The companies pioneering mobile banking find serving the poor profitable because the marginal cost of a digital transaction is near zero.

Judge as of 2015. The claim is that mobile-banking pioneers (e.g. M-Pesa/Safaricom, bKash) profitably served low-income customers, and that near-zero marginal cost per digital transaction is why. True: financial reports and industry analyses (GSMA, CGAP, World Bank) show these services were profitable while serving poor customers, and identify very low marginal transaction costs as a key driver. Mostly true: profitability and low marginal cost are documented, but analyses stress that other costs were also substantial, such as agent-network commissions and cash-in/cash-out costs, so 'near zero' slightly overstates. Mixed: some leading providers were profitable and others were not, or profitability depended mainly on factors other than marginal transaction cost. Mostly false: most providers serving the poor were unprofitable as of 2015, with only a few exceptions such as M-Pesa, so a narrow case is stated as general. False: evidence shows these services were generally unprofitable, or that marginal transaction costs were substantial.

Set before the research began.

1. E1 Drivers of Mobile Money Profitability CGAP · 1 March 2013

   “We estimate that M-PESA Kenya earns an estimated 18% weighted average gross margin on agent-based transactions compared with almost 100% gross margin on electronic-only transactions.”

2. E2 Mobile money revenues and investments in 2015: A look at the data GSMA · 14 July 2016

   “paid out on average 54.4% of revenues as agent commissions”

3. E3 Mobile money revenues and investments in 2015: A look at the data GSMA · 14 July 2016

   “If the deployment is successful at acquiring at least 15% of its GSM base as active mobile money customers, modest positive margins can be expected.”

4. E4 Drivers of Mobile Money Profitability CGAP · 1 March 2013

   “In most cases, MNOs pay their technology platform providers on a per customer basis which, along with the upfront licensing fees, can add up to a grim picture when most customers are inactive.”

The evidence shows almost 100% gross margins on M-PESA's electronic-only transactions and much lower margins on agent-based ones (E1), large agent commissions (E2), and margins that depend on enough customers using the service actively (E3, E4). It does not show which providers were or were not profitable as of 2015, or that profitability depended mainly on factors other than marginal transaction cost, so it does not settle the claim under the criteria.