Payment system ownership and access models Comparave analysis of 13 countries December 2015 © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal Contents 2 Sec&on Page number § Execuve summary 3 § Scope, methodology, and basic data 4 § Drivers of change 11 § Ownership, governance, outsourcing, and tendering 17 § Product diversity & features index 33 § Indirect access 44 § Access models / network topology 46 § Role of SWIFT 53 § Scheme membership criteria & indirect parAcipaon 57 § Conclusions 63 § Appendices 66 § Condensed country profiles 67 § DefiniAons and glossary of abbreviaons 148 § Detailed methodology 151 © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal ExecuAve summary 3 UK market is feature rich UK features and overall key findings Project scope UK payment system infrastructures exhibit rich features in The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) is reviewing access and comparison with the other payment systems in scope and high ownership arrangements, specifically whether compeAAon is product diversity. The UK is one of 6 countries that has a low-value effecAve in the provision of infrastructure services related to real-Ame payment system. It is one of the few markets in scope that interbank payment systems and whether the supply of indirect has had a compeAAve tender for central infrastructure provision. access to payment systems is working well for service-users. The UK is typical in having a mix of regulatory and commercial The PSR engaged Lipis Advisors to provide fact-based structural drivers, but unusual in having both an acAve regulator and comparisons to payment systems in 12 countries and the UK. The commercial impulses feeding new developments. interbank payment systems in scope for each country include high- value systems (typically RTGS), low-value bulk systems, low-value The UK’s stated regulatory objecAve to promote compeAAon is real-Ame systems (where present), and ATM systems. unique. There is no organizaon comparable to the Payment Systems Regulator in terms of promoAng compeAAon at the infrastructure The research focuses primarily on issues pertaining to ownership and level in any of the other systems examined in this report. governance of schemes, operators, and technical infrastructure providers; the provision of central infrastructure; access to payment Key findings across all countries include: systems, parAcularly indirect access; decision-making and drivers of § CompeAAve tenders for payment system infrastructures are rare. change; and products, services, and quality and innovaon indicators for each system in scope. § Innovaon and compeAAon can result from regulaon, but regulaon oeen aims at consumer protecAon & financial stability. The report focuses on payments systems in 12 different countries § The greatest diversity in core product offerings was seen in low- and compares these to comparable payment systems in the UK. The value bulk and ATM systems. countries in scope were carefully selected to ensure a high degree of relevance for the UK market based on criteria such as existence of § The move to develop real-Ame payment systems is a major driver modern and innovave payment systems, comparability to the UK of change in many markets and can coincide with or influence (e.g. market structure, regulatory regime), and the features of the decisions such as the adopAon of ISO 20022 or the development central infrastructure. of overlay services. © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal Contents 4 § ExecuAve summary § Scope, methodology, and basic data § Drivers of change § Ownership, governance, outsourcing, and tendering § Product diversity & features index § Indirect access § Access models / network topology § Role of SWIFT § Scheme membership criteria & indirect parAcipaon § Conclusions § Appendices § Condensed country profiles § DefiniAons and glossary of abbreviaons § Detailed methodology © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal Project scope 5 Access, ownership, and funcAonality the focus in systems examined Background Focus topics The Payment Systems Regulator describes its objecAves as: The research focuses on the following elements: § Ensuring that payment systems are operated and developed in § Ownership and structure of each payment system in scope, a way that considers and promotes the interests of all the including governance arrangements and regulatory regimes businesses and consumers that use them § Provision of central infrastructure and the tendering of infrastructure provision (where applicable) § PromoAng effecAve compeAAon in the markets for payment systems and services between operators, PSPs, and § Ownership and structure of scheme management, operaon, infrastructure providers and infrastructure provision in each system § Provision and pricing of indirect access § PromoAng the development of and innovaon in payment systems, in parAcular the infrastructure used to operate those § Communicaon between central infrastructures and systems parAcipang PSPs § Detailing how decisions are made in each market or for each To these ends, the PSR is reviewing access and ownership system and the moAvaons behind them arrangements, specifically whether compeAAon is effecAve in the § provision of infrastructure services related to interbank payment Products and services for each payment system, including systems and whether the supply of indirect access to payment sehlement arrangements, refund rights, and overlay services systems is working well for service-users. § Quality and innovaon indicators dealing with security and resiliency, infrastructure innovaons, and future plans for The PSR engaged Lipis Advisors to provide fact-based structural change comparisons to payment systems in 12 countries with UK The countries in scope were carefully selected to ensure a high payment systems. The interbank payment systems in scope for degree of relevance for the UK market based on criteria such as each country include: existence of modern and innovave payment systems, § High-value systems (typically RTGS) comparability to the UK (e.g. market structure, regulatory regime), § Low-value bulk and the features of the central infrastructure. § Low-value real-Ame (where present) § ATM networks © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal Comparing the UK to 12 other countries 6 Countries in scope Belgium, Germany, and Italy share a common scheme for low-value bulk (SEPA) and a common scheme and infrastructure for high-value payments (TARGET2/EURO1) SG Australia Belgium Brazil Canada Denmark Germany Country in scope Italy japan Scheme in scope New Zealand Singapore Sweden United Kingdom United States © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal Comparing the UK to 12 other countries 7 Systems in scope Low-value bulk Low-value real-me High-value ATM Australia BECS NPP RITS various Belgium SEPA, CEC nap TARGET2 & EURO1 BCMC Brazil SILOC SITRAF STR various Canada ACSS nap LVTS Interac Denmark Sum & Interday RealTime 24/7 KRONOS Dankort SEPA, STEP2, Germany nap TARGET2 & EURO1 DK Bundesbank Italy SEPA, ICBPI, SIA nap TARGET2 & EURO1 Bancomat japan nap Zengin BOj-Net MICS New Zealand BECS nap HVCS various Singapore IBG FAST MEPS+ various Sweden Bankgirot & DCL PIR / BRT RIX Bankomat United Kingdom Bacs Faster Payments CHAPS LINK NACHA, The Clearing United States nap Fedwire & CHIPS various House, FedACH © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal Methodology 8 Project relies on in-depth research and trusted frameworks Sources and methods Systemazing features of each system The data for the comparave analysis and country profiles is To structure the hundreds of data points for cross tabulaon complied from mulAple sources prior to the detailed of data and comparave analysis, Lipis Advisors compiled a analysis. Key aspects include: features index and typologies with common elements in each system. Each profile includes a typology covering § Research relying heavily on an internal informaon ownership of scheme, operator, and infrastructure, which database as well as primary sources in each country in enAAes drive change in payment systems, and the products scope offered by each system. The features index looks at the § Over 50 execuAve interviews completed with senior overall centralized funcAonality offered by the systems in representaves from banks, payment processors, each market. payment associaons, infrastructure providers, and soeware vendors in each country in scope The purpose of both of these frameworks is to establish common criteria to compare the diverse systems in scope § A variety of frameworks were used to analyze the data with the UK, as well as to enable cross tabulaons with and perform cross tabulaons to examine the elements such as banking concentraon, ownership relaonships between different data points. structure, or speed of change. § Payment system characterisAcs such as governance structure, ownership, access, and system features were A standard analysis of each country’s payment systems captured and represented in a payments system typology. features allows for comparisons to other aspects of each system, including: § For a detailed descripAon of the methodology, please see the appendix. § Access models § Banking concentraon § Outsourcing / tendering § Ownership structures § Speed and drivers of change § Regulatory regime © 2015, Lipis Advisors GmbH. All rights reserved. Proprietary and confidenAal