To promote effective regulation of branchless banking, especially mobile banking, CGAP, DFID, and the Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI) have organized the third Global Leadership Seminar for high-level policymakers and regulators who set policy for branchless banking, including mobile banking. CGAP’s Technology Program and AFI are supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This week we’re blogging from the seminar. One session on branchless banking from the consumer’s point of view (download the presentation here) was chaired by Daryl Collins, a Senior Associate at Bankable Frontiers and co – author of the influential Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day. The book draws on year-long surveys of financial diaries from families in Bangladesh, India and South Africa. The surprise conclusion: many of the people they tracked were not living hand-to-mouth. Rather, the poor often rely on a variety of complex tactics and tools to manage money.
How are people who live on $2 a day different from, say, the people who are reading this blog? How would you sum up the financial needs of poor consumers?
When it comes to major cash flow, like incomes, most of us have got a predictable pattern and we can plan our financial lives. Poor people have low, unpredictable incomes, where it’s hard to have mechanisms to siphon off income to save money, service a loan, etc. We’re used to having a monthly or biweekly pattern to our financial lives as we get paid a regular salary on a regular basis. Having a predictable pattern means being able to plan your financial life. If you’re talking about people who don’t have a salaried job, their income is irregular. Many of the people who live on $2 a day don’t have that predictability and so their financial lives revolve around mitigating uncertainty.
Talk a bit more about the issue of unreliability and informal financial services.
It is crucial to be able to leave your money in a safe place. Formal services generally offer more safety than informal services, but the problem is that formal services are less convenient. This isn’t just about transaction costs - the time and money spent on a bus or taxi ride as you get to the bank. It’s not even about waiting in line for a long time at a bank branch. It’s also about the mental accounting behind making transactions. If people think they can get at their money more easily, when they want it, then they will feel comfortable about shifting away from informal devices and towards a formal service.
What can we learn from “Portfolios of the Poor” that applies to branchless/mobile banking?
You need to make a service convenient and flexible. So if someone can walk up to a banking agent in their neighborhood and make a transaction, they’ll use it. Formal financial instruments, such as a bank account, are not always flexible enough to meet the demands and challenges created by the irregular cash flows that many poor people live with day in and day out. So making services more affordable and geographically closer to the poor – something that mobile banking does – can help expand the reach of the formal financial system.
The real story here is about expanding the reach and reducing the cost of formal financial services to better meet the needs of poor consumers.
Yes. We have seen that poor people manage their money in a variety of ways, not all of which work well. The services they have available to them are not lined up with their cash flows. Informal financial instruments, such as savings clubs, do a better job at matching cash flows to savings points and being more convenient. But informal services tend to have their own costs, which really center on unreliability. Branchless banking may help people begin to tilt their portfolios towards more formal uses. But we need to be realistic about how quickly this might happen. People are not about to leave informal instruments and go completely into the formal. it’s a subtle shift that will grow over time.
-Daryl Collins, as told to Jim Rosenberg
Next: The consumer experience in Brazil and Kenya, and implications for policymakers.
From the twelfth floor of a tower block with beautiful views over Accra, Bruno Akpaka is overseeing the roll out of MTN Mobile Money in Ghana. There is a buzz about the office, and there appear to be far more people than the team of six that Bruno claims make up his team. When I ask him about this, Bruno explains that more than two-thirds of the staff on the floor are employed by the partner banks that run the back office functions. Spending some time with Bruno unveiled that this is not the only thing that is different about Mobile Money. There are three main differences to other models around the world which are worth exploring.
Amitabh Saxena started the Alternative Channels workstream at ACCION in 2006 after spending several years in developing credit card products for Capital One’s Innovation Center. He has worked in strategy and implementation of various channels, particularly prepaid cards and mobile, for ACCION’s partner microfinance institutions (MFIs) in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
Remember MFIs? Ten years ago they were front and center in delivering financial services to the poor. These days, it seems that you’re more likely to see the likes of retailers like Wal-Mart (Mexico), mobile operators such as Safaricom (Kenya), or even post offices (Brazil) in the same sentence as “access to financial services”. Are MFIs, then, still relevant in branchless banking?
Safaricom and Equity Bank announced a tie-up which enables M-PESA’s 8.5 million users to withdraw funds at Equity’s 550 ATMs (the largest ATM network in the country), which may help relieve some problems of agents not having cash.
Equity made a tie-up in Dec. with Essar, who bought the 4th mobile license in Kenya last year and recently launched the 3rd mobile banking service in the country. Equity’s branches will serve as agents for its service YU. However, this is all one way to withdraw from a mobile wallet at a bank’s ATMs. Bank customers can’t yet go to an agent and withdraw money from their bank account. But that’s coming soon….
It’s not just banks and telecom firms in the headlines. This week, the Central Bank of Kenya plans to distribute for comment draft regulations which will finally enable banks to use agents (about 3 years since Safaricom started using agents for its M-PESA service).
A sound financial sector rests on timely and accurate information: microfinance institutions (MFIs) require information to monitor their business and make decisions, and supervisors rely on information to verify the soundness and stability of institutions and the market as a whole. At the foundation of this process lies the MFI’s “back office”, which can be broadly defined as the people, processes, and in some cases but not always, technology which help institutions manage their business.
A good back office system lies at the core of every successful financial institution. In many cases, however, MFIs struggle to generate accurate information and reports for themselves, funders, and supervisors. This limits the soundness and efficiency of MFIs, reduces the government’s ability to supervise the market, and in turn, negatively impacts the expansion of access to financial services.
EasyPaisa, the m-banking service by Telenor and Tameer, went live on Oct 14. They call it the “largest branchless banking service in Pakistan” on their website where you can watch a couple of the ads that people may have been discovering on You Tube.
Photo courtesy Patrick Cooks
3000 agents have been set-up to handle both bill payments and remittances. They aim to have many more trained and branded by Jan. They have covered the country with marketing, promoting the brand everywhere and pushing people to the agent network. The advertising has generated a lot of buzz and interest and their two call centers are fielding over 5000 calls a day. As of two weeks ago, they had all the major billers signed up and those previously not interested were now calling them (see here about a minor scuffulle in the media about billers which seems to have passed).
They are seeing modest success. Within the first few days, they handled 20,000 bill payments ranging from very large to small at an average ticket size of $13.
Why is this launch any more interesting than what we are seeing in other markets?
First, it is true that even in Pakistan, m-banking services have been live for a while. Mobilink partnered with the post office chain and has been in the market for almost a year. But what is unique about EasyPaisa is the business model. Telenor owns part of Tameer and that provides for unique advantages on the cost side and benefits in terms of product design.
Second, the partnership illustrates the possible tie-ups between a MF provider and a MNO. In this case, the MNO bought the MFI. In other cases, the MNO could strike a revenue sharing arrangement with the MFI in exchange for access to its distribution.
Third, the partnership illustrates how regulation and policy decisions from both the banking and telecom side can add up to produce impact. On the banking side, regulation opened up the market for the use of retail stores as agents (CGAP has been involved with branchless banking regulation in Pakistan from the beginning). Regulation made it possible for a bank and telecom operator to enter into unique partnership arrangements.
On the telecom side, MNOs are in a race to the bottom in their core business. Prepaid ARPUs are half of what they were three years ago. This race to the bottom has been precipitated by new licenses (there are seven operators in the market today) and number portability. MNOs had to climb the value chain of services faster than what you might see in the other markets.
The EasyPaisa service is within the bounds of the vision and strategy CGAP set out with Tameer Bank originally: it is both bill payments and remittances (our original financial model was with bill payments); people have the option of opening a savings account; KYC is automated using the national ID which now covers over 50 million people.
We have a lot to be optimistic about but one of our main concerns right now is that account opening is possible only at a subset of agents, roughly a third of the network. This is because of SBP requirements over account opening. While EasyPaisa locations where you can open an account are still sizeable in number, we know from the M-pesa experience (and common sense) that you want to make it as easy as possible to get people to start transacting. People will be able to do cash-only transactions (cash to cash or cash to account) at all EasyPaisa locations; so that helps. But we are figuring out a way to make account opening possible at all agents - possibly a specialized device or a document management system or something else.
As you review the businesses I briefly described in yesterday’s post, you may want to keep the following in mind.
First, in every case, there is always a bank in the picture – holding funds, issuing e-money, issuing an account – and the bank’s role itself and what the bank charges for its services is an interesting aspect of the business model.
Second, because we are talking about businesses that serve people who live largely in a cash economy, distribution networks are extremely critical. Charging customers to convert cash to electronic and vice-versa is part of the revenue pie.
Third, mobile network operators are uniquely positioned in this business. For example, let’s take a MNO as a money service provider. If (1) the MNO runes that business as a stand-alone P&L (and not another telecom product) and (2) they can make use of their existing distribution, then they are likely to see mostly variable costs. As illustrated in the chart, in a typical mobile money business, MNOs may incur marketing and agent/distribution commission costs with heavy spend upfront on marketing and increasing on agent commissions as their distribution network grows.
Third, regulation and what the regulator will permit set up incentives for what kinds of partnerships businesses strike, if any. Philippines, India and Kenya are countries where the impact of regulation on business models is quite explicit.
Yesterday I listed five business arrangements. There is a sixth business worth mentioning. You don’t see much of it and, frankly, it is not entirely a new business to begin with: a bank pursuing an agent+mobile channel as an alternate to branches. While not an entirely new business model, we know that this “mobile+agent” model presents a unique set of challenges for banks. It is not business-as-usual for them. It is not only fee-based transaction products, but the service is being delivered at scale to people transacting at low values. It is no surprise that we see banks and microfinance providers having limited success with this channel. Basix’s bank in India has set-up a distribution network and they have been successful in servicing loans through that channel. Tameer Microfinance Bank had modest success with agents in the slum of Orangi in Karachi but that channel has now been scaled-up in their tie-up with Telenor.
The m-banking industry (for the unbanked) has become accustomed to describing m-banking businesses as bank-led, telco-led, and third-party. The three categories are particularly useful in explaining who is driving the business operationally and who might control the revenues. The categories have particular currency in policy circles where the top-line question is what to do with non-banks.
I am particularly intrigued by the different arrangements we see today and would ideally prefer a typology of sorts that helps us make sense of a more complex market. For example, it is useful perhaps to ask where is Safaricom likely to take M-PESA next and situating M-PESA as something other than telco-led may help us shed a light on that future.
People working on social protection policy and financial inclusion don’t always find a lot of common ground. In fact, some would say they put out competing views of poverty alleviation: direct payments from the government to raise incomes, or increasing poor people’s access to financial services to help weather shocks and increase incomes. Of course, this is an over-simplification, and somewhat artificial. Both want the same end (poverty alleviation) and neither casts itself as the magic bullet. There’s a good 20+ years of thinking on how social protection and financial inclusion are mutually reinforcing, including somewhat famously the idea of Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) as created by Michael Sherraden.
There’s a new surge of interest, this time looking at how the impact of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) can be magnified by providing recipients with basic financial services.
I recently participated in a panel on the topic organized by The New America Foundation’s Jamie Zimmerman, who along with Yves Moury, have authored a paper on the topic. Here’s the video.
My take? If linking the poor to financial services helps them, why stop at CCTs? Let’s look at a wider world of government-to-person (G2P) payments, including other types of social welfare payments as well as wages and pensions. By CGAP’s estimate, more than 155 million of the world’s poor receive a regular payment from their government. But far less than 1/4 land in an account.
Those of us working on the financial inclusion need to line up the evidence to convince social policymakers that bolting on basic bank accounts for recipients will have benefits. And crucially, we need to boost the business case for banks to provide basic banking to poor G2P recipients on a profitable basis. One key will be deploying on more cost-effective delivery channels — such as point of sale terminals at existing merchants in the community rather than expensive bank branches.
One day each way – costing nearly US$10 total is what some Maldivians who have a bank account have to pay in order to exchange cash. The archipelago of the Maldives is about 1,600 kilometers to the south of Mumbai. I was there recently - not for a vacation but to begin work on a nationally-representative survey of the 300,000 people who live there. Working with our partners, we want to know how people use banking services: What are the usage patterns, transaction costs, levels of mobile network penetration?
