Summary
- When mobile financial service operators and government regulators report agent numbers, they are usually referring to tills— the number of SIM Cards that have been registered for use by agents.
- But these statistics are all but silent on the locations of these mobile money services.
- Counting mobile money tills, the research argues, is like trying to measure the level of access to banking services by counting the tellers in the country.
Near my office in Nairobi’s central
business district, there is a bustling mobile money business. It opens
early and closes late. There are four “agents”— who mimic bank tellers —
on hand at any time to serve customers from booth-like stalls.
I
live on Thika Road in an area that has refused to conform to city life.
Although I am in Nairobi City County, there is a neighbour who rears
cows. There is also a relative scarcity of mobile money shops.
I
have to walk 15 minutes (20 on a hot day) to get to the nearest agent.
There are no guarantees: the guy who owns the shop has only one phone
line registered as a mobile money till and it is quite often out of
float or power.
When the central bank or the
Communications Authority of Kenya calculate the level of my access to
mobile money services, they will count the mobile money shop in town
five times (for the five tills) and my local establishment once.
Next
year if the mobile money shop in town adds two more tills, they might
even report a 25 per cent increase in the level of my access to mobile
money services.
But the picture painted by these
numbers is distorted. Even with the 25 per cent increase, I will still
have to walk 15 minutes uphill if I really need to withdraw money from
my Thika Road home.
Now take my situation and multiply
by 45 million people. Expand it to the geography of Kenya and take into
consideration the people whose access problems go beyond mere
inconvenience— those that have to walk an hour or more. Perhaps then you
will begin to see a problem in how we count mobile money agents.
When
mobile financial service operators and government regulators report
agent numbers, they are usually referring to tills— the number of SIM
Cards that have been registered for use by agents.
But these statistics are all but silent on the locations of these mobile money services.
“We
have a lot of data focusing on the tills, but nearly no robust and
recent data on the location of these tills,” says Financial Sector
Deepening (FSD) Kenya head of research, Ms Amrik Heyer.
A
new study from the Helix Institute for Digital Finance uses an analogy
to point to the futility of relying on till data alone to measure mobile
money access.
Counting mobile money tills, the
research argues, is like trying to measure the level of access to
banking services by counting the tellers in the country.
It
is likely that more than half of these tellers are in urban areas and
without knowledge of the branch network, you will never know that a
woman in rural Makueni has to take a bus to deposit money into her bank
account.
The result? A too rosy picture of the mobile money market.
“Our
calculations demonstrate that the use of agent till statistics in
industry literature has led to an overestimation of global access to
finance,” says the Institute. The picture is further distorted given the
growing lack of agent exclusivity. A mobile money agent that provides
Orange Money, M-Pesa and Airtel services is counted three times in
government data.
To demonstrate just how pink this rosy
picture is, Helix took data from 2014 and with the help of a
representative survey of the market tried to deflate agent numbers
taking into consideration multiple tills in a single agent location.
Each
mobile money shop was counted once— no matter how many tills were
represented. The Institute also tried to account for inactivity.
At
the time the agent count provided by regulators in Kenya was 123,703.
When Helix accounted for mobile money outlets with multiple tills,
22,947 were shaved off the count.
Taking into
consideration agents that had not been active in the last 90 days
lowered the figures to 67,407— a 45 per cent reduction in the original
figures provided by the government.
Helix argues that
it is time for the market to start focusing on agents, rather than
tills, and to report their locations as well as their activity. To
return to my predicament, what Helix is proposing is counting the mobile
money shop in the CBD once and the one near my home once.
Therefore, the government would take geography into consideration when measuring my access to mobile money services.
While
mobile money experts may quibble with Helix’s broad conclusions, there
is general consensus that as this sub-sector of financial services
matures in its second decade, so must the associated data collection and
presentation.
FSD Kenya, in particular, is
championing not only including spatial data in the current reporting
structures, but building a publicly accessible database of such
information.
“At a very simplistic level the customer
does not care how many agents there are, they want to know where the
nearest agents are. You can’t have a proper estimate of financial access
in Kenya without location data,” says Ms Heyer.
Ideally,
it should be possible to have granular data at a ward or even county
level detailing the direction and value of mobile money transactions for
the whole industry.
However, under the FSD Kenya proposal, sensitive information would only be visible to the regulators and to the industry.
The
use of such data extends beyond the customer being able to find the
nearest agent with ease. It would be easier for financial service
providers to identify holes in their networks.
It would be easier for the regulator to spot potentially suspicious transactions at specific locations.
Operators
could become more flexible and more creative with the services they
provide. For instance, there is a boarding school right next door to my
house.
Every three months parents drive up to our
neighbourhood only to remember that there is no mobile money agency
close by where they can deposit money for school fees.
Ms
Heyer argues that in such cases, operators could very easily deploy a
mobile money agent next to the institution during back-to-school season
and pull that agent back during the less profitable months of the year.
Given
the prevalence of mobile money data in Kenya’s economy, location-based
data on transaction patterns could also give the government a trove of
policy-relevant information.
“You would have the most
incredible data to understand the economy. It is the best proxy for
economic activity that you could have,” says Mr David Taylor, a director
at Usable Data.
Kenya’s telecoms are actively
exploring the best way to pursue this. Organisations like FSD Kenya have
also attempted their own censuses of the market.One of the obstacles
involved is the cost.
Another obstacle is data
protection. Telecoms are wont to guard data that can be used against
them by their rivals. They might also have questions to raise about the
regulators’ ability to protect the privacy of customer data.
Kenya
is also yet to develop an industry standard for how such data would be
collected and stored. A solution could be having a regulator-led
exercise, as is happening in Tanzania.
While the
Communication Authority (CA) says that it has plans to carry out some
data collection independent of the operators. Currently the CA relies on
operators to submit their own data.
“It (till data)
may not give us the accurate information but it is a challenge for us to
see if we can entirely rely on the service providers or if we can
design another way to do this,” said CA director-general Francis
Wangusi.
Mr Wangusi also expressed scepticism about
some of the numbers submitted by operators. Over the last one year, the
data released by the CA on the telecom sector has been peppered with odd
fluctuations and contradictions.
For instance, in the
quarter to December 2016, Orange Money agents went from 20,694 to 800.
Nevertheless, the number of transactions carried out on the network
remained steady at 31,000.
“Telkom Kenya changed its
reporting framework to focus on Telkom Kenya recruited agents solely
without the inclusion of our banking partner’s agents that had been
serving Orange Money customers,” was all the explanation that Orange
money provided. Telkom Kenya had previously changed the way it reports
its numbers, resulting in a “loss” of over two million phone subscribers
in the three months to September 2016.
If reliance on
operators to count their own agents is problematic, the picture is
further muddied when one tries to compare the statistics produced by
different government institutions.
The data reported by
the CA and the Central Bank never matches. So for instance while the
CBK reported that the value of mobile transactions in the calendar year
2016 was Sh3.3 trillion, the CA has Sh4 trillion as its figure.
The
figures for mobile money agents are closer with the CA reporting
161,583 for the October-December quarter while the CBK reported 181,456
agents for October, 162,441 agents for November and 165,908 agents for
December.
Neither the Central Bank nor the CA has in the past been able to provide a satisfactory answer for these discrepancies.
One of the telecom operators provided a possible explanation for the state of affairs— “different reporting calendars.”
The Central Bank did not respond to questions for this story.
No comments :
Post a Comment