Mobile Monday Kampala

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.

Read the rest of this page »

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 liteseems 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.

Read the rest of this page »

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.

Read the rest of this page »

Check out http://technology.cgap.org/

Is this a hint that we shall soon have a MoMo Kampala monthly meet on similar themes?