Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Swift Payments Whitepaper Realtimepayments
Swift Payments Whitepaper Realtimepayments
Executive summary.................................................................................................3
Conclusion.............................................................................................................15
3
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
Executive summary
The purpose of this paper is to review the global real-time retail payments systems (RT-RPS)
landscape, to analyse market drivers and trends, different approaches to deployment architectures,
barriers to entry and the key success factors to ensure rapid adoption.
The case for real-time is In the future, competition SWIFT’s role will be
increasingly apparent between providers will emerge to provide standards,
The use of mobile technology for funds based on customer services interoperability and clearing
transfers has increased dramatically and Per country RT-RPS market adoption infrastructure
the market wants payment services that is strongest where the regulator plays a SWIFT has a strong track record in
offer speed, convenience, ubiquity, safety leading role, collaborates with financial implementing complex and large scale
and value for money. institutions, and where pricing is attractive. market infrastructure projects, e.g.
While the physical supply chain has The net result is that RT-RPS systems are TARGET2-Securities (T2S), TARGET2
improved, the financial supply chain, in gaining momentum. The adoption rate (T2), Continuous Linked Settlement (CLS),
general, has not kept pace. The seemingly is as fast, if not faster, than the historical and we have recently won the mandate
straightforward process of debiting one growth of RTGS systems. to build and support the infrastructure
bank account and crediting another often underpinning the New Payments Platform
It is expected that RT-RPS adoption will (NPP) in Australia.
takes longer than the physical movement
quickly penetrate the market, but will
of the goods. SWIFT supports the industry to ensure
undergo a phase of intense competition
There are strong candidates within between providers, based on end-user solutions are low cost and effective –
person-to-business (P2B), person-to- service differentiation. through ISO 20022 standards and market
person (P2P) and business-to-business practice facilitation; through its secure and
Customer acceptance, price, robust network; and through provision
(B2B) payment segments, for real-time
standardisation, economies of scale, of new innovative IT solutions, such as
transactions.
privacy and the ability to adapt to its new distributed real-time payments
continuously changing security threats, clearing architecture.
Currently, growth in RT-RPS is such as cyber-attacks, are all crucial
strong, but different countries factors to the success of future RT-RPS
have different approaches infrastructures.
18 countries have responded and now As cost control is key, the industry
have ‘live’ RT-RPS systems in place. will need to work together to ensure
Additionally, 12 countries are interoperability – legacy and new models
‘exploring/planning/building’, and will need to co-exist both at a domestic
another 17 countries are ‘exploring’ and cross-border level.
through a pan-European initiative.
Most of these RT-RPS systems have
common characteristics: instant clearing
confirmation to support instant or near-
real-time posting by the banks, full (or very
near) 24/7/365 operation and a drive for a
richer data standard, such as ISO 20022.
Despite strong areas of commonality, the
approach for clearing and the approach
for settlement varies from system to
system – ‘one-size does not fit all’ –
and these differences are expected to
remain, as communities make different
implementation choices.
4
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
The financial industry has In comparison, the clearing and However, today, the clear-cut
developed sophisticated settlement of high-volume, low-value, line between RTGS and ACH
payment market infrastructure retail payments are usually batched and is blurring
(PMI) systems to undertake netted to optimise the use of central bank
liquidity, and processed on a deferred net ACHs are moving away from single, end-
this clearing and settlement of-day batch processing towards more
processes settlement basis (DNS). These functions
are centralised at dedicated entities, frequent settlement cycles.
All payment transactions are cleared, known as automated clearing houses As the technology becomes cheaper
(the payment instruction information is (ACH), which are operated by central and more accessible, transaction-by-
validated), and then settled (the funds are banks, or by third-party service providers. transaction settlement, in central bank
transferred between accounts). money, is becoming more realistic for
Both RTGS and ACH systems are subject
The clearing and settlement of large- to strict oversight by regulators and a larger number of important retail
value, inter-bank payments are typically are recognised1 as systemic important payments.
undertaken by real-time gross settlement payment systems (SIPS). They are Mobile device innovation has provided
(RTGS) systems, operated by central categorised as such because failure ubiquitous access to m-commerce
banks, on a transaction-per-transaction would potentially endanger the operation services, anywhere, anytime, and has
basis to mitigate counterparty credit risk. of a whole economy. created a higher demand for faster,
round-the-clock funds transfer for retail
payments.
Over the last decade, the use In addition, new end-user However, the financial supply
of mobile technology for funds services are being created by chain has not reached the same
transfers has increased, both banks and non-bank speed for the digital delivery of
as people have become used to sending
payment service providers funds in all countries
mobile payments to friends, merchants These services, sometimes called ‘overlay The seemingly straightforward process of
and utility providers. Consumers and services’ or ‘value-added services’, can debiting one bank account and crediting
businesses want payment services that span the entire purchasing experience another often takes longer than the
offer speed, convenience2, ubiquity3, beyond the payment itself. They enrich physical movement of the goods. As
safety4 and value for money, whether the basic payment data with a wider consumers and merchants are used to
money is being transferred Person-to- set of information to create added immediacy, they naturally expect digital
Person (P2P), or Person-to-Business value. For example, the automated payments to keep up at the same pace.
(P2B). matching of purchase orders to invoices
Over the same period, supply chain for businesses, or, for retail, in-store
logistics have also improved, and the promotions that are dynamically triggered
delivery of digital and physical goods by a consumers’ geographical position,
has become much faster. For example, their loyalty profile and their purchase
Amazon can deliver purchases within one history.
day, and eBay offers a one-hour delivery
service in some cities.
1
y the Bank for International Settlement (BIS), the local regulatory authority and/or by the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI).
B
2
Payer’s experience must be as easy as with cash, with no need to know the payee’s account number.
3
Payment shall be accessible anywhere with no need to access a branch or ATM.
4
Privacy and integrity of the payment must be guaranteed: this imposes strong authentication of the transactions, end users and devices.
5
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
A recent study5 has shown that — the immediate funds availability and transacted on the predetermined date in
some, but not all, payment immediate confirmation for urgent P2P real-time is, arguably, marginal.
types may benefit from, or money (remittance) transfers between
For merchants, the survey also
be suitable for, real-time individuals, and for B2B urgent invoice
revealed that the desire for real-time
availability and confirmation of payments in order to optimise working
is supplemented by the need for
funds transfer capital
convenience (introduction of new mobile
Chart 1 shows the current market — the immediate notification for P2B POS and new applications, for example
share and growth trend for all non-cash e/m-commerce, with a medium case Apple Pay), for cost effectiveness (drive
payments on a global basis (credit and for immediate funds availability for both towards credit transfers as alternatives to
debit cards, e/m-commerce, business physical purchases (e.g. books) and credit and debit card payments6), and for
invoices and salaries, etc.), and shows digital goods (e.g. online newspapers, increased understanding of consumers’
which of these payment types would documents, games, music) purchasing habits, to develop loyalty
benefit most from the RT-RPS value programs and maximise cross-selling
— the immediate notification at P2B point
proposition – the immediate transfer, opportunities.
of sale (POS), but a weaker case for
confirmation and ability for funds re-use, immediate funds availability The results of the survey reflect the
on a 24/7/365 basis. potential use cases for real-time payments
The case is weaker for immediate funds
In broad terms, the study findings show a globally across all countries. The use
availability and confirmation for P2B bill
strong or a very strong case for: cases may be different in specific markets,
payment, including direct debits, and for
for example, POS payments are not
— the immediate funds availability and B2P salaries and pensions. This is not
candidates for immediate funds availability
immediate confirmation for large-value surprising as these payments are typically
in the US where the existing payment
purchases, across P2B (e.g. houses scheduled in advance, on a defined date
instruments represent
Negligible a convenient and
and cars) and B2B segments (e.g. or with a defined frequency, and the
well entrenchedWeak
alternative.
incremental value of having the payment
one-off invoices) Chart
1
–
Suitability
for
Real-‐Time,
By
Payment
Types Medium
Strong
Very
Strong
PChart
P2P:
erson
to
P1 – Suitability
erson;
P2B:
Person
to
Bfor Real-Time,
usiness;
By Payment Types
B2Pto
Business
B2P:
Business
to
Person;
B2B:
Business
Salaries
and
Pensions ➔
7
ystemic important payment systems (SIPS)
S
8
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI)
7
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
Across the landscape of operational and Round-the-clock operations ISO 20022 is seen as a way to improve
planned RT-RPS systems, there are a payments efficiency, to create a common,
Typically, RT-RPS operate on a full (or very
number of common characteristics. level playing field. ISO 20022 messages
near) 24/7/365 basis, although not all
are structured in such a way that the
schemes clear payments in real-time, and
messages can carry more data fields, can
Instant funds posting and settlement timing also varies.
carry ‘richer’ information with the payment
payment confirmation such as remittances, and can also
Typically, RT-RPS systems provide Richer data standard - support non-Latin characters, important
irrevocability, support real-time posting ISO 20022 for Asian markets.
and re-use of funds, as well as the
immediate payment confirmation to All of the RT-RPS systems that have
both the payer and the payee. Some been implemented recently, or are
participants of RT-RPS systems post being planned, such as Brazil, Poland,
funds on a beneficiary’s account after Sweden, Singapore, Denmark, Australia
successful clearing, while others post after and Japan, use ISO 20022 message
settlement. standards, which have become de facto
in this space. Other countries, for example
South Africa, Switzerland and China, are
planning to adopt ISO 20022.
9
trategies for improving the U.S. Payment System, Federal Reserve System, January 26, 2015 and the Federal Reserve Financial Services, Payment
S
System Improvement – Public Consultation Paper, The Federal Reserve Banks, 10 September 2013, page 5.
11
EPC Newsletter (Issue 25): The future of payments – scenario building at the digital age. The Future of Payments: European Commission Invited Exchange
of Views at its Conference on Emerging Challenges in Retail Finance and Consumer Policy, January 2015.
11
Next Generation Alternative Retail Payments: Infrastructure requirements, EBA Working Group, 15th December 2014.
8
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
12
an-European instant payments in euro: definition, vision and way forward, European Central Bank, 12 November 2014, ERPB/2014/017.
P
13
Strategies for improving the U.S. Payment System, Federal Reserve System, January 26, 2015.
9
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
Clearing
Clearing
Hub
A’ B’ A B A B
Accounts
Shadow
Accounts
Accounts
Accounts
RTGS
-‐
Settlement RTGS
–
Settlement
Central
Bank Real-‐Time
24/7/365 Central
Bank
EOD/Intra
Day
during
Business
Hours
Count of Countries
SE PL
0 1 2 3 4 5
Competition
from Third Party
13% Platform Development
GB CH SG TW TB
ZA
Consumer Expectation
Regulatory / Innovation JP CH SG
Initiative
73%
Macro Economic Events
BR
Based on market analysis reports14 and a Regulators believe that faster payments will The secondary driver (27%) for RT-RPS
series of in-depth interviews15, there are a accelerate economic growth – if a business adoption is the impact of the banks’
number of factors that impact the speed is paid in real-time, it will be able to speed commercial needs - both in responding to
and success of market adoption of RT- up its cash conversion cycle, generate customers’ expectations, or responding to
RPS systems, as shown in Chart 4. necessary working capital, and reduce its competitive threats from new entrants.
need for expensive short-term financing. In
The results show that the primary driver For example, in Sweden, the popularity of
addition, modernising a country’s payment
(73%) for RT-RPS adoption is the impact of mobile payments is the main driver for the
system may attract foreign investments,
regulatory reform. BIR real-time payment system, which has
which in turn, drives economic growth.
a payment overlay service called Swish,
Regulators seek payment services that Reducing the use of cash instils a formal
run by the six largest Swedish banks.
offer greater end-user protection16, economy, where governments can benefit
Whereas in Poland, the local bank-owned
transparency, and reduced credit risk for from related taxes.
market infrastructure developed the KIR’s
consumers and businesses. They seek
The Federal Reserve Bank stated19 that Elixir Express to respond to a strong third
to extend basic payment services to the
a near-real-time payment capability may party competitor, BlueCash20.
unbanked, or underbanked, to improve
ultimately be a beneficial improvement
financial inclusion, e.g. India and Nigeria,
to the payment system that supports
to foster innovation and competition in
economic activity in the United States and
the payment services sector, e.g. Japan
maintains the US dollar as the currency of
and the UK, to reduce the use of physical
choice for global trade.
cash17 and to counter macro-economic
events, such as loss of confidence in the
local currency18 in Brazil.
14
ipis Advisors, Global Payment Systems Analysis, Final report: Volume l - Comparative Analysis, May 2014, Volume 2- Country Profiles, March 2014.
L
15
Interviews in the UK, Mexico and Poland market in partnership with Boston Consulting Group (2014).
16
Reduction of the float typically for D+3 systems, but also for D and D+1 systems, where real-time is also expected by customers.
17
Reduce the use of cash to counter money laundering.
18
The combination of hyperinflation and payment delays increased the loss of confidence in the local currency – real-time payments help beneficiaries to re-
use the money immediately and limit the impact of price increases.
19
Federal Reserve Financial Services, Payment System Improvement – Public Consultation Paper, The Federal Reserve Banks, 10 September 2013, page 5.
20
Blue Cash holds private accounts in all the banks in Poland to offer universality. This caused a concern about the systemic risk among the banking community.
11
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
Whilst banks acknowledge that regulators interruption22. This has a knock-on effect Uncertain revenue potential
and governments will continue to drive the on the associated operational and risk
In most cases, retail consumers do not
implementation of RT-RPS systems over management processes, which must
expect to be charged a premium for real-
the next 5-10 years, they also argue21, manage higher transaction volumes
time payments. Business-to-business
from their perspective, that the financial with richer and more complex data,
transactions typically can be monetised,
business case is still unclear. whilst ensuring adequate AML and fraud
but this may inhibit wide adoption.
detection, and customer support.
Three factors are commonly cited.
Over a seven-year period, the total
investment plus ongoing costs for the UK In its report on migrating existing
ne-off investment costs and
O Faster Payment Service (FPS) is estimated legacy instrument to faster payments25,
ongoing costs at 800 million GBP23. the Federal Reserve Bank estimated
Real-time projects require relatively high implementation costs would be in the
range of USD 0.9 to 1.8 billion and that
levels of investment. One-off costs cover Cost of fragmented landscape
the development (or modification) of per-transaction costs would reduce from
If multiple RT-RPS solutions, with different USD 0.47 to USD 0.27. The net result is
the central RT-RPS system; the banks’
operational and network requirements, that the overall business case would be
internal IT infrastructures; and the banks’
co-exist in a given currency market or neutral or negative.
core operations processes. Ongoing
region24, then banks may need to join
costs cover the investment needed for the
several RT-RPS systems to respond to
daily operations, annual maintenance and
their customers’ needs. This requirement
support of these systems.
to comply with a fragmented landscape
The changes can be sizable. Historically, will result in additional expense, unless
retail bank processing has been true business, legal and technical system
dominated by the overnight batch, while interoperability has been achieved.
a real-time service, demands continuous
processing, with 24/7 uptime, without
To counterbalance the lack of a clear Disintermediation threat from Emergence of new products
financial business case, there are a new entrants and services
number of strategic factors to consider.
Banks recognise that they risk being On a more positive note, the Federal
disintermediated - losing account Reserve Bank report stresses the
Customer expectation relationships, losing revenue from selling importance of new and unanticipated
The number one argument remains the in-depth consumer analytics to marketers products and services that will emerge,
obligation of the banking community and ultimately losing business to introducing cost savings and efficiencies
and other payment players to address competitive new entrants, for example in for their customers, which are not easy to
the expectations of a new generation of the digital person-to-person space. estimate.
consumers. These customers expect their
funds to move at least as fast as their mail
and their goods.
21
In the United States, the Federal Reserve consultation paper noted “many commenters” were not convinced of the business case for an RT-RPS.
22
Batch systems are regularly switched-off for maintenance / updating.
23
“Costs and benefits of building faster payment systems: the UK experience and implications for the United States”, by Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
24
ECB recommends at least one but do not exclude many RT-RPS emerging to foster competition.
25
Strategies for improving the U.S. Payment System, Federal Reserve System, January 26, 2015 and the Federal Reserve Financial Services, Payment
System Improvement – Public Consultation Paper, The Federal Reserve Banks, 10 September 2013.
12
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
In the market, the net result of all of the adoption is slower than in newer RT- Rapid adoption path
these factors is that RT-RPS systems RPS systems that have benefitted from
Here, the regulator plays a leading role
are gaining momentum. However, the relatively newer technology evolution and/
in the RT-RPS initiative, adopts new
speed and success of adoption, varies or lower price.
technology and encourages the market
significantly from country to country.
to migrate through attractive pricing or
Chart 5 shows adoption rates, measured Slow adoption path incentives. For example, in its mission to
as the percentage of retail payment This path is typical of countries where the reduce the use of cash, the central bank
transactions displaced from traditional regulator did not play a prominent role in Mexico directly advertised the use of
credit transfers / direct debits to RT- and/or the banking community showed its RT-RPS system, SPEI (Sistema de
RPS, since the year of launch of these little appetite in adopting RT-RPS. For Pagos Electronicos Interbancarios), to the
systems26. example, in Poland, a new commercial general public.
At a high level, the adoption paths fall into entrant (BlueCash) benefited from
three categories. first-mover advantage over the new RT- In general, RT-RPS adoption is rapid
RPS (KIR Elixir Express27) as the banks where the regulator encourages adoption,
were primarily focused on their SEPA28 where the entire banking community
Typical adoption path
migration. In South Africa29 and Brazil30, commits to the initiative, and where the
This repreresents the bulk of the systems low participation of banks was the key end customer sees value or can leverage
typically launched more than a decade issue, and in India, the complexity of the new tools.
ago. Here, the regulator played an active IMPS service was a key barrier.
role in leading the RT-RPS initiative, but
26
alculated as volume through Real-Time retail payments over total volume of similar transactions (e.g. Credit Transfers or Direct Debits).
C
27
Only 16% of the banks participate in KIR Express Elixir in 2014.
28
Single Euro Payments Area.
29
Only 27% of the banks participate in RTC system in South Africa.
30
In Brazil, banks are reluctant to use the new SITRAF service because of the loss of float.
13
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
Adoption
of
RTGS
Systems
Adoption
of
RT-‐RPS
Systems
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Chart 6 – Historical Adoption Rates of RTGS and RT-RPS
31
Fundtech, Immediate Payments – Innovation is Knocking, September 2013.
14
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
SWIFT is a bank-owned, cooperative, ISO 20022 standard and Single window connectivity
with extensive experience in industry- market practice SWIFT operates the only world-wide,
wide MI initiatives, such as SEPA, T2,
As a standards-setting organisation, secure, reliable, value-added network
T2S, SADC, JASDEC, DTCC, CPA, CLS,
SWIFT has been closely involved in ISO designed specifically to carry financial
SGX, ASX, EBA STEP2, EBA EURO1/
20022 from its inception. SWIFT has two messaging, including ISO 20022:
STEP1, etc. These market infrastructures
use SWIFT to reduce the overall industry roles: Single window
costs and sustain the competitiveness of Registration Authority / Content With a global reach across 10,800+
its members. Contributor financial institutions, 200+ countries and
SWIFT is the ISO 20022 registration 230+ Market Infrastructures, SWIFT
Specifically for RT-RPS, SWIFT is
authority and the major content offers a single connectivity window to a
supporting the community in a number of
contributor to the ISO 20022 message wide range of counterparts. This reduces
ways.
portfolio. SWIFT participates in all relevant complexity and risk compared to using
ISO 20022 Standards Groups, and multiple proprietary networks.
Distributed real-time participates in the maintenance process of SWIFTNet Messaging Features
payments clearing ISO 20022 message sets, including those Delivering value-added functions including
SWIFT is currently developing designed for SEPA. automatic validation of the message
infrastructure components for the New Market Practice Facilitation against the ISO 20022 standard, access
Payments Platform (NPP), the new Market practice defines how the standard control, strong authentication, encryption
Australian infrastructure for real-time is used and SWIFT is a trusted facilitator and non-repudiation (where message
payments. and harmoniser of global market practice delivery cannot be disputed).
Clearing is distributed, between for ISO 20022. SWIFT has acquired
invaluable market practice expertise by
debtor and creditor banks, and also Shared services delivery and
working closely with Payments Market
triggers immediate settlement in a support
central settlement engine built by the Practice Group (PMPG), and numerous
regional and local market practice groups, SWIFT has developed shared services in
Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). The
including the European Payments Council areas that support the community, e.g.
scope includes a 24/7 network, switch
(EPC) for the definition of SEPA rulebooks payment routing reference data, address
components and a proxy addressing
and implementation guidelines. resolution, Know your Customer (KYC)
database, which allows payments based
registry, sanctions screening/testing,
on personal identifiers such as mobile
reference data, and Market Infrastructure
phone numbers or email addresses.
Resilience Service (MIRS).
Customers will be able to leverage their
existing SWIFT infrastructure to access
the NPP solution.
The NPP service is scheduled to go live in
2017, and the underlying technology has
the potential to be re-deployed in other
markets.
15
The Global Adoption of RT-RPS
Conclusion
The emergence of innovative real- One thing is certain – it will be SWIFT is happy to share our insights on
time payment services is having important for the industry to work real-time payments system trends with
a transformational impact on the together and to come up with ways to the industry.
underlying payment systems. Real- make this work. Legacy and new models
Comments and feedback are welcome – please
time is a growing trend, but the market will need to co-exist both at a domestic
send to market.infrastructures@swift.com.
is still in flux as different models are and cross-border level, and, for banks,
emerging to deliver necessary functionality interoperability will be essential.
such as low latency, 24/7/365 operations
As a bank-owned cooperative,
and clearing and settlement.
SWIFT’s mission has always been
Different countries have implemented to deliver cost-efficient and robust
RT-RPS systems in different ways, services that support its members’
ranging from adapting current legacy business. Over the years we have also
infrastructures up to building brand new shown a solid track record in facilitating
systems. As the cost for the industry is a dialogue and building consensus in the
key barrier for adoption, interoperability banking community in order to agree
and efficiency gains are critical success market practices, achieve standardisation
factors for both financial institutions and and reduce the costs for our members
regulators for rolling out a RT-RPS system. without compromising on service security
and reliability.
Legal notices
About SWIFT
SWIFT is a member-owned cooperative
that provides the communications platform,
products and services to connect more
than 10,800 institutions in more than
200 countries. SWIFT enables its users
to exchange automated, standardised
financial information securely and
reliably, thereby lowering costs, reducing
operational risk and eliminating operational
inefficiencies. SWIFT also brings the
financial community together to work
collaboratively to shape market practice,
define standards and debate issues of
mutual interest.
Copyright
Copyright © SWIFT SCRL, 2015 — All
rights reserved. The information herein
is confidential and the recipient will not
disclose it to third parties without the
written permission of SWIFT.
Disclaimer
SWIFT supplies this publication for
information purposes only. The information
in this publication may change from time
to time. You must always refer to the latest
available version.
Trademarks
SWIFT is the tradename of S.W.I.F.T.
SCRL. The following are registered
trademarks of SWIFT: SWIFT, the SWIFT
logo, the Standards Forum logo, 3SKey,
Innotribe, Sibos, SWIFTNet, SWIFTReady,
and Accord. Other product, service or
company names mentioned in this site are
trade names, trademarks, or registered
trademarks of their respective owners.
SWIFT © 2015