Tag Archive for: finance

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

 

 

Blockchain een hype? Training voor Financials

| 01-08-2019 | by treasuryXL | Kendra Keydeniers

Training: Blockchain voor Financials

Is blockchain een hype of gaat het de wereld echt drastisch veranderen? Wat is de gigantische impact van blockchain op de toekomst van uw financiële functie? Ontdek in twee dagen wat blockchain is, hoe u het toepast en hoe u ermee begint in uw eigen functie, organisatie of bij uw klanten

Uniek: Ontvang waardevol advies op uw eigen Blockchain Case

Breng uw eigen blockchain-use case in en deze wordt al tijdens de training besproken en beoordeeld op haalbaarheid. Ontvang bruikbare tips en adviezen waarmee u direct na de training verder kunt.

In deze training onthullen blockchain-experts Paul Bessems en Jeroen Perquin de nieuwe wereld van blockchain en geven u daarbij vele aanknopingspunten om direct met blockchain aan de slag te gaan binnen uw organisatie of netwerk. Paul en Jeroen illustreren de theorie met vele voorbeelden uit hun eigen praktijk waardoor de potentie van blockchain direct duidelijk wordt. Schrijf direct in.

Inclusief 2 E-learning modules

Bij dit programma ontvangt u 2 E-learning modules die uitstekend aansluiten op uw training. Haal alles uit Blockchain voor Financials en behaal 4 extra PE Uren.

Online modules Blockchain voor Financials:

  • Wat is Blockchain?
  • Blockchain in de praktijk
 Periode 2 dagen
 Investering. 1895 euro ( excl. BTW )
 Certificaat
14 PE-uren klassikaal + 4 PE-uren E-learning
 Datum / Locatie
17 en 18 december 2019 
Hotel Mercure Amsterdam Airport

27 en 28 mei 2020 
Randstad

22 en 23 september 2020 
Randstad

Uw voordelen
  • Nieuw | Wat is blockchain en waar gebruikt u het voor?
  • Disruptief | Wat zijn de gevolgen voor uw functie/organisatie/netwerk?
  • Begin! | Hoe start en (bege)leidt u een blockchainproject?
  • Design | Ontwerpoefening met de Harvard Case Methode
  • Praktijkgericht | Ga naar huis met uw eigen aangepaste use case
Onderwerpen
  • Wat is Blockchain?
  • Het verhaal achter Bitcoin
  • Blockchain in de praktijk
  • Data Economics
  • Toekomst van Blockchain
Boeken en materialen

Alle deelnemers ontvangen:

  • Het boek ‘Blockchain Organiseren voor managers: een andere kijk op managementinnovatie’ van Paul Bessems en Walter Bril.
  • De mogelijkheid tegen gereduceerd tarief community member te worden met toegang tot blockchain experts en het Kenniscentrum Blockchain Organiseren met artikelen, scripties, onderzoeken etc.
Voor wie?

Dit programma is specifiek ontwikkeld voor financials zoals controllers, financieel managers, financieel adviseurs en financieel directeuren die betrokken zijn bij (management) innovaties zoals blockchain en digitalisering.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The principles of multilateral netting: what, why and how

| 27-06-2019 | ENIGMA Consulting |

This article is meant as an introduction to the process of multilateral netting for international companies. It describes the fundamental concept of netting, the steps within the netting process and the ultimate benefits of netting. In addition, we elaborate upon the role of technology in netting and prepared a checklist for anyone that considers using netting in their company.

1. What is (multilateral) netting?

Netting is the process of consolidating payables against receivables between parties. Rather than settling each individual invoice leading to a large volumes of transactions, parties can consolidate invoices and agree upon one net payment stream. In the majority of the cases, netting is set up between internal group entities as parties for settling their intercompany invoices, but external (third) parties could participate in a netting process as well.

Most of the netting methodologies are either payables- or receivables-driven. In a payables-driven system, payables are netted against the payables of the other participants and in a receivables-driven system, receivables are used. Note that in the end it is (or should be) a zero sum game: intercompany receivables = intercompany payables.

If there are only two parties involved in the netting process it is called bilateral netting. If there are more than two parties involved that use a central entity to interact for all their intercompany transactions then the process is called multilateral netting. The figures below illustrate the differences between the payment flows before and after implementing a multilateral netting solution using a central entity (netting center).

Intercompany process without multilateral nettingIntercompany process with multilateral netting

Intercompany process without multilateral netting          Intercompany process with multilateral netting

2. How does the multilateral netting process works?

In general, the netting process (netting cycle) involves the steps outlined below:

Step 1: Collect invoice details from local entities
The first step is to have the local subsidiaries send their invoices to the netting center. Usually there is a central database where all the received invoices are collected. See also chapter 4 on technology.

Step 2: Verify / dispute invoices in the netting cycle
When invoices between two parties do not (automatically) match they should be investigated and disputes should be managed.

Step 3: Communicate netting balances to local entities
Once all invoices are reconciled, the netting center will calculate and send a netting statement to each of the local entities containing the balance that they will receive or need to pay.

Step 4: Settlement via cash or intercompany booking
The netting center distributes payments to the local entities that have positive balances. Local entities with negative balances will have to make a payment to the netting center. After the netting cycle is closed, a new round of collecting invoices will start (step 1).

3. Why use multilateral netting?

There are numerous advantages to those corporates that deploy multilateral netting:

  1. Reducing bank and transaction costs as a result of less funding transactions, less FX accounts and trades and savings on FX spreads, volumes and commissions. The pricing of FX deals can improve as the total number of FX transactions is consolidated into larger trades.
  2. Centralizing FX management as the netting center has the complete overview of currency requirements and is better able to hedge FX exposure.
  3. Standardizing the intercompany settlement process, creating both a single transparent approach throughout the company and discipline with regard to intercompany procedures and dispute management. This, in turn, can also minimize operational risks while maximize the operational efficiency.
  4. Improving the posting of intercompany invoices and reconciliation. By automizing this process (see chapter 4 on technology) not only treasury but also the accounting department benefits from netting.

For those international companies treating multilateral netting as part of their treasury roadmap it is possible to further enhance the benefits of netting by linking it with cash management. Integrating the use of a netting center with an in-house bank (IHB) can eliminate the use of physical cash payments by settling the net balances via the IHB.

So, for which companies it is worthwhile to consider multilateral netting? Corporates that have various (decentralized) local entities and various currencies and that have continuous multiple intercompany transactions between the local entities.

4. How can technology help

Technology and systems are key for an efficient and automated netting process. Examples of this are the following:

  1. Data collection
    The netting center relies on external input from its participants in order to reconcile invoices and calculate final settlements. The A/P and A/R invoices should therefore be collected from the ERP system and be sent to the netting center each netting period. Automation of the data collection will help the consistency and reliability of the data input for the netting process
  2. Netting calculation
    For the netting calculation, systems are crucial as the calculation for multiple invoices from multiple parties, in multiple FX can be quite complex.
  3. Dispute management
    Where invoices are sent, disputes can occur. These disputes can originate from administrative issues or be business-oriented. In a complex environment with multiple transactions occurring daily, disputes can often be overlooked. Systems are a helpful tool in providing an internal dispute management system.
  4. Liquidity management and settlement
    Upon the completion of a netting run and all invoices being reconciled, each company will receive a final netting statement, containing their new balance to be paid to or received from the netting centre. When a subsidiary is due to owe money to the netting centre, they will have various settlement possibilities available for use, and systems play an inevitable role to support these settlements. Subsidiaries can settle via bank account wires, take internal loans from the group treasury or book via intercompany accounts. Systems can be used to streamline the settlement process.
  5. Audit trail
    Some systems can provide a fully audit trail on all key variables in the netting process.
  6. Transparency and less manual tasks
    When all stakeholders of the netting process are using one central system where everybody has access to, there is only ‘one source of truth’ that increases transparency and supports consistent involvement of all parties. Systems will also diminish the manual tasks in the process and decrease the vulnerability to errors.

Which system is used for the netting process depends very much on the system landscape of the company. Roughly there are three options:

  1. ERP system
    As the source of the A/R and A/P is the ERP, it makes a lot of sense to use the ERP for the netting process as well. In the following situations the ERP system is not ideal option:
    – when the company has multiple ERP systems
    – when the ERP system lacks netting functionality
    – when treasury has limited access to the ERP for the (internal or physical) settlement of the transactions
  2. Treasury Management System (TMS)
    Many TMS providers can deliver netting functionality that support the full netting cycle. Preferably the netting process is then set up with automatic upload/download interfaces for the input and output data from/to the ERP system(s). It requires that the treasury department takes the lead in the set up and management of the netting process.
  3. Dedicated netting software
    There is variety of other dedicated netting systems available where the netting process can take place. Interfacing with the TMS and the ERP is then even more important. Some companies also use Excel spread sheets for their netting process and that can still be practical solution if there are only limited parties involved, few internal invoices and a small number of currencies.
5. Checklist

To prepare the business case for setting up a netting process that meets the specific requirements of the organization, the checklist of questions below can be used.

Checklist
1. How many currencies are used for internal invoices?
2. What is the number of local entities?
3. What is the total amount of internal invoices per month, what is the monthly value and who are the counterparties of these invoices?
4. What is the background of the internal invoices: trade, interest, royalties, dividend, hedge contracts internal, fees, loan repayments, investments etc.?
5. In what countries are internal invoices send/received?
6. Which exchange control regulations are existing for cross border transfers and what are the fiscal and legal consequences of netting intercompany transactions?
7. How does the system landscape looks like, where is data stored and in which system(s) will the netting process takes place?
8. Where does FX management take place within the organization and how will that be impacted by the set-up of a netting process?
9. To assess the options for settlement of internal invoices:
– How does the current bank (accounts) landscape looks like?
– Is there already an in-house bank (IHB) structure set up?
10. What are the organizational consequences with respect to the treasury department, accounting processes and corporate policies?
11. Are there adequate resources available in the organization at the relevant departments (such as accounting, IT and treasury) to set up the netting process?

Dominic Hoogendijk and Bas Kolenburg are experienced senior treasury consultants working for Enigma Consulting. Enigma Consulting is a trusted advisor in Payments, Risk & Compliance and Treasury with over 20 years of experience. Enigma Consulting serves all Dutch financial institutions, many (international) corporates and charity organizations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blockchain: Game-changer for Small & Medium Enterprises?

| 21-06-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

In many countries Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are the backbones of their economy. Their role is crucial to worldwide economic and social developments, with more than half of the overall world population working in such companies. In the Netherlands for instance, more than 90% of the Dutch companies are SMEs and together they produce 60% of the added value of the Dutch Economy. SMEs however are confronted with a number of important challenges. including limited access to bank loans, inefficient procedures and lack of information necessary to conduct business efficiently.

While most people relate blockchain to large companies, blockchain also opens new opportunities to SMEs in every sector to solve existing challenges and enable them to optimise their business and develop new business models. Up till recently there were several obstacles which led to slower adoption of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies by SMEs. But that is changing.

Let’s have a look!

SMEs and present challenges

Despite their status as the backbone of any major economy, SMEs face many challenges. They have a great problem in finding  financing, scale their operations, process payments and recruit other ancillary services that are both necessary to grow or go global. For emerging economies, increasing access to credit is key to generate of new jobs and economic growth.

  • Bank loans

 A big problem for SMEs, esp. for beginning entrepreneurs is to get a loan from banks for starting or growing their business. This is why many of the new or ongoing small and medium-sized businesses disappear. Almost 30% of SME companies shut down in the first three years of operation due to lack of funding.

Since the banking (credit) crisis of 2008, banks are inherently risk averse, so their tolerance for SME lending has become relatively low. Last year’s report from the World Bank estimated that 70 percent of small, medium, and micro-enterprises are unable to access the credit they need. While the global demand for SME credit stand at $2,38 trillion, the truth is, only a fraction (about 15%) of businesses actually get the loan that they request from banks.

  • Trade finance

 Another challenge for internationally operating SMEs is to get trade finance. Trade financing, much like many forms of credit providing, is a key component of the success of SMEs, but that key is not always easy to obtain. SMEs face lots of hurdles in their quest for funding, especially when it comes to accessing traditional trade finance products. Trade has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. But trade finance has not. The $1.5 trillion trade finance gap is driven by data shortfalls. The industry is still heavily paper-based and follows outdated processes and procedures. Typical trade finance operations are as a result still time-consuming, bureaucratic, and simply too expensive for new SMEs. This disproportionately impacts small- and medium-sized firms and firms in Asia and the Pacific.

  • Cash flow issues

 Inability to bring in capital continues to cause enormous harm to small businesses–stifling growth and causing cash flow difficulties. In fact, 40 percent of small businesses reported cash flow issues within the past year. Businesses need cash flow to pay for materials, start the production process, pay employees, or cover any other business expenses. For smaller companies a late payment can be the difference between success and failure.

  • Limited alternative financing

 These SME companies nowadays often turn to alternative forms of financing to obtain funds and ease their cash flow issues. In recent years, the peer-to-peer (P2P) lending system emerged as an alternative to the bank loans. And this segment is growing. Crowdfunding has also emerged to fill the gap in the market, but is mainly focused on technology start-ups. This new funding route is closed to most SMEs from other sectors.

  • Personal identity

Personal identity and data control are major concerns for online retailers as most of the interactions between customers, and online retailers are controlled via usernames and passwords stored in centralized platforms. Such platforms are vulnerable to hacking, and user data can be accessed and misused by hackers. Next to that people can easily falsify documentation and identity proofs.

  • Adoption of new technologies

 Another major challenge for many SMEs is how to deal with new trends in digitalization and automation. While large corporates often have the resources to react promptly, experiment and develop new products and services and thus benefit from the new technologies like blockchain, this is not the case for many SMEs.

This while they are experiencing problems for which these solutions including blockchain could be a solution. Many small- to medium-sized companies find it difficult to get started with new technologies since the scale of SMEs is often too small, among other reasons. Most SME’s miss the manpower, skills and knowledge to develop new strategies on such new trends.

 

Use cases

Blockchain presents itself as a solution to these challenges. This technology could solve the problems in the areas of funding and trade finance. Though it makes sense to use blockchain for money-related businesses, they may also be used to solve many of their inefficiency problems. Safe and secure data transactions and smart contracts may optimise supply chains and improve client satisfaction by automated services.

  • Trade finance           

Blockchain could became a game-changer for SMEs that are looking to expand abroad in their search for trade finance. Trade finance products are being made more efficient due to transparency and the consensus mechanisms that replace multiple instances of verification and checking.

A new study by the World Economic Forum and Bain & Company shows that blockchain technology could play a major role in reducing the worldwide trade finance gap, enabling trade that otherwise could not take place. Another finding is that the impacts would be largest in the emerging markets and for SMEs which may display the use of the technology beyond well-established markets and corporations.

The Asian Development Bank forecasts the global trade finance gap currently stands  at $1.5 trillion, or 10% of merchandise trade volume and is set to grow to $2.4 trillion by 2025. But the results from the new study shows the gap could be reduced by $1 trillion using blockchain technology efficiently.

  • Supply chain finance

Blockchain technology may also contribute to solve the problem of getting supply chain finance. A bigger segment of the market is nowadays building open account solutions. But because of the difficulty in tracking how deep the supply chain is, often financing is only offered a few tiers deep. As blockchain is much more flexible with data than existing digital systems, this technology opens up the possibility of this level of financing.

On blockchain, both suppliers and buyers have access to necessary transactional information in real-time. Every step of the supply chain process is time-stamped and verified by all parties, meaning that information is accurate and immutable. This added level of visibility may also mean that businesses will have more invoice financing solutions available, too. This transparency may result in faster transaction processing improved cash flows for suppliers, and potentially better rates from invoice finance providers.

  • Smart contracts

One of the most attractive features that blockchain has is the potential to offer SMEs smart contracts, which not only define the terms and penalties around an agreement in the same way that traditional contracts do but also automatically execute and enforce those pre-agreed terms and conditions (but without the need for middlemen). Many labour intensive and expensive business processes can easily being replaced at little cost.

The largest opportunities could come from smart contracts, single digital records for customs clearance. Smart contracts can represent an invoice, or any similar financial document, and be used as collateral to support a loan. They would help mitigate credit risk, lower fees and remove barriers to trade.

To avoid the initial development costs of building on Ethereum, there are already blockchain companies like Confideal and dApp Builder that make it easy to create and launch a complete smart contract portal with just a few clicks.

  • Funding/collateral

Blockchain technology has the potential to completely “reinvent the wheel” when it comes to SME funding. Blockchain could help revive peer-to-peer lending practices that has emerged outside of the regular banking system, by digitizing what was once a manual process.

Through disintermediation, blockchain makes it significantly easier and faster for small and medium-sized companies – not just technology start-ups – to raise funds through equity. The removal of these barriers reduces the need for complicated paperwork, while the automated nature of the process may mean that  commissions, excessive brokerage fees associated with selling shares, and other overheads can all be left behind.

  • Identity management 

Another area where blockchain could become a game changing factor is in the area of online identity verification. A growing number of SMEs do their business online triggering demand for increased online security. The risk of identity theft and fraud could be eliminated with the use of a decentralized identity, such as blockchain. It allows a more effective and reliable form of identification of a person without the requirement for third party involvement. As well as the benefits in terms of the reliability of the verification, the speed at which checks can be performed is much faster. This can help businesses speed up processes and make them more reliable.

 

SME-focused initiatives/projects

To address the various challenges for SMEs in their search for blockchain solutions, a growing number of SME-focused initiatives have been launched.

  • Blockchers project

One of these programs is Blockchers, as part of the European Horizon 2020 project. Blockchers is a project that will facilitate the revolution of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) across European SMEs. It is an acceleration process for SMEs and start-ups to build real world use cases of blockchain technologies, thereby financing real world use cases of this technology in traditional sectors.

One of the main goals of Blockchers will be fostering the matchmaking among traditional SMEs and potential DLT specialists, as technology providers, and “sensitize about the benefits and opportunities around DLTs to implement real use case scenarios in a variety of verticals”.

Alastria Blockchain Ecosystem has been chosen by the European Commission as the technological partner for the Blockchers Project. They will  provide the blockchain infrastructure to the start-ups participating in this EU Project, developing blockchain solutions to SMEs.

  • Project Blockstart

To make sure SMEs can experiment “if and which blockchain solution will help to tackle the problems in their activities”, Bax & Company, a leading European innovation consultancy, has set up the project Blockstart. The aim of Blockstart is to increase the competitiveness of SMEs in the health, agro-food and logistics sectors by providing business support, identifying and testing business opportunities from blockchain innovations. Working together, the partners that will form an international ecosystem of business networks, incubators and blockchain experts, will test the market readiness of different blockchain solutions in real-life settings. Blockstart will help small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) strengthen their competitive positions through the use of blockchain technology.

  • Dutch logistic project

And there is the project of RDM Knowledge Center and Sustainable PortCities in cooperation with Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, to investigate the opportunities for SMEs in the Dutch logistics sector to benefit from logistics applications of blockchain. In the project SMEs active in cold chains, the pharmaceutical industry, transport, forwarding and warehousing are involved.

They try to give answer on questions that SMEs ask, including: what are the consequences of blockchain for their business model?; what kind of knowledge should they have about the potential of blockchain?; could blockchain technology improve their logistic processes?; and, how can blockchain technology create added value for their company?

  • Singapore PLMP Project

Singapore blockchain company PLMP Fintech has launched the Blockchain Technology Creatanium Centre (BTCC). BTCC is a blockchain centre, focused on accelerating the blockchain ecosystem for Singapore small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across various industries, allowing businesses to compete on a global level and increase efficiencies in operations and funding. BTCC will also provide education and development as well as house a blockchain and ICO ecosystem.

Similar centres are planned for Indonesia and Thailand.

 

SME-focused blockchain platforms

Furthermore, to help increase blockchain’s adoption across multiple industries and enlighten businesses of the technology’s potential, a large number of open source collaborative blockchain platforms have been created such as Hyperledger, Ethereum etc. Their main goal is allow enterprises to build customised blockchains that would answer specific needs instead of letting companies solve issues on their own. In recent years also platforms specific focused on SMEs have been launched such as We.Trade, Karma and others.

  • We.Trade platform (trade finance) 

Nordea has launched a blockchain-based platform designed to make it easier for SMEs to trade with other companies in Europe. The we.trade platform, a blockchain network for trade finance, is available to all Nordea SME customers, with trading controlled through a set of rules designed to bring security to the process.

The new offering is built on the we.trade platform developed by a group of 12 banks using IBM blockchain technology. The aim of the project is to simplify trade finance processes for SMEs by addressing the challenge of managing, tracking and securing domestic and international trade transactions by connecting all of the parties involved (i.e. buyer, buyer’s bank, seller, seller’s bank and transporter), online and via mobile devices. Providing more companies more efficient access to trade financing and credit across Europe will allow them to grow their business by expanding into new markets and forging new trading partnerships.

  • Karma (funding)

Karma (Russia), launched early 2018, is a true P2P platform which is fully decentralized. By design, the platform is a unique enabler that gives SMEs access to additional liquidity. Based on the blockchain technology, it enables users to invest in any SME. The platform offers its users a wide spectrum of investment opportunities. One of the features that make Karma “stand out of the crowd” is its ability to let investors lend to SMEs anywhere around the world.

  • Traxia (trade finance)

Traxia is a decentralised global trade finance platform. The proposed new blockchain-based system used to assess the creditworthiness of SMEs, will build a bridge between the banks, the SMEs and the data provider.

By using the blockchain, and smart contracts they will be able to offer transparent, fast, and not so costly transactions for small businesses. Thereby solving the long waiting problem by allowing for a transparent platform for invoice trading designed just for SMEs.

The loan system will connect technology to how people think and behave to determine who is credit-worthy. The system will link alternative payment data to accounting certificates to mobile and social data to psychometrics. The alternative payment data thereby looks at utility payments, rental payments and accounting certificates.

  • Blockchain identity platforms

Already, a number of blockchain-based companies are taking advantage of blockchain’s identity tools. Its decentralized nature and security features to provide better and more transparent identification tools, offers a way for customers to identify themselves and have access to certified documents and notaries as well as a marketplace for customers to purchase services and products.

Instead of buying expensive, centralized server architecture or “paying hefty fees” to companies like Amazon Web Services or Google, a comprehensive start-up CEO might instead choose to rent custom-sized decentralized hosting space from a blockchain platform. This provides increased data integrity and a more efficient cost plan as well.

  • Other blockchain-based platforms for SMEs

A group of 11 Indian banks have teamed together to unveil the nation’s first blockchain-linked funding for SMEs. The goal is to revamp lending for “default-prone small firms”, by helping bring forth the virtue of transparency. The blockchain network will allow the banks to access public credit data so they can reduce risks when offering lending. In 2018, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) embarked on a similar undertaking and launched eTradeConnect. The blockchain-powered platform was aimed at solving the various challenges that hamper the link between banks and SMEs.

Later that year, the Abu Dhabi Global Market, another multinational financial hub located in the United Arab Emirates, entered into a joint agreement with HKMA and Singapore’s central bank. They aim to create a blockchain-powered, cross-border trade and finance platform for SMEs hassle-free access to funding.

 

What advantages may blockchain bring for SMEs?

Blockchain has the potential to offer a lot of distinct advantages to small and medium-sized businesses, such as trust, speed, more safety and security as well as risk reduction in terms of lesser identity fraud and hacking, thereby reducing time and unnecessary costs.

This may enable them to solve the cash flow problem, the paperwork issues, as well as the problem to go global (thanks to the globality of blockchain platforms), preventing them from going bankrupt.

  • Available funds

First of all the risk of getting no funds at all will be greatly reduced. Because there is no doubt about when funds will be released, companies can deliver services in time knowing that funds will always be available when they should be. Payments for goods from distant buyers and payroll to overseas employees may become easier and can be completed at a fraction of the current costs. As a result, it can help bring products and transactional services to market quickly and inexpensively.

  • More safe and secure transactions

Security and transparency will also prove to be value-added benefits of blockchain for businesses. For SMEs with global aspirations, blockchain technology using secure communication techniques may guarantee more safety and security in their transactions.

The blockchain technology will assist firms to overcome problems associated with asymmetric information, collateral requirements, a lack of sufficient credit reporting agencies and internet data security and cybercrime. Blockchain technology thereby ensures safe, automated and efficient data transactions that may be used in the exchange of private information, or monitoring goods in transport or tracing the origin of food products.

  • More cost efficient processes

To make their processes more efficient , blockchain applications will definitely streamline business processes and offer a great potential for reducing costs and complexity of processes.

Significantly reducing overhead costs is a major advantage for small businesses hosting services on the blockchain. Using blockchain means reducing the amount of resources and time entrepreneurs put in for administrative tasks. This may contribute to offload the traditionally high costs of security, Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, data storage and other overheads.

Apart from significantly reducing the investment that founders must make in these support activities, the cost savings can be passed onto customers to make prices more competitive. This may allow SMEs worldwide to compete on a more level playing field.

 

What are SMEs already doing?

A study conducted by the Emory University (US Atlanta) in collaboration with Provide Technologies and Aprio claims that the small and medium enterprises are investing twenty-eight times more in blockchain than large enterprises. The report furthers that most of the blockchain-based projects are aimed towards business process automation while authentication and compliance are the second and the third most significant blockchain usage across the globe. The report also marks that the payments industry stands fifth when it comes to blockchain adoption whereas, identity management and market place governance follow the top tier applications very closely.

There is a growing community of innovative start-ups that are developing SMEs focused blockchain solutions. However, the sectors in which DLTs really make sense, besides fintech, could be those in which existing SMEs do not (yet) have enough knowledge on how DLTs work nor how they could uptake these technologies (traditional SMEs).

Need for regulatory framework

Blockchain SMEs face uncertain regulation that limits their scope of action and imply a risk for their growth. The real challenge, going forward, will be the legality of smart contracts, and a global regulatory framework needed to establish true peer-to-peer lending across borders; just because it is legal in one country, does not make it so in the next.

A “good” regulatory framework should bring more clarity, fostering the uptake and prevent from fraudulent actions such as those linked to the anonymity of users in transactions. In the meantime, the power and potential of blockchain and smart contracts is increasingly being recognized across the business and political spectrum. While it may take regulators some time to catch up, broader adoption will lead to sensible regulation.

Forward thinking

Looking at these advantages, it is easy to see why a growing number 0f entrepreneurs  in the SME world is willing to invest more into blockchain. With the blockchain and related services such as smart contracts, the SME world may expect to see a total transformation of how they nowadays do their business. Blockchain will make international dealings more conducive for SMEs and may allow them to compete in ways that are unthinkable today.

Blockchain is however still in its early stages. The mass adoption of blockchain by SME companies has not yet started, and widespread adoption will take time. For this to happen, the biggest obstacle is getting more businesses to build on blockchain and drive customers toward these solutions. This asks for trust.

Trust will be built over time, and in order for the promises to become a reality, some businesses must start trusting the process. Proving to the world that there is a lot of opportunity in using the blockchain for absolutely everything related to business.  Given how this technology could boost trade by more than $1tn in the next ten years, according to World Economic Forum, this may be a call-up to the big blockchain companies to come up with SME friendlier solutions.

 

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher