跨境银行间支付和结算——Jasper项目第四阶段第二份报告-68页_4mb

Summary of "Cross-Border Interbank Payments and Settlements"

Core Content

This report, titled Cross-Border Interbank Payments and Settlements, is a collaborative effort between the Bank of Canada (BOC), the Bank of England (BOE), and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), with input from commercial banks such as HSBC, OCBC Bank, TD Bank, and UOB. It aims to analyze the current challenges and explore potential future-state models for cross-border payments and settlements.

Main Stakeholders and Their Challenges

3.1 Overview of Main Stakeholders

Cross-border payments involve three key stakeholders:

• End-users: Businesses and individuals who initiate or receive payments across borders.
• Commercial banks: Entities that provide payment services and manage correspondent banking relationships.
• Central banks: Operators of RTGS systems and overseers of financial market infrastructures.

3.2 Challenges for Central Banks

• RTGS and High-Value Payment Systems: Central banks operate RTGS systems that are critical for reducing settlement risk. However, legacy systems often have limited operating hours, which can cause delays in cross-border payments.
• Interoperability: Payment systems in different jurisdictions are based on proprietary standards, leading to a lack of interoperability and increased complexity for cross-border transactions.
• Access to Settlement Accounts: Eligibility for settlement accounts is often restricted, with high barriers to entry for smaller institutions. This limits innovation and increases systemic risk due to concentration in a few major players.
• Operational Resilience: RTGS systems are operationally resilient but may lack strategic resilience, especially in integrating with new technologies like DLT.

3.3 Challenges for Commercial Banks

• High Costs: Cross-border payments are significantly more expensive than domestic ones, with average costs for a US bank estimated at $25 to $35 per transaction.
• Regulatory Complexity: Compliance with AML, CTF, and KYC requirements across different jurisdictions increases costs and operational risks.
• Legacy Infrastructure: Many commercial banks still rely on outdated systems (e.g., mainframes) that are costly to maintain and difficult to update. These systems often require downtime, limiting the ability to offer 24/7 services.
• De-risking: Banks are increasingly limiting or terminating correspondent banking services to reduce exposure to compliance and reputational risks.
• Manual Intervention: The need to translate between different data formats increases the likelihood of manual processing, which is costly and time-consuming.

Key Challenges and Root Causes

4.1 Current Initiatives: A Critical Assessment

• The report acknowledges ongoing initiatives by central and commercial banks to address cross-border payment challenges, but these are described as incremental changes.
• The complexity of cross-border payment processes, including multiple intermediaries, differing regulations, and legacy systems, is a major root cause of inefficiencies.
• The lack of interoperability between payment systems and the reliance on correspondent banking contribute to delays and costs.

Potential Future State

5.0 Potential Future State

The report suggests that the current correspondent banking model, while ubiquitous, may not be sustainable due to its high costs and inefficiencies. A more fundamental paradigm shift is needed, potentially driven by new technology platforms.

6.0 Future-State Models

Three models are proposed for achieving more efficient cross-border payment systems:

1. Model 1: Current and Planned Initiatives within and across Jurisdictions

   • Focuses on enhancing existing domestic systems without changing the underlying correspondent banking model.
   • May address some pain points but not all.

2. Model 2: RTGS Operators as "Super-Correspondents"

   • Seeks to integrate RTGS systems with correspondent banking to streamline processes and reduce delays.
   • Could improve efficiency but still faces interoperability and regulatory challenges.

3. Model 3: Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currencies (W-CBDCs)

   • Includes three variations:
     • Model 3a: W-CBDCs that can only be held and exchanged within their home jurisdiction.
     • Model 3b: W-CBDCs that can be held and exchanged beyond their home jurisdiction.
     • Model 3c: A single, universal W-CBDC backed by a basket of currencies.

These models are presented as hypothetical options for exploring future-state capabilities rather than as specific recommendations.

Model Comparison

• Against Root Causes: Each model is evaluated for how well it addresses the core challenges such as settlement risk, cost, complexity, and interoperability.
• Across Non-Technical Considerations: The models are also compared in terms of regulatory implications, market adoption, and potential for innovation.

Conclusion and Next Steps

• The report concludes that while current initiatives are useful, they are not sufficient to address the systemic issues in cross-border payments.
• It emphasizes the need for a more holistic approach and the potential role of new technology in enabling a paradigm shift.
• The report does not recommend a specific model but aims to provide a framework for further exploration and analysis.

Key Takeaways

• Cross-border payments are expected to grow significantly, increasing the need for more efficient systems.
• Correspondent banking, though still the dominant model, is becoming less viable due to high costs, regulatory complexity, and legacy infrastructure issues.
• Central banks play a crucial role in reducing settlement risk through RTGS systems but face challenges in interoperability and access.
• The introduction of W-CBDCs could offer a transformative solution, though they remain hypothetical at this stage.
• The report encourages further research and exploration of these models from both technical and non-technical perspectives.