This is a guest blog by Ignacio Mas, an independent consultant who has written extensively on mobile money. He is former Senior Advisor with the Financial Services for the Poor team at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and at the Technology and Business Model Innovation Program at CGAP.
Mobile money feels right for mobile network operators (MNOs): it is an extension of the basic prepaid platform and distribution networks they already operate. Mobile money does require greater surveillance against fraud and money laundering measures, but it’s all fundamentally about secure messaging.
From a telecoms regulation point of view, mobile money is another instance of a value added service and those tend to receive a light regulatory treatment. All the specific regulations that pertain to the safety and soundness of mobile money –who can issue accounts, conditions of service, data security and privacy standards, supervisory treatment, consumer protections, etc.— should be the domain of the banking regulator.
But MNO participation in retail payments presents competitive challenges which banking and telecoms operators will need to monitor closely and perhaps address jointly. The problem is that MNOs are both component suppliers and direct competitors to banks wanting to offer mobile financial services. There is a risk that MNOs transfer market power from their core market to the emerging retail mobile payments market, in such a way as to effectively shut banks out of mobile payments. In the future, most financial services can be expected to have a mobile component, so such a situation would have severe implications for competition in the financial inclusion space more broadly.
This is quite understandably spooking many banking regulators into preventing MNOs from playing directly in the payments/banking space. That’s unfortunate, the fact is that we need to enlist MNOs to push the frontiers of financial access, while guarding against any potential abuses of market power on their side. We need to allow MNOs to contest the market without dominating it.
Authorities need to identify specifically those components of mobile communication services over which MNOs have bottleneck control and which are essential for the provision of mobile financial services. One asset MNOs control is the SIM card – a smartcard which identifies every mobile user. Access to the SIM card provides benefits in terms of security, since SIM cards may contain pre-loaded security keys which can implement end-to-end data encryption from the mobile handset all the way to the transaction authorization server. Access to the SIM card might also enhance the usability of services, since the SIM card controls the on-the-phone menu onto which mobile money can be incorporated directly.
However, there is no precedent worldwide for establishing equal access rules to SIM cards, as unbundling the SIM card might have severe implications for the security of mobile networks. In any case, the problem of proprietary control over the SIM card is mitigated if banks can build an equivalent service through other means.
MNOs also control the phone’s communications (or bearer) channel. The more common channels, such as voice, SMS (the protocol underlying text messaging) and packet-data (under various flavors such as GPRS, EDGDE, 3G or HSDPA), are broadly made available by MNOs under standard commercial offers. In this case, it should be fairly easy to establish and monitor a requirement of non-discriminatory access by banks and third-party providers of mobile money services to these channels. Since the market for these bearer services is sufficiently large and lucrative for the MNOs, we can expect MNOs not to over-price their voice and SMS services or to degrade the quality of their service specifically to lock out banks from using them to construct competing mobile money services.
The challenge is with a less common bearer service called USSD (Unstructured Supplementary Service Data), which is not widely commercialized by most operators. (You may recognize it as the service you use when you are asked to dial a sequence of numbers starting with star and ending with hash after you buy a scratch card.) The session-based nature of USSD presents two strong advantages over SMS as a channel for mobile financial services: it lends itself to implementing network-based menus which makes it easier to use, and it entails no storage of messages anywhere which makes it more secure. It may also be more feasible than using voice in countries where voice tariffs are still expensive, or packet-data in countries where most people still use simple phones. For banks without access to the SIM card, USSD may be the only realistic option.
In this case, simply stating non-discriminatory access to the USSD service may not suffice as long as USSD is used primarily for banking services, since MNOs may price it specifically to preclude competition from emerging in mobile financial services. Therefore, the telecoms regulator ought to monitor USSD pricing to see if it bears a reasonable relationship with the price of alternative access channels such as voice and SMS. Moreover, an operator might be forced to offer USSD to other mobile financial service providers provided that: (i) the operator has an installed USSD capability (even if it is only used for the MNO’s own purposes, such as airtime top-ups), and(ii) the operator is offering its own mobile financial service through a proprietary channel (e.g. SIM-based) not available to others.
These actions –monitoring MNOs for potential discriminatory pricing and service quality on voice and SMS, and monitoring USSD offers to prevent undue denial of service or pricing that does not bear sufficient relationship with the pricing of other channels— fall in the first instance in the domain of the telecoms regulator, since these are purely about the channel and not higher-level financial services. Of course, the banking regulator could play a vigorous role in helping banks present their case to the telecoms regulator if they feel discriminated against, or to competition authorities if the situation warrants escalation or the telecoms regulator lacks the necessary powers to intervene.
Authorities ought to pass a clear and strong message that MNOs can play at the financial services layer if they play fairly at the communications layer. This might be expressed around a protocol or memorandum of understanding signed jointly by the banking and telecoms authorities, stating how the various authorities will work together and laying out the competition standards to which they will hold MNOs.
This regulatory vigilance will be essential until such time when everyone has a smartphone and the phone (rather than the SIM card) can perform locally all security and menu presentation services. At that point, banks will have credible options to build their own mobile financial services with minimal control by the MNOs. Banking will just be an app on your phone, which anyone can download. That competitive nirvana is now more imaginable than ever, but it is still a ways off in developing countries.
This is the fifth and final post in our series on remittances and branchless banking. You can read the first four posts here. So far, we have highlighted the emerging success factors and challenges featured in our 2012 landscaping exercise. Paolo Baltao from Globe’s GCASH shared with us the lessons learned over a period of eight years during which time he led one of the first services to link remittances to a mobile wallet. Subsequently, Stefan Staschen explored the untapped opportunities in leveraging the large flows of remittances between Russia and Tajikistan by linking them to other financial products. This week, we revisit the study conducted by CGAP and Dalberg Global Development Advisors, by focusing on the role of bigger players such as Western Union and BICS Homesend in consolidating existing corridors and accelerating further adoption.
Since we started this series, new remittance data from several countries has been released by the World Bank. This newly available dataset reveals that officially recorded remittance flows to developing countries reached $372 billion in 2011, an increase of 12.1 percent over 2010. This is higher than our earlier estimate of $351 billion. While there is clearly some market potential there, so far we have seen that uptake for mobile enabled remittances services has been anaemic to say the least.
Source: CGAP & Dalberg Global Development Advisors
As our understanding of the factors that lead to customer adoption of branchless banking expands, there is a growing consensus that for international remittances services to reach a significant level of scale, they will require an existing mobile money ecosystem that allows for downstream transactions which give users access to a wider array of cost-effective services and products such as payments and access to savings. This will provide not only value-added for consumers but also the much needed transaction revenue for providers. It is evident that these recalibrated strategies will no longer place remittances as the core driver for adoption, but factor them in as one of the many financial services which can be provided to a customer once a branchless banking ecosystem has reached a certain level of maturity and depth.
One thing is certain: although some new innovative models have emerged, traditional remittance providers or MTOs like Western Union still have a huge advantagethrough the benefits they offer to partners. These include fast access to a broad range of sending countries as well as significant brand recognition and regulatory compliance, though often at the expense of their partner’s pricing power (an expense which could end up being passed on to consumers, ultimately reducing the demand for these types of services). Nevertheless, Western Union has already launched mobile money transfer services in nine countries: Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Canada, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, the Philippines, Tanzania and the U.S, and in the last couple of months, has announced strategic alliances with MTN Uganda, Roshan in Afghanistan and Tigo in Paraguay. This move will allow senders to remit funds directly into the recipient’s mobile wallets from any of Western Union’s agent locations around the world. It is evident that MNOs remain optimistic about deploying international remittances through mobile money, yet they are increasingly aware that the full benefits will only be realized in the long-term. As mobile money ecosystems become more mature in these markets, these flows could play a pivotal role in consolidating corridors and accelerating adoption.
Alternately, hub providers such as BICS Homesend are now making it possible to integrate mobile wallets or money transfer systems of two different providers. Besides facilitating services that are mobile centric from sender to receiver, HomeSend can provide access to other service providers, such as MTOs and banks which can offer technical solutions to streamline domestic interoperability between systems and competing regulatory frameworks. Given their structure, Homesend is a cheaper alternative to giants such as Western Union and can provide a more flexible partnership without having to cede too much control from the side of the operator or bank. However, they don’t have the same instant global reach and given their lack of direct interface with mobile wallet users, they are completely reliant on their partners to market and push transactions which make the issue of consumer education even more critical.
Nevertheless, operators seem to remain optimistic over the long-term opportunity to deploy international remittances through mobile money, and hope it will eventually contribute to the economic viability of their deployments through the added revenue opportunities for them and their agent networks. It remains to be seen how these remittance flows are actually tied to specific financial products and services. Only then will the real impact of mobile-enabled remittances on the unbanked be uncovered.
Last week, we began a blog series and released a CGAP report on international remittances through mobile banking channels. The series continues this week with guest blogger Paolo Baltao, President of G-Xchange, Inc. (GXI), a wholly owned subsidiary of Globe Telecom in the Philippines. G-Xchange’s GCASH is one of the first mobile wallet services in the world and has been offering international remittances since 2004. In this post, Paolo shares some of the lessons GXI has learned in the past eight years.
My home country of the Philippines has a very strong culture of migration and nearly 1 in 10 Filipinos lives and works outside the country. As a result, we rely very heavily on international remittances. In fact, the Philippines is one of the top five recipients of remittances globally and receives about $19 billion of remittances a year. When we first started GCASH back in 2004, focusing our offering around international remittances seemed like a no-brainer. We thought this would be the low hanging fruit and the engine that would drive the domestic mobile wallet business and the roll-out of our agent network. We also thought that this product would be a natural one to attract unbanked customers and that it would be easy to get them to receive their remittances through the mobile wallet.
In our first years of operation, we put an enormous amount of time and energy into developing partnerships with almost 100 international remittance partners, enabling people in locations as diverse as Hong Kong, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, UK, and the US to send money home via GCASH.
Unfortunately, despite all this potential and the network that we have built around the world, international remittances have not been the engine to drive customer adoption in the Philippines. A few key lessons we have learned are:
A strong domestic ecosystem should be in place before launching international remittances – After many trials and error, we have learned that it is essential to first build a critical mass in the user base through the domestic mobile wallet business. According to the new CGAP study, it seems that this is a very common realization around the world. We faced many challenges in developing this product, especially customer education on both receiving and sending ends and building partnerships with money transfer operators around the world. International remittances are just not low-hanging fruit we initially thought and we spent a lot of time and effort trying to build the business that we now feel should have been focused on building a domestic ecosystem. A significant domestic ecosystem will allow users that eventually receive international remittances to conduct many “downstream” activities such as paying bills, domestic transfers and savings. Without this, it was hard to convince customers of the benefits of receiving funds through GCASH. Read the rest of this page »
CGAP and Dalberg Global Development Advisors recently conducted a landscaping study of international remittances through mobile money. Download the reportto read details of the industry landscape in 2012, emerging success factors, challenges and innovations as well as seven case studies. This blog post is the first in a five part series examining international remittances and branchless banking. Andria Thomas is Project Manager at Dalberg.
Since remittances to developing countries were estimated at about $351 billion for 2011, capturing even a small share of this market could be a transformational opportunity for mobile money providers – right?
Perhaps, but it’s not as easy as one might think. Building on our landscaping study of international remittances through branchless banking conducted at the end of 2010, we set out to analyze the growing industry of international remittances through mobile money as it continues to evolve today. We paid particular attention to offerings that allow a customer to receive funds from abroad directly into a mobile wallet which can be converted to cash at a large agent network. We wanted to understand whether international remittances are helping build the mobile money business. Can international remittances be a tool to improve the value proposition for agents? Are they a hook for attracting new customers or driving more transactions? And, fundamentally, do they provide a more efficient path to build the mobile money ecosystem?
In the past 18 months, the total number of deployments with a cash-out option via a mobile wallet increased from 8 to 17. Some innovative approaches are emerging, such as KlickEx’s leveraging of foreign exchange trading to lower transaction costs and BICS HomeSend’s interoperability across players within a corridor.
Still, we found a number of reasons to be skeptical of the short-term value of international remittances to mobile money deployments. Some key lessons which emerged from the study include:
It’s not a chicken-and-egg problem; a functioning mobile money ecosystem needs to precede success in international remittances. First movers in international remittances anticipated that this product would drive mobile money usage. However, establishing a functioning agent network and providing complementary “downstream” transactions such as bill payments and domestic transfers are now seen as necessary precursors to success in international remittances.
Even success stories such as M-PESA have not made significant traction with international remittances. Safaricom and Vodacom recently rolled out M-PESA-tied international remittances in Kenya and Tanzania respectively, but early usage has been “miniscule.” Attracting users – even those who are already comfortable with a mobile wallet – still requires a heavy marketing and education push on both the sending and receiving ends. In the list of business priorities, the investment in this area is not seen as the best resource allocation. Read the rest of this page »
CGAP, Grameen Foundation and MTN Uganda are introducing Grameen Foundation’s AppLab Money Incubator, a new initiative that develops mobile financial products for the poor. In this blog post, Project Manager Olga Morawczynski and Operations and Strategy Manager Lisa Kienzle introduce AppLab Money and explain how customer insights will be transformed into viable products offered by MTN Uganda. This is the final post in a series about product innovation in branchless banking.
Courtesy of AppLab
If we want to move the mobile financial services sector beyond payments and create products that reach every level of society, we have to be creative. The industry requires product innovation that focuses on customer desires, use patterns, and needs, and then translates these findings into viable products. In Uganda, Grameen Foundation’s AppLab is partnering with MTN and CGAP to do this by launching a product incubator: AppLab Money.
At AppLab Money, we will dedicate 100% of our time and resources to researching, prototyping and testing innovative products in line with AppLab’s approach to sustainable product development. Our agreement with MTN Uganda enables us to sit in MTN’s office, test on its network, analyze the company’s data and swap ideas with its staff. If we find that there is demand for a product that is commercially viable for MTN, we will work to scale it in Uganda.
The key to innovation is a strong research process, and AppLab Money uses several complementary research methods to understand the financial lives of the poor. Data mining and surveys help us make generalizations about the needs and habits of potential customers. Financial diaries and ethnographic methods allow us to determine why such habits exist. What follows is one example of an interesting insight that emerged on a recent field visit that could be translated into a product that poor customers could find exciting: on our trip, we noticed that everyone loves gambling.
Read our two previous blogs in this series on branchless banking in India here.
An Eko agent offering the tatkal service
Eko was the first company dedicated to a mobile phone-based basic savings account and payment service for the unbanked in India. Launched in 2007, Eko has carefully developed a mobile-based service usable on the most basic of handsets and continually revised and re-fashioned its approach. At first, Eko experimented with a basic deposit and payment service from one Eko account to another. But by the second half of 2011 Eko had struck on a revised formula that appeared to work as a business – providing a highly efficient and simple payment directly into the account of a bank anywhere in India. Having found a popular offering, during the second half of 2011 Eko doubled its revenues, reducing its operating losses to 16% of revenue by February 2012 with the expectation of passing breakeven in the first half of 2012.
Leveraging a strong base of agents in Delhi, Eko offers users a simple way to send money anywhere in India. Users can come to Eko’s agents to make a deposit into any bank account held by the State Bank of India (SBI). SBI is the largest bank in India with over 14,000 branches and more than 250 million accounts. By presenting the mobile number of the sender and receiver to the Eko agent, plus the account number of the receiver, the agent can make a payment into the account securely simply by dialing a short sequence of numbers. Each transaction is then verified by an SMS to both sender and receiver with a time and date stamp, the fees levied and a transaction ID.
The success of this tatkalpayment service is predicated on two basic features. The first is that Eko’s service ties into the core banking system of SBI on a real-time basis. Thus, clients send and receive transactions instantly giving them confidence. The power of the service is persuasive to clients as the receivers simply withdraw the funds from any SBI channel across India. This includes a national network of interoperable ATMs which charge no fee on most withdrawals.
The second important feature is simplicity. Clients only need to know the correct account number and the sending and (optionally) the receiving phone numbers. And they only need to go to an authorized agent to complete the transaction. This is more convenient than getting to branches which may be further away and often require longer waits. “The big difference for Eko has been the irrefutable legitimacy that tatkal transactions bring to the SBI-Eko outlets. The fact that the client’s relative thousands of kilometers away can instantly withdraw cash at an ATM just a few seconds after the transaction completes is a definite ‘Wow!’ for the client”, says Abhishek Sinha, co-founder & CEO of Eko.
For the last year CGAP has conducted quantitative research on the challenge of inactive customers. In culmination of this research, we are releasing a deck that helps providers understand and develop strategies to address low customer activity in their services.
Regular readers of this blog are familiar with the challenge of low customer activity and the negative impact this has on the business case. Last year, CGAP released a framework to map how a potential customer moves from awareness to ongoing activity and all the different dimensions of a business required to make this successful. As we worked with providers to understand this problem, it became clear that one of the first steps was to help providers analyze the gold mine of information they already have about their own customers. Understanding customers is a complex undertaking and will ultimately rely on a variety of tools such as focus groups and surveys. Yet the starting point should be a data-driven understanding of current customer trends and segments which then highlights areas to research further.
We worked with four providers in three regions to analyze customer registration, customer transaction and agent registration datasets. We conducted many different types of analysis – general activity trends, money transfer patterns and regression analyses to determine which factors are most correlated with high customer activity. The analysis revealed the untapped well of customer insights that providers have but most are not using.
This deck summarizes some of the most interesting findings on data analysis and customer activity across the providers. There are no magic bullets in the deck and, in fact, we found that data from providers in different markets was in some cases contradictory, highlighting that insights from one market are not automatically transferable to other markets. The deck does identify which types of data providers should be collecting, what types of analysis we found to be most useful in understanding activity levels and how providers can act on the data analysis with adjustments in service offerings or follow-on qualitative research.
We’ve done a lot of thinking at CGAP about the different business models and partnerships that exist in branchless banking. What I find interesting is that rarely do you find two models that look exactly alike. Once you begin to really dig beneath the surface, you realize that even among those businesses that we might simplistically call “telco-led” or “bank-led”, there are significant differences. For example, Orange’s partnership with BNP Paribas in Cote d’Ivoire (the local subsidiary BICICI) is slightly different than MTN’s partnership with Societe Generale (local subsidiary SGBCI) also in Cote d’Ivoire. Similarly, when we did our comparative agent research in Kenya, Brazil and India, we learned that while many banks in Brazil use agents extensively in their outreach strategy, they each manage their agent networks quite differently.
Instead of playing to the same tune, I’d say that branchless banking actors are playing variations on a theme. Here we share a couple videos that describe two particular variations out of the many that exist.
1st Variation: One of the largest Brazilian commercial banks Bradesco has been targeting the mass market since its beginning, going so far as to build branches without doors to encourage anyone to enter. It’s no surprise then that Bradesco has always been trying to be as close as possible to its customers (which currently number 62 million) and to future customers. In this video, Marcos Bader, General Director at Bradesco, explains how technology and new business models based on the use of agent networks have helped the bank reach this goal. He explains many interesting aspects of their business, but what I find quite remarkable in particular is that 90% of all transactions at the bank go through alternative distribution channels. Marcos also lives up to the Brazilian stereotype by somehow finding a way to draw a parallel between branchless banking and soccer!
2nd Variation: Regulation usually defines what branchless banking players can and cannot do. Roar Bjaerum, Head of easypaisa at Telenor Pakistan explains in this video how the regulation in Pakistan was clear in its “bank-led” approach. But regulation also allowed telcos to take ownership in banks. In 2008, this is exactly what Telenor Pakistan did in partnership with Tameer Microfinance Bank, paving the way for a truly innovative business model in branchless banking. As Roar explains, the market has since taken off in many different directions, with some banks leading their own branchless banking business and some telcos acquiring microfinance licenses. We’ve written about and discussed the Pakistan market a lot, but here Roar describes the market from the perspective of someone working on the day to day business of mobile money.
In these two particular “variations on a business model theme” and in the many others that exist around the world, the challenge, as Marcos puts it, is “to define the boundary between cooperation and competition.” This is indeed the task at hand in order to produce a wonderful melody instead of discordant chords in our objective to reach the unbanked.
Watch the two videos we posted last week on OXXO and DD-DEDO here.
“Cash is easy.” “Cash is what I know most.” “There are no charges when I use cash.”
Ghana Market Seller (Photo Taken by Adam Jones)
I was sitting in a little room in the outskirts of Accra listening to a group of tomato sellers talk about the financial tools they use to manage their finances. As a part of CGAP’s work in Ghana, we have commissioned Bankable Frontiers Associates (working with Easy Errands, a Ghanaian market research firm) to conduct a market research study on the financial needs of low-income customers in Ghana. One of the first steps was to conduct focus groups throughout the country and listen to diverse groups of Ghanaians, including farmers, taxi drivers, traders and students, talk about their strategies for moving and storing money. They discussed bank transfers and drivers and the use of family and friends but more than anything, they talked about cash.
The trite expression ‘Cash is King’ is over-used in our line of work, but as I sat in that little room listening to these people whom mobile money services have spent millions of dollars trying to woo, I realized yet again that the biggest competition we face in scaling branchless banking is not a rival MNO or bank or even the expensive money transfer operators – it’s cash. (Read some recent posts on our blog about this topic here and here.)
Cash is far and away the preferred method for storing and sending money in Ghana, no matter how inconvenient. One tomato seller, Charity, wraps her cash in no less than six black plastic bags and hides it in the back of her refrigerator, underneath her tomatoes and meats, so that the rest of her family does not suspect it is there. A timber seller, Emmanuel, told us he keeps his cash under the carpet in his living room. When asked whether the cash does not form a noticeable bulk, he replied with a big grin, ‘That’s why I spread it all around so that people walk all over my cash but have no idea it is beneath their feet!’
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:
