan

.

It ch

arge

s a

one-

time

listin

g fe

e of

aro

und

USD

23

plus

an

adm

inis

trat

ion

fee

depe

ndin

g on

th

e si

ze o

f the

loan

and

inte

rest

am

ount

, but

doe

sn’t

earn

from

in

tere

st th

at is

pai

d.

http

s://

ww

w.fa

ircen

t.com

42


Loan

s4SM

Esqu

asi-

equi

ty

com

mer

cial

; ene

rgy

L4S

is In

dia’

s fir

st p

eer

to p

eer

busi

ness

loan

mar

ketp

lace

. Th

e Le

nder

s w

ho c

an a

cces

s ex

citin

g SM

E lo

an in

vest

men

t op

port

uniti

es th

roug

h ou

r pl

atfo

rm in

clud

e hi

gh n

et w

orth

in

divi

dual

s, in

vest

men

t com

pani

es a

s w

ell a

s co

rpor

ate

trea

surie

s.

Cer

tain

Len

ders

are

abl

e to

of

fer

dire

ct lo

ans

to c

ompa

nies

. Th

ese

loan

s ar

e se

cure

d by

th

e co

mpa

ny‘s

rec

eiva

bles

and

ot

her

asse

ts. W

e al

so o

ffer

othe

r fle

xibl

e st

ruct

ures

like

loan

s ag

ains

t sha

res,

and

con

vert

ible

se

curit

ies.

M

ost o

f our

Len

ders

ear

n re

turn

s in

the

rang

e of

16%

to

20%

p.a

. Fo

r ou

r se

rvic

es to

clo

se th

e tr

ansa

ctio

n w

ith th

e ap

prop

riate

pa

perw

ork,

we

may

cha

rge

a fe

e ra

ngin

g fr

om 1-

2 %

dep

endi

ng

on th

e ki

nd o

f loa

n an

d co

mpl

exity

of t

he tr

ansa

ctio

n.

http

://w

ww

.loan

s4sm

e.co

m

Lend

en C

lub

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

LenD

enC

lub

is o

ne o

f the

fast

est g

row

ing

peer

to p

eer

(P2P

) le

ndin

g pl

atfo

rms

in In

dia.

It c

onne

cts

inve

stor

s or

lend

ers

look

ing

for

high

ret

urns

with

cre

ditw

orth

y bo

rrow

ers

look

ing

for

shor

t ter

m p

erso

nal l

oans

.

http

s://

ww

w.le

nden

club

.com

Mon

exo

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

Mon

exo

is In

dia‘

s le

adin

g pe

er-t

o-pe

er (P

2P) l

endi

ng

mar

ketp

lace

- w

here

peo

ple

borr

ow a

nd le

nd m

oney

to e

ach

othe

r. M

onex

o pr

ovid

es a

n al

tern

ativ

e fin

anci

ng m

odel

whi

ch

is 10

0% o

nlin

e, s

impl

e an

d fa

st. B

orro

wer

s ge

t per

sona

l loa

ns

at a

ttrac

tive

inte

rest

rat

es a

nd fl

exib

le te

rms.

Len

ders

get

to

dive

rsify

thei

r in

vest

men

t por

tfolio

in a

new

ass

et c

lass

and

ear

n su

perio

r re

turn

s. In

a s

hare

d ec

onom

y, M

onex

o is

to fi

nanc

e lik

e w

hat U

ber

& O

la is

to tr

ansp

ort.

http

s://

ww

w.m

onex

o.co

/in/

I-Le

ndP

2P le

ndin

g co

mm

erci

al

i-LE

ND

is a

n on

line

lend

ing

mar

ketp

lace

con

nect

ing

peop

le

who

nee

d m

oney

with

peo

ple

who

are

will

ing

to le

nd. L

ende

rs

and

borr

ower

s ag

ree

on a

ll te

rms

of th

e tr

ansa

ctio

n i.e

. am

ount

, in

tere

st, t

enur

e. i-

LEN

D d

oes

a K

YC fo

r th

e m

embe

rs a

nd

ensu

res

only

ver

ified

bor

row

ers

and

lend

ers

are

regi

ster

ed o

n th

e m

arke

tpla

ce. i

-LEN

D c

harg

es a

fixe

d tr

ansa

ctio

n fe

e fo

r th

e se

rvic

es it

offe

rs. S

ince

the

tran

sact

ions

is d

irect

ly b

etw

een

the

mem

bers

, len

ders

ear

n hi

gher

ret

urns

and

bor

row

ers

get l

ower

ra

te lo

ans.

http

s://

ww

w.i-

lend

.in/in

dex.

htm

l

Loan

mee

tP

2P le

ndin

g co

mm

erci

al

Loan

Mee

t is

Indi

a‘s

lead

ing

plat

form

that

pro

vide

s lo

ans

to

good

cre

dit-

wor

thy

borr

ower

s by

con

nect

ing

them

to in

vest

ors,

B

anks

, NB

FCs,

and

Indi

vidu

als.

At t

he e

nd o

f the

day

, it i

s w

in-

win

situ

atio

n fo

r ev

eryo

ne a

s bo

rrow

ers

get l

oans

at l

ow in

tere

st

rate

s, a

nd le

nder

s en

joy

good

ret

urns

on

thei

r in

vest

men

ts.

http

s://

ww

w.lo

anm

eet.c

om

43


i2i F

undi

ngP

2P le

ndin

g co

mm

erci

al

i2iF

undi

ng is

muc

h m

ore

than

P2P

mar

ket p

lace

. Apa

rt fr

om

prov

idin

g en

d to

end

loan

ser

vici

ng, i

2i d

ilige

ntly

eva

luat

es th

e cr

edit

risk

of e

ach

of th

e lo

an p

roje

cts,

pos

t whi

ch it

ass

igns

ris

k ca

tego

ry a

nd r

ecom

men

ds a

n in

tere

st r

ate

for

that

pro

ject

(a

bor

row

er c

an b

orro

w a

t an

inte

rest

rat

e w

hich

is h

ighe

r th

an

or e

qual

to th

is r

ate)

. Thi

s he

lps

the

borr

ower

s as

wel

l as

the

inve

stor

s to

hav

e a

benc

hmar

k in

tere

st r

ate.

In th

e pr

oces

s,

the

inve

stor

s ge

t an

oppo

rtun

ity to

ear

n hi

gher

‚ris

k ad

just

ed

retu

rns‘

whi

le th

e bo

rrow

ers

get a

n op

port

unity

to g

et fu

nded

at

the

low

est c

ost p

ossi

ble

as p

er th

eir

risk

prof

ile a

nd m

arke

t ba

sed

dem

and.

We

also

pro

vide

lega

l and

rec

over

y su

ppor

t to

inve

stor

s in

cas

e of

def

ault

by a

ny b

orro

wer

. On

top

of th

at w

e al

so h

ave,

Prin

cipa

l Pro

tect

ion

in p

lace

for

inve

stor

s to

ens

ure

we

have

our

ski

n in

the

gam

e.

http

s://

ww

w.i2

ifund

ing.

com

finM

omen

ta/

tach

y lo

ans

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

FinM

omen

ta h

as p

rodu

cts

in th

e on

line

lend

ing

mar

ketp

lace

ca

terin

g to

bot

h In

divi

dual

s an

d SM

Es. T

achy

Loan

s is

a P

2P

(Pee

r-to

-Pee

r) le

ndin

g pl

atfo

rm th

at d

irect

ly c

onne

cts

lend

ers

with

bor

row

ers

and

pass

es o

n th

e sa

ving

s to

the

lend

ers

in th

e fo

rm o

f hig

h re

turn

s an

d to

the

borr

ower

s in

the

form

of l

ow

inte

rest

rat

es.

Our

inno

vativ

e pl

atfo

rm e

lect

roni

cally

ver

ifies

the

borr

ower

in

form

atio

n us

ing

the

KYC

(Kno

w Y

our

Cus

tom

er)

docu

men

tatio

n pr

ovid

ed, a

nd q

ualif

ies

them

thro

ugh

our

prop

rieta

ry c

redi

t dec

isio

n m

odel

.

http

://w

ww

.finm

omen

ta.c

om

Wor

ld o

f Le

ndin

gP

2P le

ndin

g co

mm

erci

al

Wor

ldof

lend

ing

is w

orki

ng o

n a

nove

l ide

a of

web

bas

ed

P2P

(Pee

r to

Pee

r) le

ndin

g. T

he P

2P le

ndin

g pl

atfo

rm o

f W

orld

ofle

ndin

g ha

s an

aut

hent

icat

ed g

roup

of l

ende

rs w

ho w

ant

bette

r ut

iliza

tion

of th

eir

spar

e m

oney

rat

her

than

put

ting

in F

Ds

of B

ank.

http

://w

ww

.wor

ldof

lend

ing.

in

Lend

box

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

Lend

box

is In

dia‘

s le

adin

g pe

er to

pee

r le

ndin

g m

arke

tpla

ce

that

con

nect

s hi

gh q

ualit

y cr

editw

orth

y bo

rrow

ers

with

sm

art

lend

ers

onlin

e. T

he p

rimar

y m

otto

of L

endb

ox is

to m

ake

borr

owin

g le

ss c

ompl

ex a

nd a

fford

able

and

lend

ing

mor

e lu

crat

ive

and

seam

less

.

http

s://

ww

w.le

ndbo

x.in

Ope

n Ta

pP

2P le

ndin

g co

mm

erci

al

Ope

nTap

is a

Fin

Tech

com

pany

pro

vidi

ng a

ltern

ate

finan

ce

- pe

er to

pee

r le

ndin

g se

rvic

es fo

r th

e m

iddl

e to

low

inco

me

grou

p de

mog

raph

ic. O

penT

ap is

wor

king

tow

ards

fina

ncia

lly

incl

udin

g bl

ue c

olla

r w

orke

rs w

hose

sal

ary

rang

es fr

om IN

R

6K to

INR

20K

a m

onth

. The

y ha

ve li

ttle

or n

o ac

cum

ulat

ed

savi

ngs,

and

like

oth

ers,

hav

e pl

anne

d / u

npla

nned

fina

ncia

l re

quire

men

ts.

http

://w

ww

.ope

ntap

.in

Rup

aiya

Ex

chan

geP

2P le

ndin

g co

mm

erci

al

Rup

aiya

Exc

hang

e is

Indi

a‘s

Big

gest

Pee

r to

Pee

r Le

ndin

g pl

atfo

rm th

at fa

cilit

ates

per

sona

l and

bus

ines

s lo

ans

to th

ose

who

req

uire

fund

s th

roug

h th

is v

irtua

l pla

tform

. Rup

aiya

Ex

chan

ge a

lso

faci

litat

es p

ayda

y lo

ans

in In

dia.

http

s://

ww

w.r

upai

yaex

chan

ge.c

om

44


laon

baba

- P

eer

to P

eer

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

loan

baba

.com

is a

p2p

lend

ing

plat

form

- e

stab

lishe

d to

ben

efit

both

the

lend

ers

and

borr

ower

s. A

ll th

e le

nder

s ar

e re

quire

d to

co

mpl

ete

thei

r di

ligen

ce b

efor

e le

ndin

g to

bor

row

ers.

Len

ding

is

at th

e di

scre

tion

of th

e Le

nder

.

http

s://

ww

w.p

2p.lo

anba

ba.c

om

Indi

aMon

eyM

art

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

Indi

aMon

eyM

art i

s no

t a fi

nanc

ial i

nstit

utio

n. It

is ju

st a

n on

line

mar

ketp

lace

that

brin

gs to

geth

er B

orro

wer

s an

d Le

nder

s to

en

able

a tr

ansa

ctio

n be

twee

n th

em o

n th

eir

own

term

s.ht

tps:

//w

ww

.indi

amon

eym

art.c

om

Pee

rlen

dP

2P le

ndin

g co

mm

erci

al

Pee

rLen

d ai

ms

to p

rovi

de c

uttin

g-ed

ge p

ract

ices

in th

e di

gita

l fin

anci

al s

ervi

ces

spac

e in

Indi

a w

ith n

ew in

nova

tive

prac

tices

su

ch a

s cr

owdf

undi

ng to

hel

p pe

ople

man

age

life‘

s ev

eryd

ay

expe

nses

. Pee

rLen

d is

an

onlin

e fin

anci

al m

arke

tpla

ce

that

mat

ches

lend

ers

and

borr

ower

s in

a s

afe

and

secu

re

envi

ronm

ent.

http

s://

ww

w.p

eerl

end.

in

AnyT

imeL

oan

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

ATL

is In

dia‘

s N

o. 1

Pee

r to

Pee

r m

arke

t pla

ce fo

r pe

ople

se

ekin

g/lo

okin

g fo

r in

stan

t 24x

7 lo

ans

in In

dia

by c

onne

ctin

g el

igib

le b

orro

wer

s w

ith A

TL le

ndin

g pa

rtne

rs (I

ndiv

idua

ls/

Ban

ks/F

I‘s).

http

s://

ww

w.a

nytim

eloa

n.in

SMEC

ashL

oans

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

We

are

an o

nlin

e pe

er-t

o-pe

er (P

2P) m

arke

tpla

ce le

ndin

g pl

atfo

rm in

Indi

a th

at p

rovi

des

smal

l, m

ediu

m e

nter

pris

es

(SM

Es)/s

mal

l, m

ediu

m b

usin

esse

s (S

MB

s) in

stan

t, fle

xibl

e,

shor

t-te

rm c

ash

loan

s an

d bu

sine

ss lo

ans

with

out n

eedi

ng a

ny

hect

ic p

aper

wor

k an

d se

curit

y. W

e pr

ovid

e in

vest

ors

a pl

atfo

rm

to in

vest

in c

ash

loan

s an

d bu

sine

ss lo

ans

ther

eby

cate

ring

to

the

need

s of

SM

Es/S

MB

s as

wel

l as

earn

ing

bette

r re

turn

s.

http

://w

ww

.sm

ecas

hloa

ns.in

Slab

P2P

lend

ing

com

mer

cial

SLAB

is a

pee

r-to

-pee

r le

ndin

g m

arke

t pla

ce a

pop

ular

al

tern

ativ

e to

trad

ition

al lo

ans

and

inve

stin

g op

tions

. We

cut o

ut

the

mid

dlem

an to

con

nect

peo

ple

who

nee

d m

oney

with

thos

e w

ho h

ave

mon

ey to

inve

st

http

://w

ww

.sla

bfin

tech

.com

Wis

hber

ryre

war

dcr

eativ

e

Wis

hber

ry is

a n

ew w

ay o

f rai

sing

fund

s fo

r cr

eativ

e pr

ojec

ts

thro

ugh

rew

ards

-bas

ed c

row

dfun

ding

. Our

mis

sion

is to

di

scov

er &

em

pow

er c

reat

ive

idea

s or

igin

atin

g ou

t of I

ndia

and

to

put

Indi

a on

the

crea

tive

map

of w

orld

.

http

s://

ww

w.w

ishb

erry

.in

Cat

apoo

olt

rew

ard

crea

tive;

soc

ial;

entr

epre

neur

ship

We

are

a co

llabo

rativ

e pl

atfo

rm fo

r th

ose

who

not

onl

y be

lieve

in

the

pow

er o

f ide

as b

ut a

lso

wan

t to

be p

art o

f the

cha

nge

they

w

ish

to s

ee h

appe

n. W

heth

er it

‘s y

our

proj

ect o

r so

meo

ne e

lse‘

s yo

u su

ppor

t, w

e w

ill b

ring

toge

ther

com

mun

ities

, lat

est t

ools

an

d re

sour

ces

to e

nabl

e w

hat e

very

idea

nee

ds to

be

succ

essf

ul

- Fu

nds

and

Enga

gem

ent.

Wel

com

e to

the

futu

re o

f fun

ding

!

http

s://

ww

w.c

atap

oool

t.com

45


Star

t51

rew

ard

crea

tive

Star

t51.

com

offe

r ne

w c

reat

ive

fund

pla

tform

to tr

ansf

orm

un

ique

idea

s in

to r

ealit

y. T

he c

row

d-fu

ndin

g pl

atfo

rm r

uns

with

an

aim

of o

fferin

g di

rect

fina

ncia

l sup

port

from

con

trib

utor

s.

This

is a

n in

itiat

ive

to s

uppo

rt p

roje

cts

from

all

indu

stry

ver

tical

s th

at m

eet o

ur p

roje

ct g

uide

lines

.

It is

a p

latfo

rm a

nd a

res

ourc

e th

at fo

llow

s al

l-or

-not

hing

fu

ndin

g po

licy,

in w

hich

pro

ject

s m

ust r

each

thei

r fu

ndin

g go

als

to r

ecei

ve a

ny fi

nanc

ial a

id.

Pro

vidi

ng a

new

way

to c

row

d-fu

nd p

roje

cts,

the

orga

niza

tion

adds

life

to c

reat

ive

proj

ects

and

id

eas.

http

://w

ww

.sta

rt51

.com

Pik

A V

entu

rere

war

dcr

eativ

e; e

ntre

pren

eurs

hip

not a

ctiv

e ye

t?ht

tp://

ww

w.p

ikav

entu

re.c

om

Ket

todo

natio

n; r

ewar

dso

cial

; env

ironm

enta

l; en

trep

rene

ursh

ip; c

reat

ive

Ket

to is

an

Onl

ine

Cro

wdf

undi

ng P

latfo

rm a

nd W

ebsi

te in

Indi

a fo

r fu

ndra

isin

g of

Soc

ial,

Cha

rity,

Mov

ies,

Mus

ic, P

erso

nal a

nd

Cre

ativ

e ca

uses

. Vis

it us

onl

ine!

http

s://

ww

w.k

etto

.org

Impa

ct G

uru

dona

tion

soci

al; e

ntre

pren

eurs

hip;

cr

eativ

e

Impa

ct G

uru

is In

dia‘

s le

adin

g on

line

crow

dfun

ding

pla

tform

th

at e

nabl

es N

GO

s to

fund

thei

r pr

ogra

ms

as w

ell a

s in

divi

dual

s to

fund

thei

r m

edic

al e

xpen

ses,

cre

ativ

e pr

ojec

ts a

nd p

erso

nal

proj

ects

. Al

tern

ativ

ely,

it a

llow

s yo

u to

don

ate

to a

cau

se y

ou

supp

ort o

r , c

hoos

e fr

om a

hos

t of v

ette

d ca

uses

her

e on

Impa

ct

Gur

u.

http

s://

ww

w.im

pact

guru

.com

BitG

ivin

gdo

natio

n; r

ewar

dcr

eativ

e; e

ntre

pren

eurs

hip;

so

cial

; env

ironm

ent,

ener

gy a

cces

s

BitG

ivin

g is

a c

row

dfun

ding

pla

tform

that

ena

bles

art

ists

, en

gine

ers,

and

cre

ator

s of

all

kind

s to

com

e to

geth

er in

a b

id to

ra

ise

fund

s on

line

and

shar

e th

eir

stor

ies.

http

s://

ww

w.b

itgiv

ing.

com

Fuel

A D

ream

dona

tion;

rew

ard

soci

al; c

reat

ive;

en

trep

rene

ursh

ip

We

are

a cr

owdf

undi

ng p

latfo

rm a

nd m

arke

tpla

ce fo

r pe

ople

&

org

anis

atio

ns th

at c

urre

ntly

aim

s to

rai

se fu

nds

for

crea

tive

idea

s, c

ause

s, c

harit

ies,

eve

nts

and

com

mun

ity le

d ac

tiviti

es

with

a in

itial

focu

s on

Indi

a.

http

s://

ww

w.fu

elad

ream

.com

Dre

am W

alle

tsre

war

dso

cial

; env

ironm

enta

l; en

trep

rene

ursh

ip; c

reat

ive

DW

offe

rs y

ou a

n on

line

colla

bora

tion

plat

form

for

rais

ing

fund

s fo

r id

eas

from

a c

omm

unity

of p

eopl

e w

ho s

hare

you

r dr

eam

s an

d pa

ssio

n. In

ret

urn,

bac

kers

get

s re

war

ded

in n

on-m

onet

ary

way

s w

ith r

ewar

ds th

at, o

ther

wis

e, m

oney

can

‘t bu

y.

http

s://

ww

w.d

ream

wal

lets

.com

Cro

wde

rare

war

d

soci

al; c

reat

ive;

en

trep

rene

ursh

ip;

envi

ronm

ent;

ener

gy;

ener

gy a

cces

s

Cro

wde

ra is

a c

row

dfun

ding

pla

tform

that

sup

port

s in

divi

dual

s an

d no

n pr

ofit

orga

niza

tions

in th

eir

effo

rts

to c

reat

e a

soci

al

impa

ct.

http

s://

ww

w.g

ocro

wde

ra.c

om

Indi

a fo

r Sp

orts

dona

tion

soci

al

Indi

a Fo

r Sp

orts

is a

cro

wdf

undi

ng p

latfo

rm fo

r In

dian

ath

lete

s w

ho c

an r

aise

fund

s fo

r th

emse

lves

in a

sim

ple

way

by

crea

ting

cam

paig

ns w

here

peo

ple

can

cont

ribut

e on

line.

Any

ath

lete

ca

n us

e th

is p

latfo

rm to

rai

se fu

nds

for

thei

r tr

avel

, equ

ipm

ent,

diet

and

com

petit

ive

goal

s. A

thle

te c

an a

lso

crea

te th

eir

onlin

e pr

esen

ce u

sing

the

plat

form

to c

reat

e an

d gr

ow th

eir

fanb

ase

and

insp

ire p

eopl

e.

ht

tps:

//w

ww

.indi

afor

spor

ts.c

om

46


edud

harm

ado

natio

nso

cial

At E

duD

harm

a, o

ur m

otto

is to

wor

k fo

r be

tterm

ent o

f st

uden

t’s li

fe b

y fu

ndin

g fo

r th

eir

educ

atio

n, s

port

s ac

tiviti

es

and

inno

vativ

e pr

ojec

ts b

y co

llect

ing

fund

s th

roug

h ou

r cr

owdf

undi

ng p

latfo

rm. B

y sh

owca

sing

aca

dem

ic/s

port

s/

proj

ect a

chie

vem

ents

and

act

iviti

es, s

tude

nts

are

able

to g

arne

r do

natio

ns fr

om s

uppo

rter

s to

furt

her

thei

r ca

reer

We

aim

to

brin

g st

uden

ts a

nd a

cade

mic

adv

ocat

es to

geth

er to

rem

ove

the

finan

cial

bar

riers

bet

wee

n st

uden

ts a

nd e

duca

tion/

spor

ts.

http

s://

ww

w.e

dudh

arm

a.co

m

give

indi

ado

natio

nso

cial

; env

ironm

ent

Giv

eInd

ia is

a d

onat

ion

plat

form

that

allo

ws

you

to s

uppo

rt a

ca

use

of y

our

choi

ce fr

om a

bout

200

NG

Os

that

hav

e be

en

scru

tinis

ed fo

r tr

ansp

aren

cy &

cre

dibi

lity.

http

://w

ww

.giv

eind

ia.o

rg

Des

ired

Win

gsre

war

dcr

eativ

e; e

ntre

pren

eurs

hip;

so

cial

Des

ired

win

gs is

a te

ch e

nabl

ed p

latfo

rm s

uppo

rtin

g as

pira

tions

, dre

ams

and

desi

res,

cre

atin

g an

eco

syst

em th

at

is w

illin

g to

nom

inat

e an

d cr

eate

cro

wdf

undi

ng p

roje

cts.

A

crow

dfun

ding

pla

tform

whe

re p

eopl

e w

ould

com

e fo

rwar

d to

do

nate

mon

ey to

thei

r fa

vorit

e pr

ojec

t in

orde

r to

fulfi

l des

ires

of a

n as

pirin

g In

dian

in e

xcha

nge

for

a un

ique

rew

ard,

ther

eby

getti

ng a

lot o

f peo

ple

to c

ontr

ibut

e a

smal

l am

ount

of m

oney

to

mak

e a

livin

g, a

dre

am c

ome

true

.

Let‘s

Ven

ture

qu

asi-

equi

ty

entr

epre

neur

ship

Lets

Vent

ure

enab

les

star

tups

look

ing

to r

aise

see

d / a

ngel

m

oney

to c

reat

e in

vest

men

t rea

dy p

rofil

es o

nlin

e, a

nd c

onne

ct

to a

ccre

dite

d In

vest

ors.

Dis

clai

mer

: N

eith

er L

etsV

entu

re O

nlin

e P

te. L

td. (

“Let

sVen

ture

”) n

or

Indi

epitc

h So

lutio

ns P

rivat

e Li

mite

d (“

Indi

ePitc

h”) i

s a

stoc

k ex

chan

ge r

ecog

nise

d by

the

Secu

ritie

s Ex

chan

ge B

oard

of

Indi

a (S

EBI)

unde

r th

e Se

curit

ies

Con

trac

t (R

egul

atio

n) A

ct,

1956

. The

sec

uriti

es o

ffere

d by

any

com

pany

reg

iste

red

on

the

onlin

e pl

atfo

rm d

evel

oped

by

Let

sVen

ture

, ava

ilabl

e at

le

tsve

ntur

e.co

m (“

Pla

tform

”)

are

not t

rade

d on

any

sto

ck

exch

ange

rec

ogni

sed

by S

EBI.

Lets

Vent

ure

does

not

allo

w a

ny

seco

ndar

y m

arke

t tra

ding

of

secu

ritie

s on

the

Pla

tform

.

http

s://

ww

w.le

tsve

ntur

e.co

m

47


edud

harm

ado

natio

nso

cial

At E

duD

harm

a, o

ur m

otto

is to

wor

k fo

r be

tterm

ent o

f st

uden

t’s li

fe b

y fu

ndin

g fo

r th

eir

educ

atio

n, s

port

s ac

tiviti

es

and

inno

vativ

e pr

ojec

ts b

y co

llect

ing

fund

s th

roug

h ou

r cr

owdf

undi

ng p

latfo

rm. B

y sh

owca

sing

aca

dem

ic/s

port

s/

proj

ect a

chie

vem

ents

and

act

iviti

es, s

tude

nts

are

able

to g

arne

r do

natio

ns fr

om s

uppo

rter

s to

furt

her

thei

r ca

reer

We

aim

to

brin

g st

uden

ts a

nd a

cade

mic

adv

ocat

es to

geth

er to

rem

ove

the

finan

cial

bar

riers

bet

wee

n st

uden

ts a

nd e

duca

tion/

spor

ts.

http

s://

ww

w.e

dudh

arm

a.co

m

give

indi

ado

natio

nso

cial

; env

ironm

ent

Giv

eInd

ia is

a d

onat

ion

plat

form

that

allo

ws

you

to s

uppo

rt a

ca

use

of y

our

choi

ce fr

om a

bout

200

NG

Os

that

hav

e be

en

scru

tinis

ed fo

r tr

ansp

aren

cy &

cre

dibi

lity.

http

://w

ww

.giv

eind

ia.o

rg

Des

ired

Win

gsre

war

dcr

eativ

e; e

ntre

pren

eurs

hip;

so

cial

Des

ired

win

gs is

a te

ch e

nabl

ed p

latfo

rm s

uppo

rtin

g as

pira

tions

, dre

ams

and

desi

res,

cre

atin

g an

eco

syst

em th

at

is w

illin

g to

nom

inat

e an

d cr

eate

cro

wdf

undi

ng p

roje

cts.

A

crow

dfun

ding

pla

tform

whe

re p

eopl

e w

ould

com

e fo

rwar

d to

do

nate

mon

ey to

thei

r fa

vorit

e pr

ojec

t in

orde

r to

fulfi

l des

ires

of a

n as

pirin

g In

dian

in e

xcha

nge

for

a un

ique

rew

ard,

ther

eby

getti

ng a

lot o

f peo

ple

to c

ontr

ibut

e a

smal

l am

ount

of m

oney

to

mak

e a

livin

g, a

dre

am c

ome

true

.

Let‘s

Ven

ture

qu

asi-

equi

ty

entr

epre

neur

ship

Lets

Vent

ure

enab

les

star

tups

look

ing

to r

aise

see

d / a

ngel

m

oney

to c

reat

e in

vest

men

t rea

dy p

rofil

es o

nlin

e, a

nd c

onne

ct

to a

ccre

dite

d In

vest

ors.

Dis

clai

mer

: N

eith

er L

etsV

entu

re O

nlin

e P

te. L

td. (

“Let

sVen

ture

”) n

or

Indi

epitc

h So

lutio

ns P

rivat

e Li

mite

d (“

Indi

ePitc

h”) i

s a

stoc

k ex

chan

ge r

ecog

nise

d by

the

Secu

ritie

s Ex

chan

ge B

oard

of

Indi

a (S

EBI)

unde

r th

e Se

curit

ies

Con

trac

t (R

egul

atio

n) A

ct,

1956

. The

sec

uriti

es o

ffere

d by

any

com

pany

reg

iste

red

on

the

onlin

e pl

atfo

rm d

evel

oped

by

Let

sVen

ture

, ava

ilabl

e at

le

tsve

ntur

e.co

m (“

Pla

tform

”)

are

not t

rade

d on

any

sto

ck

exch

ange

rec

ogni

sed

by S

EBI.

Lets

Vent

ure

does

not

allo

w a

ny

seco

ndar

y m

arke

t tra

ding

of

secu

ritie

s on

the

Pla

tform

.

http

s://

ww

w.le

tsve

ntur

e.co

m

Gre

xqu

asi-

equi

ty

entr

epre

neur

ship

GR

EX is

a p

rivat

e m

arke

t pla

tform

, and

its

asso

ciat

ed

ecos

yste

m, t

hat h

elps

com

pani

es a

cces

s m

ultip

le fi

nanc

ial

prod

ucts

as

they

gro

w fr

om In

cuba

tor

to IP

O. O

n th

e ot

her

hand

, the

pla

tform

allo

ws

all t

he in

vest

ors

incl

udin

g pr

ivat

e in

divi

dual

s, in

stitu

tiona

l inv

esto

rs, a

s w

ell a

s le

ndin

g fir

ms,

to

part

icip

ate

in th

e gr

owth

jour

ney

of th

e co

mpa

nies

from

ear

ly

to la

te s

tage

unt

il th

ey r

emai

n un

liste

d. G

REX

allo

ws

mul

tiple

ca

pita

l sol

utio

ns, i

nclu

ding

the

equi

ty, d

ebt,

hybr

id a

nd n

ewer

/in

nova

tive

prod

ucts

, tha

t the

com

pani

es c

an in

voke

bas

ed o

n th

eir

suita

bilit

y to

the

stag

e an

d ca

sh fl

ow o

f the

com

pany

.

Dis

clai

mer

: G

REX

is n

ot a

Sto

ck E

xcha

nge

and

does

not

inte

nd to

get

re

cogn

ized

as

a st

ock

exch

ange

un

der

Secu

ritie

s C

ontr

acts

R

egul

atio

n Ac

t, 19

56, a

s G

REX

do

es n

ot e

nabl

e an

y ki

nd o

f tr

adin

g an

d pu

blic

issu

e of

se

curit

ies.

We

are

not a

SEB

I re

gist

ered

ent

ity a

nd d

o no

t re

quire

the

sam

e as

we

are

only

a p

rivat

e an

d cl

osed

gro

up

for

info

rmat

ion

exch

ange

. We

do n

ot a

ctiv

ely

assi

st, r

egul

ate

or c

ontr

ol th

e bu

sine

ss o

f in

vest

men

t tra

nsac

tions

and

bu

ying

, sel

ling

or d

ealin

g in

se

curit

ies.

Our

Pla

tform

is n

ot

open

for

the

publ

ic in

gen

eral

. P

rivat

e Li

mite

d an

d U

nlis

ted

Com

pani

es r

aise

fund

s fr

om a

cl

osed

gro

up o

f inv

esto

rs h

erei

n an

d th

is P

latfo

rm is

a p

rivat

e ne

twor

k of

indi

vidu

als;

and

th

ese

com

pani

es a

re n

ot li

sted

on

any

SEB

I rec

ogni

zed

Stoc

k Ex

chan

ges

of In

dia.

http

://w

ww

.gre

x.in

1cro

wd

quas

i-eq

uity

en

trep

rene

ursh

ip

Cro

wd

fund

ing

is th

e ne

w w

ay to

inve

st in

sta

rtup

s! O

urs

is a

un

ique

equ

ity c

row

d fu

ndin

g pl

atfo

rm fo

cuse

d on

con

nect

ing

inve

stor

s w

ith a

hos

t of e

xtre

mel

y pr

omis

ing

Indi

an s

tart

-ups

an

d ea

rly

stag

e ve

ntur

es, w

ith a

n ar

ray

of c

apita

l sol

utio

ns a

nd

co-i

nves

tmen

t com

mitm

ent.

Dis

clai

mer

: Ze

va C

apso

l Priv

ate

Lim

ited

(„1C

row

d“) i

s no

t a S

tock

Ex

chan

ge n

or d

oes

it in

tend

to

get

rec

ogni

zed

as a

sto

ck

exch

ange

und

er S

ecur

ities

C

ontr

acts

Reg

ulat

ion

Act,

1956

. 1C

row

d do

es n

ot fa

cilit

ate

any

onlin

e or

offl

ine

buyi

ng,

selli

ng o

r de

alin

g of

sec

uriti

es,

clea

ring

or s

ettle

men

t of t

rade

s of

sec

uriti

es. 1

Cro

wd

is n

ot a

ne

twor

k or

a p

latfo

rm fo

r th

e se

cond

ary

mar

ket t

radi

ng.

http

s://

ww

w.1

crow

d.co

48


Vent

ureC

atal

yst

quas

i-eq

uity

en

trep

rene

ursh

ip

In o

rder

to a

ttrac

t see

d in

vest

men

ts fo

r in

cuba

ted

star

t-up

s,

Vent

ure

Cat

alys

ts h

as c

reat

ed th

e ec

o-sy

stem

ena

bler

s co

mm

unity

incl

udin

g an

gel i

nves

tors

, mic

ro V

C fi

rms,

co

nsul

tant

s, le

gal a

nd fi

nanc

ial a

dvis

ors

and

man

y m

ore.

Ve

ntur

e C

atal

ysts

faci

litat

es $

100K

– $

500K

in e

arly

sta

ge

star

tups

that

has

pot

entia

l to

crea

te e

ndur

ing

valu

e fo

r ov

er a

lo

ng p

erio

d of

tim

e.

Dis

clai

mer

: Ve

ntur

e C

atal

ysts

Priv

ate

Lim

ited

(“VC

AT”)

is n

ot a

Sto

ck

Exch

ange

nor

doe

s it

inte

nd

to g

et r

ecog

nize

d as

a s

tock

ex

chan

ge u

nder

Sec

uriti

es

Con

trac

ts R

egul

atio

n Ac

t, 19

56.

VCAT

doe

s no

t fac

ilita

te a

ny

onlin

e or

offl

ine

buyi

ng, s

ellin

g or

dea

ling

of s

ecur

ities

, cle

arin

g or

set

tlem

ent o

f tra

des

of

secu

ritie

s. V

CAT

is n

ot a

net

wor

k or

a p

latfo

rm fo

r th

e se

cond

ary

mar

ket t

radi

ng.

http

://w

ww

.ven

ture

cata

lyst

s.in

1 De

scrip

tions

are

bas

ed o

n th

e in

form

atio

n av

aila

ble

on th

e CF

Ps2

Unl

ess

othe

rwis

e sp

ecifi

ed, f

urth

er in

form

atio

n’s

are

base

d on

dat

a av

aila

ble

on th

e CF

Ps

Tabl

e 8:

Lis

t of i

nter

view

ees

Nam

eCo

mpa

nyP

osit

ion

Sect

or

1R

anga

Tho

ta

Fuel

adre

am O

nlin

e Ve

ntur

es P

vt. L

td.

Foun

der

& C

EOC

FP

2Vi

shnu

Rag

huna

than

Dev

iab

Res

earc

h an

d Im

plem

enta

tion

Pvt

. Ltd

. 201

7 (L

ytyf

y)C

EO &

Co-

Foun

der

CFP

3N

ikhi

l Jai

sing

hani

Mic

ro G

rid P

ower

Glo

bal P

te. L

td. (

MG

P)

Co-

Foun

der

MSM

E

4B

hask

ar D

eol

Myn

ergy

Ren

ewab

les

Pvt

. Ltd

.C

EOM

SME

5K

unal

Dar

ipa

Selc

o Fo

unda

tion

Pro

gram

Coo

rdin

ator

Foun

datio

n

6Sa

urab

h M

arda

Frey

r En

ergy

CEO

MSM

E

7N

icol

a Ar

mac

ost

Arc

Fina

nce

Man

agin

g D

irect

orD

O

8K

artik

Wah

iC

laro

Ene

rgy

Co-

Foun

der

MSM

E

9P

rana

y Sa

mso

nIm

pact

Inve

stm

ent E

xcha

nge

Pte

Ltd

Inve

stm

ent M

anag

erIm

pact

Inve

stm

ent

Org

aniz

atio

n/C

FP

10M

ayuk

h C

houd

hury

Mila

ap S

ocia

l Ven

ture

s In

dia

Pvt

. Ltd

.C

EOC

FP

Documents

CROWDFUNDING · 2 Crowdfunding for nergy ccess in India Acknowledgement This report is the product of a two-month placement at the Indo-German Energy Programme – Access to Energy