Tag Archive for: banking

Towards a central bank digital currency?

| 06-08-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

Since Facebook announced its plans to come up with their own digital currency named Libra, a heated debate has risen about whether central banks should issue their own digital currency.

Central banks worldwide have expressed their worries about Facebook’s plan. According to them the prospect of a tech firm (and may be also others in the future) with billions of users launching its own money potentially poses a threat to existing fiat state currencies and especially to monetary stability.

Long-time sitting at the side-lines, this plan may accelerate the idea of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Though there are no real plans (yet), are some strong arguments for central banks to start issuing their own digital currency.

This however raises a number of questions such as: What sort of digital currency?; What would be the main arguments? What role should banks play in this process? And, what would be the impact on financial stability?

Central banks counterbalancing Libra

Central bank are seriously watching the emergence of a new global digital currency called Libra, introduced by Facebook (see my Blog: Facebook and Libra: a global digital currency, 1 July 2019). The birth of Libra thereby serves as an “alert” for central banks and regulators.

There is growing belief that if Libra could be successfully launched, it would challenge central banks’ monetary sovereignty, posing a long-term threat to central banks control of money. Any role for Libra beyond the payment function could bring changes to the rules of the global monetary system, and regulators should pay close attention to that possibility.

“From the government’s perspective, we pay more attention to its influence on financial services, monetary policy and financial stability.”

Accelerating the launch of their own digital currencies by central banks could be a counterbalance.

Reactions

The initial cautious stance towards a central bank issued digital currency, ranging from wait-and-see to very negative, has firmly changed. Central banks and governments from all over the world as well as international financial institutions like the IMF and BIS are now sounding a much more positive tone.

IMF

It is interesting to find that already last year (November 2018) the International Monetary Fund (IMF) started to examine the potential innovative nature of digital currencies and has supported CBDC proposals more positively. Christine Lagarde, at that time Managing Director of the IMF, urged central banks to consider CBDC since they could satisfy public policy goals, including financial inclusion, security/consumer protection, and privacy in payments.

BIS

While just a few months ago, Augustín Carstens, the general manager for the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), was still questioning the value of central-bank-issued digital currencies, he recently acknowledged that central banks will likely soon need to issue their own ones.

Carstens warns that “big techs have the potential to become dominant” in this area thanks to network effects. Further, the arrival of such products “might just be around the corner if there is clear evidence of demand from the public”.

 “And it might be that it is sooner than we think that there is a market and we need to be able to provide central bank digital currencies. If Facebook and big tech companies get their way, however they may have to.” Augustin Carstens

BIS is now supporting the many central banks’ efforts to research and develop digital currencies based on national fiat currencies. At the very least, the BIS concludes in its recent report, new “comprehensive” public policy is needed to “respond to big techs’ entry into financial services so as to benefit from the gains while limiting the risks.”

The potential implications of such a change towards central bank digital currencies for the stability of the global financial system however aren’t entirely clear, according to the BIS.

ECB

Though not taking an official position, a European Central Bank (ECB) official has come out generally in favour of wholesale central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).

Vitas Vasiliauskas, a member of the Governing Council of the ECB and chairman of the board of the Bank of Lithuania, said the question is not if but whether CBDCs should be retail, wholesale, or both. A retail CBDC would be available for the general public, while a wholesale version would be restricted to serve a limited circle, mostly financial institutions. In between these two types, “multiple theoretical sub-models also exist,” he said.

PBoC

The People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the country’s central bank is accelerating its efforts to introduce a government-backed digital currency, aiming at “securing a cutting-edge position in the global cryptocurrency race”. The central bank is organizing market-oriented institutions to jointly research and develop a central bank digital currency and the program has been approved by the State Council.

“A digital currency issued by the central bank can improve the efficiency of monetary policy, and help to optimize the payment system.”

China’s monetary authority identifies the nature of digital currency as “a substitute for cash”, rather than a speculative instrument. The use of cash is declining in China amid booming digital payment systems.

The central bank digital currency could be a new monetary policy tool, or an investment asset that carries an interest rate to satisfy investors’ demand for value. It might also be used as a reference for bank interest rates on deposits. The Chinese digital currency also could be used domestically. But “everything is just under discussion”.

Why CBDCs?

There are various arguments raised to issuing central bank issued digital currency based on DLT. The main are described below.

Towards a cashless society

One of the reasons mentioned is that in the Western world a growing number of people do not use cash anymore. Physical payments are thereby gradually replaced with electronic payments. CBDCs could provide a safe, liquid payment instruments to the general public. They have the potential to reduce cash handling costs since all the transactions can be made using a digital representation of money and are traceable.

…. and a formal based economy

A shift in central bank money from cash (physical money) to digital currency is another way to shift the economy from being informal-based to formal-based so that the economy becomes more tax-based, transparent, and efficient. This is especially relevant for emerging markets.

Increased financial inclusion

Another motivation  for especially emerging economies regarding CBDC proposals is financial inclusion. In many of these countries a large number of people are unbanked and/or without access to commercial banks and the internet and thus excluded from conventional banking services. CBDC might promote digitization of the economy and, thus, economic and social inclusion.

More effective monetary policy

Shifting from cash to digital currency through issuing CBDC may enhance the effectiveness of monetary policy (such as a negative interest rate policy under the effective lower bound) because of limiting the scope of cash substitution that could emerge to avoid a negative interest rate.

Implementing CBDCs can allow new monetary policy tools to be used. Alternatively, CBDCs can be used as a tool to increase aggregate demand by making ‘helicopter drops’ of newly created CBDCs to all citizens, making it easier to meet the central bank’s monetary policy target of price stability.

Safer and more effective financial system

And there are the efficiency and financial stability gains to be get from CBDC. CBDC has the potential to improve the existing wholesale financial systems—including interbank payments and settlement systems, delivery versus payment systems, and cross-border payments and settlements systems.

Allowing individuals, private sector companies, and non-bank financial institutions to settle directly in central bank money (rather than bank deposits) may significantly reduce the concentration of liquidity and credit risk in payment systems.

This in turn could reduce the systemic importance of large banks. In addition, by providing a genuinely risk-free alternative to bank deposits, a shift from bank deposits to digital cash may also reduce the need for government guarantees on deposits, “eliminating a source of moral hazard” from the financial system.

Foster fintech sector

The use of CBDCs may promote a technological environment and foster the fintech sector. This is especially relevant for emerging economies. Those economies may find it difficult to develop banking systems and capital markets that are comparable to those in advanced economies. Fintech services are new and innovative.

Encourage competition and innovation

The regulatory framework would make it significantly easier for new entrants to the payments sector to offer payment accounts and provide competition to the existing banks. It would also reduce the need for most smaller banks and non-banks to run their payments through the larger banks (who are able to set transaction fees at a level that disadvantages their smaller competitors).

What sort of central bank digital currency?

When discussing the options of central bank digital currencies we can differentiate proposals into retail CDBC i.e. targeted to the general public and wholesale CBDC issued only for financial institutions. And there are multiple in-between types that may have characteristics of both retail and wholesale.

Retail CBDC

A retail CBDC is one that will be issued for the general public. Retail CBDC based on DLT has the features of anonymity, traceability, availability 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, and the feasibility of an interest rate application.

The retail proposal is relatively popular among central banks in emerging economies, mainly because of the motivation to take the lead in the rapidly emerging fintech industry, to promote financial inclusion by accelerating the shift to a cashless society, and to reduce cash printing and handling costs.

Wholesale CDBC

A wholesale CBDC is for financial institutions that hold reserve deposits with a central bank. It could be used to improve payments and securities settlement efficiency, as well as to reduce counterparty credit and liquidity risks.

A value-based wholesale CBDC would replace or complement reserves at the central bank with a restricted-access digital token. A token would be a bearer asset, meaning that during the transaction the sender would transfer value to the receiver, without intermediaries.

This would be something fundamentally different from the current system in which the central bank debits and credits the accounts without transferring actual values.

The wholesale CBDC is seen as the most popular proposal among central banks because of the potential to make existing wholesale financial systems faster, inexpensive, and safer. The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) also shares the view that wholesale CBDC could potentially benefit the payments and settlements systems.

Some experiments have been already conducted or examined by central banks since 2016—such as those in Canada called “CADcoin” under Project Jasper, Singapore Project Ubin, Japan-Euro Area Project Stella, Brazil, South Africa Project Khokha, and Thailand (Project Inthanon). (See my earlier blogs: Blockchain and Central Banks: A Tour de Table Part I and II, 3 and 9 January, 2017).

Retail versus wholesale CBDC?

Compared to emerging economies, central banks in advanced economies are not enthusiastic about retail CBDC. And that is not surprising. Many central banks do not wish to create competition between central bank money private sector money, taken into account the limited potential benefits from using retail CBDC.

A retail CDBC would be a step too far (or too early) for them. If a central bank issued a digital currency whereby everyone (including businesses, households and financial institutions other than banks) could store value and make payments in electronic central bank money (the r-CBDC variant), this could have wide-ranging implications for monetary policy and financial stability.

Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency would bring a number of important efficiencies. Besides their retail payments and settlements systems are already highly efficient, almost real time, and always available. Most citizens are banked, while the use of cash in most European countries – with the exception of Sweden and Norway – is still rather high (and not declining in the same speed).

Moreover, wholesale CBDC technology would allow linking to other platforms. Directly linking securities or FX platforms to cash platforms could improve the speed of trades and eliminate settlement risk. Settlement on OTC markets, as well as for syndicated lending and trade finance could speed up considerably if linked live to an instant wholesale CBDC system.

Wholesale CBDC may also simplify (cross-border) payment infrastructure, strongly reducing the number of intermediaries involved. This may improve efficiency and security, minimise liquidity and counterparty risks and reduces cost.

Deploying DLT technology would also allow “smart” features to be added to wholesale CBDC, including earmarking funds, limiting their use in time and place, applying conditional interest rates and others. Such smart features would allow central banks to explore new and powerful operational monetary policy tools, such as tailor-made interest rates.

Finally. real-time monitoring and better track-and-trace options on a unified platform should facilitate both anti-money laundering efforts by banks and supervision over those efforts.

Coordinated CBDC approach

This wholesale approach is a likely first step towards more universal adoption of CBDCs. It is less disruptive and makes global payments cheaper, faster and more secure. But who should take the initiative to build the wholesale CBDC?

Only central banks have the mandate to issue a digital currency or token and call it legal tender. They however lack extensive experience and resources needed to build and maintain such an infrastructure and, build a compliance apparatus to supervise clients and transactions.

The private sector, on the other hand, has the necessary experience and resources to do this. Next to that, commercial banks also have an incentive, as regulation is becoming ever more stringent (KYC, AML), and makes it more costly to maintain a presence in payment systems in multiple countries.

Moreover, the current international payment system, based on correspondent banking, creates various costs such as KYC and handling costs of all banks involved. There are also delays due to opening hours in different time zones while liquidity is trapped in pre-funded nostro-accounts. A single cross-border 24/7 international direct payment and settlement system therefore is very attractive for them.

In order to build a successful wholesale CBDC, one needs the private sector’s experience and the central banks, thereby taking away the various counterparty risks. Moreover, jurisdictional differences need to be harmonised. So international public-private partnerships make sense.

Though this seems controversial, one should keep in mind that the existing monetary system is already a public-private partnership. While central banks determine monetary policy and monitor financial stability, commercial banks actually create most of the money by lending. Central banks (and other government agencies) in turn license and regulate them.

The way forward

Up till recently, not many central banks so far have found strong advantages of issuing their own digital currency at this stage because of several technical constraints.

The potential launch of Libra however has been an important wake-up call for a large number of central banks.

Given that blockchain technology has been progressing fast in the settlement and payment areas (as well as DLT), central banks may now see incentives to increase their interest in wholesale CBDC proposals and consider actual implementation seriously in the near future.

Wholesale CBDC however will still have to compete with upgraded legacy systems. Both central and commercial banks should therefore take a cautious approach when building completely new alternatives. Experimental wholesale CBDC that are cross-border from the start and involve multiple commercial and central banks, should have the biggest chance of success.

A retail CBDC however may be “a faraway goal” because of the potential adverse impact on commercial banks by promoting a shift of retail deposits from commercial banks to a central bank.

 

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

Challengerbanken dwingen traditionele banken tot verbeterslag

| 05-08-2019 | ENIGMA Consulting |

Het openen van een rekening via mobiele telefoon wordt steeds eenvoudiger.

Een vooruitstrevende mobielbankierenapp is van groot belang om consumenten aan de bank te binden. Particulieren doen steeds meer bankzaken via de mobiele telefoon, maar ook het klant worden van een bank verloopt steeds vaker via de app. Een eenvoudig, snel en veilig onboardingsproces moet zorgen voor een eerste prettige klantervaring.

Enigma Consulting heeft onderzoek gedaan naar het onboardingsproces bij elf banken die actief zijn in Nederland . Op voorhand waren we met name benieuwd of gebruiksvriendelijkheid ten koste gaat van fraudepreventie en veiligheid.

In het onderzoek is het proces beoordeeld op drie onderdelen:

1. Gebruiksvriendelijkheid
2. Fraudepreventie/veiligheid
3. Innovatie

Op basis van de scores van de 58 criteria leidt dit tot het volgende inzicht, dat we graag in dit artikel nader toelichten.

De volgende banken zijn meegenomen: ABN Amro, ASN, Bunq, ING, Knab, Moneyou, N26, Rabobank, Revolut, SNS en Triodos. Regiobank en Van Lanschot bieden geen digitale onboarding en zijn daarom niet meegenomen in dit onderzoek.

Gebruiksvriendelijkheid: binnen een uur een actieve rekening
De challengerbanken scoren zonder uitzondering hoog op het onderdeel gebruiksvriendelijkheid. Bunq, Moneyou, N26 en Revolut springen eruit doordat de klant alle handelingen tijdens de onboarding via de app kan afhandelen. Er is geen afhankelijkheid van een ander device (zoals een identifier). Daarnaast zijn de processen nagenoeg papierloos, het identiteitsbewijs wordt bijvoorbeeld via de app gescand.

De challengerbanken scoren zonder uitzondering hoog op het onderdeel gebruiksvriendelijkheid. Bunq, Moneyou, N26 en Revolut springen eruit doordat de klant alle handelingen tijdens de onboarding via de app kan afhandelen. Er is geen afhankelijkheid van een ander device (zoals een identifier). Daarnaast zijn de processen nagenoeg papierloos, het identiteitsbewijs wordt bijvoorbeeld via de app gescand.

ING scoort goed op Android    
Van de traditionele banken scoort ING goed. Het proces via een smartphone met een Android-besturingssysteem verloopt soepel. Daarbij dient aangetekend te worden dat onboarding via besturingssysteem iOS (Apple) nog niet goed mogelijk is.

Snelheid en gemak zijn de sleutel    
Bunq, ING en Moneyou zijn de banken waarbij de onboarding in ons onderzoek het snelst verloopt. Binnen een uur heeft de klant een IBAN, toegang tot de bankomgeving en kan de klant geld overmaken naar een andere rekening. Het is bij deze banken niet nodig om een identifier/scanner of de bankpas te gebruiken voor het activeren van de rekening.

Triodos laat een matige indruk achter op het gebied van gebruiksvriendelijkheid. De bank vraagt als enige om een kopie van het identiteitsbewijs ondertekend per post retour te sturen. Triodos stuurt veel brieven (niet duurzaam), onder andere voor de identifier, voor de activatiecode en voor de pincode, waardoor het proces een lange doorlooptijd kent. In ons onderzoek duurde het dertien dagen voordat wij konden betalen vanaf de betaalrekening.

Ontvangen van pincode    
Een opvallend verschil is de wijze van ontvangen van de pincode. De traditionele banken sturen de pincode per brief naar het adres van de klant. Moneyou is de enige bank waarbij de klant de pincode krijgt toegewezen en kan aflezen in de app. Bunq, Knab, N26 en Revolut bieden de klant de mogelijkheid om de pincode zelf te kiezen. Dat laatste beoordelen wij als het meest gebruiksvriendelijk.

Fraudepreventie en veiligheid: stabiliteit bij alle banken
Alle banken laten een stabiele basis zien op het gebied van fraudepreventie en veiligheid. De banken scoren allemaal een voldoende wat betreft klantidentificatie en -authenticatie. De banken gebruiken verschillende methodes om een nieuwe klant te identificeren. Voor het delen van de identiteitsgegevens kan een klant bij de meeste banken in de app een foto of een scan maken van het paspoort, identiteitsbewijs of rijbewijs. ING leest daarnaast de chip op het identiteitsbewijs uit.

Heeft ASN geleerd van Rambam?    
Bij ASN kan de klant een kopie van het identiteitsbewijs uploaden in het webportaal. Daarnaast biedt ASN ook de optie om langs een balie van PostNL te gaan voor de klantverificatie. In een uitzending van Rambam werd op deze wijze met een gefotoshopte kopie van een paspoort identiteitsfraude gepleegd en een rekening geopend. Dat ASN deze mogelijkheid nog steeds aanbiedt, heeft een negatieve invloed gehad op de score.

iDIN speelt nog geen rol    
Opvallend genoeg gebruikt nog geen van de banken iDIN als identificatiemethode. iDIN is een dienst van de banken waarmee consumenten zich bij andere organisaties met de veilige en vertrouwde inlogmiddelen van hun eigen bank kunnen identificeren.

Identificatiestorting als extra stap maakt onboarding veiliger    
Als aanvullende identificatiestap vraagt een aantal banken tevens om een identificatiestorting, waarbij de klant een bedrag overboekt naar het nieuwe rekeningnummer. Vanuit veiligheidsoogpunt zien we dit als meerwaarde. Bij ASN, Bunq, Knab, Moneyou en Rabobank voltooit de klant deze stap via iDEAL waardoor deze eenvoudig uit te voeren is. Bij Triodos en SNS zet de klant deze stap door zelf een overboeking te doen en bij Revolut via een creditcardbetaling, wat voor Nederland minder gebruikelijk is.

Om er zeker van te zijn dat de aanvrager ook de dezelfde is als de persoon op het ID vragen enkele banken tevens om een selfie (ABN Amro, ING, Moneyou en Revolut), of meer specifiek een selfie waarbij de klant het paspoort in de hand houdt (N26) of een selfiefilm met ‘liveliness’ check. Daarmee wordt identiteitsfraude lastig gemaakt. N26 vraagt als enige bank om het delen van  locatiegegevens op de telefoon aan te zetten. Zodoende voegen zij een extra laag van veiligheid toe, doordat het mogelijk is de locatie te vergelijken met het opgegeven adres.

Procesbegeleiding in goede handen bij ABN Amro    
In de context van veiligheid hebben we ook gekeken naar controlemomenten voor de gebruiker gedurende het proces. ABN Amro scoort hierbij het beste. De bank begeleidt de klant via meerdere kanalen tijdens de onboarding. Daarnaast toont de app samenvattende schermen, waarin de consument continu de invoer kan controleren/valideren.

Gebruik van identifier   
Een kenmerkend verschil tussen banken is het wel of niet toesturen van een identifier of scanner naar het fysieke adres van de klant. ABN Amro, ASN, Knab, Rabobank, SNS en Triodos hebben de keuze gemaakt om een identifier te sturen naar de consument. De consument gebruikt de identifier tijdens de onboarding voor de registratie in de app en het activeren van de betaalpas. Impliciet wordt hierdoor het fysieke adres van de klant bevestigd en dat hebben we beoordeeld als extra veilig.

Innovatie:  via innovatie de mogelijkheid onderscheidend te zijn
Innovatieve oplossingen ondersteunen een leukere, veiligere en snellere onboarding. Dit komt terug in nieuwe toepassingen en onderscheidende features. We komen verschillende innovaties tegen.

• Bunq gebruikt als extra identificatiemethode een stemopname. Hiermee kan de klant niet inloggen. Mogelijk sorteert Bunq voor op voice payments? Interessant om te blijven volgen!
• Revolut biedt zowel een fysieke als een virtuele pas  aan, waarbij de fysieke pas wordt geleverd in een zeer leuk ontworpen mapje.
• N26 biedt passen aan met verschillende designs, mogelijkheden en prijsstellingen (N26 ‘Metal’)
• Bij Moneyou is de pincode van de bankpas op te zoeken in de app die deze getal voor getal presenteert.

Ook bij ABN Amro en ING zijn mooie innovaties terug te zien. ABN Amro biedt de koppeling van Bunq-rekeningen aan tijdens de onboarding en sorteert hiermee voor op PSD2. ING haalt de identiteitsgegevens automatisch op door het scannen van de NFC-chip in het paspoort met de mobiele telefoon. De duurzame banken ASN en Triodos laten nog weinig innovatieve oplossingen zien.

Conclusie: Gebruiksvriendelijkheid en snelheid gaan niet ten koste van veiligheid
1. Challengerbanken Bunq, Moneyou, N26 en Revolut weten met een volledig digitaal en papierloos proces, een korte doorlooptijd, strakke lay-out, innovatieve vindingen en degelijke veiligheid de traditionele banken achter zich te houden.
2. Een aantal traditionele banken kijkt tegen een flinke achterstand aan. Een verbeterslag is nodig om het gat te dichten en ervoor te zorgen dat de onboarding geen reden is voor consumenten om af te haken.
3. ASN en Triodos moeten oppassen dat het verschil met de overige banken niet te groot wordt. Door veel extra stappen en een langere doorlooptijd bestaat het risico dat zij de klant kwijt raken tijdens het onboardingsproces.
4. ING laat zien dat het mogelijk is om in korte tijd stappen te maken om dichter in de buurt te komen van de challengerbanken.

Het onderzoek heeft uitgewezen dat het mogelijk is om via innovatie een gebruiksvriendelijk en snel onboardingsproces in te richten zonder dat het ten koste gaat van fraudepreventie en veiligheid.

Auteurs: 
Roderick Kroon, Enigma Consulting, Partner
Martijn Kieft, Enigma Consulting, Consultant

 

 

ENIGMA Consulting

 

 

BELLIN Launches SWIFT g4C Product Offering

| 30-07-2019 | BELLIN |

BELLIN, a global leader in providing treasury software and services, has successfully integrated SWIFT gpi for Corporates (g4C) in its tm5 treasury management system and completed the pilot and Early Adopter phase. With the BELLIN SWIFT product offering extended, all BELLIN clients can now benefit from fast cross-border payments as well as tracking directly in the tm5 system.

tm5, BELLIN’s treasury management system, has supported SWIFT g4C technology since as early as April, making BELLIN the first of the TMS provider Early Adopters with a customer live on g4C. SWIFT has now officially launched gpi for Corporates, enabling all users of the BELLIN SWIFT Service to consider benefiting from transparency and traceability for cross-border payments. Corporates need their own SWIFT BIC to make use of the SWIFT g4C technology. They register their BIC with gpi for Corporates and connect financial institutions that offer g4C. Started Monday, June 24, 2019, the entire SWIFT community can register their BICs for the new SWIFT g4C technology.

SWIFT g4C from pilot to live

“All of us, our clients, BELLIN and SWIFT, are bound by the desire to advance corporate payments. This is why we have worked hard in a concerted effort to implement SWIFT g4C technology,” explains Karsten Kiefer, Product Manager SOLUTION MANAGEMENT at BELLIN. “With SWIFT g4C, corporates will benefit enormously from speed, transparency and comprehensive information with cross-border payment processing. The obvious advantages will make for an immediate success story.”

The BELLIN SWIFT Service enables BELLIN clients to receive their own BIC and to gain access to the SWIFT Network as a member of the Standard Corporate Environment (SCORE). BELLIN takes care of the BIC application, connects the company to the SWIFT Network and guides the client through onboarding and configuration. The BELLIN SWIFT Service has been part of BELLIN’s portfolio since 2013, making BELLIN the very first treasury management system provider with a service of this kind. Today, over 160 customers use the BELLIN SWIFT Service.

Interview with Karsten Kiefer on the SWIFT g4C integration in BELLIN’s treasury management system and the benefits for corporates

About BELLIN

BELLIN is the global leader in technology for corporate banking and treasury. We provide solutions for the financial sector, catering to a range of clients from large multinationals to SMEs and banks. Founded by a treasurer, BELLIN has been championing innovation and out-of-the-box thinking since 1998. With the treasury software tm5 as the centerpiece, BELLIN makes a fundamental difference by offering solutions that zero in on the relationship between corporates and banks and cover everything from payments to FX, cash and risk management. BELLIN is an international company with offices on four continents, powered by a trailblazing fintech spirit and yet firmly rooted in the heritage of German craftsmanship and engineering. BELLIN delights 500 clients and over 80,000 users around the globe.

Registratieplicht voor cryptodienstverleners bij DNB

| 26-07-2019 | ENIGMA Consulting |

Aanbieders van diensten voor het wisselen tussen cryptovaluta en fiatgeld, alsmede aanbieders van bewaarportemonnees (crypto wallets), worden vanaf 2020 verplicht zich te laten registreren bij De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB). Zonder registratie mogen deze partijen hun diensten vanaf dan niet langer in of vanuit Nederland aanbieden. De registratieplicht vloeit voort uit de laatste versie van de implementatiewet tot wijziging van de vierde anti-witwasrichtlijn, ook wel bekend als AMLD5. De veranderingen uit dit wetsvoorstel worden voor Nederland doorgevoerd in de Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme (Wwft).

Via het wetsvoorstel worden cryptodienstverleners verplicht tot het doen van cliëntenonderzoek en het melden van verdachte transacties bij de FIU (Financial Intelligence Unit). Het is voor het eerst dat dergelijke dienstverleners binnen het juridisch kader van de antiwitwas- en terrorismebestrijding vallen.

Uit een vorige versie van het wetsvoorstel bleek dat minister van Financiën Hoekstra cryptodienstverleners eerst wilde verplichten een vergunning bij DNB aan te vragen. Naar aanleiding van een advies van de Raad van State van afgelopen juni is hiervan afgezien.

De Raad van State achtte een vergunningplicht een te ingrijpende en disproportionele maatregel: een vergunningaanvraag en het bijbehorende lopend toezicht zouden voor de cryptodienstverleners onevenredig veel lasten met zich meebrengen. De minister heeft dit advies overgenomen en de geplande vergunningplicht omgezet in een registratieplicht.

De Raad van State sluit in het advies een vergunningstelsel in de toekomst overigens niet uit. De vele onzekerheden rondom de ontwikkeling van cryptovaluta geven hiertoe op korte termijn echter geen aanleiding.

Om in aanmerking te komen voor een registratie dienen cryptodienstverleners bepaalde gegevens aan te leveren bij DNB, zoals het gevoerde beleid met betrekking tot klantacceptatie, transactiemonitoring en het melden van ongebruikelijke transacties. Ook toetst DNB de geschiktheid en betrouwbaarheid van de beleidsbepalers van de cryptodienstverlener. Een registratie kan op een later moment door DNB worden geschrapt indien bijvoorbeeld blijkt dat de geregistreerde partij structureel tekortschiet bij het voldoen aan de vereisten uit de Wwft of de Sanctiewet 1977.

De aanwijzingen uit de vijfde antiwitwasrichtlijn moeten op 10 januari 2020 zijn doorgevoerd in de relevante wetgeving van alle EU-lidstaten. In Nederland is het implementatiewetsvoorstel is op 1 juli ingediend bij de Tweede Kamer en eind augustus wordt de schriftelijke voorbereiding voortgezet. Indien het wetsvoorstel tijdig wordt geïmplementeerd hebben cryptodienstverleners vervolgens tot 10 juli 2020 de tijd om de registratieprocedure bij DNB af te ronden.

Wilt u weten of de cryptodienst die u aanbiedt onder deze nieuwe verplichtingen valt, of heeft u als cryptodienstverlener andere vragen over de gevolgen van de nieuwe richtlijn voor uw onderneming? Neem dan gerust contact op met Enigma Consulting.

 

 

 

Corporate Treasury have a problem and this is why…

| 23-07-2019 | by Pieter de Kiewit |

Cost savings created by good treasurers easily exceed the sum of salaries of their team. They can help open doors that otherwise stay closed for their business colleagues and they can help avoid risks. Then why do they have this modest seat at the table of CFOs and are they often not considered for succession of her/him? Why are SMEs complaining about the lack of funding opportunities, when treasurers have them available? Why are Basel regulations made by bankers and politicians, where are the corporate treasurers? Why does treasury education not have a more prominent place in education? Why do bankers earn the bigger bucks? Corporate treasury has a PROBLEM!

The non-treasurers (CFOs and business owners) often do not know, so they do not consider this a problem. I think they should, given my introduction. The treasurers I meet often experience the problem: they want to be educated, make career progression, be involved in business and have better salaries. Why do controllers or non-financials not encounter this issue, or at least in a lesser degree?

Based upon my many interview notes and the first results of the dataset of the Treasurer Test I have a first hypothesis (there will be more): the personality of people working in treasury. A Big5 personality assessment has been done in a treasury population of 100. What I see is that treasurers, on average, are easily as driven as the general population. That should be a proper foundation. Where they score substantially different is in two aspects:

  1. They do not make contact quickly
  2. They are not focused on convincing other people.

The two obvious solutions are bringing people with a different personality into the treasury field and stimulating the current population to speak up. As recruiters we hope to contribute by bringing (for example) bankers into corporate treasury. Bankers often show a different personality profile. Furthermore I think we should not try to change the personality of the current population, but skills training will most definitely help.

Do you see the problem and want to step up? I hope so.

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit
Owner Treasurer Search

 

How to Solve the 4 Main Payments Challenges

| 18-07-2019 | BELLIN |

Sascha Kopp has been a Consulting Director with BELLIN for over 10 years. He has successfully accompanied and implemented well over 100 payments projects in international groups. In this interview, based on our on-demand webinar, he outlines the 4 main payments challenges for corporates and how to best tackle them.

#1 payments challenge: a complex set-up

What is the biggest challenge for international businesses in handling their payments?

When it comes to payments, the biggest challenge for companies is usually their existing set-up. Very often we witness the following: You have banks on one side, ERP systems on the other side, and the individual entities in the middle. They all exchange payment data, generated by various technologies and in different formats, communicated by several channels. Companies find it difficult to manage this complexity.

How can companies make sense of this complex set-up of several e-banking systems, payment platforms and communication channels?

A payments solution, such as BELLIN’s integrated payments platform in the tm5 treasury management system, allows corporates to leave complex set-ups behind: instead, they experience simplicity with one platform that is accessible to all group companies and connected to all ERP systems and banks. tm5 can be used with any payment format.

You can access it on a desktop computer, mobile phone or tablet. All you need is Internet access. One of the many benefits of this solution is that it is scalable and can be adapted to changing company requirements – and we all know companies change all the time.  Every time a new entity is added, no matter where in the world, this company and its banks can easily be connected to the payment platform. There is no need for an additional solution. The tm5 platform handles it all and is easy to use, transparent and secure when communicating data.

#2 payments challenge: fraud and cyber crime

How important is payment fraud?

Fraud, cyber crime and internal manipulation have been increasing dramatically for years. In 2016, the Leoni Group lost 40 million euros to payment fraud. In 2017, ABB reported a fraud case amounting to 100 million dollars. Companies lose more and more money and the number of attacks has been growing. This was confirmed by the AFP Payments Fraud & Control Survey published in April 2019: 82% of companies report having fallen victim to payment fraud.

How can companies best protect themselves against payment fraud?

Organizations currently invest a lot of time and money in fraud prevention. The best way of achieving payment security is to eliminate vulnerabilities, i.e. by using a multi-bank payments platform with integrated user permissions management such as BELLIN’s tm5. Thanks to a single point of entry and an additional security measure by way of 2-factor authentication in the BELLIN Connect app, tm5 protects companies from external threats. The integrated permissions functionality enables companies to define and manage user rights and implement dual approval for payment processing, thus ensuring compliance.

#3 payments challenge: cost

How can companies save money in their payment process?

In addition to bank fees, payments processing eats up resources. For most companies a centralized set-up is the most efficient – as well as the most secure – option to manage group-wide payments with only one team. As a web-based system, tm5 also enables decentralized cooperation using a central platform. We refer to this approach as Load-balanced Treasury.

What is the most affordable payments set-up for companies?

The most cost-efficient combination of formats and connectivity always depends on the countries in which payments are processed as well as on the volume of payments. tm5 offers all types of connectivity, be it local standards such as EBICS, host-to-host connections to main banks or a global solution such as SWIFT. BELLIN consultants offer advice on how to find the most affordable solution.

#4 payments challenge: new banking partners

What is the impact of changes to the banking landscape on corporate payments?

Companies are hit hard by changes to the banking landscape. In recent years, some banks have discontinued their services in some countries over night. But even when the selection of a new banking partner is driven by strategic and cost reasons, this change usually goes hand in hand with a new, additional e-banking system.

But it could be so much simpler: Companies who process their payments on the integrated payments platform in the tm5 treasury management system always work with the same user interface. This user interface is independent of the banks, channels and payment formats a company uses.

All in all:

Make the move to a central, multi-bank payments platform and benefit from:

  • compliance
  • security
  • reduced cost and effort
  • 100% visibility and transparency
  • 100% cash flow visibility
  • 100% independence thanks to self-administration

Sascha Kopp author picture

Sascha Kopp
Consulting Director at BELLIN

 

Does your payment land in the correct currency account?

| 16-07-2019 | by Pieter de Kiewit |

Recently I received signals from a treasurer working in a mid-sized company about payments in various currencies landing on the wrong account. In a payment of USD 1 million, this could lead to extra cost of about USD 9,000! This results in extra cost and should be avoided…

In most SMEs in Europe a payment from US clients will be transferred in US dollars and lands in EURO’s. Banks facilitate this process and their fees consist of two parts:

  1. a transaction fee that is often a fixed fee or maximized percentage of the amount transferred
  2. a price to make Euro’s out of US dollars, following a conversion rate (the price you pay for buying dollars is different from the sell price, the difference is called “the spread”).

If you receive payments in US dollars regularly, you can consider opening a US dollar bank account. Therefore, you will avoid constant payment of the conversion rate. This is most relevant when you also make payments from this account. All big banks offer bank accounts in various currencies as a paid service.

Let’s take a deeper dive into the signals that I received: A foreign client made a payment in dollars with his dollar account. He transferred the dollars to the Euro account of my contact. This was all documented. Nevertheless, the bank charged transaction and conversion fees. Luckily this was discovered by my contact. After informing the bank about this issue, the bank repaired it all.

There could be various reasons why this happened. We all know that the global IT landscape in traditional banks consists of many different systems of a different age. A network problem could be a possible issue. The likelihood of this happening again is high, so be aware! Also, although we do not like this, it could be that this payment was handled manually. A mistake is easily made, hopefully not too frequent. It would be the worst case scenario when banks manipulate payments in order to claim fees. Let’s assume this is not the case.

The point I want to make: check if payments land on the proper currency account or it will cost you!

Any of you encountered misrouted payments?

PS From my own experience: in your ebanking environment, the default currency is not necessarily the currency the account is in. My GBP account had EURO as default currency…

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit
Owner Treasurer Search

 

Big tech vs Fintech vs Banks – in international payments

| 09-07-2019 | by Patrick Kunz |

This title makes it sounds like it’s a fight. To be honest: it is! The market for international payments is huge and its lucrative. In a McKinsey report the 2018 market size for payment revenues was close to 2 Billion. Not strange everybody wants a slice of that.

Fintech & Banks

Traditionally the market for international payments was dominated by banks. Recent years and technological advancements has shown that banks are slow to adapt to new technology and market requirements. In some cases it still takes days to transfer money from Europe to Asia, while an email, FB message or picture can be send in seconds. Fintech has tried to fill the gap with innovative tech solutions that solve these problems. Often these companies are lean and mean and adapt to market changes much quicker than the big stable banks. They provide cloud solutions, link to every bank possible and make you more bank independent. Lately we have seen consolidation in the fintech market where players are merging, growing or being taken over by banks. Some banks have started their own fintech. But often fintech only solved a part of the problem and is build on the existing (bank) infrastructure. Banks are also working on innovation: instant payments, swift GPI and PSD2 api’s are helping the customer paying faster and easier. These initiatives are great but have taken years to be implemented.

Bigtech

Then there is a third group of players: big tech. These are the google, facebook and alixpress of our world. These are traditionally IT companies who have a big client base but these companies where not involved in payments (yet). Their edge is size, market access and fast adoption. What happens if they enter the market for payments? Are they likely to win? Look at Alipay, massively successful in China but growing immensely outside Asia to. Why ? because it is easy to use, innovative, low cost and probably most importantly connected with an existing service of the bigtech (alixpress – shopping). The company provides the full customer journey: shopping for product and paying the goods in the most easy way without moving away from the website. Not only via desktop but also via mobile. On the go they make it possible to pay by scanning a QR code, in a grocery store or in a cab. Who needs cash OR a debit card, you only need your mobile phone and an app! Why was this successful? Because the existing customer base was already there they just vertically integrated into the customer journey; easier for the customer and therefore extra revenue for Ali. But also more power for Ali.

Stablecoin Libra

Looking at Facebook and their Stablecoin Libra. Digital currency, unregulated, not based on the traditional banking/payment infrastructure. There are big and significant differences with Bitcoin but the idea is the same: sending and receiving money worldwide in an instant as digital currency. There should be no speculation on the Libra-Rate as the rate of exchange is based on a basket of currencies (EUR, USD, JPY etc). Similar to the old tech Special Drawing Rights from the IMF. So what makes libra different to bitcoin and the other coins? I am not going into the technical differences as that is beyond my scope and would bore you. The main difference is the easy of adoption. New to bitcoin and want to use it: you have to open a wallet, trading account and learn have to transfer the BTC to somebody and the receivers also needs a wallet; a barrier for most. Using Libra will be much easier as it is just an extension of the services of Facebook. Libra potentially has 2,4 billion users (the number of facebook accounts). This is a big competitive advantage. Compared with smart marketing (facebook knows that) and combining it with existing products there is a big potential. Sending money to your facebook friends in Australia or Japan? No problem: in-an-instant via Libra. Besides facebook it is also supported by other big players like Visa, Spotify, Paypall, Mastercard, Vodafone. Is there a future without Libra ? And how many facebook users are there without an bank account. There are 2,4 billion facebook users and 1,7 billion people without a bank account in this world. The reach is already huge so there is low barrier for adoption.

The Battle

Does this mean bigtech will be ‘winning’? In my opinion hard to say. That battle is being fought the coming years. Don’t forgot the power and influence of regulator and governments. Digital payments are unregulated and unknown and could influence the power of governments and the whole banking infrastructure of money regulation, central bank money creation and some even fear de-stabilization of the monetary system as a whole. Regulators could stop/limit the quick steps forward by bigtech.

The coming years will be exiting to see the technological advancements in the battle for payment revenue. The winner will be the consumer; easy of paying will increase further and more importantly the speed will increase. Paying how we want and within a blink of an eye, and this worldwide, will be the new standard within several years.

 

Patrick Kunz

Treasury, Finance & Risk Consultant/ Owner Pecunia Treasury & Finance BV

 

Facebook and Libra: the new global currency?

| 04-07-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

Since Facebook announced to launch a new digital currency, the Libra, a complete media craze arose. The one blogger stumbled as it were over the other. And while the one group sings hosanna over this initiative (a salvation for the bankless), warning signals come especially from the supervisors and regulators part (time bomb under the global money system). And next to that there arose a great many discussions on whether or not the crypto character of the Libra. What are the chances that this Libra will really see the light? And if so, what will that mean for the existing financial system? Let’s give it a shot.

What is the Libra?

Libra is the new declared crypto currency (based on blockchain technology) of social technology giant Facebook. Libra is meant to become the in-house currency for Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp’s combined 2,7 billion users. An alternative digital means of payment to purchase products, sent money across borders or make donations. To enable peer-to-peer payments, a digital wallet, the Calibra will be introduced that will work with Messenger and WhatsApp.

The mission of the Libra project is to come to a simple world currency and a financial infrastructure that may help move forward the millions of unbanked people in the emerging markets. Money transfers by labour emigrants, so-called remittances, are one of the most important income sources for those people. Annually, according to the World bank, almost 500 billion of euros are being transferred via private bookings from rich to poorer countries. And that at very high fees.

The Libra Association

Libra will be controlled by an independent body, the Libra Association, that will be based in Switzerland. The Association nowadays consists of 29 founding members (including Facebook), with big names like MasterCard, PayPal, Visa, Booking Holdings, eBay, FarFetch, Lyft, Spotify and Uber. The intention is to have 100 founding members by the time it launches next year.

The Libra Association will actively manage the Libra currency for stability. Each Libra will be covered by liquid means for the full hundred percent. For every Libra that will be issued, the Libra Association will have to maintain a basket of short term government bonds and (real) fiat currency including dollars, euro and yen. If these Libras are exchanged into fiat currency, then also the coverage disappears.

Reactions

The launch of the Libra, though just in 2020, has triggered a deluge of reactions from governments, supervisory, regulatory authorities and others like the cryupto world, media etc. all over the world. Some are positively optimistic, others reacted cautious but most are sceptic or even negative. Terms like corporatocracy and techno-pocalyps were even mentioned to describe this Libra project. And that is not surprising!

Most intensive reactions came from France where the Finance Minister le Maire said that “Libra cannot  … and must not happen” and that “it was out of the question that the cryptocurrency should become a sovereign currency”. He has asked central bank heads from G7 countries to write a report on the Libra by mid-July.

The BIS already has put a lot of attention on alternative currencies in its recently published annual report. The BIS warned that if big social technology companies like Facebook or Amazon, are going to dominate the financial system, that will increase the risk of system disturbances.

Other international organisations like The International Stability Board are  very sceptical about the Libra plan, while the British supervisor FCA is not yet prepared to accept the Libra.

But most important, we are still awaiting the official reaction of US supervisors. The ambitions are, especial from the US, to halt the Libra development until further investigation offers the well needed answers. For that purpose the Senate Banking Committee has scheduled a hearing for July 16th, while Facebook has been invited to testify at a hearing of the Financial Services Panel on July 17th.

In the UK it could have similar scrutiny, as the Bank of England noted that
“regulators would have to consider how they’d treat this new asset class”. Though they are not that negative, the Bank of England governor Carney stated that Libra would be subject to the highest standards of regulation.

Libra is …..

…. not a cryptocurrency!

From various reactions on the Libra project it was made clear that the Libra is not a cryptocurrency, as was declared by Facebook. While cryptocurrencies are decentral, transparent and anonymous, the Libra has nothing of these characteristics.

It follows the business model of Facebook, being centralised, closed for the external world and almost without privacy for its users. Though the Libra Association in which Facebook just has a very small vote, and it is supposed to have 100 partners in total, the technology and infrastructure is in hands of Facebook.

….  not a (real) blockchain

Looking at Facebook’s Libra, it makes no real use of blockchain technology. The Libra blockchain is a very special one. There is one big block in which all transactions are being stored, very similar to a normal database. Nobody is aware, but the data at Facebook will not be transparent.

…. (more like) a private digital currency

Contrary to the well-known cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple, the Libra is covered by financial assets including government debt and fiat currencies. In that sense the Libra is rather similar to private issued  banknotes.

No level playing field for banks

Some see Facebook Libra just like an ordinary bank. With the introduction of the Libra, Facebook will execute the old-fashioned banking matters, in that way that via the Libra app, Calibra one can transfer money globally and instantly. So, the Libra in fact combines digital ease with the structure of a bank.

And who knows if Facebook is going to offer more than just payment services. It is very likely that they will (in the near future) broaden their services by offering credits etc. And if that is the case, Facebook is starting with their creation of money. Imagine a bank with the potential of 2.4 billion of clients that is not subject to regulation and supervision, creating a non-level playing field.

Urgent need for proper supervision and regulation

There are a range of risks when this process takes place without guidance by supervisors and regulators. A new digital currency with the potential capability of the Libra (Facebook has no less than 2.4 billion users), should be  matter of both banking supervisory bodies and monetary authorities.

Think about the following: the Libra has been launched and Libra will have to keep an equal amount of hard currencies in reserve as the brought in money, that should be invested in short term, government bonds in the various currencies incl. dollars, euros and yen. If the components of the basket changes, or the number of Libra brought in by Facebook fluctuates strongly, that might have impact on the financial system.

If the Libra becomes a success it will be crucial for the functioning of the payments system that it should be subject to the highest standards of supervision. Supervisors should therefore soon come with the decision what the Libra now exactly is: a currency, an investment or something complete different.

Should central banks step in?

Another issue is: how should Central Banks react. Introducing the Libra will also cause sensibilities in the monetary field. Question that arise: will the Libra become a – although stable – currency that will be created separately from the existing system or will it be a complement?

With the introduction of the Libra, Facebook is in fact filling the gap left by the central banks on the international payments market. Key question is: what is preferable, a private global digital currency or a public variant issued by central banks.

According to editors of the Financial Times, the “Zuck-Buck” as they call the Libra will be no less than a global shadow currency, a private variant of a global system of central banks, a sort of Federal Reserve.

It is thus high time that the long-lasting debate about a digital currency issued by central banks should gather space with the possible arrival of the Libra. Just staying on the sidelines is no issue any more. The technology is there.

Why not the IMF thinking about creating an international digital currency that brings stability and meet all the privacy challenges.

Hurdles for Facebook to overcome

The Libra is not there yet. Facebook still faces many hurdles and needs to answer many questions.

I admit, there are positive sides to the Libra initiative, such as Libra’s promise to have cheaper – or even no – transfer costs, while Libra payments will be made as easy as WhatsApp. And there are the potential efficiency gains and better entrance to financial products by many unbanked which may lead to economic growth. But there are also many negative issues to be mentioned.

When talking about privacy, Facebook has not a good reputation. How will Facebook handle the privacy rules? And how is Facebook going to convince customers to give their money in play? But also, how can Facebook prevent that the Libra will also facilitate transactions that possibly may be used for criminal purposes. Therefor Facebook should show that for them it is serious in properly meeting the privacy rules.

“This money will allow this company (Facebook) to assemble even more data, which only increases our determination to regulate the internet giants”. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire

Another potential legal hurdle for the Libra project is to keep banking and commerce apart. To prevent conflicts of interest payments and banking are separated from the rest of the economy in the US. Depending on what data is visible for the partners in the Libra Association, there may be enough legal issues that should be solved.

And there is the size issue. According to many, Facebook is already too big and too powerful not to be supervised and regulated. In order to get an “ethical banking culture”, it is needed to make sure that institutions, crypto or not, will not be ‘Too big, to Fail’.

Facebook may also count on the appropriate competition. Such as from China by players like Alipay and We Chat. Moreover there is a big chance that also other tech companies will come with their own currency.

By the way, I am also on Facebook and have a lot of friends. Keep it like that!

 

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

Be careful what you wish for in crowdfunding

| 02-07-2019 | by Pieter de Kiewit |

Over the last decade bankers have taken over from civil servants and public transport employees as the ones to complain about. Yours truly is also guilty and I still meet bankers who do not like to talk about their profession because they are annoyed about the bashing. Nobody is perfect but haven’t we all been too harsh on bankers?

This question popped up last week when I read about crowdfunding developments. This relatively new form of funding is growing quickly. I see at least three obvious reasons for this. First, regular banks are reluctant to fund SMEs. Regulatory requirements, ROI and risk profiles of their potential clients are some reasons for that. Second, there is a lot of liquidity in the market and it is hard to make proper investments. Third and last, various platforms, with easy accessible IT solutions, facilitate investors finding those who need funds. Why my plea to go easier on the bankers?

With crowdfunding platforms building a track record, issues are becoming very visible. There are two very prominent problems. Many SMEs using crowdfunding facilitate the payment of extremely high interests, the term loan sharks already came up. The other prominent problem is that the credit risk process in crowdfunding is often very weak. This results in the funding of unstable businesses and weak plans, ending up with funders empty-handed.

I am a small business owner, the chamber of commerce sells my address to whoever pays. On a very regular basis I receive mail informing me how much I can borrow. Crowdfunding is not regulated like banks are. Process and expectation management is being done quite aggressively by platforms and I understand problems are becoming obvious as the market matures. I invite you to read input from Lex van Teeffelen and others:

RTL Z/ANP: Failliet door crowdfunding: ‘Hoge rentes nekken ondernemers’
Lex van Teefelen: Dalend rendement crowdfunding 2019 / Flitskrediet: meer vloek dan zegen! 

This brings me back to where I started with: were we right in bashing bankers? Their processes are more sound, their communication is done with more restraint. There were extremes, mistakes were made and greed was obvious. I think most bankers tried and try to do an honest and professional job. Let’s keep each other informed, educated and ask before we judge. Hopefully we will get better in doing a proper funding job.

 

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit
Owner Treasurer Search