Tag Archive for: banking

PSD2 – Update and new developments

| 17-8-2017 | François de Witte |

Early 2017, I published a post about PSD2, a lot of opportunities, but also big challenges. Now half a year later, I would like to update you on some developments in this area. PSD2 still needs to be transposed in the national legal system of all the member countries, and according to my knowledge several countries, including Belgium, have not yet released the draft laws. This creates quite some uncertainty in the market, as there will be several country-specific specifications. Hence one can expect that Fintech’s and other TPPs might already have started their certification application in countries that already enacted PSD2 in their local legislation.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS ARTICLE

2FA: Two-factor authentication
API:  Application Programming Interface.
EBA: European Banking Authority
PSP: Payment Service Provider
PSU: Payment Service User
RTS: Regulatory Technical Standards (final draft issued by the EBA on 23/2/2017)
SCA: Strong Customer Authentication
TPP: Third Party Provider

Main updates on the regulatory framework

On 23 February 2017, the EBA published the final draft on the SCA (Strong Customer Authentication) and Secure Communication.
In this final draft, the EBA clarifies the new rules to be followed for customer authentication, applicable both for operations performed in traditional channels and over the new API (Application Programming Interfaces) services. The key clarifications concern the following:

The 2 factor authentication

Following systems would comply:

1. The 2-device-authentication, where the user has two independent devices:

  • one device to access the banking website or app
  • another device to authenticate himself or a payment: the authentication device, usually a hardware authentication token, a combination of a smart card and smart card reader, or a dedicated app on a mobile device.
    The authentication device generates one-time passwords (OTPs) over transaction data

2. The 2 app authentication:

This approach does rely on two different apps running on the same mobile device.

  • Banking app : when a user wants to make a payment, he opens the banking app and enters the transaction data.
  • Authentication app: When the user has submitted the transaction, the banking app opens the authentication app. After verification and confirmation of the transaction data by the user, the authentication app generates an OTP (One Time Password) linked to the transaction data and sends it back to the banking app, which submits it to the banking server for verification

The dynamic linking

In order to dynamically link the transaction, the draft RTS states the following requirements must be met:

  • the payer must be made aware at all times of the amount of the transaction and of the payee;
  • the authentication code must be specific to the amount of the transaction and the payee;
  • the underlying technology must ensure the confidentiality, authenticity and integrity of: (a) the amount of the transaction and of the payee; and (b) information displayed to the payer through all phases of the authentication procedure (the EBA hasn’t specified the nature of this “information”);
  • the authentication code must change with any change to the amount or payee;
  • the channel, device, or mobile application through which the information linking the transaction to a specific amount and payee is displayed must be independent or segregated from the channel, device or mobile application used for initiating the electronic payment transaction.

The exemptions from the SCA

The exemptions from the SCA including also:

  • Transactions between two accounts of the same customer held at the same PSP
  • Low risk transactions: Transfers within the same PSP justified by a transaction risk analysis (taking into account detailed criteria to be defined in the RTS),
  • Low value payments or contactless payments < 50 euro, provided that that the cumulative amount of previous consecutive electronic payment transactions without SCA, since the last application, of the SCA < 150 euro
  • Unattended transport and parking terminals

The draft RTS (not finalized, not approved yet) also states that Screen scraping is no longer allowed. Screen scraping is a method to take over remotely the data on the screen of the user. This creates a lot of opposition in the financial community, in particular the Fintech’s, as this complicates the interaction between the bank, the TPP, and the PSU. On the other hand, the both the EBA and the EBF (European Banking Federation) are against it. There is a power game ongoing.

Main developments

Banks will have to implement interfaces, so they can interact with the AISPs and PISPs. This compliance with PSD2 is mandatory and all banks will have to make changes to their infrastructure deployments.

Although PSD2 does not specifically mention the API (Application Programming Interfaces), most technology and finance professionals assume that APIs will be the technological standard used to allow banks to comply with the regulation.

An API is a set of commands, routines, protocols and tools which can be used to develop interfacing programs. APIs define how different applications communicate with each other, making available certain data from a particular program in a way that enables other applications to use that data. Through an API, a TPP application can make a request with standardized input towards another application and get that second application to perform an operation and deliver a standardized output back to the first application. For example, approved third parties can access your payment account information if mandated by the user and initiate payment transfer directly.

In this framework, the challenge is to create standards for the APIs specifying the nomenclature, access protocols, authentication, etc.”. Banks will have to think about how their new API layers interact with their core banking systems and the data models that are implemented alongside this.

At this stage, following working groups were constituted to further elaborate on these standards:

  • UK’s Open Banking Working Group (OBWG). This initiative of UK Treasury aims to deliver a framework for open banking and data sharing via APIs for the UK’s banking industry. The joint industry/government initiative recently released its report on establishing the framework for an Open Banking Standard for the UK alongside a timetable for implementation.
  • The Berlin Group, a-European payments interoperability coalition of banks and payment processors, is pushing for a single standard for API access to bank accounts to comply with new regulations on freeing up customer data under PSD2. The aim is to offer operational rules and implementation guidelines with detailed data definitions, message modelling and information flows based on RESTful API methodology. It will be published for consultation in Q4 2017
  • STET has also released of a RESTFUL API standard which will allow TPPs to access payment accounts. This API has been built with the latest technology standards using REST, OAuth2, JSON and HTTP-signature. It relies on ISO 20022 elements for structuring the data to be exchanged between TPPs and ASPSPs

In the meantime, several providers are developing their services, including in the Benelux Equens Worldine, Capco, Sopra Banking and Isabel.

Along with the arrival of open API banking, there is also clear momentum for providing real-time services such as “instant payments”. This requires banks to shift their entire product and service mindset towards immediate delivery and to make fundamental changes to their legacy systems. While this is a challenge, it also presents opportunities (see also my article in TreasuryXL on this topic: SEPA Instant Payments – a catalyst for new developments in the payments market (https://www.treasuryxl.com/news-articles/francois-de-witte/sepa-instant-payments-catalyst-new-developments-payments-market and https://www.treasuryxl.com/news-articles/francois-de-witte/sepa-instant-payments-a-catalyst-for-new-developments-in-the-payments-market-part-ii/).

The large banks have already started working on being PSD2 compliant and on building for the opening of their banking architecture to the TPPs. However, several small or medium sized banks only started recently on this project. Hence a lot has to be done, and I do expect some shortages in resources in the next coming months.

With regard to the access to TPPs, article 113.4 of PSD2 explicitly states that the member states shall ensure the application of the security measures with the 18 months following the entry in force of the Hence, we might expect that this part of PSD2 needs only to be implemented by mid-2019. Given the strategic importance and the IT act, I recommend starting this exercise much earlier.

Conclusion

The PSD2 creates challenges. Several topics need to be clarified such as the RTS and the market players need also to agree on common standards for the interfaces.
However, there are initiatives, such as the Berlin Group, the UK’s Open Banking Framework and the STET group, which help give further clarity and direction in the absence of specific technical detail.
Consequently, there is no justifiable reason for any bank to delay starting these projects.
The clock is ticking in the PSD race.

If you want  further update on this topic, you can join the 1 day training session on this topic, which I will give on 22/11/2017 at Febelfin Academy.

 

François de Witte – Founder & Senior Consultant at FDW Consult

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/francois-de-witte/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

Please read my earlier articles on PSD2:

PSD 2: A lot of opportunities but also big challenges (Part I)

PSD 2: A lot of opportunities but also big challenges (Part II)

Sepa instant payments – A catalyst for new developments in the payments market (Part I)

Sepa instant payments – A catalyst for new developments in the payments market (Part II)

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

PSD2: The Disruption and Innovation of Open Banking

| 11-8-2017 | treasuryXL | The Paypers |

PSD2 is a recurring topic which is of great concern to financial institutions and other payment service providers, as well as finance professionals at corporates all over the world. We read an interesting article about the disruption and innovation of open banking at The Paypers and want to share it with you. The article is part of the Open Banking & APIs Report 2017, aimed to provide necessary insights to help readers understand the latest developments on the topic, as well as practical examples and best practices in Open Banking. Alisdair Faulkner of ThreatMetrix states that innovation, enhanced security and the drive for greater competition are the golden triptychs at the heart of PSD2.

PSD2: Game changer, opportunity and challenge

PSD2 is a game changer for digital payments and commerce in Europe and will have a significant global impact. It requires financial institutions to make changes to their platforms and systems, while making strategic decisions on how they want to play going forward. These changes will require significant investment as well as a strategic shift, as banks are forced to consider how they can safely open their banking platforms to external third parties. While this may negatively impact the revenue of large banks, it can also level the playing field for smaller fintechs, as well as provide opportunity for new product innovations.

Not only do banks and other PSPs need to work toward compliance, but they also need to define their strategy to position themselves competitively in the market. They will also need to align the somewhat competing demands of rapid innovation while maintaining vigilant security as the cybercrime war continues to rage.

Innovation and Disruption

Digital transactions have had a huge impact on the evolution of the fintech industry as niche products and services have emerged to fill the crevasses left by larger financial institutions. These include services for the unbanked and underbanked, instant insurance, crowdfunded loans and global online remittance. Fintech operators have been able to rapidly innovate for many reasons: a lack of legacy back end systems, lower regulations and less online scrutiny, for example. On the other hand, large financial institutions have unwittingly become the enablers with minimal benefit.

However, PSD2 and Open Banking regulations are set to create more opportunities as both financial institutions and new providers compete to drive smarter revenue from payments. With open banking, the financial institutions would be increasingly at risk of losing their direct relationship with the customer and becoming a back end utility. On the other hand, new providers could emerge, enabling customers to access their banking services from a common portal, without having to ever log into their bank. These portals may also enable the customer to get services à la carte from a menu of banks. As such, businesses are contemplating the path forward as they wait for new payment platforms and ecosystems that lead to new business models to emerge. It will be critical for established providers to decide how to take advantage of the opportunity and not be left behind.

What are the threats and possible solutions to navigate the future according to Alisdair Faulkner?

Please read more by referring  to the original article on The Paypers.

Cash management – Mandatory truck system

| 9-8-2017 | Douwe Dijkstra |

As an interim treasurer, several times when I commence a new assignment at a new client for a cash management implementation the bank selection for the cash management solution to be implemented has already been done. Not by the treasury (or any other) department, based on a request for proposal or any other selection criteria but as a result of the mandatory truck system (“verplichte winkelnering”).

The bank, or in case of a syndication the banks, already defined in the (syndicated) facility agreement which bank(s) will operate the borrowers cash management.

It goes without saying that this obligation means that not always the best choice for the company has been made. The “best cash management bank” can be different for each and every company (although some banks may pretend to have the best solution in all areas for all companies). Important criteria are whether a company is centralized or decentralized, what specific products the client requires from the bank, the price list of the bank, the foot print of the bank etc. etc.

It’s my observation that officers negotiating the (re)financing consider cash management as the way it is described e.g. “side business”. Banks try to make the decision makers for the facility agreement believe that they do not earn anything on it. Thus, the circle is complete.

Douwe Dijkstra

 

 

Douwe Dijkstra

Owner of Albatros Beheer & Management

 

 

SWIFT Blockchain POC: Enhanced cross-border payments

| 8-8-2017 | Carlo de Meijer |

Early July SWIFT announced that 22 global banks recently joined its Blockchain proof of concept (PoC) initiative introduced in January this year in collaboration with six leading correspondent banks (ANZ, BNP Paribas, BNY Mellon, RBC Royal Bank and Wells Fargo). The PoC is part of SWIFT’s ‘gpi’ (global payments innovation) service, the new standard for cross-border payments, aimed to “re-arm the correspondent banking system for a new age of technological disruption”. 

This Blockchain PoC initiative is designed to explore whether blockchain technology can help banks to improve the reconciliation of their international nostro accounts in real-time, optimising their global liquidity. If so, that would be a break through event for both SWIFT and blockchain.

Present state

Currently, banks cannot monitor their account positions in real-time due to lack of intraday reporting coverage. The present pain points banks currently experience when making cross-border payments center around a lack of visibility into the end-to-end transactions lifecycle. Under the current correspondent banking model, banks need to monitor the funds in their overseas accounts via debit and credit updates and end-of-day statements. The maintenance and operational work involved represents a significant portion of the cost of making cross-border payments.

“Cross border payments are like a black box for us. We don’t know when the funds will be credited, we don’t know what fees will be charged and we also have problems with reconciliation”. states Martin Schlageter, head of Treasury Operations at Swiss healthcare conglomerate Roche.

As such, the POC recognises the need for banks to receive real-time liquidity data in order to manage funds throughout the business day.

SWIFT GPI service

The PoC is being undertaken as part of SWIFT gpi, a new service that “may revolutionise the cross-border payments industry by combining real-time payments tracking with the speed and certainty of same-day settlement for international payments”.

The SWIFT gpi should be seen as SWIFT’s response to the problems they faced after a series of attacks events that showed that “all was not as secure as everyone believed”. SWIFT gpi initiative was first announced at the annual Sibos conference in 2015. The project went into live production in January this year to address core problems related to speed, transparency and traceability of cross border payments.

SWIFT gpi not only delivers a much-needed improvement in the speed of transaction, but also improves overall customer experience by creating predictable settlement times and clear statuses, through additional (unaltered transfer of) information on remittances and transparency around the FX rates and fees applied throughout the payment cycle.

“The ability to deliver enhanced remittance information alongside the payment will help customers make better decisions along the payment chain, while also creating better efficiency opportunities. The decision to make gpi available in the “cloud” is also exciting, and we anticipate this will lead to the development of entirely new services, that combine SWIFT gpi with capabilities provided by banks, clients and vendors.“ says Tom Halpin, Global Head of Payments Product Management, HSBC Global Liquidity and Cash Management

Key features

Key features of the SWIFT gpi service include a secure tracking database in the cloud accessible via APIs, and enhanced business rules.

Cornerstone of SWIFT gpi is the highly innovative new cross-border TRACKER, a special tracking feature that enables international payments to be traced real-time. It allows banks to provide corporate treasurers with a real-time, end-to-end view (visibility) on the status of their payments, including confirmations of the amount credited to the beneficiaries’ account. The Tracker is available via an open API, making it compatible with proprietary banking systems worldwide – helping to ensure maximum impact of gpi benefits at a greater adoption speed.

A second key feature is the OBSERVER, a quality assurance tool that monitors participants’ adherence to the gpi business rules. Gpi’s transparency ensures that remittance information such as invoice references, is transferred unaltered to recipients.

Gpi uptake

Membership is open to any supervised financial institution that agrees to comply with SWIFT’s business rules. But also non-bank organisations can join SWIFT gpi initiative. The SWIFT gpi service has received considerable bank support across the globe. And the number of global transaction banks that are actively using SWIFT’s gpi service is continuously growing. Since its launch the number of banks that are live with SWIFT gpi has risen beyond 100, and hundreds of thousands GPI payments have already been sent across 85 country corridors. This represents more than 75% of all SWIFT cross border payments.

“The increasing number of banks going live on this service addresses the demands of corporate treasurers. Hence, banks cannot afford to not join the initiative and go live as soon as possible. Our expectation is that all of our cross-border payments will be end-to-end Swift gpi payments in the future.” Group of Swiss corporates

SWIFT expects that numerous additional banks will join the gpi initiative in the coming months. The ambition is for all countries to be live by the end of 2017.

Phased approach

Next to the design of the second phase of SWIFT gpi, that is already underway focusing on additional digital capabilities and further enhancements such as ‘a rich payment data service’, for its third gpi phase SWIFT started exploring the potential of new technologies such as Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), including blockchain, through a Proof of Concept (PoC).

SWIFT Blockchain PoC

Launched in January 2017 with six founding banks the SWIFT Blockchain PoC initiative, designed to validate/explore whether blockchain can be used by banks to improve the reconciliation of their international nostro accounts (these are accounts that a bank holds in a foreign currency in another bank to handle international financial transactions for their customers) (these are accounts that a bank holds in a foreign currency in another bank to handle international financial transactions for their customers) in real –time, optimising their global liquidity. At its core, the PoC builds on SWIFT’s rulebook as part of the intraday liquidity standard gpi.

This SWIFT Blockchain PoC initiative aims to help banks overcome significant challenges in monitoring and managing their international nostro accounts, which are crucial to the facilitation of cross border payments.

“Whilst existing DLTs are not currently mature enough for cross-border payments, this technology, bolstered by some additional features from SWIFT, may be interesting for the associated account reconciliation,” “This PoC gives us the opportunity to test DLT and determine if it can be applied to this particular use case.” Wim Raymaekers, Head of Banking Market and SWIFT gpi at SWIFT

Characteristics

In developing the POC, SWIFT is leveraging the Hyperledger Fabric v1.0 technology, and combining it with key SWIFT assets, to bring it in line with the financial industry’s requirements.

“SWIFT will leverage its strong governance, PKI security scheme, BIC legal identifier framework and liquidity standards expertise to deliver a distinctive DLT PoC platform for the benefit of its community.” Damien Vanderveken, Head of R&D, SWIFTLabs and User Experience at SWIFT 

The PoC application will use a private permissioned blockchain in a closed user group environment, with specific user profiles and strong data controls. User privileges and data access will be strictly governed. This to ensure that all the information related to nostro/vostro accounts is kept private. Only account owners and its correspondent banking partners will see the details.

Collaboration

SWIFT gpi member banks can apply to participate in this Blockchain PoC. Next to the 6 founding banks, another 22 banks have recently joined the SWIFT blockchain PoC. They include include:

ABN AMRO Bank; ABSA Bank; BBVA; Banco Santander; China Construction Bank; China Minsheng Banking; Commerzbank; Deutsche Bank; Erste Group Bank; FirstRand Bank; Intesa Sanpaolo; JPMorgan Chase; Lloyds Bank; Mashreq Bank; Nedbank; Rabobank; Société Générale; Standard Bank of South Africa; Standard Chartered Bank; Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation; UniCredit; Westpac Banking Corporation.

“Collaboration is the cornerstone of innovation,” “This new group of banks allows us to greatly extend the scope of multi-lateral testing of the blockchain application and thus adds considerable weight to the findings. We warmly welcome the new banks and look forward to their insights”  says Wim Raymaekers, head of banking markets and SWIFT gpi at SWIFT.

Process

Moving forward, the SWIFT PoC Blockchain application will undergo testing, with the results scheduled to be published in September and presented at Sibos in Toronto in October. Working independently of the founding banks, the 22 institutions will act as a validation group to test in a deeper way the PoC’s Blockchain application, that is currently under development by SWIFT and the group of six founding banks. They will evaluate how the technology scales and performs.

Benefits

For banks

The potential business benefits ensuing from a successful SWIFT blockchain POC may be significant. If it proves to enable banks reconcile those nostro accounts more efficiently and in real time, that may lower costs and operational risk.

“The potential business benefits ensuing from the PoC are clear,” “If banks could manage their nostro account liquidity in real-time, it would allow them to accurately gauge how much money is required in each account at any given point, ultimately enabling them to free up significant funds for other investments.” Damien Vanderveken, head of R&D, SWIFTLab and UX at SWIFT.

It brings together banks worldwide who want to offer an enhanced cross-border payments experience to their corporate clients. By being part of SWIFT gpi, banks may improve the quality of their correspondent relationships and networks, helping to reduce risks and management costs and improve compliance.

“Transparency is key to a good end-to-end client experience. SWIFT gpi is a significant step in the evolution of correspondent banking, which remains the primary means through which cross-border payments are delivered worldwide. Bank of America Merrill Lynch is pleased to be working with like-minded institutions around the world to better serve each other and our respective customers.” states Greg Murray, head of Global Product Management for High Value Payments and FI/NBFI Products in Global Transaction Services at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

For corporate treasurers

SWIFT gpi may enable corporates engaged in international trade to get paid for services, or delivery of goods, in a more timely fashion, enabling a faster supply chain process. It also enables a more accurate reconciliation of payments and invoices, optimizes liquidity with improved cash forecasts and reduces exposure to FX risks with same-day processing of funds in the beneficiary’s time zone.

“Being part of SWIFT gpi, and working with our industry counterparts, is giving correspondent banks a platform to examine and refine current processes, and to collaborate and explore different, more efficient ways of doing things. Ultimately, our clients will benefit most from this initiative,” Kent Marais, head of TPS product management at Standard Bank SA.

SWIFT and the banks have designed the gpi services so that banks have flexibility in how they offer the new services. They can deliver the gpi service in very different ways. Services could potentially include enhanced invoice presentment and reconciliation to facilitate financial supply chains, exchange of supply chain documentation to improve global trade, exchange and interactive enquiry of account and processing conditions to improve end-to-end straight through processing, and providing additional party and transaction information to support compliance and sanctions screening of cross-border payments.

Enhanced cross-border payment service

“SWIFT has addressed several of the pain points corporates have had with cross-border payments,” “Changes to existing corporate payments infrastructures should be very limited, if any. So hopefully, corporates won’t need to make any major investments to benefit from smoother cross-border payments.” says Magnus Carlsson, AFP’s manager of treasury and payments

Given the size of the number of banks and corporates participating in SWIFT gpi, the SWIFT Blockchain PoC may face the challenge of scalability. If that could be solved in a successful way it may be another prove of the viability of blockchain and DLT to enhance cross-border payments.

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

 

 

More on blockchain from this author:

Blockchain: accelerated activity in trade finance

Blockchain and derivatives: Re-imagining the industry

The digital trade chain: The blockchain train is rolling

Please feel free to visit the treasuryXL/articles page to see more articles.

 

Bitcoins or banks, who is taking care of the business?

| 2-8-2017 | Hans de Vries |

Banks have long been target of wild spread ideas that their role as facilitator in the (inter) national money transaction industry will soon be overtaken by new Fintech initiatives like PayPal, Bitcoin and recently Ethereum. The idea behind these new technologies is that the Trusted Third Party (TTP) role of the conventional banks which is crucial for the operational day to day operations of the economic systems can be overtaken by the new block chain technology. Main advantages are clear: transactions are no longer limited by timing (no dependency on the operational boundaries of clearing houses, cut-off times of banks per currency, immediate processing etc), account opening procedures at the banks, the costs involved in maintaining accounts and transactions themselves etc.

The recent Ransomware attacks, that had an enormous impact on numerous companies and governmental institutions at a global level, showed however a less favorable aspect of this new technology. Due to its lack of control on the specifics of account ownership, Bitcoin proved to be the ideal means to collect the ransom money the victims have to pay to free their systems. This piracy trend will in my view also seriously hamper the future development of these sort of bank independent transaction mechanisms. Even more threatening for the Bitcoin development are the recent crypto robbery cases in which millions of dollars’ worth balances were stolen from the accounts. These incidents show the vital role of the banks as TTP since most banks are obliged to deliver their services according to the rules and regulations of their national and super-national banks. As indicated before, this means that for opening accounts lots of formalities have to be endured (the KYC rules are in some countries stretched to the absolute max). At the same time., due to the international regulations the control on international transactions are very extensive and therefore at the same time very costly for the banks. Every violation of the international code book on transactions to banned countries can have severe financial consequences for the banks involved. An last but not least banks have to maintain an international network of correspondent banks to make sure that the international transactions reach their beneficiaries in a reasonable timeframe and at reasonable costs.

This whole system has of course been developed to gain maximum control on transaction flows locally and worldwide. However it also provides the trust needed to be able to deal with (inter) national trade flows crucial to our economic day to day operations. As long as there are no ways to secure your transactions and balances in a bitcoin like environment as most transaction banks are providing today, Bitcoins remain a very interesting technological experience but will in no way replace the role of banks as TTP shortly.

 

 

Hans de Vries

Treasury/Cash Management Consultant

 

 

More articles of this author: 

Will the European banks strike back?

The Euro from a treasury perspective

New norms in banking: More than 30 new areas emerging. Pick your fights!

Banken en Financiële Markten in Vogelvlucht – Boek en e-learning voor specialisten zonder financiële achtergrond

| 21-7-2017 | Michiel van den Broek |

 

Sinds de jaren ’80 heeft er een ongekende schaalvergroting plaatsgevonden in de financiële sector. Door deze schaalvergroting hebben banken zich ontwikkeld tot gigantische financiële supermarkten die een zeer uitgebreid aantal financiële diensten en producten aanbieden. Banken zijn tegenwoordig IT-bedrijven waar een grote groep specialisten werkt met beperkte financiële vakkennis.

 

 

Mijn boek ‘Banken en Financiële Markten in Vogelvlucht’ geeft een helder overzicht ter introductie in de complexe wereld van banken en financiële markten. Bij het boek is een toegankelijke e-learning training beschikbaar met multiple choice vragen en een aantal video’s.

De combinatie van boek met e-learning biedt een efficiënte opleiding met basiskennis over de kernactiviteiten van banken, de verschillende bankactiviteiten en soorten banken, de oorzaak van de financiële crisis van 2008 en de ‘Bazelse Akkoorden’ waarop het toezicht van centrale banken is gebaseerd. Tevens bevat het een overzicht van de verschillende activiteiten op financiële markten, zoals de motivatie om bepaalde soorten financiële (derivate) producten te verhandelen, de prijsvorming en organisatie van de handel van deze producten. Ook de actuele onderwerpen risicomanagement en compliance komen aan de orde aan de hand van een aantal praktijkvoorbeelden van calamiteiten, zoals de problemen met MKB-rentswaps en de onbevoegde handelsactiviteiten van zogenaamde ‘rogue traders’, waaronder Barings Bank en woningbouwcorporatie Vestia.

Het boek is verkrijgbaar voor €25, toegang tot de e-learning kost €95.

Voor het boek en de e-learning kunt u mailen naar [email protected]

Een demo van de e-learning kunt u vinden op FTH.

Over de auteur: na mijn bedrijfseconomische studie heb ik vanaf 1990 gewerkt in de financiële sector. Sinds 2005 geef ik trainingen om ‘complexe’ financiële onderwerpen toegankelijk te maken voor professionals zonder economische of financiële opleiding.

 

Michiel van den Broek

Owner of Hecht Consult

Mobile finally makes treasury easier

| 20-7-2017 | Udo Rademakers |

On the 12th of May 2017, in GTnews an article has been placed regarding “Mobile finally makes treasury easier”. The article describes how Citibank is working to replace tokens with mobile phones and testing a multitude of options for finding a more convenient solution.

I am used to work with multiple tokens with a variety of passwords and different kind of banking applications/websites. For some of the banking sites, authorisation of payments via a smart phone was quite difficult and working from the desktop was required. A way of solving the „multiple token issue”, is using a third party provider which (re)connects all payments via (cloud based) multi-bank platforms, however this is not needed for each and every Treasury department.

If banks are working on an easy authorisation method via modern, smart and above all secure technology (like digital fingerprint ), I am confident that the payment control and executions for most Treasurers (and CFO`s) will improve. Especially for the ones who are frequently travelling. If the improved –token free- payment authorisation process could be integrated with the process of obtaining information, input & approval of transactions, viewing of balances including „smart alerts“, corporate banking via mobile technology will reach the next stage in the area of cash management as well.

However, even with the greatest solutions in place, an outage of mobile network or running out of battery remains a risk – now the holiday season started perhaps anyway good to be offline for a while.

 

Udo Rademakers
Independent Treasury Consultant & Interim Manager

 

 

 

Why Is Bank Independency Important?

|12-7-2017 | Mark van de Griendt | PowertoPay/Unified Post | Sponsored content |

As financial technologies develop, bank independency is something more and more companies adopt. Bank independency not only means that financial streams are dealt with online and require less manual interventions (straight through processing). Mainly not having to rely on the services provided by the bank where the account is held is also an important one when talking about bank independency. A couple of things mentioned below emphasise the importance of being, or becoming, bank independent.

The changing landscape

Since the economic crisis, the banking landscape has become a more dynamic environment. Besides banks going bankrupt we have also seen banks that have withdrawn themselves in certain geographical or business areas. This gave CFO’s in the corporate sector headaches for having to find another bank and to ‘move’ its business. A good example of a (sudden) change of the financial landscape is the Brexit. Not knowing what the Brexit will bring in this perspective, one thing we do know is that the changing banking landscape is here to stay.

Where using bank-independent tools, products or instruments doesn’t solve the problem of finding another bank, it does take away having to start up a time-consuming project changing the applications used in the various financial processes. Bank independency will become more and more common as the banking landscape continues to change.

Formats & Interfaces

Another good reason to use bank independent solutions is not to find yourself in a so called lock-in situation when looking at file-formats and interfaces. Where local formats or proprietary interfaces may have their benefits, formats and interfaces will be subject to change or even may be replaced by the bank offering the service. Recently a bank had decided to phase out a proprietary reporting format. Although this was done with an alternative reporting format and customers had a reasonable period to migrate, many of them were confronted with major changes in their business applications from which many of them being legacy systems.

Again in this case using a bank independent solution will not prevent you from change but a good bank independent solution or tool will offer the flexibility to deal with this type of change outside the corporate IT domain. Still a project but one with less impact on the organisation. When using fully bank independent instruments (for example MT101) the number of changes are limited to a bare minimum and in case of compliance will always be dealt with by the vendor as part of its service.

Cost Savings

Last but not least a bank independent will save costs. Of course there is an investment consideration with regards to a bank independent solution but when looking at the business case the benefits of not having to manage changes due to compliancy or technological developments will in most cases create a break-even point somewhere in year 2.

Recent customer case-studies even showed a significant decrease in costs in year 1 simply by not having to change its output from their applications creating payment instructions when expanding their business to other regions using new local banks. By itself not a bad investment, even when leaving the non-qualified benefits of bank independency aside.

Mark van de Griendt – Cash Management Expert at PowertoPay

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/mark-van-de-griendt/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

Please also read: 7 reasons why you should do e-invoicing too.

 

The EU and blockchain: taking the lead? (II)

|6-7-2017 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL |

In his article ‘The EU and blockchain: taking the lead? ‘, our expert Carlo de Meijer writes that the EU, after having a ‘wait and see’ attitude for a long time, seems to be taking steps (may be) to become one of the leading economic blocks in the blockchain race. He believes that it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the EU initiatives. We have made a summary of this article. In part (I) we dealt with the European Commission. Today we present you the summary of what Carlo de Meijer writes about the European Parliament, the European Central Bank and the European Supervisory Authorities.

European Parliament

European Parliament  votes for smart regulation of blockchain technology

Last year June the European Parliament voted for ‘smart regulation’ of blockchain technology, taking a hands-off approach. The MEPs voted in a proposal set out in a resolution drafted by Jakob von Weizsäcker, suggesting that a new task force established at the EU level which would be overseen by the European Commission, should build expertise in the underlying technology. It would also be tasked with recommending any necessary legislation, but the text warns against taking a ”heavy-handed approach” to this new technology.
The proposal clearly stated that distributed ledger technology should not be stifled by regulation at this early stage.

EPRS blockchain report

In February the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) published a new report “How blockchain technology could change our lives”, providing an introduction for those “curious about blockchain technology” and aimed at stimulating reflection and discussion.

“Spotlight on Blockchain” workshop

In collaboration with the European Commission, the European Parliament has organised various blockchain events including a kick-off conference on “Demystifying Blockchain” and a series of workshops to look at blockchain developments and use case applications.
A session of discussion early May held at the European Parliament (EP) centred on the future of blockchain regulation in the 28-nation economic bloc. The “Spotlight on Blockchain” workshop, was hosted jointly by the European Parliament and the European Commission.
Part of the program initiated by the Blockchain Observatory was to cautiously approach the who, what and why of blockchain legislation.

European Central Bank

Report: Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) – challenges and opportunities for financial market infrastructures

The European central bank (ECB) has led a study to analyse the benefits and risks of blockchain technology and consider its possible integration in its market infrastructure. The final report named Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) – challenges and opportunities for financial market infrastructures was published in March this year.

In the report the ECB acknowledges the various benefits of DLT, such as the ability to lower back office costs and improve reconciliations by enabling automatic updates of records as well as shortening settlement cycles and therefore reducing collateral requirements.
The ECB however concluded that the distributed ledger technology does not (yet) meet the Bank’s requirements in terms of safety and efficiency. The bank is not firmly opposed to blockchain, but it considers that the technology is not mature enough to be integrated into its infrastructure as it is constantly evolving, citing deficiencies in safety and security. The report’s tone is in keeping with the ECB’s cautious approach to DLT and mirrors previous statements made by bank executives.
The European Central Bank has ruled out using distributed ledger technology within the so-called Eurosystem’s market infrastructure for the foreseeable future, until the software meets high safety and reliability standards.

“Yet the technology does not yet meet the ECB’s standards for safety and efficiency, says the report” “The ECB is open to considering new ways to enhance its market infrastructure. However, any technology-based innovation would have to meet high requirements in terms of safety and efficiency.

DLT Project Team

Nonetheless, the ECB is keeping its options open, recognising the benefits that the technology could bring to securities settlement. To this end, the ECB has created a DLT Task Force to “bring together market experts on financial innovation and cyber security. Its objective is to avoid any negative consequences of technological innovation regarding the harmonisation and integration of post-trade markets in Europe and to explore the potential of DLT to help remove some of the remaining barriers to a fully integrated post-trade market in Europe”. For that they hired a senior technology executive, Dirk Bullman, with practical experience in distributed ledger applications and front and back office project management expertise

T2S

The ECB will continue to monitor DLT’s developments and could use the technology in the administration of Target2Secrities. The report states that DLT could play an important role in the administration of Target2Secrities, as well as helping to achieve its overall aim of “deeper integration of financial markets”.
Bullmann’s group is now exploring how DLT could be used in its new securities clearance platform T2S. Central securities depositories (CSDs) that participate in T2S today can effectively pool their securities so they can be bought and sold by investors across Europe. Since some technology would need to be selected in standardizing the issuance, Bullmann said DLT was a natural candidate for testing.

ECB – Bank of Japan joint initiative

The ECB has also launched a joint research project with the Bank of Japan in December last year to study the impact of new innovations of the global financial market and explore possible use of blockchain technology for market infrastructure services.
Bullmann’s task now is to coordinate with the Bank of Japan (BOJ) to explore topics such as how financial market participants could send payments using the technology, prioritizing how a certain payment might be cleared, for instance.

European Supervisory Authorities

The joint committee of the European Supervisory Authorities has released a report in April on Risks and Vulnerabilities in the EU Financial System, in which cybersecurity, including the rising use of blockchain technology, is marked as a major concern for the financial sector.

While further study is required before the EU submits new regulation regarding the financial sector and FinTech adoption, also the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has undertaken a study of cyber risk and controls of financial institutions throughout the EU. These results will be analyzed in light of existing regulations and used in making future recommendations. In June the ESMA publicized its response to the commission’s proposal on FinTech regulation following a public consultation.

ESMA and regulation

The ESMA, has stated in a new report that the current regulatory framework in effect does not pose a hurdle for the adoption and development of blockchain or distributed ledger technology in the short term. The report acknowledges the benefits of adopting blockchain before notably adding that blockchain applications are still at a nascent stage and, as such, do not require regulation. Regulatory action for blockchain technology at this ‘early stage’ is ‘premature’, said the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) in its report.

The ESMA states that it does not see blockchain technology, through its fundamental core concept of decentralization, post a threat to central financial market infrastructures. The ESMA deems it “unlikely” that blockchain technology would eliminate financial market infrastructures such as Central Securities Depositories (CSDs) and Central Counterparties (CCPs). Still, the watchdog says it “realizes” that blockchain technology may render some traditional processes redundant, or affect and “change the role of some intermediaries through time”

ESMA adds that the presence of blockchain technology “does not liberate users from complying with the existing regulatory framework, which provides important safeguards for the well-functioning of financial markets.” The ESMA will continue to monitor developments in the Fintech space, to assess if blockchain technology requires a regulatory response.

European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

The European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) also entered into the blockchain debate with a report launched in December 2016 aimed to provide financial professionals in both business and technology roles with an assessment of the various benefits and challenges that their institutions may encounter when implementing a distributed ledger.
ENISA analysed the technology and identified security benefits, challenges and good practices. There are however new challenges that the technology brings, like consensus hijacking and smart contract management. Additionally, it highlights that public and private ledger implementations will face different sets of challenges.

ENISA has identified good practices to overcome the issues identified as well as introduce the key concepts that decision-makers should be aware of when approaching this technology. Some good practices are: using recovery keys; using multiple signatures for authorizing and processing transactions; and, using library of standardized smart contracts.

In this paper, they also identified that there are challenges that may require further development, such as: anti-money and anti-fraud tools; interoperability of blockchain protocols; and, legal provisions and tools for implementing privacy and the right to be forgotten.

You can read the full article by clicking on this link.

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

 

Banking license Klarna & Adyen: The end of their competitive advantage?

| 5-7-2017 | Pieter de Kiewit |

Last weeks the payment service providers (PSPs) Adyen and Klarna received banking licenses. The gap between Fintech and traditional banks is being closed with the new kid on the block entering the traditional market. I can see the parallel to Amazon taking over Wholefoods and entering traditional retail. Markets are reshaped over and over. The question I ask myself is: will these new kids be able to change how traditional retail and banking is done and make a real difference?

Compliance

As to compliance in the banking sector this might be a challenge. The regulators think that by imposing new legislation on banks they will prevent all that went wrong in the past. I think this is an illusion. The effect is an increasing demand for experts who can take care of compliance. As a treasury recruiter I know bankers, also the ones with the proper expertise are fleeing the bank because compliance is demotivating a lot of them. This results in an increase in recruitment assignments and salary levels. This is not an issue relevant for Amazon.

The upside for the PSPs in comparison to Amazon is that they will be able to work with state of the art technology and challenge traditional banks who have to work with legacy systems. As far as I know, Amazon is not planning to close traditional outlets. And retail always has had a quite modern infrastructure. I cannot see yet how they would be able play the technology trump as hard as the PSPs can.

Both modern challengers do have an obvious competitive advantage. Especially for the PSPs I wonder if the extra burden of compliance will outweigh this advantage. Both client perception and cost levels will have to be monitored closely. The interesting thing of this all is that, by the time we might be able to know, the market situation might have been flipped twice again. It are interesting times, not?

Pieter de Kiewit

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit
Owner Treasurer Search

 

 

More to read from this author: 

Interesting transfer Joop Wijn from ABN to Adyen