Mystery Shopping for Financial Services

8/18/2019 Mystery Shopping for Financial Services

1/108

Mystery Shopping for

Financial ServicesWhat Do Providers Tell,and Not Tell,

Customers aboutFinancial Products?

A Technical Guide

October 2015

Rafe Mazer, Xavier Gine, and Cristina Martinez


2/108

© 2015, Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP)

1818 H Street NW, MSN P3-300

Washington, DC 20433 USA

Internet: www.cgap.org

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: +1 202 473 9594

Rights and Permissions This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Un-ported license (CC BY 3.0) http:// creativecommons .org/licenses/by/3.0. Under the Creative Com-mons Attribution license, you are free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt this work, includingfor commercial purposes, under the following conditions: Attribution—Cite the work as follows:CGAP. 2015. “Mystery Shopping for Financial Services: What Do Providers Tell, and Not Tell,Customers about Financial Products?” Technical Guide. Washington, D.C.: CGAP. License: Cre-ative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 Translations—If you create a translation of this work, addthe following disclaimer along with the attribution: This translation was not created by CGAP and

should not be considered an ofcial translation. CGAP shall not be liable for any content or errorin this translation. All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to CGAP Publications,1818 H Street, NW, MSN P3-300, Washington, DC 20433 USA; e-mail: cgap@world bank.org.


3/108

iii

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

I. Determining Policy Objectives of the Mystery Shopping Exercise 7

II. Selecting the Products and Delivery Channels to Include 10

III. Designing Consumer Proles 14

IV. Training Shoppers and Conducting Mystery Shopping Visits 18

V. Analyzing Mystery Shopping Data 21

Conclusion: Mystery Shopping and Consumer Protection Policy 24

References 26

Annexes

Annex 1. Loan shopping visit questionnaire 27Annex 2. Savings shopping visit questionnaire 39

Annex 3. Insurance mystery shopping questionnaire 51

Annex 4. Sample loan scripts for shopper proles 63

Annex 5. Savings and xed accounts shopper scripts 69

Annex 6. Life insurance shopper scripts 81

Annex 7. Provider survey on loan products 87

Annex 8. Provider survey on deposit products 91

Annex 9. Informed consent form 95

Annex 10. Outcome variables used in analysis of savings andcredit shopping visits 103


4/108


5/108

1

Introduction

When Alejandra (not her actual name) went to open a savings account at a bank branchin her hometown of Ecatepec, Mexico, she told the salesperson that she wanted an ac-count for her daily nancial needs that was easy to move money into and out of. Thesalesperson considered Alejandra’s expressed preferences and made a recommendationfor a current account. However, the salesperson failed to disclose the government-mandated “total annual earnings” calculation on the account, nor mention that this

account carried with it monthly maintenance fees. The salesperson also failed to men-tion that there was another, cheaper option that would have t Alejandra’s needs. Thiswas a “cuenta básica,” a no-frills savings account that is required to be on offer at allbanks in Mexico. Since Alejandra was a mystery shopper participating in research onsales practices, her experience helped to inform Mexico’s nancial consumer protectionagency about the possible challenges in getting providers to disclose this low-cost sav-ings option to the type of consumers that could most benet from a simple, zero-costway to store and manage their savings.

To expand responsible nancial access and use, nancial sector regulators and supervi-sors in many emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) have expanded theirconsumer protection mandates, policies, and oversight in recent years. An essential elementof this expanding role for consumer protection policy is to be able to effectively monitorand understand what occurs during the sales process for nancial products. Yet there areoften signicant gaps between what is expected in consumer protection and market conductregulations, and what is done in practice by providers, which can render important policymeasures ineffective. This can lead to a worst-case scenario where the state of market con-

duct appears robust on paper—prompting a sense of complacency—yet in practice thesepolicies are not complied with, and abusive practices remain in the market, undetected bythe policy makers charged with nancial consumer protection and often under-reported byconsumers. This lack of compliance with market conduct rules such as disclosure, nancialadvice, and suitability requirements can be due to a number of factors:

• The sales staff is not properly trained• The incentive to fully disclose terms or offer proper consumer advice is not aligned

with the business interests of the providers


6/108

2 Mystery Shopping for Financial Services

• Consumers or sales staff are in a rush to nalize the agreement• The required disclosure rules and documents are too complex, lengthy, or difcult to

use during a typical consumer-sales staff interaction

Policy makers are increasingly integrating consumer research methodologies tomonitor the market, gather insights, and inform policymaking. 1 One effective consumerresearch method is mystery shopping, which measures the actual behavior of individualsales staff in a true sales environment. Mystery shopping is a tool that involves sendingconsumers to places of business, government agencies, or other service providers to simu-late a typical customer inquiry.

Mystery shopping is usually focused on a subset of products, provider types, and

locations, versus nationally representative surveys that measure consumer experienceacross an entire population sample. As such it is an indicative method that can be usedto signal issues in the market requiring further policy intervention or improved conductby providers. Used in this manner, mystery shopping is a useful tool to inform consumerprotection policy and measure market conduct issues such as how well sales staff com-ply with disclosure regulations, quality of customer attention and suitability of nancialadvice, access to and use of recourse systems when things go wrong, and disparate treat-ment of vulnerable consumers.

Recent mystery shopping assessments in several markets 2 have provided policy mak-ers with important insights on sales practices that can help inform consumer protectionpolicy:

Limited presentation of mandated nancial product information. Sales staff may notalways use the required forms and documentation during sales processes. Reasons for do-ing so may include to hide certain product information from the consumer, because theynd the form overly complicated to explain and complete, or not relevant to their salesprocess. Irrespective of motivations, this is still a form on noncompliance with rules on

sales practices, and it is important to document and understand this noncompliance tobetter align rules and common sales practices. Through this evidence policy makers canbegin to consider whether provider noncompliance should be more strictly monitoredand enforced, or whether policy approaches need to be changed to increase ease of imple-mentation or to incentivize the desired conduct by providers.

1 A relevant example of this increased use of consumer research for market monitoring is the Reserve Bank ofMalawi’s 2014 Mystery Shopping on General Insurance Companies and Brokers, which used this tool to “as-sess general insurance service providers’ rate of transparency and disclosure of information when dealing with

prospective policyholders of motor vehicle insurance…The focus was determined by an increased number ofcustomer complaints the Register received from policyholders of motor vehicle insurance in the year 2013.”2 Research was conducted in Colombia, Ghana, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, and the Philippines.


7/108

Introduction 3

Steering of consumers toward less suitable products . Suitability is a policy approachthat requires providers to be responsible for the quality of their advice and product of-ferings relative to a consumer’s characteristics and nancial needs. In India and Mexico,

sales staff were highly unlikely and unwilling to offer low-cost basic savings accountsmandated by the government, even when the consumers presented needs or product pref-erences that would recommend use of these basic savings accounts. In India, sales staffrequired unnecessary documents and made false statements about eligibility requirementsto prevent low-income consumers from acquiring a basic savings account (Mowl, Jensen,and Boudot 2014).

Fraud and overcharging of consumers . In Kenya, banking agents skimmed extra rev-enue and took sensitive account information from aid program beneciaries cashing out

via their debit cards, while food merchants added extra charges onto food items the ben-eciaries purchased with their cards. 3

Different information for more experienced consumers. In Mexico, consumers pre-senting an “experienced” prole were given twice as much information about the costs ofthe nancial products than those with “inexperienced” proles (60 percent of total costsversus 30 percent of total costs) (Gine, Martinez, and Mazer 2014).

As these cases demonstrate, abusive or uninformed sales practices can hinder ac-cess to nancial products for base of the pyramid (BoP) consumers, create negative

experiences with these products that decrease their likelihood to use nancial productsand services in the future, and even cause detriment and economic loss to consumers.Therefore it is essential to both understand why sales practices do not always complywith regulatory requirements and develop policies that mitigate this misconduct bysales staff.

This Technical Guide is designed to enable policy makers with jurisdiction overmarket conduct issues, consumer protection organizations, and development agencies toconduct mystery shopping exercises. The guide provides information on how to design,

execute—either directly or by outsourcing to a research rm—and analyze mystery shop-ping exercises for nancial services. This includes descriptions of the several stages ofimplementing a mystery shopping program:

• How to set the goals for mystery shopping based on what the policy maker seeks tomeasure (e.g., compliance with disclosure requirements, disparate treatment, qualityof advice), as well as the range of products providers seek to cover.

3 Results from a mystery shopping exercise conducted by CGAP and World Food Program Kenya, August-November 2014. http://www.cgap.org/blog/merchant-incentives-shift-cashless-food-aid


8/108


• How to recruit actual consumers and build shopping scripts that represent the popu-lations and transaction types the policy maker is most interested in measuring. 4

• How to implement mystery shopping. This includes training shoppers, completing

questionnaires, and requesting complementary product information from providers.• How to analyze the data to measure the quality and quantity of the nancial informa-

tion, sales staff advice, and disparate treatment of different consumer segments.• Sample eld guides such as shopper scripts, shopper questionnaires, product informa-

tion request forms for nancial institutions, and sales staff surveys.

The guide and research tools presented are based on mystery shopping research con-ducted by CGAP, the World Bank, development agencies, and nancial supervisors in

seven markets with low-income consumers that included products such as savings, loan,insurance, and credit card products (Colombia, Ghana, Kenya [both for banking servicesand for digitization of food aid payment], Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, and the Philippines).The mystery shopping methodology used in these studies is characterized by several as-pects, summarized here and described in more detail throughout this publication.

Combined real and assumed consumer traits. The researchers in nearly all cases usedactual consumers recruited and then trained to conduct the mystery shopping. Actual con-sumers were selected to understand specic experiences of BoP consumers seeking nancial

products, and to measure how actual personal and nancial details (such as credit bureauinformation and income levels) changed the types of products and guidance given to theseconsumers. (For loan products it is common for lenders to require home visits to conrmassets or collateral, making the use of local shoppers even more important.) These actualtraits were combined with several assumed needs, preferences, and experience levels thatconsumers were taught to portray. Examples of proles consumers were trained to presentinclude level of nancial knowledge and experience, amount of loan requested, and reasonfor seeking a life insurance policy, to name just a few. The use of these real and assumed

proles allows the researchers to measure how sales staff treat different types of consumersand how well they match advice to consumers’ stated needs and preferences.

Classication of the quality of information provided. Researchers identied the mostimportant product information and terms used in each market, as well as reviewed therelevant rules on product disclosure and sales practices. This is done to develop a com-prehensive list of key terms that should be mentioned, and measure how many of these

4 Some mystery shopping use trained professional shoppers to conduct the shopping visits, instead of newly

recruited consumers from the target population sample. The methods described herein use actual consumersto best understand the experiences of lower-income nancial consumers and to measure provider responses toactual traits of these consumers, such as their previous borrowing experience, income level, and education.


9/108

Introduction 5

Box 1. Identifying expertise to execute mystery shopping exercises

For newly formed consumer protection units within nancial-sector regulators, de-

signing and executing eld research can create signicant capacity burdens. As such,an important rst step in conducting the mystery shopping techniques described inthis publication is to identify internal and external resources needed to carry out theeld work and subsequent analysis.

The template questionnaires and eld materials provided in the annex are intended to beadaptable to the particular product and research interests of a given consumer protectionunit. However, there is still need for experts in eld research to recruit and train consum-ers, design and monitor the shopping visits, verify data, and analyze results. This will inalmost all cases require hiring a market research rm to handle at least some tasks.

For analyzing the data, policy makers may have staff members with the requisite skills.As an example, in the Philippines the Financial Inclusion Unit of the Central Bank in-cludes a team that tracks nancial inclusion data and indicators. This staff was able toboth participate in the mystery shopping eld work that was led by a market researchrm—a key learning opportunity—as well as conduct all subsequent data analysis. Thiswas benecial as both the analysis of ndings and the interpretation of policy implica-

tions were handled by policy experts within the Central Bank. While capacity at thisstage may be limited in many consumer protection units, as nancial inclusion and con-sumer protection units expand and mature, the amount of research design and analysisthat can be handled internally versus by a market research rm may increase over time.

points of information were provided for each shopping visit. In addition, the researchersdeveloped categories for how the information was provided—written, verbally, explained

or merely mentioned, spontaneously or at the shopper’s request—to assess the depth andquality of the presentation of key terms. 5

5 There are, of course, challenges and limitations to the quantitative data measured via mystery shopping. Forexample, while shoppers can be instructed to obey general scripts and proles, there is naturally going to besome personal variance in how individual shoppers portray the same prole. However, it is still possible toidentify indicative trends and patterns in sales practices and shopper experiences, which can indicate generalmarket conduct that can inuence further research and policymaking. Personal variance around shopperproles can also be limited through proper preshopping training that includes the following: Role-playingof their assigned shopper proles; scripts that provide sample phrases to mention upon introduction to the

sales staff; piloting of shopping visits; and audio recording of each visit that is listened to by the enumeratorsand compared with the shopper prole and the questionnaire to ensure shoppers both generally obeyed theirprole and reported information in the questionnaire accurately.


10/108


Cross-linking mystery shopping data with product databases. In several markets re-searchers complemented the mystery shopping visits with an audit of all possible prod-ucts that could have been offered to the shoppers. This was done to accurately measure

the total number of terms and costs each product contains, and then compare this withthe number of terms provided by sales staff to shoppers and the total cost or return ofeach product.

Sales staff surveys. Surveys of sales staff at nancial institutions were added to sev-eral of the mystery shopping studies to understand their knowledge of nancial productsas well as their salaries, commissions, and other incentive structures.

This publication presents an overview of how to measure sales visits, quantify theirresults, and then analyze these ndings to measure quality and quantity of informa-

tion provided, product suitability, and sales staff behavior. The methods described hereinare designed to be effective both as a pre- and post-policy intervention tool, to pro-vide information to inform different policy types—such as disclosure, suitability, andfair treatment—and offer information to monitor consumer protection policies’ impacton the market. Similarly, the consumer proles, product features, and metrics have beendesigned to be adaptable to different product types, consumer segments, and deliverychannels, so that policy makers in each market can adapt them to their local context andpolicy needs. These methods have also proved to be easily replicable and cost-effective

means for gathering evidence for policymaking, meaning that it can be used by countriesacross the income spectrum and so can inform nancial inclusion policy in a broad rangeof emerging markets.

Figure 1. Stages of Mystery Shopping Implementation

I.Determining

policyobjec ves ofthe mystery

shopping

II. Selec ng

the productsand deliverychannels

III. Designingconsumer

proles fortheshopping

visits

IV. Trainingshoppers

andconduc ng

mysteryshopping

visits

V. Analyzing

mysteryshoppingdata


11/108

7

I. Determining Policy Objectives of theMystery Shopping Exercise

Mystery shopping can provide insights that serve a range of consumer protection andnancial inclusion interests across the nancial product lifecycle. While certain aspectsof setting up a mystery shopping exercise are fairly standard—such as measuring howinformation was provided and whether it was done spontaneously or on request—it isimportant to adapt the research to the primary policy goals. Some of the more common

consumer protection policy goals for mystery shopping include the following.Understanding compliance with regulatory regimes. This includes rules on sales

practices, fair treatment, suitability, and disclosure of product information. For example,credit shoppers in several markets were instructed to ask for explanation of the annualpercentage rate or total cost of credit, to measure its disclosure in sales visits and abilityof sales staff to explain its meaning and signicance to consumers. Mystery shoppingcan also measure disparate treatment of certain consumer types (e.g., lower-income, lessknowledgeable) and provide evidence as to how well providers are complying with rules

on fair treatment.Measuring observed effect of recent regulatory reforms. This can be done through

a two-phase mystery shopping conducted before and then shortly after a policy reformhas been implemented. In the Philippines, CGAP and the Central Bank of the Philippinesconducted credit shopping visits immediately before the implementation of the Truth inLending Act reforms in July 2012 and then a year later to measure changes in productdisclosure after the new Act was implemented in the market (see Box 2).

Sales staff knowledge and selective disclosure of information. By including informa-

tion gathered from shopper questions to sales staff, it is possible to measure how wellsales staff can explain key product terms. In addition, by assigning only certain shoppersto ask these questions, it is possible to measure how much sales staff share or withholdkey product information both when it is asked for by the consumer and when it is not.

Product suitability. By using actual consumers with true-to-life variance in charac-teristics such as income and credit history, it is possible to measure provider responsive-ness to certain personal or nancial traits when making product offers. Similarly, byhaving consumers signal certain preferences—such as size of loan, level of risk tolerance,or planned use of a savings account—it is possible to measure how providers respond


12/108


Box 2. Measuring provider response to the Truth in Lending Reformsin the Philippines

In 2011 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) revised the Truth in Lending Act(TILA) for credit products, including implementing a new suggested Loan Sum-mary Sheet that had been consumer-tested. The reforms were an important stepin improving the information provided to potential borrowers and covered awide range of nancial institutions. However, BSP wanted to assess the extentto which these reforms had impacted market conduct. CGAP and BSP designeda two-phase mystery shopping study to measure this impact in Metro Manila,Metro Cebu, and Metro Davao. They conducted two rounds of mystery shop-ping visits for loan products of 150 visits each. The rst round of visits wasin June 2012—a month before the reforms took effect—and the follow-up inAugust 2013—more than a year after the reforms took effect. By comparing thepre- and post-data, BSP was able to understand where the reforms had more orless impact in product disclosure, including the following:

• A reduction in quoting of nominal interest rate—which is a less accurate re-ection of the true cost of a credit product—from 81 percent to 69 percent,

combined with an increase in quoting of effective interest rate (EIR) from 19percent to 31 percent. One of the key elements of TILA was a requirement tocite effective interest rates. This improvement in use of EIR was particularly thecase for lending-only institutions such as micronance institutions and coop-eratives.

• Another signicant reform was a mandatory TILA poster on display at allbranches. Shoppers were asked to observe whether the poster was present duringtheir visits. Results varied greatly by provider type, with 82 percent of bank visits

noting the poster on display, but only 20 percent or less for visits to other institu-tion types. This may indicate the challenges of getting smaller provider types tocarry out such reforms and the need for follow-up engagement.

• There was also a decrease in information presented verbally and an increase ininformation provided spontaneously by sales staff in the 2013 visits. Written ma-terials were also provided in 56 percent of post-TILA visits, up from 43 percentduring pre-TILA visits. However, for many key product features, such as totalcost and payment amount, disclosure of information pre- and post-TILA results

varied only slightly. So while TILA appears to have impacted disclosure of new

continued


13/108

I. Determining Policy Objectives of the Mystery Shopping Exercise 9

to these cues and compare treatment across different expressed personal preferences ofconsumers. In the Mexico mystery shopping, sales staff appeared to offer more suit-able credit products for different consumer proles than they did for savings products.Shoppers who requested a higher loan amount relative to their stated income level wereoffered a reduced loan amount more often than those who requested a loan amount thatwas smaller relative to their income level, as providers appear to have adjusted loan sizeoffered relative to each shopper’s capacity to pay. By contrast, savings shoppers interestedin low-balance transactional accounts were not provided information on the basic sav-

ings account that would offer the lowest-cost savings option suitable to their stated needs(Gine, Martinez, and Mazer 2014).

terms it introduced such as EIR, changing disclosure practices for pre-existingrequired product terms may need additional efforts.

Figure B2-1. Display of TILA Poster by Institution Type(by %, post implementation of TILA reforms)

10090

807060

504030

2010

0Bank NGO MFI Lending Cooperative Pawnshop Institution

n Displayed n Not Displayed


14/108

10

II. Selecting the Products and Delivery Channels to Include

The mystery shopping methods described in this Technical Guide have been applied acrossa range of products that include consumer credit, savings accounts, insurance products,credit cards, and mortgage products. They have also been tested through a variety of saleschannels, including bank branches, third-party agents and intermediaries, and nancialadvisers. In determining which products to measure sales practices, policy makers shouldselect products where they have a strong need for additional knowledge on sales practices.

This can be due to a range of factors, such as a new product or sales method enteringthe market, evidence from complaints data that a particular product is causing consumersproblems, interest in developing or modifying existing regulations around that product, orinitial insights from focus groups, consumer interviews, surveys, or other such demand-sideevidence on problems consumers have with that product.

Depending on the product type(s) to be covered in the mystery shopping visit, severalaspects of the research design should be customized according to the local context ofnancial service delivery and regulations.

Relevant Regulations. A full review of all relevant regulations and other require-ments should be conducted before developing the mystery shopping questionnaire todetermine the most important outcomes to measure to assess regulatory compliance.This includes rules regarding standard calculation of terms, physical and nonphysicaldisclosure of product information, and assessment of consumer needs and nancial ad-vice—often referred to as “product suitability” rules.

Key Product Terms. This includes the different ways in which product cost or ben-ets are conveyed, as well as the most relevant features consumers should be informed of

for this product. For a detailed list of product terms, refer to the annexes, which includeillustrative examples of questionnaires for credit, savings, and insurance products.

Delivery Channels and Physical Location. New innovative delivery channels suchas mobile banking agents have expanded access and reduced costs of nancial services.These delivery channels have also introduced new actors to the sales process. To measurethe impact a channel may have on the shopping experience, where possible, mysteryshopping should consider all the primary channels through which products are sold. Forexample, the CGAP and Bank Negara Malaysia mystery shopping inquiry into insurancesales considered three sales channels: bank branch, insurance agents, and nancial advis-ers—which are not tied to a particular bank or insurance company. (See Box 3.)


15/108


Box 3. Helping Food Aid Go Digital—Mystery Shopping with the

World Food Programme in Kenya

The shift to digital payments can be an important cost-saving measure for organi-zations such as the World Food Programme Kenya (WFP), as well as a gateway tonancial inclusion for beneciaries who may not have had access to formal nancialservices previously. However, this transition to digital also raises challenges for inexpe-rienced consumers trying to navigate new products such as debit cards, mobile wallets,and sensitive account information such as PINs. To help monitor user experience andprotect them against risks, WFP and CGAP partnered to develop and pilot mysteryshopping methods to monitor two digital payment programs, with the goal of buildingan efcient approach that can be used by eld teams for continuous monitoring acrossall of WFP’s digital payment programs. The rst program, Cash Lite, replaced fooddistribution with cash transfers via debit cards that can be used at local merchants sell-ing foodstuffs, who acquired point-of-sale (POS) devices from the participating bank.The second program, Cash for Assets, replaced cash payments for low-season workwith payments made via bank accounts linked to debit cards that could be used forcashing out, depositing, or transferring money at banks, ATMs, or banking agents.

Both mystery shopping activities used actual WFP beneciaries to conduct the trans-actions and were designed to reect the particularities of each program. The keyndings from the research include the following:

• In both cases, one of the primary points measured was whether private accountinformation was compromised during the merchant or agent transactions. In theCash Lite case, of the 46 shopping visits conducted, the merchant entered thebeneciary’s PIN for them in 36 percent of the cases. In the Cash for Assets pro-gram, of the 73 shopping visits conducted, agents entered the PIN in 73 percent

of visits, despite the fact that the researchers documented that 72 percent of thebeneciaries who conducted these visits had memorized their PIN, and so shouldhave been allowed to enter it themselves.

• Both pilots also revealed issues of agent overcharging. In the Cash Lite program,many participants noted prices were higher than in previous visits to this mer-chant, with some merchants justifying this upcharge by noting the POS transac-tion fee they pay the bank for debit card transactions. In 8 of 29 (28 percent) vis-its where itemized receipts were provided (out of a total of 46 visits for the Cash

Continued on next page


16/108


Determining Provider Types and Geographic Coverage. Many emerging markets arecharacterized by a wide range of nancial institution types. These can vary from large,multinational banks to small cooperatives or even independent individuals such as third-

party agents. While it can be logistically challenging to locate and cover these smallerinstitutions as compared to larger institutions in a mystery shopping exercise, it is desir-able to try to include as many types of providers as possible to truly capture the diversityof sales practices in the market. This extends to unregulated providers, which often servea high percentage of BoP nancial consumers, and so offer important insights into theirexperiences, including the quality of products offered to them, as well as the particularconsumer protection and nancial inclusion measures that may need to be adopted orexisting rules whose coverage needs to be extended. Furthermore, this offers a chance

for regulators to gain insights on consumer protection risks in a segment of the market

Lite program), the itemized receipt did not match the value on the POS receipt(which reects the actual amount deducted from the account). In the Cash for As-sets program, in only 10 percent of visits did agents communicate fees before thetransaction was made. Agents also deducted extra sums on some users’ transac-tions beyond the amount the beneciary had asked to withdraw. This may be pos-sible because 62 percent of shoppers were not aware of what the transaction feeswere, so may be less likely to notice these extra charges taken by the agents. Suchpractices may also explain why 23 percent of Cash for Assets shoppers reporteddiscriminatory treatment due to their being WFP beneciaries rather than being

regular banking agent customers.• For the Cash Lite program, prices charged for foodstuffs and whether merchants

permitted purchase of alcohol and other nonencouraged items were added to themeasurement (7 of 23 attempts were successful). For the Cash for Assets program,distance traveled and costs related to travel to cash-out points were importantto understand beneciaries’ transactional behaviors; i.e., why the majority onlymakes use of cash-outs and typically only do so once per month when the benetshave been transferred. This is likely due to branch and agent presence varying

signicantly across locations, and beneciaries noted they would prefer accessingtheir benets through M-PESA accounts in the future, which has more extensiveagent network coverage.

Box 3 Continued


17/108


that may only have limited ofcial oversight, but can pose signicant risks to consumerwelfare and plays an important role in nancial inclusion.

To help ensure that a diverse range of providers in a market is included in a mystery

shopping study, it is recommended to select one or more restricted geographic location(s)for the visits, and then to map out all providers that have operations within that loca-tion. The geographies can be selected for reasons that include nationally representativesamples, major population concentrations, provider and product diversity, or even “hotspotting” of locations where higher numbers of complaints or market conduct problemshave been identied. However, in all cases the selection of institutions should seek tocover as wide a range of institution types as is relevant for the particular product.

In Ghana, for instance, there is a wide range of provider types, including banks,

cooperatives, savings and loan companies, credit unions, and micronance companies—with an estimated 500+ micronance companies alone in the market. This created a chal-lenge of covering the full range of provider types in the market. The researchers thereforeselected three locations with diverse provider types: the capital city of Accra, the sec-ondary city of Kumasi, and the fast-growing port town of Takoradi. In all locations theresearchers surveyed the town to locate the major business centers where many nancialinstitutions were located. Once these locations were chosen, the researchers establisheda 2 kilometer radius from this center point, which became the outer boundary of the

geographic area from which the sample of nancial institutions would be built. Theresearchers then physically walked the 2 kilometer radius to conrm all nancial institu-tions within the radius, which was used to develop a master list of nancial institutions,from which a random assignment of shopper visits were created. This method allowedfor a comprehensive list of branches of a diverse range of providers.


18/108

14

III. Designing Consumer Proles

Perhaps the most important element to the mystery shopping approaches described inthis Technical Guide is the development of a range of consumer proles that can beused to measure how different consumer features, or even perceived features, can impactthe treatment, product information, and product offerings they receive during shoppingvisits. Proles should be customized according to the local context of types of consum-ers, products on offer, and general economic and demographic information. Examples

of common proles used in the mystery shopping projects discussed in this publicationinclude the following both actual and assumed traits.

A. Actual Traits

Whenever possible, these traits should be based on the shoppers’ actual personal infor-mation or characteristics. It is therefore important to recruit shoppers whose real-lifesituations match these traits to serve as the mystery shoppers.

Socioeconomic prole. In the cases piloted to date the focus has been on low- tomiddle-income segments of the population. However, some adjustment of the actual min-imum and maximum income levels may be needed depending on the product type (e.g.,traditional insurance products usually have a higher income level of clients than currentaccounts), or the general sales practices of nancial institutions in the market.

Financial history. A consumer’s nancial history may include the types of productsthey have used, frequency of use, and important events such as making late payments ordefaulting on a loan. As this last variable demonstrates, there may be certain features of

a shopper’s personal nancial history that will make them not suitable to mystery shop-ping. For example, if the shopper has defaulted in the past, this may suggest disqualify-ing/excluding them from a credit shopping exercise, as this could impact the results in away that is not typical of most nancial consumers. Conversely, if shoppers are recruitedwithout any formal nancial experience, they may have a hard time learning their pro-les and understanding and recording the information provided during their visits in thequestionnaires completed after every visit.


19/108


B. Assumed Traits

As a complement to actual personal information of shoppers, it can be useful to includea series of assumed proles, behaviors, or needs that are portrayed during the mysteryshopping visits, and are assigned randomly to each shopper independent of their actualtraits.

Box 4. Life Insurance Sales in Malaysia through Multiple Channels

Bank Negara Malaysia conducted a study to assess whether product disclosure prac-

tices are meeting Bank Negara’s objectives of helping consumers make informeddecisions based on a clear understanding of product features, as well as compareproducts and services. As part of this study, CGAP and Bank Negara used a mysteryshopping exercise to measure both regulatory compliance and variations in con-sumer sales experience in life insurance products.

Similar to other mystery shopping assessments described in this paper, shoppersin Malaysia were trained to present a range of different need proles that would in-dicate a general preference for term, whole life, or endowment insurance policies, aswell as for higher-risk investment-linked insurance categories. The process includedhaving shoppers convey to insurance agents that they were seeking to protect theirfamily in the case of accident or death; cover an anticipated future expense such astheir child’s education; or get a high return on their funds. In Malaysia, life insurancesales are carried out through three primary channels: bank branches, tied agents(providing products of a single insurer), and nancial advisers (who can offer prod-ucts from multiple rms). The mystery shopping visits were divided among thesethree sales channels to measure differences in conduct by type of sales channels. Thisis particularly important since nancial advisers are a relatively new type of chan-nel authorized by Bank Negara to diversify the types of agents selling insurance andthe range of providers’ products they offer to consumers. While further research isongoing, the insights into sales practices from this research are helping inform pos-sible policy actions by Bank Negara in product disclosure and sales practices for lifeinsurance in Malaysia.


20/108


Financial knowledge. The mystery shopping conducted to date has often dividedconsumers into two experience levels: experienced and inexperienced. Similar to Anagol,Cole, and Sarkar (2012), the primary distinction of experience level used is reference to

having visited other providers offering similar products before this shopping visit (expe-rienced) or this being the rst such visit to an institution (inexperienced). These differentexperience levels can be articulated in the initial engagement with the sales staff throughdistinct scripts for the two types of shoppers. For example, in Ghana, experienced bor-rowers were instructed to say, “I am looking for a new loan of GHC_____. I have beenvisiting other lenders to see what products they have, and I wanted to know what prod-ucts you offer.” On the other hand, inexperienced borrowers were instructed to “demon-strate [their] inexperience with nancial products with phrases such as ‘I need money and

I wanted to know if you can help me.’”Experienced prole consumers were instructed to ask several follow-up questions.

These questions are intended to measure how well sales staff explain certain productterms and features that a less experienced consumer may not ask, but could be appropri-ate for an experienced consumer to ask. Finally, experienced consumers were instructedto generally demonstrate basic nancial understanding through verbal and nonverbalcues, while inexperienced consumers were instructed to demonstrate minimal knowledgeand be more passive with the sales staff. However, it is important to note that in neither

case were shoppers intended to portray a very high level of nancial knowledge, as theystill should represent the typical range of knowledge of most nancial consumers. Alongthese lines, shoppers were explicitly instructed that they should let the sales staff lead theconversation and not ask any questions until the sale staff has had time to provide thisinformation voluntarily.

Competition. An additional variation in the experienced prole that was testedwas reference to a more or less expensive product offer by a competitor. For example,experienced savings shoppers, when informed of the interest rate offered at a provider,

may note that they received an offer for a savings account with a higher or lower inter-est rate, to measure any impact competitors’ terms may have on terms offered by thesales staff.

Financial needs and preferences. As noted in the discussion on measuring productsuitability, mystery shopping can help reveal how well sales staff consider consumerneeds and preferences and can use these to offer the best available product offering fortheir prole. To assess this aspect of the sales experience, shoppers should be instructed topresent different nancial needs and purposes for the product. These needs are generallybased on the product type and will depend on the specic shopping instance. However,an example of the proles used in CGAP research is included in Table 1.


21/108


Membership in a particular program or other social signaling. In some cases consum-ers may be treated differently because of their recognizable afliations or physical traits.For example, List (2013) described how consumers shopping for automobile repairs in

the United States were charged more if they had a noticeable physical handicap. It istherefore important to understand the different treatment certain populations may expe-rience and to measure this where possible. Life insurance mystery shopping in Malaysiaused representatives of the three main ethnicities in Malaysian society, comparing theirexperiences when visiting insurance agents of the same or different ethnicity. In a mysteryshopping exercise with WFP beneciaries purchasing food items from local stores, shop-pers were instructed to either signal upfront their participation in the program or to notmention this until they used the WFP-provided debit card at checkout.

Style of dress. Consumers were also instructed to vary their style of dress betweenformal and informal dress, as a proxy for signaling of socioeconomic status to the salesstaff. By having the same consumer vary his or her style of dress from one day of shop-ping visits to another, it is possible to understand any impact style of dress may have onthe sales experience and outcomes.

Table 1. Pro le Examples

Product Type Purpose for Product Financial Characteristics/Preferences

Savings Day-to-day financial management vs.saving up funds for one year

Total amount saved to date (e.g., $500 vs.$1,000)

Personal Loan Personal loan versus microenterprise loan High or low loan amount relative to income

Life Insurance Protect against death or major illness; savefor anticipated future expense; high returnon investment

High or low premium tolerance; high orlow tolerance for risk


22/108

18

IV. Training Shoppers and Conducting Mystery Shopping Visits

Once the consumer proles are decided, the locations for the study surveyed, and eldmaterials developed, the next steps are to train the shoppers and implement the mysteryshopping visits.

A. Training Shoppers

Given the proles consumers may portray, as well as the use of rst-time mystery shop-pers, it is important to conduct an in-depth training on mystery shopping methodologiesand acting out proles before embarking on eld visits. Consumers should be asked toconduct observed role playing of the proles to make sure each understands their proleand what they should—and should not—convey during their visits.

Consumers should also be trained in how to complete the post-visit questionnaire.However, given the exhaustive coverage of possible product terms, categorization oftypes of information, and how this information was provided, shoppers should not be

expected to complete these questionnaires on their own. They should be monitored by aeld supervisor who has experience conducting surveys and verifying data collected fromeld experiments—likely staff of a market research rm—who will sit with the consum-ers after the shopping visit to complete the questionnaire together.

B. Classifying Levels of Disclosure in the Questionnaire

The questionnaires developed in this research not only measure information provided,

but also the manner in which the information was communicated by the provider. Thisrequires categorizing information not only as provided, but also asking shoppers to as-sess the way in which the information was provided. Therefore the questionnaire asksshoppers to categorize the information provided in the following ways:

• Whether information was provided voluntarily or upon request of the shopper• Whether information was provided verbally, in writing, or both• Whether information was explained to the shopper or merely presented to the shop-

per without explanation


23/108

IV. Training Shoppers and Conducting Mystery Shopping Visits 19

Since there is a somewhat subjective element to two of these three measurements ofinformation provided, shoppers should be asked to explain their categorizations duringthe training and piloting of the mystery shopping to ensure they are correctly interpreting

how information is provided per the instructions of the research team. By asking eachshopper to explain their rationale for distinguishing among “voluntary/upon request,”“verbal/in writing,” and “explained/presented,” eld staff can better standardize the wayin which each shopper categorizes information provided and correct shoppers who mayinitially interpret these differences incorrectly. A sample of mystery shopping question-naires for credit, savings, and insurance products is included in the annex so readers canadapt the instruments to their local context and the products they select for their particu-lar mystery shopping exercise(s).

C. Gathering Product Information from Financial Institutions

The use of different shopper need proles is intended to measure the degree to whichsales staff seek to offer products that match the shopper’s preferences. To properly mea-sure how suitable a product offered is compared to the other products a consumer couldobtain/purchase, it is necessary to catalog the entire range of products on offer at a pro-

vider that match the consumer’s stated preferences. This means that in addition to con-ducting the shopping visits themselves, it is important that policy makers request fromall providers visited a list of the products they offer that would likely be suitable to theshopper proles and products measured during the shopping visits. This information iscritical to fully measure product suitability, quality of advice when choosing among mul-tiple products, and the relative cost to shoppers of any sales staff biases toward certainproducts over others.

For example, for loan shopping visits in Mexico, a catalog was made of all loan

products of MX 10,000 ($667) or less offered at providers visited by mystery shoppers,and for savings products that could be opened with MX 5,000 ($333) or less. Thesedata must typically be collected by the relevant regulatory authority, which has a man-date to oblige providers to share product information, as data gathered from branchesor other sources such as websites can be incomplete and out of date. Such a comparisonof products on offer and actual products offered to shoppers can illustrate how salesstaff’s incentives can be aligned or misaligned with consumers’ “best interests” on aproduct-by-product basis.


24/108


Box 5. Sales Staff Surveys: Evidence from Peru

Mystery shopping effectively draws out evidence on the behavior of sales staff. How-

ever, determining the motivations of sales staff is not always possible from mysteryshopping data alone. For this reason, it may be necessary to gather information fromsales staff themselves on topics such as compensation, incentive schemes, and knowl-edge of nancial products and terms. In several of the mystery shopping projects de-scribed herein a sales staff survey was conducted after the mystery shopping to betterunderstand the motivations of sales staff. These survey data were then analyzed along-side the data from the mystery shopping. For example, a survey of 62 sales staff atnancial institutions visited by mystery shoppers in Peru revealed the following:• All sales staff surveyed self-reported that they give product advice; 85 percent

reported that they make specic product recommendations. Sales staff also re-ported differing levels of authority to make nal product decisions for savingsaccounts and term deposits (96 percent in both cases), credit cards (49 percent),and loans (45 percent.)

• When asked to classify how much product information they disclose to consum-ers, 74 percent reported they “voluntarily provide all information related to theproduct,” 24 percent reported they “only provide information they think theconsumer will understand,” and 2 percent reported they “only answer questionsthat are asked by the consumer.” However, in the mystery shopping visits salesstaff did not appear to voluntarily provide all information in most cases. On av-erage, shoppers were provided 6.4 of 18 points (35 percent) of information forsavings accounts, 10.3 of 18 points (56 percent) of information for term depositaccounts, and 10.7 of 22 points (49 percent) of information for personal loans,with only 23 percent and 20 percent of this information being provided volun-tarily to shoppers in savings and credit visits, respectively.

• Sales staff demonstrated relatively strong knowledge of the Total Annual Costof Credit (TCEA) and Total Annual Return on Savings (TREA), averaging a 2.7and 2.4 out of three on knowledge level, with 2 being equal to “understands theconcept but with some doubts,” and 3 being equal to “perfectly understands theconcept.” During the shopping visits, TCEA and TREA were mentioned to shop-pers in 55 percent and 42 percent of the visits, respectively.


25/108

21

V. Analyzing Mystery Shopping Data

A. Categorizing the Mystery Shopping Data

The mystery shopping methods and detailed questionnaires used in the authors’ researchprovide a wide array of useful data on product characteristics, sales practices, and regula-tory compliance. To analyze the data, it is useful as a rst step to classify the data across

several different categories of types of information captured during the visits:

• Product information. This includes key product terms, such as all costs, interest, pe-riod/tenor of the product, and variable and nonvariable features. For the credit andsavings product mystery shopping exercises, this information was divided into LegalRequirements, Terms of Account, and Fees and Commissions. For a full listing of theterms for credit, savings, and insurance products, refer to the questionnaires in theannex.

• Physical materials. In addition to distinguishing what information is provided in ver-bal and/or written form, all physical materials should be classied by type (e.g., bro-chure, poster, contract, key facts statement), and all relevant product informationcounted within each piece of written material provided to the shopper.

• Access barriers and requirements. Restrictions on product access as well as requireddocumentation, collateral, or other elements that may prevent a consumer from ac-cessing the product.

• Sales experience. Information that relates to the individual visit and that may impactcustomer satisfaction with the visit, such as waiting time and total time of visit.

• Consumer perceptions. Subjective questions asked of the consumers after the visitconcerning their satisfaction with the shopping experience, opinion of the sales staff,and other personal reections on the visit.

• Final product offers. The nal product offer can be measured both in how it relatesto the consumer’s stated preferences and the actual nancial information provided bythe consumer on their circumstances.


26/108


B. Analyzing the Mystery Shopping Data Against Shopper Proles

Once these data have been categorized, they can be analyzed against the shopper proles

included within the sample of shoppers (nancial experience, nancial history, statedproduct needs, style of dress, etc.). 6 The analysis conducted by the researchers in thiswork included running regressions with data from the shopping visits. Dependent vari-ables included the wait time, face-to-face time with staff, whether the products were of-fered, and percentage of the cost of the product, to name just a few examples of dependentvariables. These dependent variables were analyzed against a set of dummy variables thataccounted for the different shopper proles—such as experience level, product needs,etc. By comparing the amount of information provided against these shopper proles, it

is possible to assess differentiated treatment by sales staff of certain consumer proles.

C. Products on Offer in the Market Versus Products Actually Offered to Shoppers

As noted, data on the range of products that are on offer at a nancial institution of-fer important complementary data that can help measure relative suitability of productadvice from sales staff. First, by obtaining a detailed listing of all key terms and featuresfor each product on offer at a provider, it is possible to use this as the benchmark for“complete disclosure of terms,” and compare this with the total number of terms thatwere provided during a shopping visit for each product. This allows the research team tomeasure the percentage of total product information that was actually provided in eachvisit, and develop an aggregate measure of how likely sales staff are to properly discloseall features of a product. Second, the data can be used to determine how well sales staffmatch their recommendations to a consumer’s needs. This is done by calculating the totalnancial cost or return for a consumer of each product that could have been offered,then comparing this with the actual product recommended to a shopper, to determine ifthe product recommended was in fact the lowest cost option available that matched theconsumer’s stated product preferences The mystery shopping exercise in Mexico dem-onstrates how this analysis can offer useful insights into the relationship among productfeatures, sales staff incentives, and overall suitability of product advice in a market.

6 With the exception of the WFP Kenya pilot, the mystery shopping in this research used a sample size of

100–150 shopping visits per product type. This sample size was still able to detect statistically signicant dif-ferences in key factors of sales visits such as quantity of information provided and different shopper proles,both actual and assumed.


27/108

V. Analyzing Mystery Shopping Data 23

Box 6. Product Advice and Provider Incentives: Evidence from Mexico

In 2012 the World Bank, CONDUSEF (Mexico’s nancial consumer protection

agency), and CGAP conducted a mystery shopping investigation into the sale of small-value consumer credit and current and savings accounts in four communities nearMexico City (Gine, Martinez, and Mazer 2014). The research included not only mea-surement of the total quantity and quality of product information, but also whetherthe products recommended were the optimal product available at the provider per theconsumer’s stated preferences and nances.

To determine this, CONDUSEF submitted information requests to all provid-ers visited during the study to provide full product details on all products thatcould be accessed based on the loan amounts requested by the credit shoppers, orthe amount available to save as stated by the savings shoppers during their visits.These data were then used to generate an estimate of annual cost or return tothe consumer for all products that met these qualications within each nancialinstitution visited during the mystery shopping. This included simulating two useproles for savings based on different frequency of transactions, and two use pro-les for credit based on making all payments on time or being late on one paymentduring the term of the loan.

Once these returns were compiled, they were compared against the actualproducts offered to shoppers, to determine whether shoppers were offered themost suitable product available to them. The results demonstrate that providersoften do not offer consumers the best-value option. For savings products, the dif-ference in total yields between the cheapest savings product that meets the needs ofthe customer that the institution could have offered and the product that was actu-ally offered was either 2.8 percentage points or 3.2 percentage points, for the twouse proles simulated by the research team. Similarly, while Mexico has a no-frills,low-fee basic savings account that all deposit-taking institutions must offer, whichis intended for low-balance savers such as the mystery shoppers, staff offered thebasic account in only 2 of the 54 visits where a checking account was requested. Incredit visits, there was an average difference of 32.6 percent in total cost of creditbetween the cheapest product available for the loan amount a shopper requestedand the credit product they were offered, indicating sales staff steered consumersto higher cost credit options.


28/108

24

Conclusion: Mystery Shopping and Consumer Protection Policy

For policy makers, the data collected via mystery shopping can directly impact severalpriority consumer protection issues. Since both the experimental design and the resultsthemselves will vary from market to market, it is not appropriate to present a standardset of consumer protection policy insights or reforms from the mystery shopping exer-cises conducted to date. Instead, we highlight here several key policy areas where weexpect readers are likely to nd useful insights from mystery shopping that can inform

either nancial consumer protection measures such as new regulations, improved super-vision methods, sanctions, consumer education, or even just “moral suasion” of provid-ers based on the mystery shopping evidence.

Disclosure at point of sale. Issuing disclosure regulations is often one of the rst stepstaken by regulators to implement a new nancial consumer protection regime. However,disclosure regulations also are at risk of existing only on paper or in “check the box”acceptance of terms and conditions well after a consumer has been led to choose a -nancial product. Making disclosure regulations more effective requires understanding

and monitoring the in-person disclosure of key product terms and features. Throughmystery shopping, several aspects of disclosure compliance that are often unclear canbe effectively explored: In-person disclosure of legally required product terms; timing ofinformation delivery; incorrect disclosure of terms and conditions; and poor sales staffknowledge of products.

Sales practices and incentive structures. Research on diverse sales staff rangingfrom nancial advisers in the United States (Mullainathan, Noeth, and Schoar 2012)to insurance agents in India (Anagol, Cole, and Sarkar 2012) has shown that when

consumers’ interests and sales staff’s interests are not properly aligned, consumers cansuffer from inferior products and suboptimal nancial outcomes. There is also a grow-ing understanding of the role that biases of sales staff toward certain populations mayplay in the quality of their advice and the ease of those consumers’ access to low-cost,high-value products. 7 Mystery shopping makes it possible to better understand boththe suitability of products offered/advised and sales staff biases as suggested by theirdisparate treatment of different consumer proles. This can be achieved by building

7 See, for example, Mowl and Boudot (2014).


29/108

Conclusion: Mystery Shopping and Consumer Protection Policy 25

relevant shopper proles, as described above, and collecting a full range of products onoffer at all providers visited.

These insights are particularly important in the context of suitability requirements.

Suitability is a policy approach that requires providers to be responsible for the quality ofthe advice and product offerings they provide relative to a consumer’s characteristics andnancial needs. While suitability is a powerful principle, it can be hard to measure, moni-tor, and enforce beyond a case-by-case basis, as the issue is usually raised in a judicialor nonjudicial dispute resolution process only after a consumer has already availed of aproduct. By using mystery shopping to assess suitability, policy makers can more easilyidentify general trends in a market that are hindering application of suitability principles,and adjust their policies or what they require of providers during the sales process to ad-

dress suitability issues.Consumer understanding. By adding qualitative information such as consumers’

understanding of the information that was conveyed to them during the sales process,policy makers can better understand what information may be most useful or confusingto consumers during the sales process. This information can then be used to develop im-proved messaging and informational materials, either to be presented by providers or aspart of a broader consumer awareness and education campaign. Similarly, by asking con-sumers to assess subjective features, such as the quality of advice given by the sales staff,

it is possible to understand consumers’ own biases and see if their personal reectionsalign with the quality of product information provided and the suitability of the productsoffered by the sales staff, or if other personal biases are impacting their assessment of thesales experience and product offering.

The annexes that follow provide examples of eld guides used for the mystery shop-ping described within this publication. They include questionnaires used to measure in-formation provided during shopping visits; the scripts that are given to shoppers to helpthem learn and execute the assumed traits within their proles; the product information

tables sent to providers to measure the range of products they have on offer; sales staffsurveys to understand nancial knowledge and incentive structures; and a list of outcomevariables for data analysis. By providing these sample eld guides it is the intention ofthe authors that policy makers and researchers will use and adapt them to conduct theirown research and market monitoring via the mystery shopping methodology. This will inturn help to improve consumer protection policy as well as afford better understandingof the behaviors and incentives of consumers and providers alike, so that policy makerscan support inclusive and protective nancial markets for the underbanked and BoP con-sumer segments in particular.


30/108

26

References

Anagol, Santosh, Shawn Allen Cole, and Shayak Sarkar. 2012. “Understanding theIncentives of Commissions Motivated Agents: Theory and Evidence from theIndian Life Insurance Market.” Harvard Business School Finance Working PaperNo. 12-055. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Gine, Xavier, Cristina Martinez, and Rafe Mazer. 2014. “Financial (dis)Information:Evidence from an Audit Study in Mexico.” World Bank Group Working Paper.

Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group, June.List, John, and Uri Gneezy. 2013. The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered

Economics of Everyday Life. New York: Random House.Mullainathan, Sendhil, Markus Noeth, and Antoinette Schoar. 2012. “The Market for

Financial Advice: An Audit Study.” NBER Working Paper No. 17929. Boston:National Bureau of Economic Research, March.

Mowl, Amy Jensen, and Camille Boudot. 2014. “Barriers to Basic Banking: Early Resultsfrom an Audit Study in South India.” NSE Working Paper Series No. WP-2014-

1. India: IFMR, October.


31/108

Annex 1 27

E V A L U A T I O N O F I N F O R M A T I O N P R O V I D E D B Y F I N A N C I A L I N S T I T U

T I O N S

L o a n

S h o p p i n g

V i s i t

- E X P E R I E N C E D P R O F I L E

F o r m c o

d e

S h o p p e r

N a m e :

S h o p p e r c o d e :

F i n a n c

i a l I n s

t i t u t

i o n

N a m e :

F i n a n c

i a l I n s

t i t u t

i o n

C o d e :

A d d r e s s :

C i t y

S a l e s p e r s o n

P h o n e

N u m

b e r

A c c r a

1

V i s i

t d a t e

K u m a s

i

2

T i m e o f a r r i v a l

T a k o r a

d i

3

T i m e o f e x

i t

V i s i

t n u m

b e r

1

2

3

F o r m a

l d r e s s

1

I n f o r m a l

d r e s s

2

L o c a

t i o n o f v i s i

t :

F i n a n c

i a l i n s t

i t u t i o n

1

Y o u r

h o u s e o r a p a r

t m e n

t

2

Y o u r

b u s i n e s s

3

H i g h e r C o m p e

t i t o r

I n t e r e s t

R a t e

1

L o w e r

C o m p e

t i t o r

I n t e r e s t

R a t e

2

O t h e r

( n o t e )

9 9

G E N E R A L I N D I C A T I O N S

M a r

k w

i t h a n

X t h e a n s w e r s

i n e a c h

b o x

b e l o w , o

r n o t e y o u r r e s p o n s e

i n b l o c

k l e t t e r s

i n t h e s p a c e p r o v

i d e d f o r e a c h q u e s

t i o n .

L i s t e n

t o t h e a u

d i o r e c o r d

i n g

i f y o u

h a v e a n y

d o u b

t s o r

d i f c u

l t y r e c a

l l i n g

i n f o r m a t

i o n

N o t e :

I f a q u e s

t i o n

i s i n B O L D U N D E R L I N E , t h e n

i t i s a n

i t e m y o u m a y a s

k a b o u t

i f t h e s a

l e s p e r s o n

d o e s n o

t m e n t i o n

i t r s t .

A - 1

H o w

l o n g

d i d y o u

h a v e

t o w a i

t t o b e a t

t e n d e d

t o ?

( H H

: M M )

:

A - 2

H o w

l o n g

d i d t h e m e e

t i n g w

i t h t h e s a

l e s p e r s o n

l a s t

?

( H H

: M M )

:

A - 3

W h a t i s

t h e n a m e o f

t h e s a

l e s p e r s o n

t h a t a t

t e n d e d

t o y o u ?

A - 4

D i d t h e s a

l e s p e r s o n

i n d i c a

t e t h a t y o u m a y q u a l

i f y f o r s o m e

t y p e o f

l o a n w

i t h t h e

n a n c i a l

i n s t

i t u t i o n ?

Y e s

1 C

o n t i n u e

t o B - 1

N o

2

A - 5

W h y d i d y o u n o

t q u a

l i f y

f o r a

l o a n i n

t h i s i n s t

i t u t i o n ?

T h e y o n

l y p r o v

i d e

l o a n s

f o r s a l a r

i e d w o r

k e r s

1

T h e y o n

l y p r o v

i d e

l o a n s

f o r b u s i n e s s e s

2

I n a b

i l i t y t o r e p a y

t h e

l o a n

/ l o w

i n c o m e

3

T h e y r e q u

i r e a c r e d

i t h i s t o r y

4

T h e a m o u n t r e q u e s

t e d i s b e l o w t

h e m

i n i m u m

l o a n a m o u n t o f

f e r e

d

5

I t i s n e c e s s a r y

t o b e a m e m

b e r o f

t h e

i n s t

i t u t i o n

b e f o r e o b

t a i n i n g a

l o a n

6

T h e y o n

l y o f

f e r g r o u p

l o a n s

7

O t h e r

( n o t e )

9 9

E N D I N T E R V I E W


32/108


B - 1

W h a t p e r s o n a

l i n f o r m a t

i o n

d i d t h e y r e q u e s

t u p o n a s

k i n g

f o r a

l o a n

? ( m a r k w

i t h a n


t h a t c o r r e s p o n d

i n t h e

f o l l o w

i n g

l i s t , m

u l t i p l e a n s w e r s p e r m

i t t e d

)

N a m e

1

M a r

i t a l s t a t u s

7

A d d r e s s

2

P u r p o s e

f o r t

h e l o a n

8

T e l e p h o n e

3

O u t s t a n d

i n g

l o a n s a n

d o t

h e r d e b

t s

9

O c c u p a t

i o n

4

O n t

i m e p a y m e n

t o f o t h e r

l o a n s

1 0

A g e

5

O t h e r

i n f o r m a t

i o n

( n o t e )

9 9

L e v e

l o f e d u c a

t i o n

6

B - 2

W h a t d o c u m e n

t s o r r e q u

i r e m e n

t s d i d t h e y a s

k f o r t o

b e g i n p r o c e s s i n g

t h e

l o a n

?

( m a r

k w

i t h a n


t h a t c o r r e s p o n d

i n t h e

f o l l o w

i n g

l i s t , m u l

t i p l e a n s w e r s p e r m

i t t e d

)

O f c i a l

i d e n

t i c a

t i o n

1

P r o o

f o f a d d r e s s

2

P r o o

f o f i n c o m e

3

P e r s o n a l r e

f e r e n c e s

4

B i r t h c e r t i

c a t e

5

A u t h o r

i z a t

i o n

t o c o n s u l

t y o u r c r e

d i t h i s t o r y

6

S a v i n g s a c c o u n

t w i t h t h e

i n s t

i t u t i o n

7

B - 3

W h a t d o c u m e n

t s s h o u l

d t h e g u a r a n

t o r b r i n g

i n o r

d e r f o r y o u

t o o b

t a i n

G u a r a n t e e o r g u a r a n

t o r

8

t h e

l o a n

( m u l


i t t e d

)

P a y r o l

l d e p o s

i t s l

i p

9

O f c i a l

i d e n

t i c a t

i o n

1

L i s t o f

h o u s e h o l

d a p p l

i a n c e s

/ g o o

d s

1 0

C o l

l a t e r a

l ( p l e a s e s p e c

i f y )

2

R e c e

i p t o f a b i l l o r s e r v

i c e

1 1

O t h e r

( n o t e )

9 9

O t h e r r e q u

i r e m e n

t s ( n o t e )

9 9

B - 4

U p o n r e q u e s

t i n g

t h e

l o a n

f o r ( n o

t e t h e a m o u n t

) G H C

d i d t h e s a

l e s p e r s o n o f

f e r o t h e r

l o a n a m o u n t s ?

Y e s

1

N o

2 C

o n t i n u e

t o B - 7

B - 6

W h a t o t h e r a m o u n t s w e r e y o u o f

f e r e d

? P l e a s e n o

t e a l

l o f t h e m . M

a r k w i t

h a n

X t h e p r o d u c

t f o r w

h i c h y o u w e r e p r o v

i d e d

t h e m o s

t c o m p l e t e

i n f o r m a t

i o n .

A m o u n t o f

f e r e

d $

1

A m o u n t o f

f e r e

d $

2

A m o u n t o f

f e r e

d $

3

B - 7

W h a t i s

t h e c o m m e r c i a l n a m e o f

t h e p r o d u c

t y o u w e r e o f

f e r e

d ?

T h e p r o d u c

t h a s a c o m m e r c i a l n a m e

1

N a m e

T h e s a

l e s p e r s o n

d i d n o

t m e n

t i o n a n y

2

c o m m e r c i a l n a m e o f

t h e p r o d u c

t

B - 8

T h e c r e d

i t o f

f e r e

d i s :

P e r s o n a l

L o a n

1

B u s i n e s s

L o a n

2

O t h e r

( n o t e )

9 9

I f a g u a r a n

t o r i s

n e c e s s a r y , c o n t i n u e

t o B - 3 , a n

d t h e n

c o m p l e t e

t h e

r e m a i n i n g p o r t i o n

o f B - 2


33/108

Annex 1 29

P R O D U C T T E R M S A N D F E A T U R E S

I n t h e f o l l o w

i n g

l i s t o f p r o

d u c t

t e r m s a n

d f e a t u r e s , p

l e a s e

i n d i c a

t e t h e

i n f o r m a t i o n

t h a t w a s p r o v

i d e d , a

n d t h e c o n d i t

i o n s u n

d e r w

h i c h

t h e y w e r e p r o v

i d e d

t o y o u .

M a r k

t h e

b o x

t h a t

b e s t

d e s c r i b e s

t h e w a y i n

w h i c h

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s p r o v

i d e d , a

n d n o

t e t h e a c

t u a l m o n e t a r y a m o u n t

( $ ) o r p e r c e n t a g e

( % ) t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s

t o t h e

p a r t i c u l a r

t e r m .

S p o n t a n e o u s

T h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s p r o v

i d e d v o

l u n t a r

i l y b y t h e s a

l e s p e r s o n w

i t h o u

t b e i n g a s

k e d .

A s k e d

f o r

T h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s p r o v

i d e d a f

t e r b e i n g r e q u e s

t e d b y t h e s h o p p e r .

V e r b a

l

T h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s p r o v

i d e d v e r b a l

l y .

W r i t t e n

T h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s p r o v

i d e d

i n w r i t

i n g .

N o t e : I n f o r m a t

i o n m a y

b e p r o v

i d e d

B O T H v e r b a l

l y a n

d i n w r i t

i n g

i n s o m e c a s e s . I n

t h o s e

M e n t i o n e d

T h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s s i m p l y m e n

t i o n e

d .

c a s e s p l e a s e m a r

k b o t h b o x e s .

E x p l a i n e

d

T h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s e x p l a i n e

d .

% .

T h e a m o u n t , c

h a r g e

o r f e e

i s p r e s e n

t e d a s a p e r c e n

t a g e .

$

T h e a m o u n t , c

h a r g e

o r f e e

i s p r e s e n

t e d a s a m o n e t a r y v a

l u e

N o t e :

I t i s i m p o r t a n

t t o

i d e n

t i f y

t h a t

i f y o u c

h e c k

t h e

b o x

“ Y e s , t

h e i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s g i v e n ” y o u s h o u

l d l l i n a l

l t h e o t

h e r b o x e s i n

t h a t r o w , e

x c e p

t t h o s e

t h a t a r e

b l a c

k e d o u

t .

C - 1

I n t h e

f o l l o w

i n g

l i s t , n o

t e t h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n p r o v

i d e

b y t h e s a

l e s p e r s o n a n d

t h e m a n n e r i n w

h i c h

t h e

i n f o r m a t i o n w a s p r o v

i d e d .

R e m e m

b e r t o

d i f f e r e n t

i a t e w

h e t h e r

t h e

i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s

M E N T I O N E D o r

E X P L A I N E D

, S P O N T A N E O U S o r

A S K E D F O R ,

a s w e l

l a s w

h a t i n f o r m a t

i o n w a s p r o v i

d e d i n V E R B A L a n

d W R I T T E N f o r m s

( m u l


i t t e d

f o r V E

R B A L a n

d W R I T T E N ) .

A .

L o a n

A m o u n t

Y e s ,

t h e i n

f o

w a s p r o v i d e d

M e n

t i o n e

d E x p l a i n e

d

S p o n

t a n e o u s

A s k e d

f o r

V e r b a l

W r i

t t e n

N o ,

i n f o w a s

n o t p r o v i d e d

B . A c t u a

l A m o u n t

R e c e

i v e d

Y e s ,

t h e i n

f o


M e n

t i o n e

d E x p l a i n e

d

S p o n

t a n e o u s

A s k e d

f o r

V e r b a l

W r i

t t e n

N o ,

i n f o w a s

n o t p r o v i d e d

C .

T o t a l A m o u n t

t o P a y

Y e s ,

t h e i n

f o


M e n

t i o n e

d E x p l a i n e

d

S p o n

t a n e o u s

V e r b a l

W r i

t t e n

N o ,

i

Documents

Mystery Shopping for Financial Services