Archive for: Kenya

Dr. Susan Johnson is a Senior Lecturer in International Development at the Centre for Development Studies at the University of Bath.  Her primary research interest is the means through which social and cultural factors influence the economy and in particular how these factors influence the operation of markets in developing countries.

The rapid uptake of mobile money transfer in Kenya has ignited enthusiasm globally over the potential to bank poor people via the platform of mobile phone technology. On the basis of research undertaken for Financial Sector Deepening Kenya, I argue that the evidence suggests an alternative explanation which means that formal service provision for poor people needs to be thought through in a very different way.  It means going beyond the expectation that mobile technology can adequately lower transactions costs to produce a revolution in inclusion, to recognising that managing financial resources has important social dimensions.

The research examined the reasons behind use of the whole range of services and so explores how mobile money transfer fits into the financial landscape as a whole.  For years the popularity of informal financial groups in the form of ROSCAs and ASCAs has been evident.  Indeed, many of those who are banked also use these mechanisms. Mobile money transfer has now overtaken informal financial groups as the most used service.  In our survey, based in three more rural towns and chosen to cross-cut poverty levels but particularly focus on the low-income group, some 61% were registered mobile money transfer users, 51% were using informal financial groups and 36% were using banks (higher than the last FinAccess 2009 survey figures of 22%).  So how can we explain why banks lag so far behind when from an objective perspective they appear to offer a safe and secure place to save?

The reasons people give for using mobile money transfer have now gone a long way beyond the original “send money home” remittance rationale.  Mobile money seamlessly facilitates inter-personal transfers to their close and extended family and friends for school fees, investments, celebrations and funerals, “assistance” and “help”, borrowing and so on – that is, any reason that people might need to send money to each other.

These interpersonal transfers operate within social networks that involve relationships of ‘give and take’ that can operate over long periods of time and in which resource transfers may be given in one form, for example, cash and returned in other, for example, support with resources of many different kinds or social connections to a job and so on.  Hence mobile money transfer has brought a range of financial transactions that involve a reciprocal dimension.

Informal financial groups offer, first, discipline and commitment in saving through the regularity of the contribution; second, the ability to access small but useful lumps sums; and third, proximate liquidity in the event of particular emergencies or needs. The latter is achieved through the social connections groups offer which allow people to negotiate access to funds directly from the group or indirectly from other members. These groups can also be characterised as operating through a reciprocal dimension. Hence they operate with some similar characteristics to the transfers being captured by mobile money transfer:  there is reciprocity and negotiability over how funds are borrowed (or ‘saved’ with others) and returned.

Our evidence indicates that the logic behind bank account use is often related to the need to receive payments rather than make voluntary savings and this helps explain high levels of dormancy.  Access to loans from banks is limited and they can be hard to manage when they are received.  Since interest on small amounts of savings is effectively irrelevant and loans are hard to get, putting funds in the bank secures neither access to financial support nor useful social connections. That is, banks lack an attractive reciprocal dimension and there is little negotiability involved.

Hence this argument suggests that the rise of mobile money transfer is evidence of extensive informal financial behaviour which has characteristics similar those to informal financial groups.  Hence rather than suggesting that mobile money is a short cut to formal sector financial inclusion, this analysis suggests that mobile money transfer has revealed an alternative underlying logic to which the formal sector needs to respond if it is to attract savings – it must offer an acceptable reciprocal relationship.  In order to provoke discussion an alternative approach might be for banks to pursue a “credit-led savings” strategy in which they offer easily accessible small personal finance loans in order to demonstrate that they can enter into valuable relationships with their customers.

For further information click the following links for the summary and the full report.  Also, for more information, check out Dr. Johnson’s recent post at Accion’s Centre for Financial Inclusion blog.

For those of you in Washington D.C, Susan Johnson will be discussing the challenges that formal services face in the search for financial inclusion in Kenya at an event hosted by CGAP on April 25^th.

To attend this event, please register here by April 23. 

Nick Hughes and Gautam Ivatury are two of the founding members of Signal Point Partners, a company created in 2009 to build innovative mobile services in emerging markets. Nick was previously at Vodafone, where he started M-PESA, taking it from a concept to a multi-million-dollar business in five years. Gautam’s previous role was leading the technology program at CGAP, where he focused on branchless and mobile banking.

When we launched Jipange KuSave – a mobile-only savings product – in Kenya in early 2010, our goal was to out-compete the mattress. Back then, Safaricom’s M-PESA service was in hyper-growth phase and ramping up to become the de facto national retail payment system. But even more exciting was M-PESA’s potential as a pervasive and low-cost delivery channel for a wider set of financial services.

With this in mind, we decided to attempt for savings what M-PESA had done for money transfers – get millions of Kenyans to abandon informal mechanisms and instead become our paying customers. But if Kenyans were going to save with us instead of the mattress, we’d need to solve two challenges.

First, a ‘traditional’ bank-type savings proposition would never work. Poor people have never abandoned the convenience and enforced discipline of informal savings services for a couple of percent interest.  In Jipange, the combination of micro-loans and savings in a structured program met several customer needs, notably the need for cash when cash flow is low (liquidity) and steady progress towards a lump sum (a savings goal).

Second, our costs would need to be radically low. As ING Direct had shown, “pure” mass-market savings plays can make money, but only at high volumes and low margins. And that was in developed markets with larger account balances. For us to succeed, we would need to “throw out the rulebook” and design from scratch the most efficient and lowest-cost processes to manage relationships and transactions.

With our two “first principles” in mind, we gathered the essential ammunition for an attack on the mattress:  a radical product design, drawing heavily from Stuart Rutherford’s work; a set of web-based processes to run the product solely via M-PESA (limited physical contact with customers); a stellar project lead to manage implementation; and passionate, risk-seeking funders in CGAP and FSD Trust Kenya.

Interested readers may find it useful to read more about our product development and trials here in MIT Innovations. Also, this evaluation produced by FSD Kenya. In short, the Jipange KuSave product gave customers small amounts of credit at zero interest, while placing a portion of the credit into a “forced” savings account. As customers repaid the credit at whatever speed and in whatever amounts they wished, they became eligible for a bigger zero-interest loan. By borrowing multiple times and being forced to save a portion of each loan, they gradually accumulated savings.

The short version of our battle report is this:

1. Customers are hungry for better ways to save. They deal with cash flow complexity everyday and use a range of high cost / high risk methods to achieve liquidity. Some product designers would consider blending credit and savings as too complex – that was not our experience.  Clear, structured program, yes – but too difficult for customers to grasp, no.

2. Silicon Valley-style discipline and lean startup principles are keys to success. This starts and ends with customers. We quickly acquired a first trial cohort and modified and iterated the ‘offer’ on the back of real evidence from users.

3. A brand-new, mobile-oriented deposit-taking institution has the best chance of beating the mattress. This is perhaps the most difficult stumbling block on the way to scale. Only a regulated institution can take deposits — but hungry, highly innovative regulated institutions are rare beasts.

This is the third post in a series on remittances. Stefan Staschen works regularly as a consultant for CGAP’s Government and Policy Team and is an Associate with Bankable Frontier Associates. 

Tajik migrants, courtesy of Stefan Staschen

My colleague Olga Tomilova and I recently were in Tajikistan and Russia to learn more about the large remittance flows between these two countries. We were most interested in the potential to link remittances with other financial products, such as loans and savings accounts in order to increase access to finance on both ends of the remittance corridor.

Having lived and worked in Kenya for many years, I inevitably started comparing Tajikistan with Kenya, and I realized that this is actually quite an interesting comparison.

For example, taking one point of comparison, in Kenya there is a lot of talk about the high aid-dependence of the economy (5.7% of GDP). But it turns out that it is still small in comparison to the “remittance-dependence” of Tajikistan, which peaked at 50% of GDP in 2008 (i.e. just before the effects of the global financial crisis could be felt) and stood at 40% in 2010 (according to the World Development Indicators). Obviously remittances and donor funds are not the same, but if we are concerned about the changing mood of donors and its potential effect on Kenya, how much more should we be concerned about fluctuations in remittance flows to Tajikistan!

Such large remittance flows do not only benefit the recipients, but can also be great business for banks. (In the case of one bank, the revenues from commissions corresponded to 46% of its net interest income in 2009.) But they create the risk of precarious living conditions for Tajik labor migrants and expose the recipients and the Tajik economy as a whole to the whims of Russia’s immigration policy, which has already been tightened several times.

There is actually another analogy between Kenya and Tajikistan: in both countries remittances boom, only that in Kenya it is mostly domestic remittances exemplified by the run-away success of Safaricom’s M-PESA mobile money service. While every Tajik receives about $325 in remittances annually (of which at least 90% originates from Russia), domestic transfers flowing through the M-PESA system alone amounted to about $200 per capita in 2010. Mostly as a result of M-PESA, the percentage of the population excluded from formal financial services dropped substantially between 2006 and 2009.

Read the rest of this page »

This is the third post in our series on interoperability and related issues in branchless banking and mobile money. Read the first post that presented the overall framework for the discussion and the second post that looked at the interconnection of mobile money platforms. Today, we discuss interoperability at the agent level as it relates to agent exclusivity. We include agent exclusivity in the topic of interoperability because it raises many of the same issues as platform interoperability.

Agent exclusivity revolves around the ability of a customer of one provider to use the agent of another provider for cash-in and cash-out services related to that customer’s account. Non-exclusive agents can expand financial access by providing more access points to a greater  number of customers, while limiting the rise of a dominant actor which could ultimately reduce competition. But as with platform interoperability, regulators are cognizant that prohibiting exclusive agents could deter private actors from entering the market. What service provider would invest in identifying, training, and equipping agents if competitors can piggyback off their investment?

To be clear, when we speak of agent exclusivity, we are only referring to the cash-in and cash-out services performed by agents – not other services (where permitted) such as customer enrollment, related KYC, and processing of loan documents. Agents providing only cash-in and cash-out services are often called “cash merchants”. We distinguish the cash merchant services from other services because cash merchant functions arguably present less risk to the financial service provider since agents typically transact against their own accounts. Think human ATMs.

We identify at least four different ways to share cash merchants:

Read the rest of this page »

Over the past week, the world has been commemorating the 2nd anniversary of the Haiti earthquake. Today and tomorrow we will have two guest blog posts on the mobile money sector that has emerged over the last two years in Haiti. Today’s post is written by two colleagues at USAID. 

Charley Johnson is a Presidential Management Fellow at USAID. Priya Jaisinghani is a Senior Advisor to the Administrator and Director of the Mobile Solutions team.  Prior to her work at USAID, Priya helped launch the Gates Foundation’s work in financial services from 2005-2009.  

Two years after the earthquake, Haiti is rebuilding not just brick by brick, but click by click.

The earthquake left behind a government in rubble, an economy in shambles, and a people living in makeshift camps, coping with enormous loss. Against this backdrop, the possibility of progress lives not just in the resilient spirit of the Haitian people, but also in the simple power of their mobile phones.

In June 2010, USAID and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation launched the Haiti Mobile Money Initiative (HMMI). This program leveraged the private sector and the ubiquity of mobile phones to bring financial services to Haitians, 90% of whom didn’t have access to a bank account before the earthquake destroyed nearly one-third of the country’s bank branches, ATMs, and money transfer stations. Put simply, mobile money gives Haitians access to banking without building a single bank.

It worked.  In January 2011, one year after the earthquake, HMMI awarded Digicel and its partner bank, Scotiabank, a “First to Market” Award of $2.5 million for “Tcho Tcho Mobile.” Five months ago, HMMI awarded mobile operator Voila and their bank partner, Unibank, $1.5 million for “T-Cash.” While verification is still underway, data reported by the industry indicate that there are nearly 800,000 registered users.  Moreover, there are over 800 agent locations now available to serve clients. In a country where there are fewer than two bank branches per 100,000 people, this represents a near doubling of accessible financial services.

These numbers are significant, but what do they mean for the people of Haiti? Why should we care about the growth of mobile money in Haiti and the rest of the developing world?

Read the rest of this page »

This is the second in a five-part series on product innovation in branchless banking. In the first we described how developing products beyond payments is one part of driving scale for providers, and ultimately boosting financial inclusion.

Henry Ford famously said, “If I’d asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”

There’s two ways to understand what he meant. One is customers don’t know what they want, so why bother asking. But for every Henry Ford or Steve Jobs (Who said “It’s not the customer’s job to know what they want.”) there are 1000 businesspeople who thought they knew the next brilliant product and are now staring at a cash flow statement soaked in red. Genius is in short supply.

The rest of us mere mortals must subscribe to a second interpretation: customers often can’t or won’t tell you what they want, so you must work to dig down to what they really need. To understand this requires knowledge about not only their current use of substitute products, but also their broader life context: their household situation, their aspirations, and their worries.

A prime example of this need for deeper customer understanding is the vastly different levels of success which very similar mobile money products have encountered across markets. M-PESA Kenya’s success has spurred providers across the globe to launch services with similar functionality: a liquid wallet with an emphasis on P2P transfers (“send money home”) and bill pay functionality. As we highlighted in the first post in this series, the “send money home” proposition has not yielded as much success outside Kenya where just 1 in 15 services launched since 2007 have accumulated more than 250,000 active users. This can be explained by differences between markets that have profound effects on how consumers perceive the value of otherwise similar services.

A truly valuable service would meet two criteria: they must fill both a deeply felt and a poorly met need (see figure): Read the rest of this page »

Summer is now officially over here in Washington and the busy fall season is off to a quick start. If you are just getting back into high gear, maybe this is a good time for us to recap some of the things we’ve been discussing on the blog over the last couple months, some of the latest news that’s caught our attention, and some things to keep your eye on in the coming weeks.

The South African bank FNB has recently launched its latest mobile banking offering Pay2Cell which allows FNB account holders to make payments to other FNB clients using only the recipient’s mobile phone number. This is a different product offering from FNB’s eWallet which allows FNB account holders to send money to anybody with a mobile phone. The recipient does not need a bank account and can withdraw the cash at any FNB ATM.

South Africa is one of the 7 markets that we covered in our recently released branchless banking country notes. The other countries include India, Pakistan, Mexico, Brazil, Ghana, and WAEMU in West Africa. The report for WAEMU is now also available in French – la version en français UEMOA.

An active branchless banking provider in West Africa, Orange has recently launched the Orange African Social Venture Prize. This initiative aims to reward innovative projects using ICT for social and economic development in Africa. In this contest, 3 winners will be selected and will receive financial grants along with 6-months of mentoring support from management and ICT experts. The project should target at least one country where Orange has a footprint and the prizes will be announced during the AfricaCom Awards in Cape Town in November. The deadline for applications is the end of September. Read more about it here.

Staying in West Africa, Nigeria continues to buzz with branchless banking activity. The Central Bank of Nigeria recently issued operating licenses to 11 mobile money firms. As this article explains:

Read the rest of this page »

Fiji G2P payments (courtesy of UNCDF's Pacific Financial Inclusion Programme)

Over the last couple months, we’ve run a series profiling different government payments programs that have innovated on their payment mechanisms and in some cases linked payments to financial services. We looked at the case of UBL in Pakistan making payments to flood victims. We profiled GCASH using GCASH REMIT to make payments on behalf of LandBank to rural beneficiaries of the 4Ps program in the Philippines. We featured Colombia’s Familias en Accion program that has contributed to the build out of banking correspondents in the country and is testing interesting ways to incentivize savings. We discussed the HSN Programme in Kenya and how Equity Bank is making payments to a very rural area in northern Kenya via smart cards and agents. Finally, we looked at the new G2P program in Fiji offering payments to beneficiaries through accounts offered by Westpac. Of course, we could have profiled many more schemes in countries like India, Mexico, South Africa, Dominican Republic, and others.

These examples are diverse as much as they are similar. Some of them are still in a pilot phase (such as GCCASH), while others are at a national scale (such as Familias en Accion). Some of them are using card-based solutions (such as the HSN Programme and Familias en Accion), while others are experimenting with mobile phones (such as GCASH). Some of them are distributing a payment based on certain conditionalities (such as the 4Ps program in the Philippines and Familias en Accion), while others are distributing unconditional cash transfers (such as in Fiji and the HSN Programme). What are some observations and lessons we can gather from these examples and from others around the world?

1. The link to financial inclusion is one that can often get forgotten in the quest for payment efficiency. Social protection programs rightly have the objective of making payments in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner. While they often appreciate the link that financial services can offer to the beneficiaries, when push comes to shove, this will get sidelined if it becomes too complicated or costly to implement. Therefore we see that while the schemes in Pakistan and the Philippines have done an excellent job getting payments (and in Pakistan emergency payments no less) to poor beneficiaries, there is not yet a link to financial services. While this may be an added feature in the future, these examples should encourage all of us with a specific interest in financial inclusion to be deliberate and clear in our interaction with G2P partners about our real goals. Read the rest of this page »

Building a viable agent network is a critical success factor for any branchless banking service. But the industry is in a state of creative chaos with widely divergent approaches (and performance) to rapidly setting up a dense, liquid carpet of agents adhering to service quality standards.

In February, CGAP released an Agent Management Toolkit which aims to demystify the process. The toolkit is based on 500 interviews with agents, agent network managers and financial institutions in Brazil (Banco do Brasil and Banco Postal), India (EKO and FINO), and Kenya (M-PESA). All told, CGAP analyzed data on more than 16,000 agents for the Toolkit.

We’ve distilled the Toolkit into an Agent Management Training Package to enable you to train your own colleagues and service partners about key steps in building a robust agent network.

• Section 1 looks at the business case from the agent’s perspective. This includes an exercise comparing the business drivers for 3 agents from Brazil, India and Kenya.
• Section 2 looks at the role of Agent Network Managers, with a case study of a Brazilian ANM’s journey towards profitability.
• Section 3 looks at options to generate adequate revenue to satisfy all partners in the supply chain, and an exercise where participants will discuss a hypothetical branchless banking service.
• Section 4 looks at structuring an agent network, with a case study showing how the supply chain has evolved for M-PESA in Kenya.
• Section 5 looks at lessons from Brazil, India and Kenya for managing agents, with an exercise comparing training approaches in these and other markets.

The package can be used in multiple ways, from a 30 minute rapid review of key messages, a day-long training, or selecting one of the modules matching your interest. The package includes detailed notes for trainers on how to present each slide and key takeaways to highlight. Feel free to use with attribution.

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

A couple of months ago, we launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiative, Showcasing Successes in Banking Beyond Branches, and blogged about it here. We’re pleased to report that success stories are out there and 3 institutions have claimed success under the showcase criteria: Safaricom, Banco de Crédito del Perú (BCP), and Banco Wal-Mart (BWM). Safaricom and BCP lead the way in the Bridges to Cash showcase, and BWM carries the torch for the Digital Piggy Bank showcase. Successful showcase entries were announced at the World Economic Forum Africa Summit in Cape Town this week, and you can read about them on the foundation’s website.

As a reminder, the Bridges to Cash showcase recognizes players who have built a dense and sustainable network of cash merchants where people cash-in and cash-out conveniently from their electronic accounts. Under the showcase criteria, this is defined by a volume of transactions at cash merchants of at least 30 per day, and a network of cash merchants with at least 10 times the number of bank branches of the largest bank in the country where it operates. The Digital Piggy Bank showcase recognizes players that can demonstrate their electronic accounts are being used as a store of value, with at least 100,000 customers with a non-zero balance in their electronic accounts, and an average balance of at least 20 USD.

Read the rest of this page »