Wise vs SWIFT & Correspondent Banking
Former Market Infrastructure Executive at Swift
inpractise.com/articles/wise-comparison-with-swift-and-correspondent-banking
Wise vs SWIFT & Correspondent Banking(October 21, 2024)
Former Market Infrastructure Executive at Swift
Interview Transcript
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
Why was GPI a success and SwiftGo was not? I think I'm reading between the lines, but it sounds like Go was not a success not because banks didn't adopt it, but because it wasn't in Swift's interest.
GPI was developed by Swift to respond on behalf of banks to Wise. It plays to Swift's sweet spot, the cross border payments, which are predominantly high value, but it's not just that. The payment route GPI created enabled for the first time, end to end tracking and visibility. The banks involved in the GPI chain had to commit to sending the money on as soon as they received it. SLAs were in play and introduced, and they could no longer sit on the funds, which they happily would have done. I was a correspondent banker many decades ago and I know they would sit on the cash. There was no SLA and they had no desire or need or requirement to track the payments.
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
What is that organization? I've read about it, and it seems like a global task force. I thought they had a project, maybe related to CBDCs. I can't recall exactly.
Let's discuss the pain points, specifically the major ones. Traditionally, banks are not 24/7, but they must be for instant payments to meet service level agreements. For domestic instant payment systems, they must operate 24/7, 365 days a year. However, cross-border payments introduce complexity. Their back-office operations aren't 24/7, 365. That's the first issue.
This is a snippet of the transcript, sign up to read more.
Related Content
Copyright Notice
This document may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including resale of any part, unauthorised distribution to a third party or other electronic methods, without the prior written permission of IP 1 Ltd.
IP 1 Ltd, trading as In Practise (herein referred to as "IP") is a company registered in England and Wales and is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer, and is not licensed nor qualified to provide investment advice.
In Practise reserves all copyright, intellectual and other property rights in the Content. The information published in this transcript (“Content”) is for information purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for making any investment decision. Information provided by IP is to be used as an educational tool and nothing in this Content shall be construed as an offer, recommendation or solicitation regarding any financial product, service or management of investments or securities. The views of the executive expressed in the Content are those of the expert and they are not endorsed by, nor do they represent the opinion of In Practise. In Practise makes no representations and accepts no liability for the Content or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies will in no way be held liable for any potential or actual violations of laws, including without limitation any securities laws, based on Information sent to you by In Practise.
© 2024 IP 1 Ltd. All rights reserved.