You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Risk Management’ tag.
> Posted by Sonja Kelly, Director, CFI
This post is the first in a series examining the global phenomenon of de-risking and its impact on financial inclusion. Through the Credit Suisse Global Citizens Program, CFI partnered with Rissa Ofilada, who works as a lawyer in compliance in the Philippines, to undertake a study on de-risking. In the series, we’ll discuss the causes of the phenomenon, what it means for customers at the base of the pyramid, how it affects global momentum toward financial inclusion, and what solutions are on the horizon.
The term de-risking may sound arcane and technical, but in fact some observers believe that de-risking is the biggest threat to the progress that has already been made on financial inclusion. We at CFI are worried about it—and you should be too.
De-risking refers to the trend of commercial banks, payments companies, and regulators closing down “suspicious” accounts. These accounts could be suspicious for any number of reasons. The owner may not have had adequate proof of identity—a common problem for lower-income people in countries without well-developed identification systems. Or the owners may not be able to precisely trace the source of the funds they deposit—a frequent issue for those operating in the informal sector. Or the provider had a problem with another lower-income customer who was flagged as suspicious, and as a result decided to close all accounts owned by people with similar patterns or profiles.
> Posted by Philip Brown, CFI Advisory Council Member and Managing Director Risk, Citi Inclusive Finance
As new opportunities for inclusive financial services continue to grow, they are accompanied by an array of risks, many of which are not fully evident today. Since 2008, the Banana Skins surveys have charted both known risks and those that have previously been overlooked or underrated. The recently released report “It’s all about strategy” is no exception — it surveys a spectrum of participants and gathers their perceptions of the risk in the provision of inclusive financial services.
What does this year’s survey tell us?
Continuous progressive change in service provider business models is not new. But the accelerated pace and diversity of change, coupled with extent of the redesign and transformation process across all aspects of the business model, are shifting inclusive financial service provision. There are changes across the creation and delivery of services, business economics and processes, delivery infrastructure, such as payment systems, mobile networks and agent networks, and strategies for customer acquisition and the targeted customer base. The inclusive finance sector is no longer defined around segment-specific institutions but around the end clients, services provided and the now diverse and growing universe of service providers.
Digital transformation is a pervasive theme in this year’s Banana Skins report, which is a call to recognise the risk of not thinking strategically about all aspects of financial service provision. Across the globe, mobile applications are adding millions of clients versus thousands for established models. Both non-credit products and new forms of credit such as instant nano-credit for pre-paid mobile phone users continue to grow. Rather than viewing disrupters as a threat, one cited respondent positively describes new competitors as facilitators of market development, improving the quality of services and creating pressure to reduce interest rates.
> Posted by Center Staff
What do industry leaders feel is the biggest risk facing their institutions in 2016? This question is the focus of the latest Banana Skins report for the financial inclusion sector, Financial Services for All: It’s All about Strategy. The report ranks the top perceived risks facing those providing financial services to un/under-served people in emerging markets. Produced by the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation (CSFI), and sponsored by Citi and CFI, the study examines the rapidly changing and expanding financial inclusion landscape to better understand how providers view challenges like new technologies, new market entrants, client repayment capacity, and macro-economic risks.
This year’s report, the sixth in the series surveying risks facing the inclusive finance industry, embraces a broader scope than previous editions, which focused exclusively on microfinance institutions. The new report reflects the advances in the provision of financial services to the base of the economic pyramid and encompasses both established providers and newer entrants like commercial banks, technology companies, and telephone and communication companies. A survey with respondents spanning practitioners, investors, regulators, and other industry stakeholders comprise the report’s findings. It’s important to note that in addition to the Banana Skins report series on inclusive finance, there is also a Banana skins report series on insurance and on banking.
So, what were the results?
The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has requested comment on a draft guidance document that for the first time addresses the responsibilities of regulators and supervisors in the context of financial inclusion. Given the potential impact of this guidance on regulators around the world, we invited Daniel M. Schydlowsky to review and comment. Dr. Schydlowsky is a fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the former head of the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance Companies of Peru.
The draft guidance issued by the Basel Committee is unquestionably an enormous step forward. It identifies, describes, and qualifies how supervisors should behave in relation to financial inclusion. It also describes numerous particular situations that supervisors have to confront and suggests responses. It thereby provides the representative supervisor with what amounts to an encyclopedia of supervisory wisdom.
The guidance is comprehensive, it treats (almost) everything. That is its strength. But, it did not create an effective hierarchy of importance to guide supervisors as they confront their new mandate to generate financial inclusion. In what follows, some central issues are raised, which, in the opinion of this author, need to be incorporated into the guidance or highlighted to denote greater relative importance.
The Dilemma of the Supervisors
- Too much to do with too few resources: The supervisors have limited staff and many things to do, starting with making sure the financial system is safe, the books are kept properly, required information is supplied reliably and on time, and capital and other requirements are complied with. On top of this come new responsibilities related to financial inclusion. When reading the guidance, a whole second staff would appear to be needed to comply properly with what is suggested. It is absolutely imperative that the limited resources of the supervisor be factored into what is requested that they do.
> Posted by Andrew Fixler, Freelance Journalist
Consolidation and investment in coffee brands is reaching a fever pitch, according to Andrew Daday, Director of Coffee for Stumptown Roasters. Coffee is the second-most traded commodity in the world, and the modal coffee farmer is a smallholder living near or below the poverty line, resulting in unique value chains in Latin America, East Africa, and Southeast Asia. These value chains are characterized by factors like the commodity coffee markets, agronomics, organization/associations of growers, government coffee marketing institutions, and the state of rural financial services. Specialty coffee is characterized by meeting particular quality standards. Specialty coffee production allows some farmers to escape the vicissitudes of the commodity coffee market and to capture value commensurate with their product’s quality and input costs. In the United States, 55 percent of the 48 billion dollars of coffee retail value consumed falls into the specialty category – representing immense growth in recent decades. If bullishness ratifies the growth prospects for high-end coffee in the U.S. and abroad, it is worth looking into how scaling will manifest at the agricultural end of the value chain, because the relationships coffee farmers have with downstream firms impact their well-being in a number of ways, including via their access to financing.
Agriculture finance for smallholders can be an operationally-intensive, high-risk enterprise. However, financial institutions like the Netherlands’ Rabobank and Mexico’s Banorte express that agricultural credit is especially viable and profitable if “producers are well-integrated into a viable value chain.” Linking into a larger firm’s supply chain is a boon to small business growth in many contexts. Besides serving as a “springboard for growth” for small businesses from increased market access, buyer-supplier linkages yield exposure to key industry information and data points along the value chain that contribute to better capital allocation and financial accessibility for qualified entrepreneurs. Linking with a value chain may also enable a transition from informal lending, which can rely overwhelmingly on local knowledge for underwriting, to the formal financial services sector.
> Posted by Brenda Santoro and Ahmed Dermish with Kim Wilson
In uncertain times do developed economies have the resiliency in their financial inclusion processes to withstand rapid change without risking systemic stability and consumer protection?
Modern, nationally integrated systems, high-capacity supervision, and flexible policymaking are helping Germany turn the refugee crisis into an economic opportunity.
The German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, commonly known as BAFIN, this fall relaxed requirements for opening a bank account. The new rules allow accounts to be opened with a stamped document from an appropriate German authority, such as BAFIN, along with a picture and personal information. Transitional rules are in effect until the approval of the law, expected this year. A directive in the European Union, which will begin in September 2016, will require similar access to bank accounts across the EU.
Citizens of developed countries may not appreciate the role a bank account plays in providing access to basic financial services. A bank account is more than a place to secure our money – in nearly every country, it provides high social and economic value. When a bank says we are trustworthy, even for a simple bank account, doors open for many services we take for granted such as access to electronic payments, basic utilities, housing contracts, education or small business loans. This works because banks use a vetting process to ensure they know exactly who we are, often referencing a nationally issued document such as a passport or driver’s license. For us, the account becomes another form of identity. For the banks, it ensures the correct people have access to funds. With a passport and a bank account, the world is our oyster, an entrée into other services and for the bank, it is an entrée into cross-selling and more profits as they learn more about us.
Beyond the Basics…
> Posted by Evelyn Stark, Assistant Vice President, Financial Inclusion Lead, MetLife Foundation, and Graham A. N. Wright, Group Managing Director, MicroSave
Financial Inclusion 2020 (FI2020) is a global multi-stakeholder movement to achieve full financial inclusion, using the year 2020 as a focal point for action. This blog series will spotlight financial inclusion efforts around the globe and share insights from key thought leaders in financial inclusion, with a specific focus on quality beyond access.
In the first part of this blog series, we saw how understanding customer demand is not enough to deliver mass financial inclusion … or even a successful product. Supply side factors are key … if rather more difficult than a quick market research exercise. Even after careful pilot-testing and a structured roll-out, all that preparation and keen balancing of client desires and institutional capacity to deliver sustainably didn’t necessarily work! Where were the clients? Why weren’t they storming the doors and asking for these wonderfully designed products? Weren’t our loan officers as excited as the project team? Did the CEO’s endorsement and great speech at the annual meeting make loan officers ready to sell the new products? Weren’t clients telling each other, and their cousins and friends?
No, they weren’t.
The supply side (staff) had not conveyed to the demand side (clients) that they had new products based on their feedback; they hadn’t convinced and trained staff, who were concerned that their jobs were about to get harder. Clients weren’t buying, and staff weren’t selling these new products. Once again, the action research partners* attacked the issues and MicroSave worked alongside, frantically learning and documenting.
Read the rest of this entry »
> Posted by Center Staff
Globally, the cost of fraud in the telecoms industry amounts to about 2 percent of total revenues, roughly US $46 billion. In the mobile money segment, it’s estimated that about 2 to 3 percent of revenues generated from phone-based banking are lost to fraudulent activity. In India, where the mobile subscriber base is over 980 million individuals, covering over 70 percent of the country’s population, mobile money presents a big opportunity for banking the unbanked. And awareness of this is catching on. Just this week Paytm, a mobile wallet service in India backed by Alibaba’s financial arm, announced that they’ve surpassed the 100 million client mark.
As more individuals are brought into the mobile banking fold, including those of lower income levels, it’s increasingly important that fraud risks are thoroughly managed. If they aren’t, clients will suffer, and so will their perceptions of formal banking services. A new report from Deloitte investigates the risks facing India’s mobile money market and how to best manage them.
The report outlines and offers the root causes of seven categories of fraud: phishing fraud; intrusion/ cyber attack; access to wallet through unauthorized SIM swap; fake KYC; commission fraud by agents; and application manipulation by authorized users. (The latter two are frauds carried out by internal stakeholders, like agents, employees, and third-party vendors.) As one example, in the case of phishing (when fraudsters dupe customers through phone calls/SMS/emails to share sensitive information), the root cause is inadequate customer awareness around information sharing and customer data theft.
> Posted by Kettianne Cadet, Program Coordinator, CFI
It’s been a few weeks now since our return from Cape Town and the kick-off seminar of the inaugural Africa Board Fellowship, a six-month program launched this year to foster peer-to-peer learning and exchange on governance practices among board members and CEOs at financial institutions serving low-income clients in sub-Saharan Africa. The fellowship begins and ends with multi-day in-person seminars and between seminars fellows are connected through a virtual collaboration space that includes discussion forums and dialogues.
In early June, CFI’s Investing in Inclusive Finance (IIF) team and the fellowship’s seasoned faculty, advisors, subject experts, and inaugural class of fellows all came together in South Africa for the in-person kick-off seminar. This first seminar was very well received by both fellows and staff and here are some of the reasons I believe it went well.
Participant Diversity: The first cohort of fellows connects 30 board members and CEOs from 13 institutions throughout 11 countries, all with diverse backgrounds and experience. Each participating institution is required to send their CEO along with one or two board members. Having this mix of participants throughout the seminar led to numerous engaged, candid, and rich discussions about roles, board dynamics, and responsibilities. Had we only brought together one fellow from each institution, these conversations would have been far more one dimensional.
Structured Accountability: Having both CEOs and board members present supports accountability within each institution – to participate in each session and to take action afterwards. If only one member from each institution attended, would they be able to transfer their takeaways to their organization or actually implement any of the lessons learned? Additionally, given that the fellows either came from a different geographical location, offered differing products, or perhaps targeted a different niche market, it seemed that everyone got enormous value from their exchanges with one another.