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.

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.

Most MFI-led branchless banking initiatives have been small pilots or have had only limited success. Even though MFIs have strong local knowledge, product development acumen, and the ability to manage small loans, most lack the stable core banking systems and specialized technical skill to implement branchless banking models or tap into existing platforms.

In the Philippines, an initiative to let customers of rural banks use G-Cash instead of cash to make deposits and repayments has been constrained in part by the poor quality of banks’ core banking systems. Based on interviews with experts in the field and observations from our own visits, CGAP estimates that the vast majority of the approximately 750 rural banks will need an IT overhaul or major upgrade to participate. In Kenya, an MFI that substituted group loan cash repayments with repayments in M-Pesa found a different problem. Group loan borrowers made fewer on-time repayments under the new system. Customers no longer attended the group meetings that had helped to keep up repayment pressure.

On the other hand, those relatively few MFIs that have the financial resources and skills to deploy branchless banking have been among the first movers. Microfinance banks, including Tameer Bank in Pakistan and Xac Bank in Mongolia, are developing their own mobile banking channels and are partnering with mobile operators to reduce delivery costs and to reach unserved urban and rural areas.

Another way MFIs may get involved is  as partners for banks seeking to expand their market among the unbanked. SKS Microfinance in India has developed a mobile banking initiative in partnership with Andhra Bank, in which customers use designated SKS banking agents to deposit money into Andhra Bank accounts and use a mobile phone to repay SKS microloans. Small MFIs and local community-based organizations can also play on the other side—as correspondents for other, larger banks. This ensures them a steady revenue stream in a synergistic relationship with the larger bank, as long as they target different population segments. An interesting case is the intent of the Andhra Pradesh State government in India to use up to 30,000 village organizations (local federations of self-help groups [SHGs]), to act as a cash agent for payment of social services, for SHG members under their umbrella, as well as for local banks.

Finally, MFIs are also tackling branchless banking as a group to overcome their individual limitations. In Ecuador, for example, the Red Financiera Rural association of MFIs and cooperatives is planning to contract a technology provider to build and maintain core banking systems and branchless banking channels on behalf of the group to minimize up front costs and the expertise needed inside each member organization. This sharing of technology costs and expertise has perhaps the highest potential to bring MFIs onto payment networks and allow them to take advantage of mobile banking and other delivery channels they cannot implement alone.

In the convergence of banking and telecommunication companies, who is taking the lead? It appears that while many banks are deploying mobile banking capabilities to make banking more convenient for their existing customers, those ventures that have attempted to reach new client segments that are new to banking have usually been done in partnership with, if not been led by, a mobile operator.

In fact, none of the early branchless banking projects based on mobile banking was bank led. SMART Communications in the Philippines and MTN in South Africa both constructed a branchless banking proposition using banks to maintain customer accounts. And GXI in the Philippines and Safaricom in Kenya designed mobile banking initiatives without any bank participation at all. In the case of WIZZIT in South Africa, an in dependent provider packaged a mobile-based branchless banking service using South African Bank of Athens as the holder of customer accounts—not mobile operator led, but not bank led either.

Consider the case of M-Pesa, which is close to signing its second millionth registered user within one year of launching nationwide. This amounts to a customer base that is almost one-half of the entire retail banking sector in Kenya. M-Pesa did it in part by building a network of 850 agent locations, a network larger than all bank branches (550) in the country. But this rapid growth is also a result of the head-start that Safaricom has in serving the mass market. Mobile operators in developing countries, including in Kenya, typically strive for rapid coverage of major population areas around the country and, in developing countries, see mass market, prepaid customers as their bread and butter. So a large number of poor and unbanked people a real ready their customers. On the other hand, banks in developing countries generally focus on the top 10–20 percent of the population, in economic terms.

This situation may change in the future, as banks see the potential of mobile banking as a tool for developing branchless banking to extend reach. Equity Bank in Kenya, Tameer Bank in Pakistan, and Xac Bank in Mongolia are now starting to pursue mobile banking to extend reach. But the question remains: why have market-expanding mobile-banking-based projects tended to be led by mobile operators rather than banks? We offer several reasons.

First, because mobile operators generally run a national infrastructure, they must market themselves very broadly and avoid niche strategies, however lucrative those niches might be. Hence, mobile operators may be better predisposed to the concept of branchless banking as a means of achieving mass adoption of (communications-based) financial services. Banks on the other hand, are more driven by specific customer and segment profitability measures within defined geographies and, thus, tend to view mobile banking as supporting key segments rather than as a way of reaching new ones. More generally, mobile operators inhabit a far more competitive industry than banks in most developing countries.

Second, mobile operators have more experience running networks of third-party agents (air time resellers). In fact, mobile operators may be running some of the largest retail franchises in-country. This ready-made agent network gives mobile operators a strong position from which to start branchless banking operations, or at least to negotiate partnering arrangements with banks.

Third, mobile operators have experience running high-volume, low-value transactional engines, in the form of prepaid platforms. However, mobile operators have found that their preexisting prepaid platforms were not able to support general-purpose branchless banking accounts because of the higher transactional volume and accounting requirements of such accounts. Still, they had the vendor relationships and in-house skills necessary to upgrade their platforms.

Fourth, because mobile operators control the interface for mobile banking (through the mobile phone itself and the SIM card) , they can provide a more secure and appealing customer experience. The SIM card contains the operator’s own security keys, which places the operator in the best position to authenticate the customer. The SIM card can store the security keys of other providers, including banks, but this need to be done with the consent of the mobile operator. The SIM card also can house a SIM toolkit application that can be used to drive an extension of the standard phone menu that includes the mobile banking application, for ease of use by the customer. Because the SIM card’s memory is controlled by the operator, this application needs to be delivered to the SIM card by the operator (either preloaded or over-the-air). Hence, without collaboration from the mobile operator, a mobile banking provider would need to rely on user interfaces that are less user friendly, such as basic SMS, or with which users are less familiar, such as WAP browsing.

On the other hand, from a brand point of view, a survey CGAP conducted in South Africa suggested that fewer people would trust a mobile banking service if it were backed by a mobile operator rather than a bank, but the difference was relatively small.

The main implication is that because mobile operators have controlled the “last mile” to the mobile banking customer, very few branchless banking operations have been able to ensure interoperability across mobile networks. Only WIZZIT among the major mobile-enabled branchless banking initiatives works across all networks in the country. But to standardize its service across operators it has had to force customer store member a standard set of short codes to launch a standard WIZZIT menu, rather than providing a custom WIZZIT menu delivered by each operator.

If this trend continues, authorities will face important competition issues. The mobile industry is an oligopoly, especially in developing countries, where the smaller market size may justify only two or three competitors. Having these players dominate the branchless banking market may not be a palatable option for banking regulators and competition authorities alike.

On the other hand, there are attempts in several countries to establish shared mobile standards. An interesting project to watch is the mobile platform being established by Redeban in Colombia, which so far has two banks and all three operators on board, although the platform is not yet fully transactional. Similarly, the Maldives Monetary Authority is building a shared mobile payments platform that will be interoperable across all operators and banks in the country.

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.

Customers primarily make payments and send transfers through branchless banking channels, even when most branchless banking channels offer a broader range of services, including account opening, cash deposits, and cash withdrawals. Most customers either time their deposits to coincide with bill payments or cash withdrawals, leaving a near-zero balance in their accounts, or they do not open a savings account at all. Consider the following experiences:

• In Brazil, bill payments and the payments of government benefits to individuals comprised 78 percent of the 1.53 billion transactions conducted at the country’s more than 95,000 agents in 2006. CGAP research in Brazil found that, of the 750 people who responded to a survey in Pernambuco State, 90 percent reported using banking agents to pay utility and other bills, only 5 percent reported opening a bank account at the agent, and less than 5 percent said they had made a cash deposit in to their bank account at an agent.7 Indeed, 87 percent of those who had opened an account stated that they had done so just to receive welfare or salary payments.

• In Russia, more than 100,000 automated payment terminals have sprung up in the larger cities in recent years. One provider, CyberPlat, claims to have processed 1.2 billion transactions worth US$4.7 billion through the first three quarters of 2007 via its 70,000 “cash acceptance” points, mostly for prepaid air time, television, Internet, and other utilities.

• The average mobile banking customer of WIZZIT (a mobile phone banking provider in South Africa) bought air time with WIZZIT twice as often (2.6 times) as they withdrew funds from a branch or ATM (1.3 times), and five times as often as they made a money transfer (0.5 times).

Customers use payments and transfers rather than banking services in part because providers focus their marketing efforts on payments and transfers. M-Pesa advertises its service as “an affordable, fast, convenient, and safe way to transfer money by SMS any where in Kenya,” and WIZZIT’s slogan is “the easy way to pay.” Mobile operators, in particular, prefer marketing payments services rather than the ability to store value because payments services are a closer fit with their traditional revenue model (e.g., per minute or per SMS). Some mobile operators argue that if they did advertise the ability of their mobile banking services to take deposits, they would run afoul of the approvals they’ve received from banking regulators.

The predominance of payments services over savings also likely reflects the perceived relative value that each service brings to the economic lives of the poor. Using banking agents and electronic payments to pay utility bills takes less time than traveling to and queuing in a range of utility offices, thereby bringing very tangible benefits. Similarly, collecting a pension, remittance receipt, and welfare or salary payment is a strong driver for opening accounts.

On the other hand, the value proposition of saving money, particularly in electronic form, appears to be less strong. The former head of Banco Postal in Brazil reported that, in rural areas in particular, his team spent considerable effort trying to explain to customers why they should have a bank account at all.10 It seems that although branchless banking has brought formal banking services physically closer to many unbanked people, it hasn’t changed their perceptions of the value proposition of saving in formal financial institutions. When they receive a payment or a remittance, an overwhelming majority of people go to the agent to withdraw the full amount received.

We believe that, over time, as customers increase their use of branchless channels to make a broader range of payments, they will start to find more value in maintaining transactional or savings balances in their account. In the meantime, more research must be done to distinguish how customers feel about savings in general, about the benefits of saving in banks, and about the branch and branchless channels available to them.

The success of agents in Brazil—achieving 100 percent coverage of municipalities—hinged in no small degree on the fact that utility bill paying is considered a banking service and cannot be done at nonbank outlets. This created a natural captive market of transactions for new correspondents opening up in towns without prior bank presence, where previously residents had no choice but to travel to nearby towns to pay their utility bills. In other countries, such as Colombia, local stores may have collection contracts with utilities, and it has proven much harder for correspondents to seize the utility payments business upon entering the market.

Branchless banking can dramatically reduce the cost of delivering financial services to poor people

We believe branchless banking can offer basic banking services to customers at a cost of at least 50 percent less than what it would cost to serve them through traditional channels. Branchless banking helps address the two biggest problems of access to finance: the cost of roll-out (physical presence) and the cost of handling low-value transactions. This is achieved by leveraging networks of existing third-party agents for cash transactions and account opening and by conducting all transactions online. This sharp cost reduction creates the opportunity to significantly increase the share of the population with access to formal finance and, in particular, in rural areas where many poor people live.

The biggest cost saving is on transactions that can be done completely electronically, through mobile banking. In the Philippines, a typical transaction through a bank branch costs the bank US$2.50; this would cost only US$0.50 if it were automated by using a mobile phone (Asian Banker 2007).

The cost reduction from using agents rather than banks for remote cash transactions is equally dramatic. Banco de Credito in Peru estimates that a cash transaction at a branch costs about US$0.85, while the same transaction at an agent would cost US$0.32.4 Tameer Bank in Pakistan estimates that, in the Orangi slum of Karachi, the set up cost of a bank branch would be 30 times more than the set up cost per agent, which is about US$1,400. Monthly running costs average about US$28,000 for a branch, compared with US$300 for an agent, but also, a much larger share of monthly running costs is variable for an agent than for a branch.

It is early morning in Bukura, a small village in Western Kenya. The shop-keeper and his wife are preparing to open their small store, which sells household commodities such as flour and cooking oil. They also offer M-PESA services. There is already a queue outside. A group of about twenty villagers are crowding the entrance. “It is always like this,” the shop-keeper complains while pointing to the crowd. “Since we have become M-PESA agents we have no time to rest. This thing has even over-run our other business”. He then holds up a packet of sugar. “We have not sold any sugar in months. They only want M-PESA”. Not just the Bukura agent has seen a great demand for M-PESA services. Since its introduction in March of 2007, the M-PESA application has had great success all over Kenya. There are currently over 2.3 million registered users. Over 18 Billion Ksh had been moved through the system, via person-to-person transfers.

Some of the work that I have been doing makes several arguments as to why M-PESA has become so popular. Firstly, it is the young, male, urban migrants who are driving the uptake of services – customer adoption. These migrants are what innovation researchers call ‘early adopters’ of a technology. They are usually better educated and earn higher incomes than those in the village. Because these migrants are the senders, they can choose the channel for money transfer. They then influence recipients in the rural area—who are usually female, less educated and poorer—to also use M-PESA. This segment is referred to as the ‘technology laggards’. They are usually the last, and often the least likely, to adopt an innovation.

This research also notes some barriers to adoption. Both agents and customers complain of cash float problems, especially in the rural areas. Because the majority of transactions in the village are withdrawals, agents must maintain their cash float. They do this by making frequent trips to the bank. This can be problematic if the agent is not close to an urban centre, where most banks in Kenya are located. An agent in Malaha, a small village in Western Kenya, commented, “almost every day I ride my bicycle to Kakamega to top-up my float. This takes me almost three hours. I have to leave at 6am because I want to be there when the bank opens. I must then come back again and serve my customers”. When asked if there was any other means of transport to Kakamega, the agent shook his head. He said that he was several kilometres away from the main road. He also said that he could not afford to pay the 200 ksh fee for the matatu (shared taxi).

Despite these cash float problems, the majority of customers in both the urban and rural areas assert that they prefer M-PESA over other money transfer services. This means that M-PESA must be offering them some kind of substantial benefit. In Bukura, this benefit comes in the form of savings on transport. Customers do not need to travel into Kakamega, the nearest town, to access the service. One elderly farmer commented that “I can just walk from my shamba (farm) and get money. I don’t have to spend and go into town. If the agent does not have cash today, then I will come back tomorrow. It is cheaper to wait”. Finding strategies to manage the cash float problem will undoubtedly be one of the greatest challenges for Safaricom. For now, however, it seems like customers are willing to accept the inefficiencies of the service. It is, after all, cheaper to wait.

Here is a report from the Business Standard on the move. Excerpt:

The wait for rolling out mobile banking seems to be over, with the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) issuing draft operative norms for such payment system. Now, RBI said, it will be easier and safer to use mobile phones for carrying out a gamut of banking transactions.

Banks can offer mobile-based services only to their own customers. Banks should have a system of registration before commencing mobile-based payment service to a customer, RBI said.