BCR Publishing

We are the leading provider of news, market intelligence, events and training for the global receivables finance industry.

Working with industry leading organisations, experts, governments and universities, BCR Publications delivers expertise in factoring, receivables and supply chain finance to a global audience.

BCR has long been a beacon of innovation and excellence in the realm of receivables finance, playing an instrumental role in shaping the industry’s international landscape. Through its comprehensive conferences, insightful publications, and thought leadership, BCR has facilitated crucial dialogues and connections among industry professionals, driving forward the development of receivables finance globally.

Follow BCR Publishing

Free passes

For corporate treasurer roles/functions!

ARTICLES

Saving on FX deals? Often neglected but potentially a “pot of gold”

| 21-8-2017 | Patrick Kunz |

Doing business internationally often means dealing with foreign currency (FX). This poses a risk as the exchange rate changes daily, basically every second. To mitigate this risk a company can hedge the position via FX deals (discussed in a previous article). But what are the costs of those deals to companies?

FX deals

FX is traded on exchanges where only authorized parties have access to. This can be brokers or banks, the so called market makers. They can take your fx position for a give rate and they try to find a counterparty for the deal who is willing to take the opposite trade. For this effort (and risk as they might not be able to directly match the position) they ask a provision. This is the bid-ask spread; the spread between rate for buying and rate for selling the currency. The fx (mid) rate is determined by supply and demand.

The spread depends on several things:

Market liquidity; how many people are buying and selling and with what volume
Market timing; is the market open for that currency
Restrictions: some currencies have restrictions

For a company to trade FX they need an account with a party that has access to fx market makers. This is often a bank. This bank will take another bite out of the spread for their profit (and maybe risk as they might take the position on their books). The spread the bank will charge depends on how many deals and how much volume you will be doing. Sometimes it is an obligation to trade with the bank from a financing arrangement. For the big currencies for big clients the spread can be as low as 2-3 pips (0,0002/0,0003).

Trading FX seems to be without costs as the bank charges no fees. However, those fees are put into the fx rate. When doing spot deals it is easy to calculate them, it’s the difference between the traded rate and the then actual market spot mid rate. When doing forward deals or trading illiquid currencies it is harder to determine the spread. Always try to get to know the spread you are paying. The spread is basically the costs of the fx deal (for forward deals there is an interest component).

It therefore makes sense to always compare your FX rates and get quotes from several banks. Trading with a broker sometimes can be cheaper as one party in the process is eliminated. Savings can be up to 5% per deal (for exotic currencies), for the bigger currencies an average saving of 1% is possible. If you do several million worth on FX deals a year this is a big money saver.

Pecunia Treasury & Finance b.v. has an online fx trading platform backed by one of the biggest worldwide fx broker.

Patrick Kunz

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

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=””]

Industries are ready for blockchain take off

| 16-8-2017 | Carlo de Meijer |

An interesting study was released recently by Juniper Research. Given its findings this survey needs some more widely spread recognition and that’s the reason for this blog. Named “Which industries are the best fit for blockchain”, this study came to some interesting conclusions, that were broadly in line with my blog of early June (see: Blockchain technology by 2018: a breakthrough, June 3, 2017). Their findings may underline my statement that we are further in the Gartner Cycle and that 2018 may be the year of the real breakthrough for blockchain technology for a number of industries. But for whom? Let’s have a look.

The study and its main finding

The survey’s main finding is that almost 40% of all interviewed (almost 370 executives, managers and IT profs) including 56% of the largest companies were either “considering” or “were in the process of employing blockchain solutions”.

This indicates that a majority of companies nowadays have a much greater understanding of blockchain and distributed ledger technology. They are recognizing that blockchain has the ” potential to be deployed in a variety of use cases”. There is also increased awareness amongst industries to consider deployment to gain competitive advantage.

Other findings

This “dramatic” increase in awareness is shown by the outcome that more than 80% of the surveyed companies have ‘a little’ or ‘a good’ understanding of blockchain

“It is clear that companies across the board have a significantly greater understanding of blockchain technology than was the case 12 months ago,”Juniper report.

More than three quarter of the respondents believe that blockchain could be ‘very useful’ or ‘quite useful’ for their company.
The time of exploring what blockchain is and what corporates can do with it lies largely behind us. It is now more about what blockchain systems to choose and how to integrate it in their legacy systems. Or as the study stated “It’s now much more geared to competing protocols, or the vetting of use cases …”.

Companies anticipating integration of blockchain

The survey also shows that many corporates are actively considering blockchain deployments.

Amongst the largest companies even 54% are in the so-called Proof of Concept (PoC) stage, while a further 16% is already involved in blockchain trials.
And those who already are in the PoC stage, two-thirds expect blockchain will be integrated in their legacy systems by the end of 2018.
While 81% of the smaller companies surveyed expect integration to be completed by the end of 2018, almost 60% of the large companies surveyed say they will reach that stage at that date.

Corporates and disruption

Despite the dramatic increase in blockchain awareness and identified benefits over the past 18 months, however, it is “critically important that companies consider all alternative options before deciding whether or not to deploy blockchain” according to the report.
Juniper mentioned that companies should consider whether blockchain is the necessary solution to their needs, as some companies under-estimate the challenges of deployment. They should seek “systemic change, rather than technological” innovation.

That “might be a better and cheaper solution than blockchain, which could potentially cause significant internal and external disruption.” Juniper report.

One main concern for the surveyed companies is in what way, who and where blockchain might disrupt not only their legacy systems but also their relationships with their clients. This is in part due to their fears around interoperability. Customers’ systems may no longer integrate with (or be compatible with) their upgraded systems.

The survey further shows that:

35% of all corporates surveyed are considering or actually deploying blockchain and feel it will cause ‘significant’ disruption (in general)
And more than half of these corporates considering or actively deploying blockchain feel it will cause ‘significant’ disruption to their partners/customers
42% of them were concerned that the reluctance or refusal of their clients or partners to deploy blockchain might cause them difficulties , compared with a quarter of all companies surveyed.

“Companies may have underestimated the scale of the blockchain challenge. For issues such as interoperability, the proportion of survey respondents expressing concerns progressively increased as companies proceed towards full deployment, while concerns also rose sharply regarding client refusal to embrace blockchain”. Juniper research

Who are the industries with largest blockchain opportunities?

This is a very interesting part of the survey. Jupiner Research conducted a comparative assessment of blockchain’ potential’s across 9 key industry areas. Main conclusion is that “in most cases, the more a vertical (industry) is suited to blockchain deployment, the greater the degree of implementation challenges”.

“Essentially, blockchain offers particular benefits to improve efficiency and corporate transparency; if an enterprise is heavily dependent upon paper-based storage and has high volumes of transactions or transmitted information, it can be especially effective.” says Windsor Holden, blockchain specialist at Juniper

Deployments in verticals such as Utilities and Content Publishing do not pose the scale and variety of challenges involved in Financial Settlement, according to the survey. They however “will not achieve the extent of gains, cost savings, efficiencies and risk reduction as is possible in the financial settlement industry”, according to the Juniper Research survey.

And what industries are (already) fit for blockchain

According to the survey, when challenges are measured against the scale of the opportunity, industries like Automotive, Financial Settlement and Land Registry emerge as particularly interesting prospects for blockchain application. This compared to other segments such as Utilities, Telcos a.o.

This is not that strange as next to the relative successes achieved in blockchain integration especially in the financial sector thus far, blockchain may bring more benefits as it will be a real problem solver for these industries challenges. While the inherent characteristics of these sectors make them more suitable for blockchain technology.

What else is needed?

But that is not the whole storey. Corporates are not isolated entities. To be successful corporates should raise the awareness of blockchain’s capabilities at their customers. And before integrating blockchain in their own systems they should get a greater understanding of the scale of potential hurdles.

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher