Launched in December 2013 as a strategic delivery model for providing formal financial services to underserved and unbanked people in remote areas of Bangladesh, agent banking has now reached a new stage in its development.
Like any product or facility, the main metrics used to measure the success of agent banking have so far been about its reach and popularity.
Official data shows that as of March 2025, 31 scheduled banks were offering financial services through 21,023 agent outlets, with a whopping 85.68 per cent of them based in rural areas that were traditionally underserved.
Similarly, the number of bank accounts opened through agent outlets reached 24.67 million at the same time, with 85.52 per cent belonging to rural areas.
Moreover, savings accounts made up 83.63 per cent of the total while current accounts contributed 2.96 per cent and other categories added 13.41 per cent.
These figures suggest that agent outlets are achieving their intended purpose to improve financial inclusion by bringing bank services closer to people who need them.
So, having proven itself as a transformative force in the banking industry, the real test is now whether the system remains reliable and trustworthy to the millions depending on it.
For many across the country, especially those living outside major cities, agent outlets are no longer a substitute for banks when seeking financial services, rather they are the banks themselves.
This shift has raised the stakes as ensuring uninterrupted operations at agent outlets is no longer just about increasing financial inclusion, but also crucial for maintaining stability in the banking industry.
This is largely because of how agent banking is designed. Under existing rules, transactions at agent outlets are processed in real time through the relevant bank’s core systems and require biometric authentication.
Additionally, agent outlets are meant to emulate the same feeling one would get from conducting transactions at a bank branch.
However, they lack the capacity to handle the same volume of transactions as bank branches.
So, this design means any difficulties felt at the agent level can carry wider consequences.
And considering the growing transaction volume, disruptions at a single outlet can no longer be seen as just a local inconvenience.
As such, if an agent outlet cannot operate, then the entire community it serves and maybe even those beyond may temporarily lose access to even the most basic banking services.
Besides, even with a strong digital backbone, agent banking remains subject to real-world complications, such as availability of cash and stable electricity, which play a decisive role.
This is because if an agent outlet runs out of cash or cannot access the bank’s server amid a power outage, then its services are halted until the situation changes.
Liquidity management has therefore become integral for the next phase, as occasional shortages could be managed quietly when transaction volumes were smaller.
Now though, a mismatch between the customer’s demand and an agent’s cash balance can quickly turn into a service failure that damages the people’s trust in banks.
Subsequently, the system’s strength will now come under greater scrutiny considering how well it holds up during peak periods, such as when inward remittances surge centring Eid celebrations.
Keeping the people’s trust by holding agent outlets accountable for errors on their part is another major test for banks.
But as more customers rely on agents for routine banking, gaps between legal responsibility and real-world problem-solving become more visible.
Furthermore, people are less willing to tolerate unclear dues, slow complaint handling or confusing procedures.
So, banks must ensure that complaint mechanisms are present at agent outlets while also keeping their activities as simple, responsive and transparent as possible.
This includes maintaining proper use of customer protection channels. This growing scale has also changed how oversight works. For regulators, including Bangladesh Bank, the focus is no longer on writing new rules but on making sure existing ones are properly enforced.
Against this backdrop, the success of regulatory supervision now depends on securing accurate transaction data and strong risk monitoring by banks, supported by targeted inspections rather than occasional field visits.
At the same time, the market’s structure matters more too. As agent networks expand, many outlets are now controlled by a relatively small number of large banks. So, while this could improve their efficiency, it also brings some sizeable risks.
Therefore, the task ahead should not be about implementing a complete overhaul of the agent banking system but instead focus on making it stronger.
From the start, agent banking was built to operate within core banking systems even though local agents are responsible for delivering the associated financial services.
Moreover, as dependence on the strategic model deepens, it will be tested more often and under even greater public scrutiny.
In summation, the success of a bank’s agent banking network or activities at this stage will no longer be measured by how fast it expands or how many new products are launched.
Instead, it will be judged by how well services continue during disruption, how clearly responsibilities are handled and how effectively the system is supervised.
In many ways, the future of agent banking has already begun. What happens next will depend less on ambition and more on discipline as well as how well the system holds together when pressure inevitably comes.
