RESPONSIBLE BUNDLING OF MICROFINANCE SERVICES In qualitative interviews, nonpurchasers universally described the product as covering only a small portion (one-third or less) of the total risks their crop faces. However, even among purchasers who saw the product as valuable, some reported that it covered only a small portion of their risks. While they understood that the product plays a limited role and were aware of the important risks that it does not cover, they still viewed it as valuable. Loan officers’ perceptions of the product were also Many Crezcamos borrowers have diversified income generally positive. The importance of the covered streams, including various crops, livestock, and risks resonated with them, in particular as a failed nonfarm income. crop can impact a borrower’s ability to repay the loan. Loan officers also recognized the potential of the product to differentiate them from other lenders “Because of that weather event, my client who do not offer anything similar. defaulted… she lost her crops, and had no A clue about the importance of product relevance means to pay the loan.” in determining take-up emerges when we analyze insurance offers for permanent and transitory crops “It’s another product we have to offer clients. separately (see Table 5). For permanent crops there Other lenders don’t have this insurance.” is no difference in uptake between the joint and separate groups. However, among insurance offers “My client came into the office the other for transitory crops, no borrower in the separate offer day to claim 7 million pesos. When she group purchased the insurance. bought the insurance, her husband was very The preference among farmers for covering angry that she wasted her money. Now they permanent crops can also be partially explained by both came in and told me I was their good the product losing relevance when the offer happens friend.” too late in the growing cycle. This may have been for separate insurance offers, —Crezcamos loan officers, reflecting on the particularly relevant which were made several weeks after the loan benefits the products may have to them application. A similar delay would not have impacted the product’s relevance to a permanent crop, as that coverage is not linked to a growing season. This nuance suggests that the product was understood Take-up among transitory and and valued for its relevance by clients at the time of the offer. We expand on the understanding of the Table 5. permanent crop holders product by clients in the next section. All crops Permanent Transitory (n=366) (n=315) (n=51) All 22.8% 25.2% 7.8% offers Joint 24.5% 26.5% 13.3% offers Separate 20.9% 23.8% 0.0% offers 19