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.
In this fourth post in our series on interoperability, we describe interoperability at the customer-level. Read the first three posts here.
One agent. Five mobile money services (Photo taken by Ben Lyon of Kopo Kopo near Geomaps Centre in Nairobi)
In our work on interoperability, we find that there are some questions that we are unable to adequately address at the platform and agent levels alone. For instance, the opening of USSD gateways by mobile operators may allow customers of one operator to access services of another operator without either platform interconnection or agent sharing.
We identify two interoperability scenarios related to the mobile handset:
1. Customers can access their account through any SIM on the same network. For instance, one service in East Africa allows its customers to access their service from any handset as long as it is on their network.
2. Customers can access multiple accounts on one SIM. For instance, SMART in the Philippines allows customers to access SMART Money on their SMART SIM, as well as access accounts with various banks through different enabled interfaces.
Allowing customers to access their account via other SIMs or other accounts via one SIM increases the potential size of the market and increases customer convenience. In the latter case, providers may fear that customers will readily switch to another provider. MNOs run the risk that another service accessible to their subscribers will cannibalize their own service. Providers with large market share, in particular, may be less inclined to allow customers of other services to access their accounts. In addition, number portability has made it easier for customers to switch telecom providers.
Mobile money and the link between the mobile phone number and mobile financial services are supposed to help retain customers. Even if providers permit access to other services, they may use pricing, marketing and other features to try to keep customers from churning (e.g., make it hard to find the other service on the menu).
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:
In our first post in this series on interoperability, we introduced a three-level interoperability framework focusing on (i) platform interconnection, (ii) agent exclusivity, and (iii) customer-level interoperability. You can see the full framework in this presentation. In today’s post, we delve deeper into the first level–interconnection of mobile money platforms.
Platform-level interconnection is what most people have in mind when they think of interoperability in branchless banking. When we speak of interoperable platforms, we are referring to platforms that permit the transfer of funds from one mobile account to the mobile account of another service provider. This is similar to being able to send money from your bank account to your sister’s account at another bank. Or it is similar to being able to send a text message from your phone with your mobile network operator to your friend’s phone on the network of a different mobile network operator.
These “cross network” transactions should not be confused with “off-network” transactions which many mobile network operators claim to be platform interoperability. Off-network transactions make it possible for account holders to send money to anyone, whether they hold an account or not. For example, you send money from your mobile account to your friend, who doesn’t have an account, and your friend cashes out at your service provider’s agent. While off-network transactions can be beneficial for low-income users, we believe they are not as financially inclusive as cross network transactions. Off-network transactions require recipients to cash out, whereas cross network transactions make it possible for recipients to store received funds, on-send them or use them to make payments.
We identify different ways platforms can interconnect. In basic terms, platforms can interconnect: (1) directly (as the two ATM networks, 1Link and MNet, did in Pakistan) or (2) indirectly where a third-party entity which is either owned by providers, owned independently, or owned by the government interconnects platforms (as POS networks are currently doing in Brazil). The way in which platforms interconnect impacts pricing and efficiency of the payment system and potentially the ultimate value to customers.
Today we post a guest blog by Ignacio Mas and David Porteous, both of whom need no introduction. But just in case…Ignacio is an independent consultant, associated with Bankable Frontier Associates. 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. David is Managing Director of Bankable Frontier Associates.
Sarah Rotman blogged recently about yet another breathless announcement about the imminent arrival of the cashless society. She said and we agree that “cashless seems a bit naïve; cash lite seems more realistic although still a big challenge.” The very first part of the challenge is actually to visualize what a “cash lite” world looks like. Is it simply an ill-defined way station on the road to cashlessness, or is there a meaningful state or goal that goes with it?
We think the latter, and for us the defining characteristic is not the amount of cash (let cash do what it will!), but the availability of alternatives for the bulk of the population. It’s freedom from cash, not absence of cash. We have coined a word which encapsulates key elements of a cash lite society: LiFi (see baptismal paper here). Like WiFi, which provides retail connectivity at the edge of the internet cloud, LiFi is about connecting people to an electronic payments grid which provides Liquidity with Fidelity. WiFi is open, general-purpose broadband; LiFi is secure, special-purpose narrowband.
A LiFi world is therefore one in which every person has an electronic store of value which they can easily use to make and receive payments in real time. Just like in places with reliable on-grid electricity, we can turn on a light on-demand, knowing that it will work and that the cost of flicking the switch will be small in relation to the benefits.
Because there is no precedent for cashlessness by fiat and cash can be counted on to still be an option for a long time to come, the key challenge of LiFi is getting people to trust and want to use the LiFi payment mechanism…because it is robust, because it is safe and because it is useful. All these attributes take time to demonstrate to the satisfaction of risk- (and change-) averse users. A LiFi approach recognizes that in two ways.
Mention the word interoperability in branchless banking and mobile money circles and watch people react in very different ways. For some, the word means something positive – efficient services and lower prices for consumers. For others, it means something negative – more costs, threats to competitive advantage and less profitability. For still others, the word means a reality that is inevitable but far in the distant future. Some don’t want you to say the word at all.
At the end of the day, we suspect interoperable systems will accelerate financial inclusion by allowing customers to use the infrastructure of multiple service providers to access their accounts. The question is how best do we get there?
A discussion on interoperating branchless banking and mobile money services that have yet to reach critical mass appears premature. But businesses and policy makers are already grappling with these issues in a number of markets where CGAP is heavily involved. In Ghana, the government is trying to understand its role in promoting interoperable branchless banking. In Pakistan, where Central Bank regulations permit a “many-to-many” model, there are questions about how the market will evolve into interoperable systems. In India, interoperability at the agent level is part of the financial inclusion vision painted by the Unique Identification Authority of India.
In general, governments are struggling to understand a regulatory approach that will balance the interest of customers with those of market players. They do not always adequately consider the state of the market or fully understand the implications of their approaches.
One of the exciting and yet challenging aspects of the branchless banking industry is how fast things change. Topics discussed just 3 months ago can seem out of date today. That’s why it’s fun to look back over the topics we blogged about in 2011 starting from last January to see how the discussion has evolved over the last 12 months. Here are just a few of the blogs you may have missed or you may be interested in reading again:
In addition to these blogs, over the past year we released Branchless Banking Country Notes on 7 markets around the world, as well as an Agent Management Toolkit and a Branchless Banking Database. So just in case you returned to the office after a nice holiday break with nothing to do or read, we’ve got you covered! Happy New Year!
A few weeks ago in Washington, DC, we hosted many of our partners who are implementing branchless banking products and services around the world. This was a chance not only for us to learn about the state of play of the industry at a global level, but also to allow the partners themselves to share learnings and experiences with each other.
Is there something that a nonbank electronic money issuer in Burkina Faso can learn from a state-owned commercial bank in India? Is there cross-learning between a mobile network operator in Pakistan and a large retail chain in Mexico? We think so. Chances are these businesses have more in common than we might think at first glance, especially if their overall objective is to reach the unbanked through innovative uses of technologies and new business models.
One of the topics we discussed together was the keys to building powerful partnerships. No one can launch a branchless banking service alone. Either an MNO must partner with a bank to hold the float, or an agent network company must partner with an MNO to provide the transaction channel, or a bank must partner with an MNO to build an agent network, or… the list could go on and on. If one thing is crystal clear in branchless banking, it is that partnerships are critical and yet partnerships are difficult.
So we asked our partners to brainstorm together and give us their top 10 list of recommendations for building powerful partnerships based on their experiences that we could share with the global industry (that’s you!). Here’s what they came up with, organized in three loose categories:
Broad strategy and vision:
1. Ensure that there is a long-term strategic alignment among partners with a shared common vision.
2. Align specific incentives and expectations on financial returns among partners.
3. Focus not only on commitment from top management but from the entire staff of an organization.
4. Do not ignore the soft factors like cultural fit among partners.
This is the fourth post in a series about product innovation in branchless banking. In the last post we threw the focus on direct observation of consumers to source deep insights that lead to better products. We also released our detailed analysis. Today’s post describes a second key feature of the three Product Labs which will be established by CGAP’s bank, telco and other partners.
Let’s say you are a manager who has bought into developing products beyond the standard liquid wallet and P2P functionality ubiquitous in branchless banking. You want to innovate. But the procedures, biases, and requirements of your own company are holding you back.
If you are not careful, your good ideas will die a slow death of endless internal analysis or be outright rejected because “the data’s just not there”. As one manager told us about his company, “This place is run by accountants. If you don’t have the data, you go nowhere.” How can you meet existing business needs, and also move forward rapidly to approval?
This is the question confronting senior managers CGAP interviewed at more than a dozen firms that ranged from a success story in mobile money in East Africa to the largest bank in a major Latin American market, the world’s largest handset manufacturer, and a leading South African supermarket chain adding financial services to boost customer loyalty.
This isn’t just a problem for senior managers. It is also a challenge in our Product Labs initiative. Each Lab will be implanted in a bank, telco, or other firm capable of massively scaling newly designed products via branchless banking channels. Labs will need to work with the ways that firms already design products. But the Labs could also help firms improve on two counts.
Picking the best ideas to pursue. All the firms interviewed said they rarely suffered for a lack of ideas. But they do suffer from the inability to tell which are worth chasing. As a result, choices are made haphazardly or, sometimes, all ideas are pursued with equal vigor. Managers felt stretched in too many directions and concepts that time showed to be worthwhile often took longer to emerge for want of enough resources. Nearly all our interviewees agreed that earlier testing of ideas would help. But in many firms access to transactional platforms and core banking systems was tightly guarded. Pilots were something you do later in the product development process, not earlier.
Reaching the poor with a range of useful, convenient, and affordable financial services is challenging for all the reasons we know. In the context of Mexico, access has increased significantly in the past few years (nearly 60% of all households), and changes in regulation enabling correspondent banking are likely to bring the access barrier down even further. However, the challenge of delivering a relevant offering, tailored to the needs of the lower-income population still remains. This may be one of the reasons why many people who have access to formal financial services are not using them.
While consumer goods companies have developed an understanding of these segments, few actors in the financial services space have a deep knowledge of how “bottom of the pyramid” (BoP) customers use money and financial products, and what sort of products these customers may want in the future.
We conducted a study (available in both English and Spanish) in collaboration with McKinsey and Company, seeking to provide a closer look at the financial habits, needs, and wants of low-income customers in Mexico. The goal is to provide the kind of information that will enable financial service providers to design better products (i.e. products that reach more people and solve felt needs) and to implement products and business models with a greater chance of success.
We hope this study will help orient assumptions about customer behavior that can lead to improved product design and less risk in business models. Even though the study is intended to serve the Mexican market, we intend it to be useful and applicable to other markets.
Here are the key findings:
Segments at the BoP save significantly. Deposits (both short term and long term) represent an amount equivalent to 20.4% of these segments’ annual aggregate income. If these deposits were to be held in formal financial institutions, the current deposit base in the formal financial sector would increase by 23.4%. Read the rest of this page »
