Etude PwC sur la norme de paiement européenne SEPA (2013)


Published on
Cette étude, conduite par PwC en janvier 2013, analyse les réponses de 293 entreprises présentes dans 22 pays sur la maturité de leurs organisations face à la mise en œuvre de cette transition au SEPA.

Published in: Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Etude PwC sur la norme de paiement européenne SEPA (2013)

  1. 1. PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer State of play with one year to goJanuary 2013
  2. 2. PwC firms help organisations and individuals create the value they’re looking for. We’re a network of firms in 158 countries with more than 180,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, tax and advisory services. Tell us what matters to you and find out more by visiting us at SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 2
  3. 3. ContentsPreface 4Executive summary 5SEPA: Single Euro Payment Area 6Readiness planning 10Scope definition 15Risk management 18Respondents demography 20More information 24 3
  4. 4. PrefaceIn 12 months’ time, we will reach This deadline applies not only to the The key findings that 55% of organisationsa major milestone in the journey payment industry, but also to organi­ ations s are at risk of missing the February 2014towards a harmonised European that exchange cashflow in euros and deadline, and that half of the respondentspayments market. As of 1 February within Europe. Non-compliance implies are not sure about their clients being able potential delays in processing, unnecessary to comply, should sound some alarm bells2014, national payment products reparation costs and increased operating with management.denominated in euros in most costs, with potentially serious cashflowEuropean countries will be replaced consequences. We hope that snapshot of the current ‘stateby the SEPA Credit Transfer and SEPA of play’ not only creates a sense of urgency,Direct Debit, and national clearing With 12 months still to go, PwC Corporate but also provides practical guidance tohouses will be integrated into a pan- Treasury Solutions surveyed its network create the required focus, and to makeEuropean clearing infrastructure; on ‘SEPA readiness’. This SEPA Readiness SEPA readiness a priority for this year fortransferring a euro amount across Thermometer report evaluates the organisations with business denominatedthe SEPA area will be the same as responses of 293 respondents that are in euros.transferring the amount in-country. deeply involved in the SEPA readiness projects of their organisations. On behalf If you would like to discuss your of the team, I would like to take the company’s SEPA readiness efforts and opportunity to thank all respondents for determine how best to move forward to Corporate Treasury Solutions their open responses and, above all, for the meet the 1 February 2014 deadline, please We are 500 professionals working in valuable time they spent on this survey. contact us. A list of contacts per territory is 150 countries who specialise in corpo- included on page 24. rate treasury. Our specialists combine The general impression that emerges from a variety of professional backgrounds the analysis is that most organi­ ations s including treasurers, bankers, system approach their SEPA readiness as a multi- Sebastian di Paola, developers, accountants, integrators territory and multi-disciplinary project. ­­ Global Head of Corporate Treasury and management consultants. We A less comforting impression is that Solutions have been awarded the TMI award for many respondents have an incomplete Innovation and Excellence for the understanding of, and underestimate, twelfth consecutive year. what being SEPA-ready entails.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 4
  5. 5. Executive summaryFrom 1 February 2014, The responses leave a clear impression on • ess than half of the respondents call Lclearing for euro transactions us that organizations underestimate the upon external expertise to completewill be harmonised across many impact of the 1 February 2014 deadline. the task at hand;different jurisdictions. SEPA Credit Most organizations have to step up their • alf of the respondents rely on their HTransfers and SEPA Direct Debits will effort in order to be sufficiently prepared banks as their prime advisor for their for the migration. Some of the rather SEPA project;replace standard national payment disturbing findings include: • lthough organisations clearly aim at Aproducts denominated in euros in leveraging SEPA for more efficiency andmost European countries. This will • 1.6% of all respondents have yet to 2 cost reduction, most respondents forbe a major milestone in the journey define and plan their SEPA readiness now focus on compliance to the SEPAtowards a harmonised European activities; requirements and parked efficiency forpayments market, which started in • ew organizations, including those F a second phase after February 2014;2000 with the adoption of the Lisbon that put a project plan in place, have a • ystem related work streams are clearly SAgenda for a more competitive comprehensive scope defined; e.g. less keeping respondent awake. 81% of allinternal market. than 30% of all respondents included respondents rate these as the number review and update of master data in one concern with an average score ofWith only one year left before the their scope and less than 20% involved 1.5 on a scale of one to three. Othereuro separate national payment clearing HR, legal and sales departments in their concerns like customer readiness andmarkets will be migrated to an integrated, project. These statistics are even worse general project risk are ranked as apan-European payment market, PwC for those organisations that have yet to top 3 priority by 21.1% and 2.7% ofsurveyed readiness of organizations across plan their SEPA readiness activities; the respondents respectively.the globe. This report summarises the • 3.5% of the respondents that have 4findings based on 293 respondents to the planned their readiness, expect to These findings combined let us to22 topical questions we put in front of them. complete their project uncomfortably believe that some 55% of all organiza- close to the deadline of 1 February 2014. tions will miss or are at an increased risk • 3% of all respondents is not confident 4 of missing the 1 February 2014 milestone. that the majority of their customers If our believe would materialise, all will be ready on time. Only 17% is organisations, the payments industry and confident that at least the majority of politicians should need to brace themselves their customers will be ready. Yet less for a major hiccup in payment processing than 20% of all respondents indicate in the period immediately after 1 February that sales and procurement is involved 2014. Consequently all participants should in the project; prepare for a worst case scenario.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 5
  6. 6. SEPA: Single Euro Payment AreaThe SEPA project for a common This 2014 milestone brings an end to Despite being a major milestone,European payments market is an era of dual payment infrastructure for 1 February 2014 does not complete therapidly approaching an important banks and clearing houses, which started common European Payments Market.milestone. As of 1 February, 2014 on 28 January 2008 when the first SEPA Most Member States have been grantedall ACH and direct debit instructions credit transfers were processed. While an exemption for one or more local 28 January 2008 was important for the electronic payment products that are notwithin the EU and the European payments industry itself, it had little highly compatible with the current SEPAEconomical Area denominated in impact on businesses and consumers. Standards for Credit Transfer (SCT) andeuros have to comply with the The milestone of 1 February 2014 will be Direct Debit (SDD). In the next few years,SEPA standard. different. As of that day, domestic clearing these exempted products will be replaced transactions within EU Member States – by a SEPA-compatible scheme. more than 90% of all transactions in Europe – will have to be provided to banks in SEPA SEPA is built on the XML ISO 20022 format. This means that transactions will technical standard; it assures a far richer no longer be processed auto­ atically when m end–to-end messaging between payer the Basic Bank Account Numbers (BBAN) and payee than any of the national and clearing numbers or branch codes are standards it replaces, with the aim of provided. Instead, the payer will have to improving straight-through processing at provide the IBAN and often also the BIC. all processing stages. The bank statement SEPA also provides a common standard for resulting from a SEPA transaction will Direct Debit Mandate Management, which contain more detail, which can be as of 1 February 2014 will be mandatory used for auto-matching. So tracing and for local direct debit transactions. Local file auto-matching of statement items will formats will become obsolete or, at best, become more effective and efficient. will have to be updated to capture the new data elements.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 6
  7. 7. PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 7
  8. 8. Why SEPA?SEPA is one of the initiatives of the 2001 Banks, clearing houses, software The mandatory SEPA RulebookLisbon Agenda for a more competitive vendors and some organisations worked includes the standardised processing ofinternal market aimed at levelling the together in the European Payment remittance details. Remittance detailsplaying-field for cross-border business. Council (EPC) defining the project will be communicated with the paymentAs the acronym indicates, the objective scope, agreeing on standards and instruction. This allows for alternativeis a common market for payment implementation roadmaps, and making routing of information between payer andprocessing across Europe comparable to recommendations to the European payee. The XML ISO 20022 standard forany efficient domestic clearing market. Commission – for example, regarding SEPA has broader reference fields thanThe European Commission’s intention the adoption of harmonised legislation most of the national standards it replaces,for SEPA has always been to promote by mean of the Payments Service and it has rigid guidelines for usingcompetition among payment service Directive (PSD). them in a structured way. When fullyproviders and reduce the cost per adopted, this part of SEPA may improvetransaction. As of 1 February 2014, the monopoly of auto-matching significantly across all national clearing houses on domestic organisations. However, the benefits ofPrior to SEPA, the processing of markets will end. All standard domestic more structured remittance informationeuro payments was fragmented and ACH and direct debit transactions (the will be somewhat offset in the shortdepended on correspondent banking. bulk of local payment volumes) will term by the effort of modifying existingEach Member State had its own clearing migrate to SCT or SDD. A German payer matching rules. The full potential of thissystem, and (corporate) citizens of one can instruct his German bank to pay a reconciliation will be achieved only whencountry could not use their local bank German and a Finnish beneficiary with the payer generates the XML format inaccount for paying a beneficiary in the same payment product from his the source system and the beneficiaryanother country at low cost. Although local account. The transaction cost and receives the bank statement in theEU commissioner Mr. Bolkestein forced terms and conditions for processing new CAMT format. Banks are offeringbanks to charge no more than domestic will be identical. In fact, the German solutions to include the more detailedtariffs for cross-border euro transac- payer could also open a euro account at and structured remittance detail in thetions under a specified threshold, banks a bank in London and pay his German widely used MT940 format, but withouthad to process them as international and Finnish beneficiaries with the same much success. Even the Structuredpayments. This implied that funds often product / file format (see figure 1). MT940 is not able to provide as rich andwere received five business days after as standardised a statement across allthe payer account had been debited banks. These intermediate bank-specific(see figure 1). solutions may therefore be useful but do not bring more standardisation.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 8
  9. 9. Another interesting feature in the XML Furthermore, the SEPA messaging ISO 20022 standard for SEPA is the standard includes structured return ability to define the ultimate payer and messages, which allow organisations beneficiary, who can be different from to track their payments easier and on the payer and payee. This feature allows a more timely basis. the payment and collection factory- processes that include ‘payments on behalf of’, or POBOs. Figure 1 - Payment processing before and after 1 February, 2014 Pre-SEPA (Cross Border) Payment SEPA (Cross Border) Payment $ $ $ $ $ $ DEBTOR DEBTOR CREDITOR CREDITOR $ $ $ $ PAYMENT ADVICE CREDITOR DEBTOR BANK CREDITOR BANK DEBTOR BANK CREDITOR BANK 1. Bilateral Clearing Country specific format 1. Bilateral Clearing $ $ CORRESPONDANT BANK CORRESPONDANT BANK 2. Automated Clearing House (ACH) 2. Automated Clearing House (ACH) Domestic Payment 3. Pan European Automated Clearing House (PEACH) Pan European Payment Standard SEPA format Remittance information Payment + Remittance informationPwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 9
  10. 10. Readiness planningThe impact of the 1 February 2014 They also need to make sure that a unique Companies with heterogeneous ITdeadline on organisations doing mandate reference number is included landscapes and those with in-house-business in one or more European in the SDD file each time a customer is developed systems are especially exposedcountry is material. All bank debited. Organisations have to review and to the risk of missing project deadlines, update a variety of processes and systems which in this case could have seriouscommunication regarding standard in many different locations across the consequences around being unable todomestic payments and receipts business in order to avoid delayed cashflow pay or receive. We have not queried thewill need to comply with the SEPA and additional error-handling costs after respondents on their companies’ policiesRulebook. Existing bank interfaces the deadline. regarding year-end system freezes andand master-data in any and all potential special arrangements madesystems that generate payments – Planning in advance is key for SEPA readiness.including, but not limited to, ERP to successful SEPA migrationand payroll – have to be reviewed Our SEPA Readiness Thermometer indicates The results summarised in figure 2 suggestand modified. Organisations that that some 21.6% of the companies have that some 55% of all organisations are likelyuse direct debits will also need to no SEPA Readiness Plan (yet). Almost half to miss, or at least run increased risk ofimplement the new Mandate of the 78.4% respondents that indicate missing, the deadline of 1 February 2014.Management requirements. Those having a SEPA Readiness Plan expect The responses also indicate that companies project completion either in the last quarter located outside the SEPA Area or locatedorganisations have to be sure that of 2013, early in 2014 or do not know in Southern Europe are significantly lesstheir customers are informed when it will be completed (figure 2). prepared, as they more frequently respondsufficiently in advance. that they have not planned their SEPA Given the complexity of SEPA readiness readiness and/or indicate more frequently in terms of the multitude of departments, that project completion is planned close to processes and systems involved and the the deadline. This conclusion is alarming wide geographical scope, these results not only for the individual organisations are rather disturbing. Complexity and the and project teams but also for their trading involvement of source systems such as ERP partners. are typically indicators of higher project risk and likely project delays.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 10
  11. 11. Figure 2 - Planned SEPA readiness split by companies that have planned and have not planned (yet) their activities SEPA Readiness Plan Available; No SEPA readiness planned (yet); 78,4% of respondents 21,6% of respondents 2%2% 4%4% 7%7% 3%3% 7%7% 13% 13% 7%7% 4%4% 6%6% Already completed Already completed 22% 22% Q1 Q1 2013 2013 11% 11% 2% Q2 Q2 2013 2013 4% 7% 3% 7% Q3 Q3 2013 2013 13% 14% 14% Q4 Q4 2013 2013 7% 4% February 1, 2014 February 1, 2014 2% 31% 31% WeWe will miss the dea will miss the deadlin I don’t know I don’t know 7% 7% (Blank) (Blank) 13% 6% 6%6% Already completed 2% 22% 4% Q1 2013 22% 22% 7% 11% 7% Q2 2013 6% 25% 25% Already completed Q3 2013 4% 19%19% 22% Q1 2013 Q4 2013 14% 11% Q2 2013 February 1, 2014 Already completed Q3 2013 We will miss the deadline of 1 February 2014 31% 22% SEPA Readiness Project Plan Available; 78,5% of of respondents SEPA Readiness Project Plan Available; 78,5% respondents Q1 2013 Q4 2013 No SEPA Readiness Project planned (yet); 23,3% of of respondents No SEPA Readiness Project planned (yet); 23,3% respondents I don’t know 11% 14% Q2 2013 February 1, 2014 (Blank) 6% Q3 2013 We will miss the deadline of 1 February 2014 Q4 2013 I don’t know22% February 1, 2014 (Blank) 6% We will miss the deadline of 1 February 2014 25% 22% I don’t know (Blank) 19% 6% 22% 25% 19%SEPA Readiness Project Plan Available; 78,5% of respondents No SEPA Readiness Project planned (yet); 23,3% of respondents PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 11 19%vailable; 78,5% of respondents No SEPA Readiness Project planned (yet); 23,3% of respondents
  12. 12. Checklist for successful SEPA readiness planning forecast and liquidity management reports?SEPA affects many different processes throughout the organisation Can we comply with the national migration plan for eachin several different ways. Although the impact will be felt by of the territory in which we continue to use direct debits?all organisations that pay and/or receive euro payments, each D o the general terms and conditions of our businessorganisation will have to assess the impact of SEPA for itself. incorporate all SEPA-related requirements? H ow do we ensure that all of our clients are able to pay usIt should be noted that many of the affected processes are uninterrupted after 1 February, 2014?interlinked with other processes in your organisation. So it is good H ow do we ensure that our key suppliers will be able topractice to start planning your SEPA readiness after you have deliver to us uninterrupted?completed a thorough impact study in which you have included W ill our financial systems be able to auto-match the itemsall possible stakeholders. Figure 3 illustrates what processes could reported on bank statements after 1 February 2014?be in scope and could be used as a guide for your impact study. Figure 3 - SEPA readiness has many interlinked facetsKey questions that will help you to get a full understanding of theminimum compliance scope of SEPA readiness include: hich systems generate euro payments within our organisation W Big Bang/ Efficiency/ Phased approach Optimization and our outsourcing partners? (ERP, payroll, expense systems, CRM, other) In-house vs. 3rd party solutions Trust in banks and system What systems interface with banking back-offices for payment vendor’s SEPA solution instructions? Business Can these interfaces be upgraded to the SEPA standard? Communication processes Do we need to upgrade systems to get access to SEPA-compliant with banks Role bank versions of these systems? Do we currently make use of (local) payment products that will SEPA Direct Debit Business Unit mandate handling Structure be phased out shortly after 1 February 2014? New payment hich systems manage vendor and customer master data? W formats (XML) (ERP, payroll, expense systems, CRM, other) IT-landscape Can all these source systems store the required SEPA-related Mandate master-data (IBAN / BIC) for domestic third parties? Manage Management How do we update third-party master-data in source systems? stakeholders n what territories within the SEPA area does our organisation I initiate direct debit transactions? Issues vs. priorities Multiple legacy Can we manage SDD mandates according to the SEPA to timelines systems Standard? Have we implemented the client information requirements Alignment of other projects Format correctly? conversion How will we split first-time and recurring SDD transactions Stability properly? Can we reflect this split properly in our cashflowPwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 12
  13. 13. Multi-disciplinary approach Most respondents manage SEPA readiness as a multi-disciplinary project and typically involve three to five different departments (figure 4). Treasury, IT and Local Finance are often part of the project team (figure 5). Figure 4 - # Departmental involvement in SEPA readiness 25% 25% # Respondents of total Population 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Departments like HR, Legal Sales and Procurement that are also involved with counter- parties on payments are involved in the SEPA readiness project in fewer than one out of three of the organisations surveyed. Organisations that have not (yet) planned their SEPA readiness tend to overlook these departments even more (figure 5). Figure 5 - Involvement of different departments relative to planned SEPA readiness Treasury IT Local Finance Billing HR Legal Controller Sales Procurement Other SEPA readiness is planned Project Management Shared Service Centre No SEPA Readiness Plan (yet) Dont know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The statistics on the composition of the project teams raises concern about companies’ understanding of the full impact of the 1 February 2014 deadline. They suggest that SEPA readiness is primarily seen as an IT and banking issue and less as a wider business continuity issue of how organisations settle their obligations with trading partners and, for example, employees.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 13
  14. 14. Staffing More than half of the respondents (56%) indicate that their organisation staff their SEPA readiness project with internal resources only (figure 6).Figure 6 - Staffing of the SEPA Readiness Project Team# Respondents # ExternalFTE INTERNAL None 1-5 FTE 6-10 FTE 20 FTE 11-20 FTE Dont Know Grand TotalNone 10.53% 0.96% 11.48%1-5 FTE 32.06% 22.49% 0.48% 1.44% 56.46%6-10 FTE 3.35% 5.74% 0.48% 9.57%11-20 FTE 2.39% 3.35% 0.48% 6.22% 20 FTE 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.48% 0.48% 0.48% 4.31%Dont Know 6.70% 5.26% 11.96%Grand Total 55.98% 32.54% 1.91% 0.48% 0.96% 8.13% 100.00% This does not mean that companies do not ask for external assistance. Half of all respondents, that shared with us who they consulted, indicated their banking partner(s) as prime external advisor for SEPA readiness (figure 7). Figure 7 - Prime SEPA Readiness consultant used by respondents 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bank Consultancy Firm Software Vendor Other Dont know We cannot avoid the impression that the reluctance to involve external expertise could well be the principal explanation for the fact that respondents underestimate the scope and impact of the 1 February 2014 milestone.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 14
  15. 15. Scope definitionNext to engagement of the Figure 8 summarises the top-3 objectives of all respondents. Each objective is scored onorganisation, goal-setting and a scale of 1-3 (lower horizontal axis; 1 being highest priority). Figure 8 also includes thescope definition are key to under- percentage of all respondents that cited the objective.standing readiness for the SEPA Figure 8 - Top 3 objectivesdeadline. Not surprisingly, paymentstandar­ isation, cash management d Payment standardizationoptimisation and minimum Cash management Optimizationcompliance are among the key Minimum Compliance Bank Relationshipobjectives of SEPA readiness. Payment Factory Other Cost reduction Dont know Process Efficiency Collection Factory There are still large differences 1.0 0.5 0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 between the SEPA countries with Citation (% of all projects) Average Score (on scale of 1-3) respect to transaction costs. In Northwestern European countries, SEPA transaction fees are a matter of cents, whereas in Spain it is not Whereas 45.5% of respondents cited minimum compliance among their key objectives uncommon to be charged a per- (ranking second place, with an average score of 1.65 on a scale of 1-3), most companies centage of the transaction value. clearly aim for more. SEPA is rightfully seen as an opportunity to streamline processes, Price differences between countries drive down cost and become more efficient. Cost reduction and efficiency, however, seem provide the incentive for migrating to be key ambitions in those countries that are key drivers of the SEPA project – to creating bank accounts after the 1 February one payment-clearing market across Europe and drive down bank transaction costs. Cost 2014 deadline to more efficient reduction has often been cited as a key objective by respondents from Southern European banking markets within the countries only, whereas cash-management optimisation is mentioned primarily by large SEPA zone. multinationals; this suggests that respondents do not believe that bank charges will change much unless the domestic clearing markets are highly inefficient today.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 15
  16. 16. Figure 9 - Project scope to be completed prior to 1 February 2014 SEPA Credit Transfer XML ISO 20022 interfacing SEPA Direct Debit Mandate management ERP upgrade Update masterdata Banking restructuring SEPA readiness is planned Update General Terms and Condition Dont know (yet) No SEPA Readiness Plan (yet) Other 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Figure 10 - Items defined as additional scope for after 1 February 2012 Standardization of Payment Methods Bank Rationalisation Systems integration Payment Factory roll out XML CGI TMS Cost reduction SEPA readiness is planned Business Continuity Other No SEPA Readiness Plan (yet) Dont know 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% The project objectives that respondents cited are not generally in the scope for completion by 1 February 2014 (figure 9). The short-term scope definition suggests that most respondents initially focus on minimum compliance. Efficiency is targeted in subsequent phases (figure 10). The results summarised in figure 9 highlight some surprising discrepancies, raising questions about whether there is a proper understanding of SEPA readiness requirements. 10% fewer respondents indicate the inclusion of mandate management as compared to the related SEPA Direct Debit Transaction.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 16
  17. 17. What is also remarkable is that about 30% of all respondents - and less than 5% of those that have yet to plan their readiness activities - have defined ‘update of master data management’ into their initial SEPA Readiness Scope; however, conversion of BBAN to IBAN and sometimes adding BIC for domestic trans­ ctions in a myriad of source systems a is key to the project. Also notable is that only 57% respondents indicate that implementation of XML ISO 20022 interface standards is part of the project scope. This implies that more than 40% should either have adopted the interface standard or - more probably - anticipate that their banks will provide conversion services for them. After 1 February 2014 the processing of standard euro transactions will be harmonised, and all participants will rely on messaging compliant with the SEPA Rulebook. If such messaging does not originate within the payer’s organization, and bank communication continues to make use of legacy interfacing, beneficiaries will receive incomplete and/or truncated information, preventing them benefiting from the SEPA Standardisation to its maximum potential. SEPA direct debit 52% of all respondents indicate direct debits are included in their project scope for SEPA readiness. They cover on average 4.4 different territories (anywhere between 1 and 29). One out of three projects that include direct debits are not covering territories of the respondent’s location. Some 18% of all projects that include direct debits are not (yet) properly planned. These cover on average 3.3 different territories, as opposed to on average of little over five territories for projects that are already planned. However the group of respondents that still have to plan their readiness activities include organizations that have to cover more than 10 territories for direct debits. There are no other significant differ- ences between territory coverage of planned and not (yet) planned projects. The complexity of migration to SEPA direct debit is not so much instructing the bank to debit an account, but rather the implementation of new processes for client communication and national migration plans. Furthermore, there are two different schemes (core and B2B) with different implications for processing, client and bank communication, and contractual framework.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 17
  18. 18. Risk managementHaving financial systems ready in • Diversity of source systems time is without doubt the biggest Most companies have a myriad of systems that generate payment files, some of whichconcern respondents have; four are proprietary-built and fully integrated with specific business functions; others are lagging behind in upgrading their financial systems to officially supported versions.out of five respondents rate system Yet others have outsourced their (payroll) processing and would need confirmationreadiness on a scale of 1-3 (1 being that their service provider had adopted SEPA-compliant processes and formats.the biggest risk perceived) with anaverage score of 1.54 (figure 11). • IT projects tend to be risky Their concerns about financial Project-work on core systems has a reputation of being risky, not completed in timesystems relate to the availability of and not being delivered flawlessly. Furthermore, quite a few vendors are still workingSEPA-compliant functionality and/ on their SEPA-compliant functionality, making it impossible to assess effectiveness andor the implementation of necessary effort required to implement. Typically, vendors will only develop SEPA solutions on theupgrades. This may not be a surprise latest release of the software. This implies that getting access to the required function-for two reasons. ality also includes a version upgrade. Organisations that have not planned their SEPA readiness (yet) and organisations that have planned their readiness completion in Q4 2013 or 1 February 2014 are well advised to monitor the required IT work closely. Missing the February deadline because system projects are not finished will result in inability to pay, delay in cashflow and/or increased transaction costs and penalties. Figure 11 - Top 3 Project Risks / Concerns Financial Systems Bank Readiness Supplier Readiness Client Readiness Other* Executive Managements understanding Budget Legal aspects No bottleneck SEPA deadline Formats Do not know Master Data General Project Risk Internal Audit 100% 50% 0% 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 % Citation of total Respondent Population Average Rank of Top 3 concern *Please contact PwC for details.PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 18
  19. 19. This observation combined with the fact that 55% of respondents may be in jeopardy not being SEPA-compliant in time or plan their readiness completion close to the milestone of 1 February, 2014, it is rather surprising that clients readiness is cited by 21% of the respondents only as a major concern. After all, if clients are not able to issue SEPA-compliant instructions to their bank by 1 February 2014, one has to expect a (temporary) delay in cash inflow. Such delay may continue for a few months, as banks could be inundated with non-compliant transactions, and the client organisation will not have fixed the compliancy overnight. Also on the supplier side, one should plan for suppliers that may not be able to auto-match bank statements as before, and therefore trade credit lines might be overdrawn for some time. This could result in erroneous dunning letters and claims, and it could also require extra effort by procurement to safeguard an uninterrupted flow of supplies. Figure 12 - Assumed Supplier Readiness (left) and Customer Readiness (right) for the SEPA deadline of 1 February, 2014 Supplier Readiness Customer Readiness 8%8% 5%5% 24% 24% 24% 24% 12% 12% 16% 16% I know all willwill be rea I know all be ready I know most willwill be I know most be rea I believe thethe majority I believe majority w 8% 5% I don’t believe thethe m I don’t believe majo I know most willwill not I know most not be 3%3% 2%2% No No I don’t know I don’t know 24% 5% 3% 3% 24% 12% 4%4%8% 16% 9%9% I know all will be ready 5% 24% 12% 13% 13% I know most will 40% 40% ready be I believe the majority will be ready 16% 38% 38% I know all will be ready I don’t believe the majority will be ready 24% 12% I know most will be ready I know most will not be ready 3% 2% I believe the majority will be ready No I know all will be ready I don’t believe the majority will be ready I don’t know 3% 4% I know most will be ready I know most will not be ready 2% I believe the majority will be ready No I don’t believe the majority will be ready I don’t know 4% I know most will not be ready 9% 2% No 13% 40% I don’t know 4% 38% 13% 40% 38% 13% 40% PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 19
  20. 20. Respondents demography 4% 4% 1%PwC reached out to key individuals Figure 13 – Respondents by country 2% 1% 24%at non-financial organizations 3%between 20 December 2012 and 4% 4% 1% Germany Ireland21 January 2013, requesting the 6% 2% 1% 24% Netherlands Swedencompletion of an anonymous survey 3% Italy France Germany Irelandon SEPA readiness. 293 respondents 6% UnitedNetherlands States Other Swedencompleted the survey before UnitedItaly Kingdom (Canada, Finland, Taiwan, 6% France SwitzerlandStates United Other Japan, India, Israel, South23 January, 2013. They responded 6% United Kingdom FranceSwitzerland (Canada, Finland, Taiwan, Africa, Slovenia, Finland, Japan, India, Israel, Southan average to 18 out of the BelgiumFrance Africa, Slovenia, Finland, each) Lithuania, 0.35% Belgium Lithuania, 0.35% each)22 questions. 6% 6% AustriaAustria Not Provided 13% 13% Not Provided 7%The respondents came from 22 different 7%countries. The respondents’ population 10% 13%has a bias towards the North-western part 10% 13%of the eurozone; but other territories, 1% 1%including countries outside the SEPA 2% 10% 2% 2% 1%zone, are also well represented. 2% Figure 14 - Respondents by industry 3% 3% 1% 1%Respondents come from a diverse industry 2% 10%10% 2% 2% 1% Industrial Manufacturing Metals 4% 2%background. No industry dominates the 3% Retail and Consumer Health-care (Blank) Banking and Capital Marketspopulation. 4% 3% 10% Industrial Manufacturing Technology Metals Food 4% Retail and Consumer Health-care Transportation and logistics (Blank) Insurance Banking and Capital Markets 4% 4% 9% Technology Chemicals Transportation and logistics Food Insurance Leasure 4% 9% Energy Chemicals Leasure Services Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences Energy Services Consulting 4% 4% Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences Consulting Engineering and Construction Estate Real Estate Engineering and Construction Real Communications Communications Forest, Paper andForest, Paper and Packaging (0.7%) Packaging (0.7%) 4% 7% 4% 7% Entertainment and Media Mining (0.7%) Entertainment and Media Other (0.7%) Mining (0.7%) Financial Services 5% Financial Services Aerospace and Defence Public Sector andOther (0.7%) Government (0.7%) 5% 5% 7% Automotive   Aerospace and Defence Asset Management (0.35%)Sector and Government (0.7%) Public 6% 7% 6% Automotive   Asset Management (0.35%) 5% 6% 6%PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 20
  21. 21. 12% Figure 15 - Respondents by company turnoverMeasured by turnover, large and very 22%large organisations and multinationals 7%are relatively well represented in the 12% 10bn and overresponse population. This may bias the 22% 1bn - 10bnsurvey to highlight issues concerning more 7% 500m - 1bn 10bn and overcomplex IT and multi-territorial aspects of 100m - 500m 1bn - 10bn 8%SEPA readiness. Small and medium sized 0 - 100m - 1bn 500m (Blank) 100m - 500mbusinesses might face with less complex 8% 0 - 100m (Blank)issues, and could benefit from solutionswithin electronic banking tools of theirhouse banks. However, this report does not 13%provide an understanding of focus of these 13%market segments on SEPA readiness. 38% 38% 1% 5% 1% 1% Figure 16 - Respondents by departmentThe respondents’ population has a strong 6%bias towards the treasury perspective: 1%74% of all respondents have a position 5% 1% 1% Group treasuryin treasury. Although we have a clear 6% (Blank)indication from the 10% that next to survey Regional treasurytreasury, IT and Local Finance Staff are Group treasury European head office (Blank) 10%also involved, the survey is not able to Local company with office located in Europe Regional treasuryprovide a detailed and conclusive opinion Shared service head office European center Local company with office located in Europeabout significant differences between the IT Shared service center IT Subsidiary/operating company withimportant stakeholder departments. Subsidiary/operating company with head office located outsideEurope head office located outside Europe 11% 11% 64% 64%PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 21
  22. 22. Figure 17 - Top 3 Objectives split by treasury and non-treasury respondentsFigures 17 and 18 analyse a breakdownof some of the responses by treasury andnon-treasury respondents. We conclude Payment standardization Otherthat there is a difference in focus and Dont know Cost reduction Treasuryconcerns. Treasury respondents seem to Minimum Compliancebe more ambitious in goal-setting and see Otherissues concerning formats, budget and Cash Management Optimizationmaster-data that other respondents have Bank Relationshipnot (yet) picked up. Payment Factory Collection Factory Process Efficiency 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.50 Figure 18 - Top 3 Concerns split by treasury and non-treasury respondents Do not know Financial Systems No bottleneck Other Internal audit Supplier Readiness Other Bank Readiness Treasury SEPA deadline Client Readiness Executive Managements Understanding Formats Budget General Project Risk Legal Aspects Master Data .00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 22
  23. 23. 3% 21% 21% Figure 195% - Customer Readiness split by treasury and non-treasury respondentsTreasury respondents also seem to 10%have a higher degree of nuance in their 21%assessment of their trading partners’ 3% I know all will be readySEPA readiness. But the survey does not I know most will be ready 21%highlight significant differences in the 6% 21% I believe the majority will be readyassessment of SEPA readiness between 2% 5% I don’t believe the majority will be ready 10% 3% 21% I know most will not be readytreasury and non-treasury respondents. Treasury NoI know all will be ready I know most will be ready 13% 6% 36% I don’t know I believe the majority will be ready 12% 2% I don’t believe the majority will be ready 3% I know most will not be ready Treasury No 13% 36% I don’t know 12% Other 36% Other 36%PwC SEPA Readiness Thermometer January 2013 23