Archive for: Agents

A recent blog post running on PCWorld highlights the idea of delivering aid via mobile phones. No doubt there’s real potential – we certainly think so. Consider how social protection grants are getting to some of the world’s poorest via bank cards in South Africa, Malawi and Kenya.

Going electronic can knock down costs of getting help to people who need it. The bar isn’t set very high: 65% of USAID’s food aid budget is consumed by the cost of delivery, for example. Handing out cash grants could be much more cost-effective, while boosting demand for local farm production. Using direct deposit with a debit card can also reduce corruption - light fingered officials siphoning off funds for the poor. So branchless banking should help with the relief industry’s traditional stumbling blocks of cost and corruption.

Read the rest of this page »

I’ve just finished teaching a course at Boulder on the use of branchless banking channels and technology to reduce transaction costs. This was well-attended; the four-day, 10-hour course had 39 students, and a shortened single day, two-hour version had 20 students.

We had a very interesting class discussion on whether group loan repayments through branchless banking channels would undermine the group ethos, and there was surprising consensus in that it need not. Another much discussed topic was how to balance cash in and cash out at the agents, and how to promote savings on the back of electronic payments.

In terms of use of agents for deposit-taking, we know there is a very fundamental business model problem. Agents are used to taking something like 10% commission on selling a coke bottle, a mobile prepaid card, etc. So why would they do cash in/out for much less than 10% commission if that saddles them with extra security risks and extra trips to the bank? And with that sort of commission level, microsavings are dead. There are several answers to this:

• The practical solution happening out there: agents are used mostly for special transactions where someone is prepared to give them extra commission: mobile prepaid cards, international remittance termination, bill payment (if the utility wants to get out of collecting itself). But there is very little traction on savings.
• The purist solution: use product portfolio and marketing levers to balance cash in and cash out at the village level. Agents can then manage local liquidity as a ‘closed loop.’ This would need to work community by community, and there could be no universal answers. It would have more chance of working if branchless banking was a tool managed and used by local microfinance institutions with the required level of grassroots presence and understanding. But in my view it can’t work so long as branchless banking is the preserve of the larger banks and telecom operators, as today.
• Take the agent business out of stores. This gets away from high overhead and higher opportunity costs. Combine the susu collector with Wizzkids: roving people in market stalls, going door-to-door, etc., offering to buy and sell cash for electronic value. This way, you turn the agent problem into a livelihood activity.
• The shock solution: go for total cash substitution. Eliminate cash and you eliminate the cash in/out problem. Radical, but something that one colleague said could perhaps see traction in conflict areas. The security aspect can then be a powerful driver for eradicating cash by having clients express preference for electronic over cash payments.

The general feeling was one of excitement at the potential, but a realization that these channels will, at least for a while, be dominated by larger banks and mobile operators who have the wherewithal to invest in this area. MFIs should seek to share in their infrastructure rather than to try to create their own, knowing that interoperability will take a while to develop — just as it did for ATMs and POSs.

Why do so few people have accounts with formal institutions? One key constraint is the sheer cost to banks of building and maintaining branch networks to reach dispersed or low-income populations.

On July 22 at a CGAP lunchtime event in Washington, Ignacio Mas talked about how networks of agents can be used to optimize access for poor clients, basing his presentation on the recent CGAP Focus Note “Banking Through Networks of Retail Agents.” He began the discussion by drawing an analogy with Coca-Cola. Why is Coke sold in every tiny village around the world, while financial services are not? The obvious response is that Coke leverages retail stores in these locations to distribute and sell its product on its behalf. In a similar way, the logic of branchless banking as a low-cost transactional channel is to use existing retail infrastructure to provide financial services everywhere, literally. By deploying technology that already exists in SIM cards and mobile telephones, transactions can be made at retail agents that then clear with a customer’s bank.

There are various objectives of agent networks from a bank’s perspective. They can be used to simply offload transactions from branches; they can target a different customer profile such as low-income people; they can serve as a branch substitute to extend geographic coverage; and finally they can serve as a branchless banking mechanism to minimize fixed costs and accelerate scale.

Globally, the use of banking agents is still in its early stages. Brazil is a leader with about 55,000 agents nationwide, followed by South Africa with 6,500 agents. In all, fewer than a dozen countries have begun using retail agents for banking services.

This low uptake may be explained by the three biggest challenges with branchless banking. First, the “perfect” business model is still being worked out. How can agents be sufficiently incentivized to carry out cash transactions? How can transaction volume, which has so far been quite low, be increased? Second, while most banks do not seem very interested in using agent networks to cater to new customer segments, most microfinance institutions do not have the capacity to take advantage of technology-based channels. Third, branchless banking presents new challenges in regards to regulation.

None of these challenges are insurmountable. With a bit of innovation and creativity, the potential for banking through networks of retail agents remains strong.

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

Early movers with a disruptive business model can afford to be picky about the segments they address. Emboldened by a dramatic cost advantage over established players, they are able to focus on the most attractive customer segments. As long as these constitute a sufficiently large pool of people to meet their growth aspirations, they have little incentive to expand into others. They will concentrate on building defensive barriers through scale (growing quickly) and depth of retail network, rather than on expanding into new segments and service offerings. Thus it is, as explained above, that early branchless banking projects have not addressed the currently unserved population.

However, the benefits of the cost advantage will be eroded overtime as their own success induces new entrants or the adaptation of existing players to the new cost structure. With greater competition, the focus of new entrants will be on expanding the market so as to avoid head-to-head competition for market share with early movers who will have secured a strong position through scale. Hence, we can expect targeting of currently unserved customers to come not with the innovation but with the competition phase of branchless banking.

One should not underestimate the market-transforming potential of solutions that cut the cost of service provision at least 50 percent or so. What is less clear is how long it will take for the competitive dynamics to play out for the benefit of currently underserved populations.

This is an excerpt from a recent CGAP paper, The Early Experience with Branchless Banking. The paper synthesizes the observations and research of the CGAP Technology Program. Gautam Ivatury and Ignacio Mas wrote the paper, with substantial input from the entire program team. This blog series will cover seven observations, four uncertainties and four predictions for branchless banking - what we call mobile banking and other technology-enabled banking solutions.
The opportunities presented by branchless banking in broadening access to banking services across the population are limited by two factors. First, assembling a proprietary retail network of agents is time consuming and implicates financial service providers in agency operational risks they may find difficult to manage. Second, because customers are able to convert their savings to/from cash only at designated agents, financial service providers are generally compelled to support the liquidity position of their agents, which exposes them to additional credit risks. Indeed, proprietary agent networks continue imposing a significant burden on banks that want to expand.

The alternative is to develop branchless banking models based on shared agent networks. This would allow financial service providers to be “liberated” from location constraints and able to compete for customers anywhere purely on the basis of product design, marketing, and branding. And rather than rely only on exclusive agents to handle customer liquidity needs, the liquidity at all agents in a given location would be pooled to serve any customer and, hence, can be used most effectively and with minimal credit support.

Without this added layer of benefits underpinning the branchless banking model, providers are not likely to find branchless banking viable, particularly in rural areas where agents are few and cash transportation is costly. Making this a possibility will require changes in bank regulation, industry business models, and commercial strategies by individual financial service providers.

This is an excerpt from a recent CGAP paper, The Early Experience with Branchless Banking. The paper synthesizes the observations and research of the CGAP Technology Program. Gautam Ivatury and Ignacio Mas wrote the paper, with substantial input from the entire program team. This blog series will cover seven observations, four uncertainties and four predictions for branchless banking - what we call mobile banking and other technology-enabled banking solutions.
Two thorny problems for bankers and regulators considering branchless banking have been to ensure that customers are not defrauded by agents and that agents have sufficient cash on hand when customers want to make withdrawals. The concern is that customers will mistrust the financial institution and even lose confidence in the banking system if they are victims of fraud or if they cannot get money out of the agent.

But preliminary unpublished ethnographic research in Kenya on M-Pesa suggests that customers will do neither: in several instances, M-Pesa customers continued to use agents for cash withdrawals that earlier had insufficient cash to dispense. Anecdotal evidence suggests that customers’ trust of Safaricom, the entity ultimately holding customers’ funds, is what is leading them to continue using these agents.

Although the evidence on how customers respond to cash shortfalls at agents is limited, by and large customers seem to appreciate there is no guarantee of cash availability. Indeed, the agent’s key role is less about maintaining large cash balances to meet all eventualities, as much as undertaking trips to the bank on behalf of customers when liquidity runs out. Customers will understand that when cash runs out at an agent, all it requires is a trip by the agent to the bank to get more. And now only one person need make that trip rather than each customer of the bank. The open questions are how many trips to the branch will be required, and will agents be paid enough through commissions to make those trips. Also, how can cash be balanced to reduce the time between these trips in places far away from bank branches? In the end, branchless banking through agents may not be a solution for very remote locations until the predominance of cash is replaced by a predominance of electronic payments and transfers.

We are still looking into how much customers save by making branchless banking transactions. But overall, poor and unbanked customers, in particular, have been accustomed to skipping work and traveling hours to open a bank account or make a withdrawal, and receiving altogether abysmal service from many of the formal financial services poor people use. In this context, local banking agents are well-known community members bringing low-cost, hitherto unavailable services to places where no services—utilities, mobile phone coverage, government services—work reliably.

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

Mobile banking raises security concerns. In principle, security concerns over mobile banking are more manage able than that of Internet banking, because they happen on a more trusted—or at least a more tightly controlled—network. On the other hand, security concerns over mobile banking are bigger than for traditional ATM or POS devices, which are more directly specified and controlled by the provider.

We still do not know the tolerance threshold for errors and fraud for both users and providers in the mobile banking context. Because the mobile banking service is intangible, it is likely that customers will react negatively to (real or perceived) security risks of mobile banking more quickly than to the risk of loss or theft of physical cash. We suspect that customers will not be very tolerant of security lapses, and therefore the security track record must be impeccable.

Security can always be tightened, but that often results in higher demands on the user (more complicated password procedures) or a less favorable customer experience (reentry of PINs, SIM swap). We do not know the extent to which the benefits of mobile banking will be sufficiently appealing to cause customers to put up with increasingly frustrating security measures or, indeed, to develop a higher tolerance for errors or fraud. The industry will need to find ways to offer sufficient security to manage risk.

Of fraud or violation of privacy, without making what is already a precarious customer experience (because of very limited user interface capabilities of mobile phones) a hopelessly frustrating one.

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

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.

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

Most financial service providers see partnerships with businesses that have a substantial local retail presence as a key competitive strategy. They act to build their networks as quickly as they can to expand the pool of potential customers and attain local brand presence. The pace of agent sign-up is most dramatic in Brazil, where 95,000 agents have opened for business, leaving no municipality without a retail bank outlet. This agent network has directly led to the opening of more than 13 million bank accounts in the past five years.

Depending on regulations, agents can be used to open new accounts (signing up customers and conducting customer due diligence) or to conduct customers’ cash transactions (to deposit into or withdraw from an account, or to make or receive payments). Given the finding that most branchless banking customers do not build sizable deposit balances (per observation 3, above), most customer transactions do in fact entail a cash transaction. Many banks that want to enter into branchless banking have partnered with businesses that have many local outlets so that they can jump-start their agent networks, including mobile operators, post offices, and major retail chains:

• Mobile operators. Mobile operators run some of the largest national retail distribution networks to support prepaid card sales. This puts them in a strong position to lead or participate in mobile banking projects. For instance, five banks have partnered with SMART Communications in the Philippines, and Standard Bank in South Africa partnered with mobile operator MTN in South Africa.

• Post offices. Brazil’s Banco Bradesco purchased the rights to use the national post office network as a banking agent network. Bradesco created the Banco Postal subsidiary to trade on the trust that Brazil’s population has in the postal service and to differentiate from Bradesco’s branding as one of the leading private banks in the country. By May 2007, Banco Postal had an agent network of about 5,600 agents, two-thirds of which were post offices. The rest were retail outlets branded as “Bradesco Expresso” points.

• Major retail chains. Equity Bank in Kenya signed a deal in mid-2007 to use the Nakumatt chain of retail stores as its anchor banking agents, and WIZZIT has arranged to use the Dunn’s chain of about 400 clothing stores across small town South Africa to act as account opening locations. Where banks are unable to partner with large retail chains, or in rural areas where these chains have limited or no presence, banks often outsource the building and management of chains of agents to third-party agent management companies. Banco Popular in Brazil (the banking correspondent brand of Banco do Brasil) uses companies such as Net Cash in Sao Paulo State and the Brasilia Federal District and Pag Facil in Pernambuco to sign up, equip, train, and maintain agents on its behalf. Lemon Bank has no branches at all and relies on 16 agent management companies (including three that it purchased) to manage the majority of its 5,750 agents.

A bank’s ability to sign up agents in disparate locations depends on the national payments system rules and practices. Referring back to the Brazilian success case, a second legal provision spurred geographic coverage to such a stunning extent: an agent is legally able to deposit its excess cash in to its account with its sponsoring bank through the branch of any bank, at no extra cost, and without having to open an account at that bank. The situation is quite different in Colombia, for instance, where the bank with the largest network of rural branches, state-owned Banco Agrario, charges such high cash handling fees to other banks that those banks cannot profitably set up agents in remote municipalities. While Banco Agrario’s high cash handling fees may be justified by the high cost of operating in such remote locations, the result is that other banks are not able to use agents unless they set up their own branches nearby.

Based on our observations, it appears that being an early mover in creating an agent network confers three key competitive advantages:

• Early movers are able to partner exclusively with the businesses that have the largest number of local retail outlets, thereby patching together a sizable agent network relatively quickly. Subsequent entrants are likely to find it more difficult to assemble an agent network of their own, particularly in areas with few retail establishments. The number of agents or physical locations is an easy concept to differentiate advertising, and hence it becomes a self-sustaining advantage for early movers.

• Early movers with larger agent network scan negotiate more favorable agreements with utility companies and various government agencies to distribute or collect payments on their behalf. As noted earlier, most banks realize that payments (from customers to utility companies and lenders, and from governments to welfare and pension beneficiaries) is the first product likely to move through this channel.

• A bank that is first to introduce banking services in a given geography is likely to capture greatest market share among the local population. The general manager of Banco Popular in Brazil explained that putting Banco Popular agents in unserved neighborhoods gave the bank a presence and the start of a relationship with local customers. As these communities develop and become increasingly banked, Banco Popular would be the bank whose name they would remember the best.