Archive for: South Africa

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 »

Over the past several months, we have taken a close look at the branchless banking industry in a few key countries. You can see all our postings here for Brazil, Mexico, India, Pakistan and Ghana. Today we continue with our analysis of South Africa and share this summary note on the branchless banking industry.

South Africa has often been used as a case study by those with an interest in financial inclusion. The country has an advanced banking infrastructure with nearly 10,000 ATMs and over 100,000 POS devices deployed. The Government has for a long time been committed to expanding access to financial services to the bottom of the pyramid and around 63% of South African adults now have a bank account, higher than the other countries featured in this series. They have employed a number of policy levers that have helped to achieve this:

• The “Mzansi account” – a basic entry-level bank account which has attracted 6 million customers – was launched in October 2004 by the four largest banks as well as the state owned Post Bank as part of a compact between government and the private sector. Recent evidence, however, suggests that a large number of these accounts are dormant and banks complain that the accounts are not profitable. Policy makers and banks are now looking for other approaches to advance the access frontier. 
• Government payments of R88 billion (USD 11 billion) are made to 14 million individuals – approximately one-quarter of all South African adults every year. Recipients can choose to be paid into a bank account which is the mechanism that has been chosen by one-third of recipients. This has been one of the primary drivers of uptake of banking services, but there is still un-tapped potential to offer financial services to beneficiaries. 
• The government has also made efforts to promote an enabling environment for innovation. A proportionate approach to KYC procedures for account opening has been introduced by removing the requirement for customers to give proof of address when opening low value accounts and non face-to-face account opening is permitted. The regulatory framework also allows for the use of agents to provide banking services beyond the branch network.  

Read the rest of this page »

This blog post summarizes a quick review of commercial investments in mobile financial services and branchless banking. We focused our review on equity deals between 2005 and 2010 involving mobile payment companies, agent companies, payment platforms and others providers that we knew were targeting the financially excluded in developing countries. We looked at press releases and other publicly-available sources for information on deal sizes and structures. We also included a few notable deals involving banks such as Telenor’s acquisition of Tameer Microfinance Bank in Pakistan and the creation of BanKO by Globe Telecom and others in the Philippines. The dataset is available upon request (technology@cgap.org).

Here are a few basic findings:

• 47 deals with USD 400 M in cumulative volume between 2005 and 2010
• Average deal size of USD 7 M with the largest number of deals under USD 4 M
• Most investments were in technology companies but new opportunities are emerging
• International Finance Corporation (IFC) was the most active investor globally
• India was the most active market

Click on images for clearer view

47 deals with USD 400 M in cumulative volume between 2005 and 2010.  Whether USD 400 M is sizeable or not depends on your perspective. It is sizeable if you consider that grant funding to companies in branchless banking between 2005 and 2010 totaled well below USD 100 M. From the perspective of those of you watching the larger payments or mobile money environment, the total size might be small, but there are a number of additional factors to keep in mind. First, a large share of the USD 400 M is attributed to a single deal – Obopay’s deal at USD 139 M. In fact, investments made into four firms – Obopay, Cointel, FINO, and Monitise – account for 60% of volume. Second, there are roughly 15 deals with an amount that was not publicly available or disclosed to us. Lastly, USD 400 M is not the complete figure of private investments made into mobile financial services or branchless banking. That figure is significantly higher if you consider internal investments made by mobile network operators, banks and others into their implementations.  Read the rest of this page »

What does mobile money cost for the unbanked and underbanked? CGAP releases pricing study across 16 providers in 10 countries

It is possible that establishing a successful, scaled branchless banking service could be more expensive than expected. Some branchless banking providers want to leave room to come down on prices as more competitors enter the market.

Other highlights:

• The lower the transaction value, the cheaper branchless banking is in comparison with banks. For example, at a transactional value of $23, branchless banking is on average 38% cheaper than commercial banks the study looked at.
• Branchless banking is 54% cheaper than informal options for money transfer.
• Customer usage is influenced not only by absolute prices but by the way a service is priced. For example, in order to encourage trial of money transfers, some services offer free deposits, which make branchless banking an affordable way to save.
• Average branchless banking price is $3.90 per month.
• Informal providers charge double the price for a money transfer than a branchless banking provider.

• Afghanistan: M‐Paisa
• Brazil: Bradesco and Caixa
• Cambodia: WING Money
• Cote d’Ivoire: MTN Mobile Money, Orange Money
• India: Eko
• Kenya: M‐PESA and Zap
• Pakistan: easypaisa
• Philippines: GCash and Smart Money
• Tanzania: M‐PESA, Zap
• South Africa: MTN Mobile Money, WIZZIT

1. Sending Money Transfer
2. Receiving Money Transfer
3. Short‐term safekeeping
4. Medium‐term saving for asset
5. Bill Payments
6. High Usage (as a proxy for financial inclusion)
7. Average monthly transactions per M‐PESA user in 2008
8. Average monthly transactions per Kenyan banking customer in 2008

-Jim Rosenberg

This is Nomakula Dyokomba. She’s the first person in her neighborhood to use her mobile phone to buy supplies for her spaza shop (corner store). The service is provided by WIZZIT Bank. Nomakula says it’s better than cash for two reasons. First, because she no longer carries lots of cash, she is less worried about getting robbed. Secondly, Nomakula can settle her accounts using her mobile banking service, instead of closing the store for several hours and taking a bus to the next town over.

For 20 years or so Nomakula has run her small shop and tavern out of the back of her home in the South African township of Motherwell. Spaza shops are ubiquitous in South Africa, and 80 percent of spaza shop owners are women. Think of it as a low-tech version of a 7-11. Situated near the tourism and manufacturing center of Port Elizabeth, Motherwell is home to 500,000 people, most of them using cash to pay for goods and services or receive payments.

WIZZIT, one of 12 partners working with CGAP’s Technology Program, this week has begun a pilot project here to see how Nomakula and others like her could send and receive money over mobile phones instead of using cash to buy food and drinks from wholesalers. As the press release tells us, the project’s three key components use point-of-sale devices in combination with WIZZIT’s mobile phone banking platform:

A mobile banking payment service for the major wholesalers serving more than 500 microentrepreneurs (spaza shops) in the township of Motherwell, where three in five people are unbanked.

A pilot program for easy account opening and preferred pricing at Dunns outlets—a leading South African clothing retailer. If successful, this pilot program will expand to 289 stores throughout the country. To encourage sign-ups and use, customers will be given incentives to make purchases with their Maestro debit card rather than cash.

Easy account opening using a direct sales model and the South African Post Office for distribution.

Globally, there are only a few examples of successful banking services that reach poor people in remote areas. With this project, CGAP is looking to WIZZIT to demonstrate how the reach of such services can be expanded with mobile technology and local agents who handle cash.

Thursday, Dec. 11 from 2pm – 5pm Eastern we’ll have a live webcast from the World Bank in Washington and if you can’t join us in person, join us online here at the CGAP Technology Blog.

We thought it would be great to get some of our partners together to share what they’re doing with each other – and with you. Share your questions at the end of this blog post, as a comment. We’ll put  them to the panelists on Thursday. Here are the details:

Mobile Banking for Poor People: Pioneer Perspectives
a CGAP roundtable and webinar

Dec. 11, 2008 | 2:00pm – 5:00pm
World Bank Headquarters, Washington DC | online at http://technology.cgap.org

Join CGAP for a lively discussion on how mobile phone banking can deliver a range of financial services to poor people and change lives for the better.

By the end of 2008, the UN says there will be four billion mobile phone connections globally. Millions of air-time resellers and retail agents in developing countries make it possible to distribute financial services at far lower cost than through traditional channels.

Yet in many ways, it is still early days for mobile phone banking. Examples of successful large-scale implementations that target poor customers, and deliver products other than payments and transfers are rare. CGAP, with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is working to increase the numbers of such successful m-banking projects. CGAP has provided technical advice, market research and funding to the following organizations. The goal is to increase the reach and scale of financial services for poor people worldwide.

Panelists
-Nick Hughes, Vodafone Group
-Rizza Maniego-Eala, Globe Telecom (Philippines)
-Sam Kamiti, Equity Bank (Kenya)
-Ali Abbas Sikander, Tameer Bank (Pakistan)
-Ganhuyag Ch. Hutagt, XacBank (Mongolia)
-Brian Richardson, Wizzit (South Africa)
-Carl Johan Rosenquist, c/o Maldives Monetary Authority (Maldives)

Hear real-world experiences with implementing mobile banking solutions at scale, in multiple markets, with a diverse range of clients.

Mobile operators have notched some high profile successes in offering financial services to the poor. Think M-PESA in Kenya or GCash and Smart Money in the Philippines. They’ve have logged several million users for their mobile money transfer services which appear cheaper and more convenient than traditional banking products.

Will banks respond by emulating their new competitors from the mobile world? Banks have an appetite for offering multiple products to their clients, so it would be a boon to the poor if banks wanted to ramp up their offerings via new electronic channels. But the emerging picture is not always rosy.

Many banks see mobile as merely a threat, according to IFC’s Andi Dervishi, who leads investments in alternative-payments systems for the IFC. “Banks remain conservative. They don’t see this as a big opportunity. They are taking a more defensive position, rather than offensive, and not really going after the customer. Their business model needs to be changed.” Countries like India, China, Brazil and Russia now have more mobile phones than ATMs, giving rise to the notion that mobile will support the next wave of innovation in banking in emerging markets where low-revenue customers means banks need to find low-cost channels. But instead of jumping to explore, most banks are playing defense.

Read the rest of this page »

This is an excerpt from a recent CGAP paper, The Early Experience with Branchless Banking. The paper synthesizes the observations and research of the CGAP Technology Program. Gautam Ivatury and Ignacio Mas wrote the paper, with substantial input from the entire program team. This blog series will cover seven observations, four uncertainties and four predictions for branchless banking – what we call mobile banking and other technology-enabled banking solutions.

Know your customer (KYC) requirements on financial institutions have received increasing attention by governments in their anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) initiatives. AML/CFT regulations introduce specific obligations on account opening, including, at the very least, checking the customer’s identity. This poses a particular challenge to branchless banking for two reasons. First, the absence of branches means that banks need to find alternative ways of conducting face-to-face interviews or identity checks, where those are required. Regulations may allow banks to “outsource” this function to a third party (perhaps the cash-in/cash-out agents) , but it remains the bank’s responsibility to ensure KYC procedures are performed adequately. In the Philippines, the growth of rural agent networks has been limited because all agents need to take a Central Bank-supervised training course in Manila before they are allowed to operate. Many agents find this required training to be too costly and disruptive. Second, to the extent that branchless banking targets poorer and more remote customers, it may be more difficult for these customers to show proof of identity at all.

On the other hand, AML/CFT risks associated with branchless banking initiatives can be mitigated by capping account sizes, account functionality, and transaction volumes. As governments’ interest in access to finance grows, they are becoming increasingly pragmatic about KYC requirements, allowing for simplified procedures where risk is limited. In South Africa, the Reserve Bank permits remote account opening for certain types of accounts; this has allowed WIZZIT to undertake KYC procedures through a network of roving “WIZZkids”—often previously unemployed youths.

For branchless banking to develop, governments need to continue to work with providers to find flexible solutions that meet policy and business requirements. It is unlikely that there will be a one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, governments will need to be responsive to proposals coming from providers and to evaluate these proposals based on the risks involved.

This is an excerpt from a recent CGAP paper, The Early Experience with Branchless Banking. The paper synthesizes the observations and research of the CGAP Technology Program. Gautam Ivatury and Ignacio Mas wrote the paper, with substantial input from the entire program team. This blog series will cover seven observations, four uncertainties and four predictions for branchless banking – what we call mobile banking and other technology-enabled banking solutions.
MFI loan officers who visit customers periodically, as well as tellers and representatives at bank branches, are likely to provide greater personal service than branchless banking at an agent or through a mobile phone. The informal financial service providers that many poor people use are also largely founded on human interaction and personal or community relationships.

In a survey CGAP conducted in South Africa, roughly half of those surveyed said they preferred to deal face-to-face with a person rather than with an electronic device, even if the device is quicker. Interestingly, the responses were similar between WIZZIT customers and people who have a mobile phone but do not use it to conduct transactions.

Despite being satisfied with the mobile banking service, users still missed the human touch. Customer research conducted in South Africa pointed at a likely reason for this: having to deal with machine interfaces undermines people’s sense of control over the process. Indeed, a larger proportion of WIZZIT customers than nonmobile-enabled bank customers felt that they had insufficient control over their finances. Similarly, in one anecdote from South Africa, customers using ATMs for the first time checked their balances so frequently that they lost their entire balances to ATM fees.

The same research in South Africa also highlights the need to improve customer awareness of branchless banking and to educate customers about how it works and what it costs. Not understanding the technology is the single most frequent reason given for WIZZIT customers who have stopped using the service. Nonusers thought the cost of the service was on average 14 times more expensive than it really is.

These results demonstrate the importance of marketing and of balancing technology with human interfaces, both to improve awareness and understanding, as well as to improve perceptions of the service. Achieving this through a branchless model will be a challenge.

This is an excerpt from a recent CGAP paper, The Early Experience with Branchless Banking. The paper synthesizes the observations and research of the CGAP Technology Program. Gautam Ivatury and Ignacio Mas wrote the paper, with substantial input from the entire program team. This blog series will cover seven observations, four uncertainties and four predictions for branchless banking – what we call mobile banking and other technology-enabled banking solutions.

Having examined several branchless banking ventures around the world, it appears that less than 10 percent of all branchless banking customers are poor, and new to banking, and are using these channels for financial services (or activities other than paying bills, purchasing air time, or withdrawing government cash benefits). In its study in Pernambuco (a particularly poor state in Brazil), CGAP found that only about 5 percent used a banking agent at least once a month for anything more than paying bills or receiving government payments, were previously unbanked, and were considered poor by Brazil’s standards. Similarly, of about one million mobile banking customers in South Africa, CGAP estimates that fewer than 100,000 fall below South Africa’s poverty line, did not have a bank account earlier, and now use mobile banking for more than payments or transfers. And in Colombia, typical cash transactions through agents are in the range of US$100–200, which suggests that they are not being used by the poorest.

While disappointing to organizations that aim to expand access to finance, this is a fairly natural outcome in the early stages of development of a market following a major innovation. Providers experimenting with a new technology or business model typically seek to reduce risk by focusing on known markets (avoiding the “double gamble” of new business model and new customer segments), and within those on likely “early adopter” subsegments (i.e., those more naturally predisposed to try the new offering).

Indeed, a provider that focuses branchless banking on customer segments it already understands and knows how to market to will find it easier to try out services, assess customer and service profitability, and tailor propositions and market communications messages. For instance, in the Philippines, SMART and Globe Telecom originally advertised their mobile banking services mainly to up-market consumers. SMART combined its mobile prepaid account with a Maestro debit card that can be used at any store that accepts a traditional debitor credit card. SMART’s customer base at year-end 2006 mainly included segments it knew well: four million subscribers had signed up for SmartMoney, and of the 900,000 active users, nearly all were businesses distributing SMART’s prepaid air time.12

Globe Telecom’s GXI Inc., which offers the G-Cash mobile wallet service, estimates that nearly all of its 500,000 active users are individual subscribers in urban areas.13 In fact, the company moved beyond the pilot phase of registering outlets to accept or dispense G-Cash in rural are as late as early 2007. To date, just over 100 agents are registered in rural provinces, compared to the 3,000 air time resellers that Globe Telecom has signed up nationwide directly and the 700,000 airtime resellers hat buy and resell Globe air time.

Most customers are also just dipping their toes in the water. In 2006, CGAP conducted a survey of 515 people in areas served by WIZZIT. Even within the more directly enabled markets—among people who have both a mobile phone and a bank account—the study found, not surprisingly, that those who took up WIZZIT’s mobile banking service on average had a higher income and higher education levels and were more often formally employed, urban, and older. Early adopters were, in general, customers with more sophisticated banking requirements.

That poor people are not usually early adopters of technology can be explained by personal experience (they are likely to have had less exposure to technology and have less access to information about new offerings) as well as the fact that they are less attractive to providers.

This makes the job of governments and donors who are targeting poor people with financial services much harder. Government programs in India, Russia, Malawi, South Africa, and Brazil distribute social protection payments to customers through branchless banking channels. These have been found successful at opening bank accounts for millions of poor customers in some cases (notably Brazil), but have not led to regular use of those accounts to spread expenditure over time—balances tend to be withdrawn in full as soon as payments are received. More research is needed on how poor and excluded clients view their relationship with banking agents and their willingness to trust providers.