CATEGORY

Cash in Transit Services

Report on cash collection services and cash alternatives in Latin America.

Beroe LiVE.Ai™

AI-powered self-service platform for all your sourcing decision needs across 1,600+ categories llike Cash in Transit Services.

Market Data, Sourcing & Supplier Intelligence, and Price & Cost Benchmarking.

Schedule a Demo

Cash in Transit Services Industry Benchmarks


Savings Achieved

(in %)

The average annual savings achieved in Cash in Transit Services category is 3.40%

Payment Terms

(in days)

The industry average payment terms in Cash in Transit Services category for the current quarter is 45.0 days

Compare your category performance against peers and industry benchmarks across 20+ parameters on Beroe LiVE.Ai™

Category Strategy and Flexibility

Engagement Model

Supply Assurance

Sourcing Process

Supplier Type

Pricing Model

Contract Length

SLAs/KPIs

Lead Time

Supplier Diversity

Targeted Savings

Risk Mitigation

Financial Risk

Sanctions

AMEs

Geopolitical Risk

Cost Optimization

Price per Unit Competitiveness

Specification Leanness

Minimum Order Quality

Payment Terms

Inventory Control

Meet Abi

The World’s first Digital Market Analyst

    Schedule a Demo
    Meet Abi

    The World’s first Digital Market Analyst

    Abi, the AI-powered digital assistant brings together data, insights, and intelligence for faster answers to sourcing questions

    Cash in Transit Services Suppliers


    22,238
    Total Suppliers
    1,198
    Diverse Suppliers
    89
    Normalized Supplier Rating
    Cash in Transit Services Supplier

    Find the right-fit cash in transit services supplier for your specific business needs and filter by location, industry, category, revenue, certifications, and more on Beroe LiVE.Ai™.

    Sample Supplier
    Company
    American Express Company
    Location
    Jackson, Mississipi
    Duns number
    3862211

    D&B SER Rating

    dnb logo

    Up to 3 months

    1 9
    6
    Low Risk High Risk

    The Supplier Evaluation Risk (SER) Rating is Dun & Bradstreet’s proprietary scoring system used to assess the probability that a business will seek relief from creditors or cease operations within the next 12 months. SER ratings range from 1 to 9, with 9 indicating the highest risk of failure. We’ve prepared an infographic to help business owners better understand what influences their SER Rating.

    Moody`s ESG Solution
    ESG Profile

    Company and Sector Performance
    42

    100
    Limited (1)
    ESG Perfomance (/100)
    Environment
    85
    Social
    31
    Governance
    48
    6 Domains Performance (/100)
    Business behaviour
    39
    Human rights
    47
    Community Environment
    26
    Corporate governance
    54
    Human resources
    21
    Security Scorecard
    90

    Threat indicators
    B
    83
    Network Security
    Detecting insecure network settings
    A
    100
    Hacker Chatter
    Monitoring hacker sites for chatter about your company
    A
    97
    DNS Health
    Detecting DNS insecure configuration and vulnerabilities
    B
    86
    Application Security
    Detecting common website application vulnerbilities
    B
    86
    Endpoint Security
    Detecting unprotected enpoints or entry points of user tools, such as desktops, laptops mobile devices, and virtual desktops
    A
    100
    Cubic Score
    Proprietary algorithms checking for implementation of common security best practices
    A
    98
    Patching Cadence
    Out of date company assets which may contain vulnerabilities of risk
    A
    100
    Social Engineering
    Measuring company awareness to a social engineering or phising attack
    A
    100
    IP Reputation
    Detecting suspecious activity, such as malware or spam, within your company network
    A
    100
    Information Leak
    Potentially confidential company information which may have been inadvertently leaked

    Industry Comparison
    amexglobalbusinesstravel.com
    Industry average
    Adverse Media Appearances
    Environmental Issues
    0
    Workforce Health Safety Issues
    0
    Product Service Issues
    12
    Human Rights Issues
    0
    Production Supply Chain Issues
    2
    Environmental Non Compliance Flags
    14
    Corruption Issues
    0
    Regulatory Non Compliance Flags
    26
    Fraud Issues
    3
    Labor Health Safety Flags
    3
    Regulatory Issues
    22
    Workforce Disputes
    0
    Sanctions
    1
    esg energy transition
    86
    Discrimination Workforce Rights Issues
    3
    esg controversies critical severity
    No

    Cash in Transit Services market report transcript


    CIT Cash-in Transit Services Market Analysis and 

    Global Outlook

    • The global CIT service market was valued at $18.97 billion in 2019. The market is forecasted to grow at a CAGR of 5–7 percent until 2025, with a valuation of $28.8 billion
    • CIT growth in emerging markets expected to outperform global market growth, expected to grow at three times more than in Europe and North America
    • Factors such as increasing ATM installations, stringent banking regulations and increasing crime rates drive the need for CIT services across the globe

    Global Cash-in-Transit Industry trends

    • The major driver for the CIT industry is the growing number of ATM's across the globe. In 2017, it is estimated that there were around 3.7 million ATMs globally, and the total number of withdrawals from these ATMs were close to 10.6 billion. This in turn would fuel the growth of CIT market during the forecasted period
    • China and India are the fastest growing markets for CIT services where the ATM market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 20-25 percent during 2018–2020. However, this is well established in developed markets like South Korea, Japan and Australia.
    • Around 80–85 percent of consumer transactions across the globe are still performed through cash. Banks, financial institutions, large retailers, governments are the major buyers of CIT services

    Global Cash-in-Transit market analysis

    Drivers

    Increasing Crime Rate

    • Increase in crime rates has driven the outsourcing of cash handling services to specialist service providers, who can perform the transaction in a more secured process
    • One of the other major reasons to outsource the operation to a specialist service provider is continuous technology implementation

    –For Example: “CIT Tracker” is a device, which is hidden covertly during cash transit process, which supports by alerting the security personnel during an act of theft. It also supports in asset recovery and criminal apprehension

    Increasing ATM Service Expansion

    • Rapidly increasing ATM installations in the developing regions is a major driver of the cash-in-transit service. For instance, only in the APAC region, the installation rate is expected to grow at a CAGR of 10–11 percent by 2025.

    Laws and Regulations

    • Complying with laws and regulations, related to cash-in-transit, has driven the outsourcing of these services to specialist service providers.
    • Stringent regulations from bank authorities in moving cash from one place to another will give more impetus for cash-in-transit service Source

    Constraints

    Increasing Cashless Payment in Developed Regions

    • It is estimated that cashless payments will account for about 45 percent of the total transactions in the North America and Europe
    • The non-cash transactions were estimated to accelerate at a CAGR of 12.7 percent globally, with developing/emerging markets growing at 21 percent by
      2021.

    Highly Competitive Market

    • The CIT industry is highly competitive with competition, primarily based on pricing
    • The undifferentiated nature of services force the suppliers to reduce prices to beat competition

    Supplier Analysis: Market Share of Key Global Suppliers

    • The global CIT market is highly consolidated with the top five suppliers constituting to more than 50 percent of the market
    • Brink's, being the pioneer in the CIT industry, is estimated to be leading, in terms of global supplier market share, with 17 percent, followed by Prosegur Cash and Loomis, each with 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively
    • GardaWorld and G4S are the other major players, who hold 9 percent and 4 percent, respectively
    • The remaining 46 percent of the market is crowded with more than 500 players, who are mostly regional or local suppliers
    • Such supply landscape with a few big players and large number of small players makes it favorable for further industry consolidation

    Global Cash-in-Transit Pricing Models Cash in transit companies use different pricing models:

    Fixed Cost Pricing Model

    •  Under the fixed price contract, the buyer is entitled to pay the service provider a fixed fee for the contracted specifications, based on the number of locations to be catered, frequency of the service provided, and the contract period. The buyer is charged a fixed fee for a specific value of transaction.
    •  The fixed fee pricing model is the widely adopted model in the cash collection services market

    Unit Pricing Model

     

    • A unit price contract can be used when there is a clear understanding on the frequency on the service is needed. This type ofcontract is in place only where the frequency of the service required is minimal
    • In a unit price contract, the volume of job to be completed is estimated by the buyer and the service provider quotes a rate forlabor and equipment by the unit of work (for e.g., price for weekly collection per location)

    Value Based Pricing Model

    •  The service providers charge the buyers on a tiered manner, based on the value of cash that is being collected from the collection points.
    • The value based pricing is one of the pricing strategies whose adoption levels are steadily increasing in the recent past for cash collection service

    Performance Based Pricing Model

    • The performance based pricing model is used when there are certain lists of KPIs in place, measuring the performance levels agreed with the service provider. This model is not widely adopted because it increases the workload of the buyer and the supplier.
    • The payment for the service provider is directly linked to the performance standards as decided in the contract agreement. The service provider may be fined upon not meeting agreed performance levels.