My question is, who is better placed to deliver financial education to consumers for accelerated inclusion? Is it the service providers who are more inclined to only highlight to consumers what is in line with their interest, while not being concerned about consumer protection as that would jeopardize products uptake or is teachers drawn from the consumer fraternity?. Is there an independent unbiased way that financial education can be delivered to everybody as objectively as possible? I would really appreciate guidance on that. I say that because in my country, service providers come up with financial products and market them to consumers and only highlight the parts that support their toplines while failing to disclose the adverse costs associated. We have mobile money companies that lend airtime at astronomical interest rates of 120% pa the selling point easy access to credit. If such a company would have a financial education department, would we trust that it would be objective or would it emphasize spending as an element of financial education with sweet words such as value spending with no mention of cost?

Another question is how to bridge the language barriers between the financial services providers and consumers in the interpretation and delivery of financial education. i read elsewhere in this forum that there is a different interpretation of the word saving in mobile money. What service providers assume to be saving’s money held in the phone is not what consumers consider as saving. They hold money in their phones waiting to send it to the destination. The research quoted indicate money help for at least 24 hours as savings. How does language get harmonized to ensure we are all learning the correct financial education?. Are the many players, actors, contributors going to distort meanings and applications and be spokes in the inclusion wheels as opposed to supportive collaborators?