Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mirs White Paper 57023 June2014 PDF
Mirs White Paper 57023 June2014 PDF
Summary 3
4. The solution 15
4.1 The lack of contingency solutions that meet best practices 15
4.2 How SWIFT can help 15
4.3 What is the Market Infrastructure Resiliency Service (MIRS)? 15
4.4 The principal benefits of MIRS 16
4.5 RTGS operators are always in control of MIRS 16
4.6 MIRS can be activated quickly 17
Summary
Why RTGS matters Best practices in RTGS The characteristics of a truly effective
Real time gross settlement (RTGS) resiliency planning resiliency plan therefore include
affordability; a rapid cut-over to the new
reduces counterparty credit risk in Uninterrupted provision of RTGS services
service; a geographically remote facility;
payments by settling transactions gross, requires a high degree of resilience. In
reduced reliance on local staff; technical
one by one in real time, instead of netting major markets, every RTGS system is
diversity; independent data storage;
payments between counterparties and supported by a complete back-up site,
sufficient capacity to support existing
settling the net amount either at the mostly run on so-called “hot-standby
volumes of business; minimal impact
end of the business day, or at regular mode” enabling it to capture transaction
on users; the availability of the service
intervals throughout the business day. information continuously, and so take
throughout the period of disruption;
RTGS is provided, primarily for high value over functions immediately in the event
and, most importantly of all, the ability
payments (HVPs), by RTGS systems the primary site is disabled. A second site
to capture a clear view of the intra-day
operated mainly by central banks. is nevertheless vulnerable, particularly if it
balances at the point of failure, or to
Payments are still netted by automated operates on the same technology as the
recreate it rapidly once the primary and
clearing houses (ACHs), primarily for low primary site.
secondary sites have failed.
value payments (LVP), but even ACHs
settle net payments in the RTGS system.
Through services provided to custodian The solution
RTGS Resiliency Approach
banks by central securities depositories For the last five years, SWIFT has worked
(CSDs), the securities markets also with a group of seven central banks to
rely on RTGS systems to provide final, s Div
on ers design a shared RTGS system back-up
irrevocable settlement in central bank ati eT
oc service which meets best practices,
ec
L
hn
ers
e T olo
transactions. Because they are vital to
Div
hir
gy
cash and securities settlements, and also
nd
dS
ite
play a vital role in the implementation remoteness and technical diversity. Called
RTGS
of monetary policy, RTGS systems are System the Market Infrastructure Resiliency
systemically important. Service (MIRS), it makes use of SWIFT
B al a
t e r al A g r e e
St
Tr
resilient RTGS systems transaction balances continuously, and
&
te
an ra
sa pa so guarantee the ability for the operator
c ti o
ns Se
Because RTGS systems are systemically
to open the MIRS back-up service to the
important, the central banks which
RTGS participants within no more than
operate them must ensure that they are
2½ hours by providing a clear view of the
resilient enough to withstand a variety
settlement position at the point of failure
of threats to their security and integrity. For this reason, some RTGS operators
of the primary and secondary sites. The
These include natural disasters, loss have built a third site, but this is an
service is easy to use and can operate for
of essential services, data corruption, expensive option because it delivers
as long as a disruption persists, whether
cyber-attacks, unavailability of staff, additional resilience only if it is operated
this is a matter of days, weeks or months.
component malfunction, terrorism and by separate staff on different technology
war. The 24 principles for financial market in a remote location. At present, an
infrastructures published in April 2012 alternative in the event of the loss of
by the Committee on Payment and the secondary as well as the primary
Settlement Systems (CPSS) and the site is reversion to bilateral settlement
Technical Committee of the International between counterparties. This entails a mix
Organisation of Securities Commissions of manual and automated processing,
(IOSCO) emphasise not only final restricting the volume of payments that
settlement in central bank money, in real can be processed, and reintroducing
time, as the global standard, but also a degree of credit risk. There is also
the need for operational contingency no means of capturing the balance of
plans that guarantee continuity of service payments made and pending at the point
through both catastrophic and marginal of failure of the primary and secondary
disruptions. sites, leading to disputes between
counterparties.
4
Reducing risk and increasing resilience
180
160
140
120
100
80 — Total of RTGS systems
60
— Total of Countries using
RTGS systems
40
20
0
1981 1990 1994 1996 1998 200 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Existing
Chart 4: The number of RTGS systems and the number of countries operating an RTGS system
1,280,000
EU-T2(55)
Payment System Transaction Value (USD Billion)
JP-BOJ(57)
640,000 US-FED(37)
US-CHIPS(22)
320,000
UK-CHAPS(46)
CN-HVPS(34)
90,000 CH-SIC(161)
KR-BOK (44)
BR-STR(38) EU-EURO1(4)
40,000
CA-LVTS(21)
HK-CHATS HKD(60) SE-RIX(35) TK-EFT(24) AU-RITS(26)
20,000 RU-BESP(10)
RU-VER(7)
10,000 SA-SARIE(25) MX-SPËI (13) IN-RTGS(7)
SG-MEPS+(51)
ZA-SAMOS(26)
5,000
100 1,000 10,00 100,000
Country GDP (USD Billion)
hart 5: The value of payments processed by RTGS systems as a proportion of GDP. Bubble size is a multiplier of payment
C
transaction value versus GDP. The value after the name of the country and the RTGS system pictures the number of times
annual national income are settled by the RTGS over 2012. (Source: Bank for International Settlements, Committee on Payment
and Settlement Systems, Statistics on payment, clearing and settlement systems in the CPSS countries, Figures for 2012,
December 2013.)
Hurricane Sandy, in which the FedWire Operator Number of HVP RTGS systems
system operated faultlessly throughout,
vindicated that investment.6 Central banks 125
A comparison of the 2000 CPSS and 2012 CPSS-IOSCO principles for payment systems
10 core principles for payments Relevant principles from 24 applied to all financial market
systems only, finalised by CPSS infrastructures (FMIs) by CPSS-IOSCO in April 2012
in July 2000
A system in which multilateral rinciple 13: Participant-default rules and procedures: An FMI should have
P
netting takes place should, at a effective and clearly defined rules and procedures to manage a participant
minimum, be capable of ensuring the default. These rules and procedures should be designed to ensure that the
timely completion of daily settle- FMI can take timely action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and
ments in the event of an inability continue to meet its obligations.
to settle by the participant with the
largest single settlement obligation.
Assets used for settlement should rinciple 15: General business risk:An FMI should identify, monitor, and
P
preferably be a claim on the central manage its general business risk and hold sufficient liquid net assets funded
bank; where other assets are used, by equity to cover potential general business losses so that it can continue
they should carry little or no credit operations and services as a going concern if those losses materialise.
risk and little or no liquidity risk. Further, liquid net assets should at all times be sufficient to ensure a
recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services.
rinciple 16: Custody and investment risks: An FMI should safeguard its
P
own and its participants’ assets and minimise the risk of loss on and delay
in access to these assets. An FMI’s investments should be in instruments
with minimal credit, market, and liquidity risks.
The system should ensure a high rinciple 17: Operational risk: An FMI should identify the plausible sources
P
degree of security and operational of operational risk, both internal and external, and mitigate their impact
reliability and should have through the use of appropriate systems, policies, procedures, and controls.
contingency arrangements for timely Systems should be designed to ensure a high degree of security and
completion of daily processing. operational reliability and should have adequate, scalable capacity. Business
continuity management should aim for timely recovery of operations and
fulfilment of the FMI’s obligations, including in the event of a wide-scale or
major disruption. An FMI should aim to be able to resume operations within
two hours following disruptive events; however, backup systems ideally
should commence processing immediately. The plan should be designed to
enable the FMI to complete settlement by the end of the day even in case of
extreme circumstances.
The system should provide a means rinciple 22: Communication procedures and standards: An FMI should
P
of making payments which is use, or at a minimum accommodate, relevant internationally accepted
practical for its users and efficient for communication procedures and standards in order to facilitate efficient
the economy. payment, clearing, settlement, and recording.
The system should have objective rinciple 18: Access and participation requirements: An FMI should have
P
and publicly disclosed criteria for objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed criteria for participation, which
participation, which permit fair and permit fair and open access.
open access. rinciple 19: Tiered participation arrangements: An FMI should identify,
P
monitor, and manage the material risks to the FMI arising from tiered
participation arrangements.
The system’s governance rinciple 2: Governance: An FMI should have governance arrangements
P
arrangements should be effective, that are clear and transparent, promote the safety and efficiency of the FMI,
accountable and transparent. and support the stability of the broader financial system, other relevant
public interest considerations, and the objectives of relevant stakeholders.
able 3: Source: Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, Core Principles for Systemically Important Payment Systems,
T
Bank for International Settlements, July 2000, and Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS) and Technical
Committee of the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), Principles for Financial Market Infrastructures,
Bank for International Settlements, April 2012.
12
Reducing risk and increasing resilience
Cross-currency settlement, which view, understand and manage the status This argues for selecting, tried and tested
requires the exchange of principal in of their transactions and their liquidity infrastructures with which users are
two currencies, imposes another time positions accounts, and set the credit already familiar.
constraint. In major currency pairs, banks limits that prevent participating banks
send settlement instructions to CLS becoming overdrawn at the central
3.8 The value of diversity
Bank, which simultaneously settles netted banks.
payment instructions across accounts Geographical remoteness can add
maintained by the banks at CLS. This greatly to the resilience of a back-up
3.6 Coverage of existing facility, especially if the facility is located
can only occur during a five hour window
when the RTGS systems in the 17
business during the recovery in another country where it is physically
currencies settled by CLS Bank are open.
period removed from the centre of a natural
Depending on the scale of the failure, disaster or terrorist attack, and linked to
market participants may have to continue entirely separate sources of energy and
3.5 Capturing balances and to work with the back-up service for a communications.
transactions at the point of number of days, and possibly a number
failure However, most back-up sites have
of weeks or months. During this time, tended to be built in fairly close proximity
To take over as rapidly as the CPSS- the back-up platform has to be readily to the primary site. This is largely because
IOSCO timetable implies, a back-up accessible to all the banks that were the second site has to capture and
site needs accurate information about using the failed RTGS system, and also synchronise information in near real
balances to restart. In other words, be capable of handling the same volume time, and its ability to do so is impaired
knowing which payments have settled and value of transactions. by distance. Current data transmission
and which are pending. Once accurate speeds restrict the effective distance to
Limiting the number of participants and/
starting balances are established, the between 50 and 100 kilometres.
or the number of transactions serviced by
system must be able to effect transfers
a back-up service is one way of limiting To achieve the requisite degree of
between banks on a gross, transaction
the cost of setting of an operational geographic remoteness, a third site
by transaction basis in real time, including
contingency plan, but it reintroduces must sacrifice some information about
the settlement of net payments between
credit risk in transactions processed payments completed and pending
banks agreed via ACHs.
outside the system. Best practice argues at the point of failure, either because
If the balance information is available unequivocally for full coverage of all of the natural latency of online data
online, the time-lapse before re-starting existing participants and transactions. transmissions or because the data was
should be minimal, but ensuring the stored offline, in batch mode.
This is an unavoidable constraint on any
security and integrity of information online
operational recovery plan. A back-up Technical diversity is another important
can be extremely expensive. Storing the
solution which lacked the capacity to form of defence, providing a further
necessary information offline is cheaper,
process the same amount of business layer of protection against discrete
but it means the back-up solution cannot
as the status quo ante the failure of the risks - viruses, component failure, data
start with the latest information that was
primary RTGS system would force the corruption, human error, malicious
being processed at the point of failure,
central bank to oblige at least some insiders and cyber-attacks. Outsourcing
because the data is not transferred to the
counterparties in the market to settle the second (or third) back-up to a
back-up site in real time. The resultant
bilaterally. This would reintroduce a separate and wholly independent
gaps in data have to be covered by
degree of credit risk. operator with distinct dependencies
dialogue with and between the banks.
reducess the associated risks.
Either way, rapid restoration of service
3.7 Necessity of minimal Last but not least, reducing reliance
is possible only on the basis of accurate
information about the balances banks
impact on the users on locally based staff further increases
hold at the central bank, and which An operational back-up service capable resiliency. Loss of essential services,
transactions have settled and which of capturing the data to resume payments a natural disaster or a terrorist attack
are pending at the point of failure of the quickly, and of processing high volumes affecting a wide geographical area is
RTGS system. This is the only way to without reintroducing credit risk, sets bound to prevent at least some staff
avoid disputes between banks over what demanding criteria. Yet there is a further getting to work. A back-up facility in a
was settled versus what was unsettled, demand the service has to meet: minimal separate location that employs different
which would delay recovery from impact on the day-to-day operational people, or which allows the same people
disruption. activities of the banks that make use of to operate it remotely when they are
the service. unable to reach their normal place of
To work successfully, a back-up work or first standby facility, overcomes
solution needs more than the balances Any back-up system which denies
these risks.
outstanding. It also needs to host its users vital information, or forces
configuration data – such as the account them to make a major investment in
structure – of the failed RTGS system, in new technology or additional staff, or
order to resume payments immediately. whose shortcomings prompts them to
It should also offer system operators question its reliability, will constrain the
online reporting tools that allow them to effectiveness of the third line of defence.
14
Reducing risk and increasing resilience
3.9 Independent data storage Back-up platform to operate throughout a crisis without reintroducing credit risk
Adhering to all of these best practices Resume the RTGS service with a speed that avoid re-introduction of credit risk
may still be insufficient to make an RTGS
system truly resilient. A back-up system Capture the latest balances and transaction status continuously in real-time
can be geographically and technically Avoid any restriction on the number of participants and volumes of transactions
differentiated, capable of re-starting
Minimise the impact on users of the switch to the back-up system
quickly with the latest transaction status
reports and liquidity balances, impose Ensure the back-up facility is geographically remote from the other sites
minimal requirements on existing users,
Technical diversification will limit the risk of cross-contamination
and be operated by a separate cadre of
staff, yet still be vulnerable to a cyber- Reduce reliance on essential staff to operate systems
attack through the transmission of I ndependent, trusted storage of balances and messages exchanged between
corrupted information from the primary counterparties
or secondary site. That means the third
site will re-start payments on the basis of Table 4: Best practices in RTGS risk mitigation
incorrect information.
The only solution to this risk is the
independence of the back-up site However, a service in which a number
from the primary or secondary site. of RTGS systems pool their resources
Independence entails the safe storage of can do more than save time and money.
the data by an independent and trusted It can also facilitate the adoption and
third party organisation on a continuous development of best practices.
basis in real time, so that the latest
balances are always retrievable, along
with a full explanation of how those
balances were derived, together with a
full archive of transactions between the
counterparties.
In the event that recent information is
corrupted, the archive facilitates the
rewinding of transactions beyond the
point at which the data was corrupted
to ascertain the correct balances. A
contingency site can then be confident of
re-starting the payments process with a
so-called “golden copy” of uncorrupted
and accurate information about the status
of balances and transactions at the point of
failure. A back-up site can use this “golden
copy” to re-commence settlements at the
point of the original failure.
4. The solution
4.1 The lack of contingency on manual processing. If the back-up 4.3 What is the Market
solutions that meet best system could not provide sufficient Infrastructure Resiliency
practices capacity to solve that problem, credit risk Service (MIRS)?
would be reintroduced.
Best practices in RTGS back-up systems MIRS is a generic RTGS system available
include a rapid cut-over to the service; a A second obstacle was that no back-up to central banks that use the SWIFT
geographically remote facility; reduced system could start processing, even on a network. It is designed to replace the
reliance on local staff; technical diversity; manual basis, without agreement on the functionality essential to achieve final,
independent data storage; sufficient starting balances. No solution could be irrevocable settlement of payments on a
capacity to support existing volumes of found to ensure that the Bank of England transaction by transaction basis in real
business; minimal impact on users; the had access to payments balances at the time on behalf of any RTGS system (see
availability of the service throughout the point of failure.9 Table 5).
period of disruption; and, most importantly Even if solutions to these two obstacles However, MIRS can also be customised
of all, the ability to capture a clear view could be found, the Bank of England to meet the specific RTGS needs of any
of the intra-day balances at the point quickly concluded that the costs were contingency plan, including features that
of failure, or recreate it rapidly once the hard to justify in relation to the benefits. are not part of the generic functionality of
primary and secondary sites have failed. So it welcomed the opportunity to work the service.
Understandably, these requirements are with SWIFT and six other central banks
hard to meet at reasonable cost. Through MIRS, SWIFT believes that
on the feasibility of SWIFT hosting an
it can play a pivotal role in supporting
RTGS payments system.
central banks in their efforts to protect
4.2 How SWIFT can help The involvement of a sizeable group of themselves against large-scale failures of
central banks ensured that the service their RTGS systems. MIRS satisfies the
In 2009, SWIFT started to review the was sufficiently generic for it to be applied best practices in RTGS back-up systems
feasibility of achieving exactly that: a across a wide variety of RTGS models. too, including speed of transition from
back-up RTGS system that could be By early 2011, the Bank of England was the failed RTGS systems; geographical
made available to RTGS operators at ready to serve as a pilot site. Following remoteness; a separate group of
reasonable cost, because it was a shared formal agreement between SWIFT and operational staff; completely differentiated
service. As it happens, the Bank of England the Bank of England, implementation technology; independent and trustworthy
had embarked simultaneously on an began in earnest. data storage; ample capacity to handle
investigation of how it could further increase
Testing of the technology and processes current volumes of transactions;
the resilience of its own RTGS system.
began on 29 July 2013, and the new continuous availability throughout the
Like every central bank, the sensitivity system, called “Market Infrastructure period of disruption; and especially the
of the Bank of England to the systemic Resiliency Service” (MIRS), went live with ability to capture a clear view of the intra-
risk created by the reliance of the British the Bank of England on 24 February day balances at the point of failure.
economy on RTGS was heightened by 2014.
their experience of the acute phase of the
financial crisis between 2008 and 2009.
Although no RTGS system failed during
the crisis, the episode reminded all central
M
IRS is a generic 3rd site back-up solution
banks that the failure of even one RTGS
system would accelerate and aggravate M
IRS enables best practice resiliency in accordance with the new principles for FMI
a crisis, because transfers of cash and M
IRS is technologically and geographically diverse from the existing RTGS system
other assets would be impeded.
M
IRS is a shared service, making the solution cost efficient
The Bank of England was concerned
enough to explore how payments could M
IRS reconstructs balances at point of failure based on data in an safe store
continue to settle if both its primary and M
IRS is capable of processing and settling payment transactions, on a high-capacity basis
secondary sites were disabled. Its first
M
IRS is activated and deactivated by the RTGS operator
assumption was that banks could revert
to bilateral settlement.8 Unfortunately, this M
IRS can run as long as it is needed
assumption encountered two obstacles.
Table 5: What MIRS does
The first was that the banks which use
the Bank of England RTGS system were
unable to handle their existing volumes
of bilateral payments on a net basis once
the central bank was reduced to reliance
9) See 3.5 Capturing balances and transactions at the
8) See 3.2 Reversion to bilateral arrangements point of failure
16
Reducing risk and increasing resilience
MIRS is
activated
1 3
SWIFT SWIFT
MIRS MIRS
MIRS is MIRS is
dormant active
MIRS is
deactivated
MIRS operates in either dormant platforms, are automatically capturing over from a failed RTGS platform.
mode or active mode, and switches payment instructions and settlement As MIRS stores balance checkpoint
between the two states as it is notifications between participants messages for the last four days,
required to support a disabled RTGS continuously in real time, and storing MIRS will be able to re-start payment
system. them in their databases. Since copies settlement services at any point in
By default, MIRS operates in of the payment messages are stored time within the last four days, when
dormant mode, awaiting activation. by SWIFT before they are processed requested.
Once an RTGS system operator by the RTGS platform, where they
might be corrupted or lost, their RTGS platforms that do not use
requests activation and confirms SWIFT messaging would be obliged,
it, MIRS switches to active mode, validity and accuracy is also assured.
These stored messages provide the after selecting MIRS as a back-up
and continues in that state until the service, to send to SWIFT copies of
operator requests deactivation. The starting point for MIRS in activation
mode. settlement confirmation messages
business operation of the payment and balance checkpoint messages
system remains with the RTGS. In addition to the automatic storage of in the SWIFT message format, over
Chart 8 illustrates how it moves from the individual payment messages by the SWIFT network. This necessitates
dormant to active mode and back SWIFT, the RTGS is obliged to send additional but manageable effort.
again. MIRS a time-stamped balance of each
of its accounts, known as a “balance Finally, in dormant mode, MIRS
When MIRS is dormant, payment provides the RTGS operators
instructions and related notification checkpoint”, every 55 minutes, or
less. These snapshots of the account with secure web access for the
messages are exchanged between maintenance of participant and
the RTGS and participants using balances will be sent by the RTGS
using the SWIFT balance checkpoint account static data, alerts, monitoring
SWIFT. functions, calendar.
message type. MIRS will validate the
SWIFT stores all messages in its content of the balance checkpoint
FIN database, from which they message to ensure configuration
can be retrieved when MIRS is coherence. The checkpoint balances,
activated. This means that SWIFT together with the settlement
systems, which are already being confirmation messages, will be used
used by the majority of global RTGS by MIRS when it is called upon to take
19
Reducing risk and increasing resilience
Following the failure of its operational and these payments will be routed Once the primary RTGS system is
sites, the RTGS system operator automatically to MIRS, with MIRS then repaired and in a position to resume
requests activation of the MIRS assuming the role of the RTGS. operation, the operator requests
service. From its starting position, missing deactivation of MIRS. As the
Upon receipt of this request, which notifications identified during the deactivation process is a planned
requires “four eyes” validation, double activation will be sent guaranteeing process, it will take place outside
initial secret entry by operators and the community a correct reconciliation of business hours. This request is
“four eyes” re-confirmation, MIRS between the latest accounts balances subject to “four eyes” validation.
assumes the Bank Identifier Code used by MIRS and the account Upon deactivation, MIRS will provide
(BIC) of the central bank that operates information hold by the participants. its balance checkpoint message
MIRS. The service will retrieve all the MIRS will have determined the back to the repaired RTGS, plus a
relevant payment and settlement payments that need to be queued for copy of its archive which contains
confirmation messages from the settlement. These transactions and both audit log and transaction log.
SWIFT database that occurred after new payment instructions are then The balance checkpoint will be used
the balance checkpoint to the time of processed in real time, transaction by by the RTGS as its new starting
the failure. transaction, and as normal. MIRS will position as it resumes operation.
By starting from the account balance act as the RTGS, settling or rejecting MIRS then deactivates itself, and the
checkpoint selected by the RTGS the transactions, using the pre-agreed RTGS system resumes control of its
operator, MIRS verifies which credit rules, defined by the RTGS. operations. The participants continue
payments have already settled versus MIRS will receive and validate each to send payments as usual.
FINCopy payments that are still message against a number of criteria
pending. This process enables MIRS (such as whether the account and
to provide the RTGS operator and its currency code and business day are
participants with the correct account valid, and not a duplicate, and that the
balances prior to the point of failure, sender is authorised to act on behalf
as well as the FINCopy outstanding of the account).
payments to be queued for Once this validation process is
settlement. MIRS will also ensure that complete, the payments will be
legitimate settlement confirmations submitted for settlement. After
that have not been notified to the checking that there are sufficient funds
relevant participants are identified. are available in the account to meet
Typical examples are failures that them and that no other payments
occur after the RTGS platform settled with a higher priority need to be
payments but before or during the settled before them, MIRS will settle
sending of the notifications to the each payment by simultaneously
relevant participant or failures when debiting and crediting the accounts
not all notifications resulting from of the direct or indirect participants. If
gridlock resolution or from failed required, it sends notifications to both.
liquidity optimisation cycles. As part of the settlement process,
In any event, once an accurate MIRS will also provide various
starting position has been determined, management tools for the RTGS.
MIRS provides a status report to the These include tools for monitoring and
RTGS operator, which then has the control purposes (such as the state
option to proceed with the activation of the system, account monitoring,
or cancel it. alerts, and queue monitoring) and
Confirmation by the RTGS operator for the management of liquidity and
will transition MIRS into active mode. reporting.
Copyright
Copyright © SWIFT SCRL, 2014 — 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.
visit www.swift.com.
SWIFT © 2014