CEBUANA LHUILLIER

Cebuana Lhuillier was first named Agencia Cebuana in 1953 which is it’s year of establishment, it was later
on recognized as Cebuana Lhuillier in 1987. Throughout the years, Cebuana Lhuillier is renounced as one of
the leading micro financial services provider in the Philippines. For that reason, they are committed in
dedicating their vision which is to empower Filipinos by means of accessibility to financial services.
Furthermore, they continue to break barriers in promoting inclusivity in the financial sector throughout the
Philippines, hence the tagline “Kaibigan, KaCebuana”
I. VISION
“To be the most trusted and patronized micro-financial partner of the Filipino people.”

II. MISSION
“To empower Filipino people through secured financial services anytime and anywhere.”

III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

What strategy should Cebuana Lhuillier implement to overcome the competitive challenges in the industry
constituted by its limited geographical reach?

IV. STRATEGIC GOAL

To escalate business operations in slightly unregarded areas within Visayas and Mindanao.
V. SWOT MATRIX ANALYSIS

Vi. Internal Factors Evaluation Matrix

INTERNAL FACTORS Weight Rating Score

Strengths
Extensive network branches nationwide 10% 3 0.30
Accessibility to product and services 15% 4 0.60
Established brand recognition 5% 3 0.15
Customer-centric approach 10% 4 0.40
High appraisal rate 8% 3 0.24
Wide-range loan types offerings 12% 4 0.48
Total 2.17
Weaknesses
Limited geographic reach 15% 1 0.15
Higher remittance rate than competitors 10% 2 0.20
Limited interest plans for pawning 9% 2 0.18
Lack of top security personnel 6% 2 0.12
Total 0.65
OVERALL TOTAL 100% 2.82

Vii. External Factors Evaluation Matrix

EXTERNAL FACTORS Weight Rating Score

Opportunities
Technological advancements 15% 4 0.60
Wide network of international partners 10% 3 0.30
Numerous local outlets partners 15% 4 0.60
Increasing number of remittances 12% 3 0.36
Total 1.86
Threats
Localized pawnshops 8% 3 0.24
Stiff micro-finance industry competition 8% 3 0.24
Cyber security risk 10% 3 0.30
Economic fluctuations 10% 4 0.40
High saturation of substitute product or services 12% 3 0.36
Total 1.54
OVERALL TOTAL 100% 3.4
Viii. Competitive Profile Matrix

Key Success Factors Weight Cebuana Palawan Villarica

Lhuillier Pawnshop Pawnshop
Rating Score Rating Score Rating Score
Direct International partnerships and 12% 4 0.48 2 0.24 1 0.12
network
Customer loyalty 11% 3 0.33 4 0.44 2 0.22
Product and services range 10% 4 0.40 3 0.30 2 0.20
Geographical Reach 11% 3 0.33 4 0.44 2 0.22
Accessibility to customers 12% 3 0.36 2 0.24 2 0.24
Technological integrations 9% 4 0.36 3 0.36 2 0.18
Regulatory compliance 10% 4 0.40 4 0.40 4 0.40
Secured transactions 10% 4 0.40 4 0.40 3 0.30
Marketing 6% 4 0.24 3 0.18 3 0.18
Economic adaptability 9% 4 0.36 4 0.36 3 0.27
TOTAL (GWS) 3.66 3.36 2.33

V. ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
1. Promote Extensive Local Partnership
2. Intensify Digital Transformation
3. Invest in Community-Based Infrastructure

VII. QUANTITATIVE STRATEGIC PLANNING MATRIX

Key Factor Weigh Strategy 1: Strategy 2: Strategy 3:
t Promote Extensive Intensify Digital Invest in Community-
Local Partnership Transformation Based Infrastructure
 AS TAS AS TAS AS TAS
Strengths
Extensive network 10% 3 0.30 2 0.20 4 0.40
branches nationwide
Accessibility to product 15% 4 0.60 3 0.35 4 0.60
and services
Established brand 5% 3 0.15 3 0.15 4 0.20
recognition
Customer-centric 10% 4 0.40 3 0.04 4 0.40
approach
High appraisal rate 8% - - - - - -
Wide-range loan types 12% 1 0.12 3 0.36 4 0.48
offerings
Weaknesses
Limited geographic reach 15% 4 0.60 3 0.45 4 0.60
Higher remittance rate 10% 2 0.20 1 0.10 3 0.30
than competitors
Limited interest plans for 9% - - - - - -
pawning
Lack of top security 6% 3 0.18 4 0.24 2 0.12
personnel
Opportunities
Technological 15% 3 0.45 4 0.60 1 0.15
advancements
Wide network of 10% 4 0.40 3 0.30 4 0.40
international partners
Numerous local outlets 15% 4 0.60 3 0.45 2 0.30
partners
Increasing number of 12% 4 0.48 3 0.36 4 0.48
remittances
Threats
Localized pawnshops 8% 1 0.08 1 0.08 4 0.32
Stiff micro-finance 8% 4 0.32 3 0.24 4 0.32
industry competition
Cyber security risks 10% 3 0.30 2 0.20 4 0.40
Economic fluctuations 10% 3 0.30 3 0.30 3 0.30
High saturation of 12% 3 0.36 3 0./36 4 0.48
substitute product or
services
TOTAL AVERAGE 5.84 4.5 6.25
SCORE

VIII. CONCLUSION
Based on the data in the QSPM, Strategy 3 (invest in community-based infrastructure) is the most favorable
with a total score of 6.25. This suggests that focusing on building and enhancing local infrastructure can
provide significant benefits and is seen as the most impactful approach. Strategy 1 (promote extensive local
partnerships) follows with a score of 5.84, indicating that fostering collaborations within the community is
also a strong strategy but slightly less effective than investing in infrastructure. Strategy 2 (intensify digital
transformation) has the lowest score of 4.5, suggesting that while digital advancements are important, they
are currently perceived as the least critical among the three strategies. Therefore, prioritizing community-
based infrastructure investments, followed by promoting local partnerships, would be the most effective
approach.

IX. RECOMMENDATION
Given that Strategy 3 garnered the highest average score in terms of attractiveness, we recommend investing
in community-based infrastructure strategy because it is effective for addressing limited geographic reach, in
order that it is tailored to the local population's specific needs. This ensures that resources are allocated
efficiently and effectively, addressing specific issues in a given area. Investing in community-based
infrastructure can provide more immediate and relevant benefits to underserved areas in Visayas and
Mindanao , effectively expanding the geographic reach of essential services while also encouraging long-
term market development..