Page 97 - ITU-T Focus Group Digital Financial Services – Interoperability

ITU-T Focus Group Digital Financial Services
Interoperability

Credit Supervised Unsupervised Other Postal Exchange
Unions MTOs Cooperatives Cooperatives MFIs network bureaus Other
Euro area (10) 3 2 3 0 4 2 1 0

Other European Union mem- 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 1
bers (10)

Other developed countries (9) 4 2 2 1 1 4 1 3

Notes:

1. Source: World Bank Group, Global Payment Systems Survey 2012 (adaptation of Table IX.3).
2. The "Total worldwide" figure of 96 represents the number of central banks that answered this section
of the GPSS 2012. Some central banks represent more than one country (e.g., BCEAO, ECB, ECCB).
3. Numbers in the table represent the number of central banks that answered positively each question.

4. "Other developed countries" refers to developed countries outside the European Union.
With regard to direct access of non-banks to ACHs, the numbers are not very different from those discussed
in the previous sub-section on access to RTGS systems.

Credit unions, supervised cooperatives and postal networks are the non-bank types with better direct access
to ACHs. However, in none of these cases the share of countries where these entities enjoy direct access to
ACHs exceeds 20%. Exchange bureaus and, unsurprisingly, unsupervised cooperatives show lower access
figures than other non-banks.

Direct access to ACHs is more common in Latin America and the Caribbean region, Euro area-countries and
developed countries outside the EU. Direct access of credit unions is stronger in these regions than in others.

Direct access of postal networks is especially strong in developed countries outside the EU (44% of the cases).
Interestingly, the Middle East and North Africa region postal networks are the only non-banks with direct access
to ACHs, in 2 out of 6 countries (33% of the cases) that responded the GPSS 2012.

6 Insights and conclusions

A. Implications for operators, banks and non-banks

Being able to make use of key payment infrastructures at a reasonable cost and with appropriate service
levels is an important element underlying a competitive payments market. In addition, by further enabling
interoperability of PSPs, fair and open access to payment infrastructures promotes efficient and low-cost
payment services.

As mentioned in sub-section III.A, both direct access and indirect access mechanisms to payment infrastructures
could, in principle, be capable of providing PSPs with suitable payment services. However, in certain cases
indirect access may not be as effective for many customer PSPs. This could occur because customer PSPs are
often direct competitors of the PSP(s) that provides them access to the payments infrastructure (i.e., the PSP
acting as principal).

For example, charges applied by the latter PSP may be significantly higher than the ones it itself faces as a direct
participant of the relevant payments infrastructure, even after due consideration of the amortization of the
investments needed to gain such direct access. Naturally, this would place customer PSPs at a disadvantage if
they are serving the same market segment as their principals.

87