Ignacio Mas

Today we post a guest blog by Ignacio Mas and David Porteous, both of whom need no introduction. But just in case…Ignacio is an independent consultant, associated with Bankable Frontier Associates. He is former Senior Advisor with the Financial Services for the Poor team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and at the Technology and Business Model Innovation Program at CGAP. David is Managing Director of Bankable Frontier Associates.

Sarah Rotman blogged recently about yet another breathless announcement about the imminent arrival of the cashless society. She said and we agree that “cashless seems a bit naïve; cash lite seems more realistic although still a big challenge.” The very first part of the challenge is actually to visualize what a “cash lite” world looks like. Is it simply an ill-defined way station on the road to cashlessness, or is there a meaningful state or goal that goes with it?

We think the latter, and for us the defining characteristic is not the amount of cash (let cash do what it will!), but the availability of alternatives for the bulk of the population. It’s freedom from cash, not absence of cash. We have coined a word which encapsulates key elements of a cash lite society: LiFi (see baptismal paper here). Like WiFi, which provides retail connectivity at the edge of the internet cloud, LiFi is about connecting people to an electronic payments grid which provides Liquidity with Fidelity. WiFi is open, general-purpose broadband; LiFi is secure, special-purpose narrowband.

A LiFi world is therefore one in which every person has an electronic store of value which they can easily use to make and receive payments in real time. Just like in places with reliable on-grid electricity, we can turn on a light on-demand, knowing that it will work and that the cost of flicking the switch will be small in relation to the benefits.

Because there is no precedent for cashlessness by fiat and cash can be counted on to still be an option for a long time to come, the key challenge of LiFi is getting people to trust and want to use the LiFi payment mechanism…because it is robust, because it is safe and because it is useful. All these attributes take time to demonstrate to the satisfaction of risk- (and change-) averse users. A LiFi approach recognizes that in two ways.

Read the rest of this page »

This is a guest blog by Ignacio Mas from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

It’s always hard for competitors to decide to work together on some key aspects of their business. It usually comes down to whether the players involved opt to maximize the total size of the pie or just their slice of the pie. In networked businesses, in general, the more the players work together to grow the pie, the larger the slice each one will get. That’s why mobile operators have a tradition –of which they are rightly proud— of interconnecting their voice and data bearer services. They long since discovered that their customers are best served by making sure they can send and receive messages to/from anyone, even if they are on a different network.

But we haven’t yet seen this logic extend to mobile money. In most countries, mobile money providers working together is probably less a matter of if and more about when, just like it has been for banks with sharing ATMs and mobile operators with sharing towers. And it’s probably not even about when but about how.

Read the rest of this page »

I attended SWIFT’s SIBOS conference last week. This event couldn’t have been scheduled for a more exciting time – it opened with the fresh news of the turmoil on Wall Street. There was much talk about that.

As for the issues we are focused on, there was a panel discussion on mobile banking. A Western Union representative said that their average remittance size is $350. But in mobile trials (from Hawaii and UAE to the Philippines, using both Philippine telecom services Smart and G-Cash) the average remittance size was less than $100. So that’s evidence that there is demand to send lower amounts, if only the commission structure permits it. A Wells Fargo speaker said their average remittance size is closer to $500.

From India, ICICI explained their mobile remittance product. Essentially, the recipient gets notified by SMS, and then punches the code he gets on his SMS into a specially-enabled ATM to withdraw the cash. So the mobile is used purely for notification purposes, not for fulfillment.

As for some of the more cutting edge technologies, estimates on NFC-capable phones by 2011 or so ranged from 10% to 30% of installed base. So either way, it is not likely to reach poor people in developing markets in sufficient volumes any time soon.

SWIFT is creating a new messaging type especially for international remittances. Their main messaging business is related to inter-bank transactions, whereas they want to support person-to-person transfers. This was deemed by all banks to be essential to make it easier for each bank to set up bilateral relationships with other banks along remittance corridors, without having to agree a separate set of messaging syntax, rules and contracts. SWIFT would standardize all that and carry the messages too, in return for a commission. A dozen or so banks are now piloting this new product.

I’ve just finished teaching a course at Boulder on the use of branchless banking channels and technology to reduce transaction costs. This was well-attended; the four-day, 10-hour course had 39 students, and a shortened single day, two-hour version had 20 students.

We had a very interesting class discussion on whether group loan repayments through branchless banking channels would undermine the group ethos, and there was surprising consensus in that it need not. Another much discussed topic was how to balance cash in and cash out at the agents, and how to promote savings on the back of electronic payments.

In terms of use of agents for deposit-taking, we know there is a very fundamental business model problem. Agents are used to taking something like 10% commission on selling a coke bottle, a mobile prepaid card, etc. So why would they do cash in/out for much less than 10% commission if that saddles them with extra security risks and extra trips to the bank? And with that sort of commission level, microsavings are dead. There are several answers to this:

• The practical solution happening out there: agents are used mostly for special transactions where someone is prepared to give them extra commission: mobile prepaid cards, international remittance termination, bill payment (if the utility wants to get out of collecting itself). But there is very little traction on savings.
• The purist solution: use product portfolio and marketing levers to balance cash in and cash out at the village level. Agents can then manage local liquidity as a ‘closed loop.’ This would need to work community by community, and there could be no universal answers. It would have more chance of working if branchless banking was a tool managed and used by local microfinance institutions with the required level of grassroots presence and understanding. But in my view it can’t work so long as branchless banking is the preserve of the larger banks and telecom operators, as today.
• Take the agent business out of stores. This gets away from high overhead and higher opportunity costs. Combine the susu collector with Wizzkids: roving people in market stalls, going door-to-door, etc., offering to buy and sell cash for electronic value. This way, you turn the agent problem into a livelihood activity.
• The shock solution: go for total cash substitution. Eliminate cash and you eliminate the cash in/out problem. Radical, but something that one colleague said could perhaps see traction in conflict areas. The security aspect can then be a powerful driver for eradicating cash by having clients express preference for electronic over cash payments.

The general feeling was one of excitement at the potential, but a realization that these channels will, at least for a while, be dominated by larger banks and mobile operators who have the wherewithal to invest in this area. MFIs should seek to share in their infrastructure rather than to try to create their own, knowing that interoperability will take a while to develop — just as it did for ATMs and POSs.