FPC Cross Border White Paper - 06-2021 - FINAL

Cross-Border Faster Payments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is an ever-increasing need for the payments industry to meet customers’ demand for faster, safer, and
more secure payments. This is true particularly in the case of cross-border payments, which face more
counterparty and currency exchange risk and more rules and forms of governance than their domestic
counterparts.
This paper endeavors to address Use Case and Experience Requirements for cross-border faster payments,
particularly along the dimensions of Speed, Cost, Ubiquity, Transparency, and Risk. It is structured to identify
interoperability approaches, along with associated settlement schemes that are necessary to create a world-
class cross-border payment system.
Use Cases and Experience Requirements
Different use cases of cross-border payments have different consumer and business users, each with different
needs and challenges.
· Consumer-to-Consumer (C2C) payments must resolve two critical problems, namely Speed and Cost,
regardless of the payment size.
· Consumer-to-Business (C2B) payments must also resolve problems related to Speed and Cost.
· Business-to-Business (B2B) payments have challenges in Speed, Cost, and Transparency.
· Business-to-Consumer (B2C) payments have challenges in Speed, Cost, and Ubiquity, while
Transparency is quickly becoming a greater expectation within this user segment.
The similarities and nuances of these needs require careful consideration when building systems that will deliver
faster cross-border payments.
To achieve these goals, faster cross-border payment systems will need to incorporate approaches to
interoperability and settlement beyond what exists today.
Interoperability Approaches
Interoperability defines the relationships between participant institutions to allow the necessary cooperation for
cross-border payments. The paper outlines three models:
· Bespoke - Point-to-point messaging and settlement relationships between institutions that are set up
and negotiated on a one-off basis.
· Centralized - Hub-and-spoke messaging and settlement relationships arranged between institutions
with an intermediary acting the central connecting entity.
· Hybrid - A multi-hub system inclusive of intermediaries where a single messaging and settlement
relationship allows access to an interconnected network of participants.
The hybrid model has the potential to represent the truest form of interoperability. The key requirements for
the hybrid model are cooperation and coordination between payment operators and regulators. By acting
together, they can fuse the bespoke and centralized models, and derive additional advantage from available
digital technologies that provide stakeholders with a faster, more ubiquitous, and less costly cross-border
payment experience.
FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group
Cross-Border Faster Payments White Paper
Publication: June 2021
Page 1 of 28
Settlement Schemes
Settlement options determine the method for the exchange of value between parties. There are three types of
settlement possibilities that can be employed across interoperability models, each of which affects the user
experience with a trade-off between cost and speed.
· Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) - Settlement where each payment is submitted individually and
instantly without batching or netting.
· Deferred Net Settlement - Settlement where payments are held to a predefined settlement cycle when
obligations are calculated and netted against each other prior to settlement.
· Hybrid Settlement (A cross between RTGS and Deferred Net Settlement) - Settlement where payments
are either submitted instantly or held for programmatically determined settlement cycles for netting
prior to settlement.
Interoperability & Settlement Models Fit vis-a-vis User Experience Framework

The underlying interoperability and settlement models of a Faster Payments ecosystem will have direct impact
on the end user experience and effectiveness criteria. This mapping indicates with respect to a particular
dimension whether a model is directionally positive, directionally neutral, or directionally negative.
Summary on Delivering a Faster Payments Cross-Border System

As user demands continue to grow, the payments industry must act to meet customers’ demands for faster,
safer, and more secure payments. Differences in user needs mean there will not be a one-size-fits-all solution.
Instead, interoperability between systems is required along with the flexibility to extend support to include
hybrid models of moving information and value.
Faster Payments inherently highlight characteristics of speed, cost, ubiquity, transparency and risk in a payment
transaction. The way money moves today across borders involves a complex network of pairs of banking
partners and equivalent handshakes, making all the required characteristics of faster payments difficult to
achieve, but as more countries adopt faster payments, faster cross-border payments are achievable.
Page 2 of 28
Cross-Border Faster Payments
Introduction
As highlighted in the Faster Payments Task Force report titled “The U.S. Path to Faster Payments,” there is an
ever-increasing need for the payments industry to meet customers’ demand for faster, safer, and more secure
payments.1
This is true particularly in the case of cross-border payments, which face more counterparty and currency
exchange risk and more rules and forms of governance than their domestic counterparts. Cross-border money
movement, traditionally relying on correspondent banking relationships, suffers from multiple “hops” before
money is delivered to the ultimate receiver. This often makes the payments more costly, slower, and less
transparent.
At the same time, two major factors must be addressed as a precondition to creating an environment that is
conducive to conducting faster payments across borders. First, business and consumers have reset their
expectations on payments – anticipating real-time or near real-time receipt of funds. This requirement is
mirrored in their everyday lives across multiple industries. Second, domestic and regional faster payments
schemes have proliferated in recent years, with 56 national real-time payments systems live as of 2020 and
others in the planning or development phase.2
However, tackling the opportunity to improve the user experience for cross-border payments from the point-of-
origination through point-of-receipt presents significant challenges:
 Support for Fundamental Dimensions Across Use Cases - The need for cross-border payments spans a
variety of use cases serving vastly different needs and incentives. The various participants of these
transactions have their own motivations and sensitivities to the fundamental dimensions present in
these transactions, namely Speed, Cost, Ubiquity, Transparency and Risk.
 Respect for Sovereign Requirements - Cross-border payments are, by nature, multi-jurisdictional or

multi-sovereignty transactions. There will be cases where there are dissimilar sovereign requirements
for transaction handling that need to be accommodated. One such instance, for example, is the
sovereign requirement for a “review window” before the transaction can be completed, which obviates
a transaction from being “instantaneous.”
1
Faster Payments Task Force. (n.d.). Why Faster Payments? Retrieved May 3, 2021 from https://fasterpaymentstaskforce.org/payment-
landscape/why-faster-payments/#_ftn1
2
FIS Global. (2020). Flavors of Fast 2020. https://www.fisglobal.com/flavors-of-fast#get-report

Page 3 of 28
 Working with a Complex Ecosystem of Providers - While there are emerging models that strive to reduce
complexity, cross-border transactions have traditionally involved a myriad of multiple
intermediaries/correspondent banks and accounts, clearing systems, and technology providers – all of
whom need to work in tight integration to accomplish an effective faster payment experience for payers
and payees.
In light of these challenges, delivering on customer expectations is a daunting undertaking. According to the
Bank for International Settlements (BIS), standardization and interoperability are important catalysts in the quest
to increase efficiency and realize economies of scale and network effects in cross-border retail payments.
Further, according to BIS, although international standards can enhance efficiency and interoperability, their full
benefits cannot be reaped if they are interpreted and implemented differently from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.3
As a further point of reference, a recent FPC Glenbrook study ranked Interoperability as the top faster payment
cross-border payment issue among financial institutions.4
Within this context, this paper is structured to identify interoperability approaches, along with associated
settlement schemes, that are necessary to create a world-class cross-border payment system. The approaches
endeavor to address use case experience requirements for cross-border faster payments, particularly along the
dimensions of Speed, Cost, Ubiquity, Transparency, and Risk.
3
Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures. (2018, February). Cross-Border Retail Payments. Bank for International
Settlements. https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d173.pdf
4
Auer, Raphael et al. (2021, March). Multi-CBDC Arrangements and the Future of Cross-Border Payments. Bank for International
Settlements. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap115.htm

Page 4 of 28
User Experience
When considering the various approaches to improve cross-border faster payments, it is very important to
understand the user experience. Different use cases of cross-border payments have different consumer and
business users, each with different needs. This paper considers their challenges as payers and payees across four
segments of use cases, each of which covers a range of payment methods depending on context.
Cross-Border User Case Segments

Segment Description
Consumer-to-Consumer (C2C) Remittances or non-commerce payments between one

individual and another, and to pay other obligations or to
transfer money to oneself or a family member or another
person in a different country. This is also known as “P2P”
or person-to-person payments.
Consumer-to-Business (C2B) Commerce payments between an individual and a

business, primarily including payments for purchase of
goods and services from businesses abroad including the
internet (e.g., eCommerce, online marketplaces, tuition,
and education payments), payment of bills for services
directly to a provider abroad, payments resulting from
international tourism or business travel, and one-time
payments (e.g., investments).5
Business-to-Business (B2B) Commercial payments between businesses, such as one

involving a manufacturer and wholesaler, a wholesaler
and a retailer, or the government and a provider; covering
trade payments and the payment of invoices.
Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Payments between a business or a government and a

consumer for the purpose of fulfilling an obligation to a
consumer, primarily including payroll, marketplace
payments for the sale of goods and services, benefits
payments, government benefits to citizens living abroad,
and insurance disbursements.
5
Financial Stability Board. (2020, April 9). Enhancing Cross-Border Payments, Page 7, Figure 4. https://www.fsb.org/wp-
content/uploads/P090420-2.pdf
Page 5 of 28
The range of payment methods by use case is wide and varied. Consideration was given to not only the most
common methods but also those that are emerging and solve current challenges. See Appendix [1] for a list of
considered payment methods.
The typical payer and payee payment experience is primarily characterized by five dimensions. These
dimensions were defined using a combination of the Faster Payments Effectiveness Criteria6 and insights from
the Financial Stability Board technical background report on Enhancing Cross-Border Payments.7
User Experience Framework

Dimension Definition
The time it takes for a payee to receive good funds from a payer initiating a
Speed
cross-border payment.
The total cost of sending a cross-border payment for the payer and payee,
Cost including transaction fees, account fees, applied foreign exchange (FX)
conversion rates and fees, and liquidity cost for prefunding.
Ability of payer/payee to send/receive payments from any payer/payee

Ubiquity consistent with applicable legal restrictions and across multiple use cases and
in whatever funding mechanism or distribution channel that is convenient.
Availability of advance disclosures related to cost, speed, risk, and payments

Transparency
status related to the payment.
Having in place the structures, policies, and procedures to instill confidence in

cross-border payment processing. This includes, but is not limited to, the
following:
− Security Controls that protect confidential, private, and sensitive data.
− Appropriate legal and regulatory protection frameworks for all
Risk
participants (consumers/individuals, corporates, governments) and
procedures that allocate legal and financial responsibility, which also
support error resolution for all payment types.
− Governance that establishes frameworks and procedures to clarify the
rights and obligations of all users, providers, payers, and payees.
6
Faster Payments Task Force. (n.d.). Effectiveness Criteria. Retrieved May 3, 2021 from https://fasterpaymentstaskforce.org/meet-the-
task-force/effectiveness-
criteria/#:~:text=The%20Effectiveness%20Criteria%20identify%20desired,Speed%2C%20Legal%2C%20and%20Governance.&text=The%2
0Effectiveness%20Criteria%20are%20not,requirements%20for%20faster%20payments%20solutions
7
Financial Stability Board. (2020, April 9). Enhancing Cross-Border Payments. https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P090420-2.pdf
Page 6 of 28
Use Case Experience Requirements
Each use case has specific user needs that are determined by the type of participant as well as the intended
outcome of the payment experience. For each of the cross-border user segments, there needs to be an
understanding of the unique requirements within the user experience framework. These nuances will help
payment service providers to better calibrate their products and services toward delivering more customer
delight.
Consumer-to-Consumer (C2C)
The two most critical problems to solve for C2C use cases are Speed and Cost, regardless of the payment size
being a high-value or low-value remittance.8 9
High-value remittances are typically used for any type of payment including invoices or other obligations,
whereas low-value remittances typically refer to money sent to a family member or another person in a
different country.10 In both cases, users need to have funds delivered quickly, with minimal to no deductions
applied.
Cost
Often with C2C remittances, small amounts are sent frequently, so cost is a major consideration for both the
payer and payee. High fees can be prohibitive and potentially divert customers to informal value transfer
systems. If deductions from the principal adversely impact the value received, consumers may be forced to
search for lower cost alternatives. Aside from prohibitively expensive fees, FX rates can be expensive.
Speed
Speed is vital when providing for family expenses, addressing emergencies, paying obligations, or transferring
funds between personal accounts. Delays in receipt can lead to additional fees or penalties, and “in transit”
funds also do not earn dividends or interest. Transactions require compliance with regulations, particularly as
applicable to OFAC scanning or Regulation E11 requirements introduced by Dodd-Frank12 that are related to
disclosure of rates, fees, and timeframes to protect consumers sending money electronically to foreign
8
Faster Payments Task Force. (2016, January 26). Faster Payments Effectiveness Criteria. Fed Payments Improvement.
https://fedpaymentsimprovement.org/wp-content/uploads/fptf-payment-criteria.pdf
9
Financial Stability Board. (2020, October 13). Enhancing Cross-Border Payments: Stage 3 roadmap.
https://www.fsb.org/2020/10/enhancing-cross-border-payments-stage-3-roadmap/
10
Murphy, Chris. (2021, February 19). Remittance. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/remittance.asp
11
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (n.d.). Summary of the final remittance transfer rule (amendment to Regulation E). Retrieved
May 3, 2021 from https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201305_cfpb_remittance-transfer-rule_summary.pdf
12
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd Frank) is a sweeping reform legislation enacted in 2010 to
reorganize significant aspects of the U.S. Financial Regulatory System after the Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and the ensuing “Great
Recession.” Among the changes included the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB), which has oversight as to
protection of consumers with respect to payments, mortgages, investments among other financial activities.
Page 7 of 28
countries. Additional efforts to ensure such compliance should be ameliorated by developments in regulatory
technology (RegTech)13.
Transparency
C2C remittances frequently have limited data transport capabilities, meaning the payment message cannot
always convey additional information, such as a reference number or memo. There are multiple intermediaries
and systems involved in the transaction, resulting in the inability to reliably carry the full data set from the payer
to payee. Unknown to the payer or the sending institution, the receiving institution can add charges to the
received payment based on local country requirements, effectively reducing the value of the remittance. In
many cases, payers are unaware of the payee’s receipt of funds unless communication is directly established
outside of the delivered payment experience.
Risk
Risk, as it relates to payment delivery or exception handling, is also a key challenge. Although it might be
assumed by both payer and payee that there are frameworks and controls to ensure a timely and full delivery of
the payment, that is not always the case and funds can remain in limbo, without benefit to the remitter or payee
while investigations are undertaken.
Furthermore, given the lack of shared standards in a decentralized system, it is relatively difficult to ensure
compliance with the unique laws and regulations across multiple jurisdictions, increasing the overall risk profile
of cross-border transactions.
Consumer-to-Business (C2B)
Like C2C, the two most critical problems to solve for C2B use cases are Speed and Cost.
There is a wide range of payments available in the C2B segment, with certain use cases overlapping C2C and
others B2B. Whether online or in-store, cross-border payments for consumer-related commerce is usually
served by large global brands (e.g., Visa, Mastercard) without access to local payment systems. C2B payments
represent a broad continuum of value in payment transactions from relatively low value (e.g., retail purchase) to
high value (e.g., rare art, auto, education, etc.)
13
Frankenfield, Jake. (2020, August 27). What You Should Know About RegTech. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regtech.asp

Page 8 of 28
Speed
In C2B, “speed” for a consumer can mean “faster” or “slower” depending on the financing needs of the
individual, the urgency with which a payment needs to be completed, and in the case of a purchase, the type of
good or service (e.g., digital versus physical). In cases where a faster payment or certainty of the payment is
required (e.g., bill payment, certain one-time payments), some methods can be perceived as deficient, taking
several days. Traditionally this is because the payment needs to go through several correspondent banks where,
among other operations, regulatory compliance can impact the process. In other cases, such as the purchase of
digital goods, global card brands and digital wallets often suffice. For bill payment, there are also emerging
solutions to mirror a domestic biller direct model wherein billers provide instant confirmation of payment.
Additional efforts to ensure such compliance should be ameliorated by developments in regulatory technology
(RegTech)14.
Cost
Cost is a key discriminator for individuals making cross-border payments to businesses. Consumers are generally
sensitive to all costs, including currency conversion, which may be off-market FX rates, and associated fees.
Businesses also have a higher cost of accepting cross-border payments, whether in the form of higher
interchange costs in the case of card, or other forms of payment, Know Your Customer / Anti-Money Laundering
requirements also increase the total cost of ownership.
Business-to-Business (B2B)
B2B payments have challenges in Speed, Cost, and Transparency. Overcoming or minimizing these challenges
offers the greatest motivators to deliver the desired user experience in this segment.
There are several relatively well-defined payment types available in the B2B segment, with certain use cases
overlapping other segments. Since the B2B segment encompasses business entities with a broad continuum of
sophistication, there is by necessity a bit of generalization in the discussion of this segment.
Speed
B2B payments represent the largest share of value of payments exchanged. There are potentially large systemic
benefits to decrease the elapsed duration for payments transactions writ large. These are manifested
particularly in the areas of corporate/business cash, working capital, and risk management for both payer and
payee. An intrinsic benefit to enhanced speed in the transaction is an overall reduction in risk and increased
transparency. Current limitations affecting the speed of transactions are the number of participants to the
transaction, inclusive of the currency management portion(s) and correspondent banks, as well as sovereign
oversight of incoming/outgoing transactions.
14
Frankenfield, Jake. (2020, August 27). What You Should Know About RegTech. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regtech.asp

Page 9 of 28
Cost
Another challenge for B2B cross-border transactions is cost.
With B2B payments, transaction size and fees vary widely, where fees on larger transactions are nominally
multiples of smaller transactions and fees on smaller transactions can be a significant percentage of notional
value.
In addition to bank fees, a cost associated with all cross-border transactions is the facilitation of the foreign
exchange (FX) inherent to the transaction. This is especially true with the types of large transactions inherent to
the B2B payment experience. The FX market is an “over-the-counter” market by nature, and therefore subject
to potential variations in the bid/ask levels of currencies involved. This bid/ask spread may be augmented by a
service provider or by additional spread required by financial institution or Fintech intermediaries for access to
FX market. These intermediaries can add cost as well as a negative impact on the transparency of rates and fees
within the payment.
Lastly, there are costs to connect and manage corporate internal systems, such as financial accounting systems,
inventory tracking, and management systems that need to interface with the B2B payments system. In today’s
payment systems, a lack of interoperability usually means these costs are multiplied by the number of disparate
payment system connections required by the business operations.
There are at least two possible paths to improving the cost of cross-border transactions. The first is enhancing
the extant processes via automation. As and when automation creates more efficient cross-border B2B
transactions, there is the possibility that this may allow greater competition to drive costs down. Additionally,
new processes/models may emerge that have significantly less friction (and therefore cost). A hypothetical
example could be if a transaction could be done with fewer intermediaries and settled directly between two
banks, no matter their size, and the potential use of multiple correspondent banks eliminated, the cost could be
reduced.
Transparency
Today, significant upgrades and internal systems are required within businesses to achieve greater transparency
into payment processes. This is no small ask from the corporates who will need to fund such a set of
investments. An additional, and not insignificant, consideration is the number and range of existing technology
and service providers.

Page 10 of 28
Several practical issues that may diminish transparency include:
1. Vendors/solution providers already in situ in critical path operations may decide not to adapt this
new standard.
2. Existing manual processes and exception handling will be challenging (and expensive) to
accommodate. Edge cases always consume a disproportionate amount of resources.
3. New or newly needed integrations between service providers and the need to establish a
governance structure to assure that compliance with agreed rules is maintained on both the
account and transaction levels.
Additional challenges to be addressed by the shift toward faster payments will be that participants in the cross-
border transaction need to reliably assess the status of their transactions and progress toward satisfaction. A
high level of transparency needs to be achieved to provide the payer and the payee with tools and access to
have real-time monitoring available to both the payer and payee.
Business-to-Consumer (B2C)
B2C payments have challenges in Speed, Cost, and Ubiquity, while Transparency is quickly becoming a greater
expectation within this user segment.
The vast majority of B2C payments are low value and traditionally bank dominated. New entrants are rapidly
emerging to provide a faster and more transparent service focused on these types of payments. Consumer
expectations continue to lean toward faster crediting of their accounts and transparency of payment status as a
key aspect of customer service and user experience. Consumers are sensitive to fees and exchange rates which
can vary depending on payment method. The challenge facing businesses is effectively delivering on the key
requirements for B2C payments below.
Speed
Speed is a key aspect of the payment experience for consumers awaiting payments from businesses. In payroll
cases, there is a global rise in the gig economy15 in which employees receiving payment on demand is becoming
more prevalent. Insurance disbursements are also more visible with the need to send assistance quickly to areas
impacted by major events such as natural disasters. Many of the top marketplaces have taken advantage of lag
time in their payments to sellers and offer financing and advances when these sellers need more immediate
liquidity, which benefits the payer and provides a market opportunity for the payee.
15
The Gig Economy refers to a labor market of short-term or freelance work rather than holding long-term or full-time permanent jobs.
Page 11 of 28
Cost
Cost is another critical user experience dimension for B2C payments. Consumers and businesses are sensitive to
currency conversion and associated fees.
Ubiquity
The majority of B2C payments (including government-to-consumer) are made to bank accounts. This reliance on
bank-to-bank transfers limits the number of total accessible consumers globally as it would not reach those
consumers without traditional bank accounts. That said, the emergence of global payment Fintech companies
has provided access to various payment rails which also expands the number of accessible consumer accounts
abroad.
Transparency
The rise of these Fintech companies also has highlighted the need for increased transparency in payment status
and fees.
User Experience Conclusion

Cross-border payments use cases can be segmented into four broad categories: C2C (Consumer-to-Consumer),
C2B (Consumer-to-Business), B2B (Business-to-Business), and B2C (Business-to-Consumer). The user
requirements of each segment vary depending on the nature of the experience; however, each payment
experience can be evaluated across the dimensions of Speed, Cost, Ubiquity, Transparency, and Risk. The
similarities and nuances of these needs require careful consideration when building systems that will deliver
faster cross-border payments.
Delivering Faster Cross-Border Payments

Based on the above on user experience requirements, the industry must consider how it can work together to
create payment systems that deliver the Speed, Cost, Transparency, and Ubiquity while adequately addressing
associated Risk. To achieve these goals, faster cross-border payment systems will need to incorporate
approaches to interoperability and settlement beyond what exists today. These aspects are explored below.
Interoperability Overview
Cross-border interoperability can create predictable user experiences to send and receive cross-border
payments regardless of the payee’s or payer’s access point in the global payment ecosystem. Interoperability is
required to expand the use of U.S. faster payment solutions to include the outlined user requirements for cross-
border payment experiences.

Page 12 of 28
From the user’s perspective, interoperability means a payment can be sent or received across systems and
currencies in a seamless manner that meets expectations across the dimensions of Speed, Cost, Ubiquity,
Transparency, and Risk. From a systems perspective, interoperability means the method used to create the
required cooperative relationships between complex systems of technology, payment operator rules, and
regulatory frameworks to deliver the desired user experience.
Interoperability Models
Interoperability defines the relationships between participant institutions to allow the necessary cooperation for
cross-border payments. These relationships form the foundation for the various settlement models explored
across existing and evolving system designs. The paper outlines three models with an aim to: (1) highlight how
each model operates across the movement of information (messaging) and the movement of money
(settlement), and (2) offer considerations for pros and cons. Details on the various forms of settlement within
these models are covered later.
Cross-Border Interoperability Model Description
Interoperability Model Description
Bespoke Point-to-point messaging and settlement relationships between

institutions set up and negotiated on a one-off basis. Each system
participant is responsible for creating and maintaining relationships
with other network participants. Interoperability is established
through "many-to-many" relationships.
Centralized Hub-and-spoke messaging and settlement relationships between

institutions with an intermediary acting the central connecting entity.
A hub system where a single messaging and settlement relationship
with an intermediary allows access to all other network participants.
Interoperability is established through a "one-to-many" relationship.
Hybrid A multi-hub system inclusive of intermediaries where a single

messaging and settlement relationship allows access to an
interconnected network of participants.
Bespoke Interoperability
The bespoke approach to interoperability is the default approach for today’s cross-border payments. The use of
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) for messaging and a network of
correspondent banks for settlement is an example of bespoke interoperability. In this model, institutions form
tailored relationships with other institutions and domestic payment systems to create the messaging and
settlement agreements to allow for cross-border payments. Usually, messaging and settlement functions are
handled and managed by different network operators.
Page 13 of 28
Diagram of bespoke interoperability between various participants:
When implemented by banks with a large correspondent network, the bespoke approach delivers ubiquity.
Further, comprehensive implementation of SWIFT gpi (global payment initiative) and adherence to these
protocols by the network participants potentially will improve the transparency16 of the transaction which, in
turn, will improve relative speed of the transaction.17 Each participant can define requirements based on specific
needs, including who participates and what regulatory and governance requirements need to be addressed at
the institutional and government levels.
However, ubiquity often comes at the expense of speed, cost, and transparency. In order to facilitate payments
to institutions where a direct relationship does not exist, chains of institutions are required to pass the payment
and related transaction details along the established point-to-point relationships. Each relationship is a potential
point of failure.
Centralized Interoperability
A centralized approach to interoperability requires an operator to act as the single point of connectivity for
network participants across messaging and settlement. This operator dictates the standards, rules, and
governance to the network creating standardization for all participants. This model substantially improves the
user experience in the dimensions of speed and cost but is challenged with building ubiquity.
16
SWIFT. (2020, October). SWIFT gpi Driving a Payments Revolution. https://www.swift.com/swift-resource/249536/download
17
Note: This may not be fully addressed from the Faster Payments effectiveness criteria.
Page 14 of 28
Diagram of centralized interoperability between various participants:
The centralized interoperability model allows for significant reductions in cost and increases in speed, while
delivering a high level of transparency to all users. Since the central network operator has control over defining
system requirements for all participants and the aggregation of a substantial economy of scale with regard to
payment operations and liquidity, payment experiences have the potential to be optimized.
The centralized model is presumed to run on an independent network, with benefits potentially accruing only to
those who participate. This level of centralization and system control also means ubiquity is challenging;
participants need to be motivated to rely on a single operator.

Page 15 of 28
Emerging Technologies for Interoperability
Blockchain based payment networks have the potential to decrease the necessity for trusted
intermediaries and centralized governance. The entity acting as the single operator could potentially be
replaced by a blockchain payment network. In this model, instead of trusted counterparties to facilitate
value exchange, an autonomous ledger technology can act as a central point where participants connect
to transact with each other. The decentralized autonomy of the ledger is a result of the technical system
of validation used to conduct payments through open and distributed computing networks. The
blockchain technology allows each participant to utilize, maintain and validate the payment
infrastructure required for peer-to-peer value transfers that are fast, transparent, and cost effective.
Cryptocurrency blockchain-based networks use novel units of monetary value that are not managed by
Central Banks and can be transacted simply and without interaction with any traditional financial
institution. These assets have the benefit of acting without any trusted counterparties. While this may
have the added benefit of faster and potentially cheaper payments, price volatility of the novel asset is a
natural inhibitor of payment adoption. In other cases, “stablecoins'' can be leveraged to mitigate price
volatility for payment use cases. A stablecoin is an asset-backed cryptocurrency where the value is
stabilized by a ratio of fiat currency held by a financial institution. The downside of these stablecoins is
that while price volatility is mitigated, the reliance and trust of a custody counterparty reintroduces
counterparty risks that are not present with other cryptocurrencies.
These emerging technologies and networks will further open for consideration the concept of digital
currencies while Central Banks continue to develop guidelines for regulated adoption. On a global scale,
these new systems introduce new risk considerations and payment frameworks that are still to be
defined.
Hybrid Interoperability
In a hybrid approach to interoperability networks, participants, and technologies work in cooperation to allow
connectivity between their respective systems to leverage the benefits of the bespoke and centralized models
while mitigating the defects. The mix and match capabilities of this approach have the potential to seamlessly
facilitate transaction messaging and settlement among the participants of the respective networks.
Hybrid models, for example, work to establish and utilize their broad international network for seamless
messaging communication across the network participants. At the same time, new technologies potentially
ensure immutable transaction processing and messaging for the purpose of transaction speed and accuracy.
The settlement risk also can be reduced to a minimum, where all network participants use good funds
settlement, although various settlement models can be seamlessly adapted.
Page 16 of 28
Beneficiary banks not participating on the hybrid network still can benefit by exploring correspondent banking
relations to expand their reach and to better serve their customers. Furthermore, the correspondent bank may
use the local payments market infrastructure to settle the transaction with the beneficiary’s bank. Eventual
growth of hybrid networks with more and more direct participants will reduce a need for correspondent banks.
Apart from speed, the hybrid model is also expected to bring the benefits of transparency (as in the centralized
model) and may also partially address ubiquity due to the wider reach that can be achieved through
correspondent banking mechanisms. However, cost challenges may persist (to a lesser degree) because of the
initial infrastructural investment by network operators.
This model has the potential to represent the truest form of interoperability. The key requirement for the hybrid
model is for cooperation and coordination of payment operators and regulators to fuse the bespoke and
centralized models with the additional advantage of available digital technologies into a superset that provides
consumers, businesses, and governments with a faster, more ubiquitous, and less costly cross-border payment
experience. A comprehensive operating model framework needs to evolve to get the best out of the hybrid
interoperability model.

Page 17 of 28
Settlement Overview
Within each interoperability model, the various participants have the option of determining the method for the
exchange of value. The movement of funds is critical - it constitutes the end goal of the payer and payee, which
is to transfer value between parties. This paper considers the types of settlement possibilities that can be
employed across interoperability models in the section below. These options primarily affect the user
experience with a trade-off between cost and speed.
Settlement Models
Cross-Border Settlement Model Description
Settlement Model Description
Real-Time Gross Settlement Settlement where each payment is submitted individually and
instantly without batching or netting.
Deferred Net Settlement Settlement where payments are held to a predefined settlement
cycle when obligations are calculated and netted against each
other prior to settlement.
Hybrid Settlement Settlement where payments are either submitted instantly or

held for programmatically determined settlement cycles for
netting prior to settlement.
Each of the interoperability models discussed in previous section has direct relevance to various settlement
models listed above and has pros and cons with respect to the Faster Payments Effectiveness Criteria. Please
refer to Appendix [2] for details.
Real-Time Gross Settlement
Real-time gross settlement (RTGS) refers to a settlement process that allows for the near-instantaneous transfer
of funds typically leveraging pre-funded accounts. In this model, funds are quickly transferred between
participants or systems, resulting in the fastest possible settlement times.
RTGS requires pre-funding of accounts or access to liquidity to settle a payment instantly. This liquidity
requirement makes this model the fastest but also the most expensive.

Page 18 of 28
Deferred Net Settlement
Deferred Net Settlement refers to a funds transfer system that allows for netting of payments between
participants prior to settlement. This allows for a highly capital efficient funds transfer since offsetting inbound
payments with outbound payments decreases the size of pre-funded accounts or amount of liquidity needed. In
these deferred netting schemes, payments are held over periods of time to allow for netting to take place. This
creates a slower transfer experience but allows for lower payment costs.
This net settlement requirement makes this model the slowest but also the least expensive.
Hybrid Settlement
Hybrid settlement is a cross between RTGS and Deferred Net Settlement. Based on system parameters, certain
payments are submitted for RTGS while other payments, primarily determined by payment size, are held for
deferred net settlement. This offers opportunities for complex and dynamic payment queueing schemes where
first-in, first-out processing is bypassed, and payments are netted on a best-match basis.
The hybrid model is a moderately fast and inexpensive alternative between straight RTGS and Deferred Net
Settlement schemes. While it has the potential to better accommodate various user experience requirements
through a single model, the additional complexity from reconciliation operations and liquidity make the model
more difficult to operate.

Page 19 of 28
Interoperability & Settlement Models Fit vis-a-vis User Experience Framework
The underlying interoperability and settlement models of a Faster Payments ecosystem will have a direct impact
on the end user experience and effectiveness criteria as outlined. The associated matrix (shown below) is not
meant to be conclusive, rather it indicates with respect to a particular dimension whether a model is
directionally positive, directionally neutral, or directionally negative.
By way of example, in case of interoperability, speed in a bespoke model is a consistent challenge, moderated by
“single-hop” transactions between large networks. This is represented as mostly negative. In a centralized
model, most of the dimensions are directionally positive since the network player can directly operate between
participating service providers by avoiding any intermediaries. This mechanism can continue even in hybrid
model, with appropriate operating framework in place for all the network players.
Similarly, cost can vary based on the number of hops in a transaction, with bespoke likely having more multi-hop
transactions than either the centralized or hybrid models.
In case of ubiquity, bespoke models are known for ease of access (and hence, directionally positive), whereas
centralized models are directionally neutral since access points for sophisticated network operators will have
some challenges. These challenges may be addressed to a great extent in hybrid models.

Page 20 of 28
Impact Areas
While this paper has considered the interoperability and settlement methods currently available to meet user
experience needs, there are many other considerations that payment service providers must consider when
building cross-border faster payments systems. Most notably, participants will need to work toward
standardized message structures to promote Straight Through Processing (STP) and reduce exception handling
and reconciliation issues, all of which can impact speed.
Similarly, the other potential impacted area is payee identification or Alias Directory. These directories are
known to increase STP, a function of speed which is a vital in case of cross-border transaction. Building and
managing such directories in domestic context could be relatively simpler, however there will be potential
challenges to build international payer/payee directories due to wide variety of regulatory issues including but
not limited to user consent under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The extension of faster payments availability (24 x 7 x 365) to cross-border requires Foreign Exchange availability
either to payee or payer whenever working through cross-currency transactions.
Lastly, cross-border payments have all the risks of domestic payments such as risk of counterparty default or
delayed payments from lack of liquidity at the receiving institution. The challenges will be exacerbated to the
extent that faster payments are irrevocable in nature and interactions between different global payment
systems are governed by different regulations.
Delivering a Faster Payments Cross-Border System

As user demands continue to grow, the payments industry must act to meet customers’ demand for faster,
safer, and more secure payments. As outlined in this paper, differences in user needs mean there will not be a
one-size-fits-all solution. Instead, interoperability between systems is required along with the flexibility to
extend support to include hybrid models of moving information and value.
Faster payments inherently highlight characteristics of speed, cost, transparency, ubiquity, and risk in a payment
transaction. The way money moves today across borders involves a complex network of pairs of banking
partners and equivalent handshakes making all the required characteristics of faster payments difficult to
achieve. While this paper endeavors to outline and discuss the myriad challenges involved with cross-border
interoperability and settlement, achieving a faster payments cross-border system requires a multi-country
agreement about standards and cooperation. Influential payments industry groups, combined with national and
regional bodies that have been driving local faster payments, must come together to agree on methods of
interoperability, settlement, and messaging to provide a cross-border faster payment.18
18
There are examples successfully working to establish the multi-country/cross-border faster payments ecosystem today, including but
not limited to P27, a multi-country payment system in the Nordics, or the WAEMU and EAPS in West and East Africa, respectively.
Page 21 of 28
Thank you to the members of the FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group who contributed to this white paper.
● Kelvin Leung, Mastercard (Work Group Chair)

● Kandice Alter, Federal Reserve System
● Marcus Andrade, ABTC Corp.
● Maria Arminio, Avenue B Consulting
● Ronald Baker, Wells Fargo
● Michael Black, iSoftware4Banks, Inc.
● Jason Brett, Metal
● Sabrina Chin, Walmart
● Srinivas Chintakrinda, Volante Technologies
● Mark Corritori, Mastercard
● Craig DeWitt, Ripple
● Mark Dixon, NEACH
● Andrea Gildea, Wise
● Marshall Hayner, Metallicus, Inc.
● Ron Holland, Fexco Marketing North America
● Matt Loos, SWIFT
● David Manley, Catalyst Corporate Federal Credit Union
● John Morris, Federal Reserve Retail Payments Office
● Judy Nguyen, American Express
● Geetha Panchapakesan, Visa
● Katie Pierson, FirstBank
● Rodman Reef, Reef Karson Consulting, LLC
● Karen Shunk, EMVCo
● Mike Skelley, Wells Fargo
● Bill Thomas, United Nations Federal Credit Union
● Barry Tooker, iSoftware4Banks, Inc.
● Paul Vander Byl, ACI Worldwide
● Magdalena Wrobel, BMO Harris Bank

Page 22 of 28
A. Glossary of terms
Term Definition
Bilateral Settlement Bilateral net settlement systems are payment systems in which payments
are settled between two banks. Banks that send out more funds in
transfers than they receive (i.e., banks with a positive net settlement
balance) are credited with the difference, and banks with a negative net
settlement balance pay the difference. Bilateral settlement systems
require the final resolution of payments made between two banks over
the course of a day. These are due to be settled at the close of business,
typically via a transfer between their accounts at the central bank.
Deferred Net Settlement A system which settles on a net basis at the end of a predefined
settlement cycle (typically at the end of, but sometimes during, the
business day). They are settlement systems in which payment obligations
can be deferred to be paid at a later time, based on the agreement
between the parties involved.
Hybrid Settlement Model The hybrid mechanism is managed by an intermediary and is particularly
suitable to settle large volume of small-value retail payments. A hybrid
settlement mechanism integrates features of real-time gross settlement,
deferred net settlement, and central queue management structure.
Multilateral Settlement In a multilateral net settlement system, the parties settle once, on a net
(credits minus debits) basis with many other parties. Transfers received
by a bank are offset against those sent out – here, “transfers” refer to the
sum of all funds received and sent to banks that are part of the
settlement system.
If the sum is positive, the bank is said to be in a multilateral net credit

position; if the sum of transfers is negative, the bank is said to be in a
multilateral net debit position.
Net Settlement The settlement of transfer orders on a net basis. A funds or securities
transfer system which settles net settlement positions during one or
more discrete periods, usually at pre-specified times during the business
day.

Page 23 of 28
Real Time Gross A settlement system in which processing, and settlement takes place on a
Settlement (RTGS) transaction-by-transaction basis in real time.
OFAC Office of Foreign Assets and Control
Net Settlement vs. Gross An alternative payment/settlement system is the Real-Time Gross
Settlements Settlements System (RTGS), in which each transaction is settled with
immediate payments, unlike net settlements, which are summed up and
aggregated at the end of the day, before being paid.
Given that net settlements are not paid immediately, the risk of an
institution or bank defaulting on their debt is higher in the net settlement
system compared to the RTGS system, where default risk is.
SWIFT gpi SWIFT gpi is a new initiative by SWIFT to ensure cross-border payments
meet industry’s need for speed, transparency, and traceability of a
transaction. It allows banks to provide their customers with a rich
payments experience.

Page 24 of 28
Appendix [1]
USE CASE SEGMENT BY PAYMENT METHOD
Use Case Segment Range of Payment Methods Considered *
Consumer-to- ● High-Value
Consumer (C2C) o Bank transfers: Wire/SWIFT bank transfer
● Low-Value
o Bank/account to account transfers
▪ International Automated Clearing House - local clearing
▪ Fintechs such as TransferWise, Revolut, Xoom
o Agent transfers
▪ Agent-to-Agent (like Western Union) that allow for cash
pick up or delivery
o Mobile money deposit
▪ Payments to mobile money solutions, typically a service
offered by Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Money
Transfer Operators (MTOs) such as M-Pesa or WeChat Pay
o Card-based transfers
▪ Payments to debit/credit/prepaid cards leveraging card
networks (i.e., Mastercard Send, Visa Direct)
Consumer-to- ● High-Value
Business (C2B) o Bank transfers: Wire/SWIFT bank transfer
● Low-Value
o Global card brands
▪ Credit cards
▪ Direct transfer
o Digital wallets
▪ PayPal
o Bank transfers
o Agent transfers
▪ Agent to Agent (like Western Union)
o Mobile money deposit
▪ Payments to mobile money solutions, typically a service
offered by Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) and Money
Transfer Operators (MTOs) such as M-Pesa or WeChat Pay

Page 25 of 28
Business-to- ● High-Value
Business (B2B) o Bank transfers: Wire/SWIFT bank transfer
o Service Provider: i.e., Wise, Ripple, Payoneer, et alia
● Low-Value
o Bank transfers
o Service Providers
o Credit Card (predominantly business/corporate cards or personal
cards of business owners)
Business-to- ● High-Value
Consumer (B2C) o Bank transfers: Wire/SWIFT bank transfer (Insurance
Disbursements)
● Low-Value
o Bank transfers
▪ SWIFT/ Local Wire services
o Fintechs - Hyperwallet, Payoneer (Wages and Salaries)
o Digital Wallets
▪ PayPal
o Card-based transfers
▪ Payments to debit/credit/prepaid cards leveraging card
networks (i.e., Mastercard Send, Visa Direct)
o In-store accounts for storing value of sellers before cashing out
* References made to various organizations, institutions, fintechs or selective payment methods in this table are only examples or
general practices observed in the industry. This document in no way endorses or promote any of them or what-so-ever against the
respective use case segment.

Page 26 of 28
Appendix [2]
Faster Payments Cross-Border Settlement Models
Account Structure Settlement Mechanisms Pros Cons
In bespoke account structures it is very difficult -No centralized system risk -No standardization or rules
Point to point accounting to prescribe a settlement mechanism due to the -Most scalable method for -Most expensive settlement
relationships between one-off basis of relationships set up on a peer- geographic penetration model
institutions set up and to-peer basis. More than likely, the default -RTGS has the potential for instant -Payment visibility is a
Negotiated on
negotiated on a one-off basis. settlement mechanism is Real Time Gross payments challenge
point-to-point
Bespoke Each system participant is Settlement: The term real-time gross settlement
basis. Most
responsible for creating and (RTGS) refers to a funds transfer system that
likely RTGS
maintaining relationships allows for the near instantaneous transfer of
with other network money usually leveraging pre-funded accounts.
participants. "Many to Many"
Real-time gross settlement (RTGS) refers to a -Standardized technology and -Most Expensive Settlement
funds transfer system that allows for the near rules/regulations Model
RTGS instantaneous transfer of money usually -Fastest Settlement Model -Centralized System Risk
leveraging pre-funded accounts. -Payment status visibility
A deferred settlement model that allows for -Standardized technology and -Moderately Expensive
pending settlement payments until sufficient rules/regulations Settlement Model
Queueing liquidity is available on a first in, first out (FIFO) -Cost improvement over RTGS -Slower Settlement vs RTGS
A "hub" system where a basis. -Payment status visibility -Centralized System Risk
single accounting relationship
Centralized allows access to all other
A deferred netting scheme where FIFO -Standardized technology and -Slowest Settlement Model
network participants. "One to
Deferred Net payments are queued until netting opportunity rules/regulations -Usually requires a credit
Many"
Settlement is presented on a time basis, i.e., 12 hours. -Cost Effective Settlement backstop
-Payment status visibility -Centralized System Risk
A complex dynamic queueing scheme where -Standardized technology and -Complex Model that requires
FIFO is bypassed, and payments are netted on rules/regulations rules on payments sizes
Dynamic best match basis…optimize liquidity and -Lowest Cost at scale of all models -Requires substantial
Queueing minimize rejects. -Second Fastest Model behind transactions of similar volumes
RTGS -Centralized System Risk
-Payment status visibility potential

Page 27 of 28
Account Structure Settlement Mechanisms Pros Cons
Real-time gross settlement (RTGS) refers to a -Partially standardized technology -Most Expensive Settlement
funds transfer system that allows for the near and rules/regulations Model
instantaneous transfer of money usually -Centralized System Risk
RTGS
leveraging pre-funded accounts. -Fastest Settlement Model
-Payment status visibility potential
A deferred settlement model that allows for -Cost improvement over RTGS -Moderately Expensive
A multi "hub" system where a pending settlement payments until sufficient -Payment status visibility potential Settlement Model
single accounting relationship Queueing liquidity is available on a FIFO basis. -Slower Settlement vs RTGS
allows access to a subset of -Centralized System Risk
network participants but not
Hybrid
all. Multiple relationships
with various "hubs" are A deferred netting scheme where FIFO -Cost Effective Settlement -Slowest Settlement Model
required for full access to Deferred Net payments are queued until netting opportunity -Payment status visibility potential -Usually requires a credit
network participants. Settlement is presented on a time basis, i.e., 12 hours. backstop
-Centralized System Risk
Complex dynamic queueing scheme where FIFO -Lowest Cost at scale within Hybrid -Complex Model that requires
is bypassed, and payments are netted on best -Second Fastest Model behind rules on payments sizes
Dynamic match basis…optimize liquidity and minimize RTGS within Hybrid -Requires substantial
Queueing rejects. -Payment status visibility potential transactions of similar volumes
-Centralized System Risk

Page 28 of 28

FPC Cross Border White Paper - 06-2021 - FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FPC Cross Border White Paper - 06-2021 - FINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FPC Cross Border White Paper - 06-2021 - FINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross-Border Faster Payments

Interoperability & Settlement Models Fit vis-a-vis User Experience Framework

Summary on Delivering a Faster Payments Cross-Border System

 Respect for Sovereign Requirements - Cross-border payments are, by nature, multi-jurisdictional or

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

Cross-Border User Case Segments

Consumer-to-Consumer (C2C) Remittances or non-commerce payments between one

Consumer-to-Business (C2B) Commerce payments between an individual and a

Business-to-Business (B2B) Commercial payments between businesses, such as one

Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Payments between a business or a government and a

User Experience Framework

Ability of payer/payee to send/receive payments from any payer/payee

Availability of advance disclosures related to cost, speed, risk, and payments

Having in place the structures, policies, and procedures to instill confidence in

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

Another challenge for B2B cross-border transactions is cost.

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

User Experience Conclusion

Delivering Faster Cross-Border Payments

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

Cross-Border Interoperability Model Description

Interoperability Model Description

Bespoke Point-to-point messaging and settlement relationships between

Centralized Hub-and-spoke messaging and settlement relationships between

Hybrid A multi-hub system inclusive of intermediaries where a single

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

Settlement Model Description

Hybrid Settlement Settlement where payments are either submitted instantly or

Real-Time Gross Settlement

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

Delivering a Faster Payments Cross-Border System

● Kelvin Leung, Mastercard (Work Group Chair)

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

If the sum is positive, the bank is said to be in a multilateral net credit

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

OFAC Office of Foreign Assets and Control

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

Use Case Segment Range of Payment Methods Considered *

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

Account Structure Settlement Mechanisms Pros Cons

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

FPC Cross-Border Payments Work Group

You might also like