With the introduction of AllianceLite (AL1) in 2008, SWIFT originally targeted smaller corporations with a lower volume of payment messages and a limited number of message types, with the option of connecting through the internet. The volume restrictions of AL1 proved to be a limiting factor and was among the reasons why many companies did not consider to offer a practical solution.
One of the major improvements in its successor AL2 is that volume restrictions through pricing are no longer imposed on a corporation, enlarging AL2’s potential target market to include companies with a high volume of payment messages. It is now also possible to access all message types (MTs) and all MX SWIFT message types and other services offered over SWIFTNet. These include:
SWIFT has further increased the choice of connecting to SWIFTNet by adding the option of connecting over a SWIFT-managed virtual private network (VPN) or using an internet browser.
Both manual entry of payments into AL2 and automated file transfers via AutoClient are supported by AL2. Using AutoClient to transfer files is possible, but straight-through processing (STP) for payments, using AL2 together with a treasury management system (TMS) remains an issue because a hard token is needed to approve payments. SWIFT has indicated that it is working on a solution to overcome this shortcoming, by developing a ‘soft certificate’ for use with AutoClient using a VPN connection.
With the introduction of SWIFT’s new qualifying criteria, it is generally expected that the SWIFT service bureau (SSB) market will enter a consolidation phase, where smaller SSBs might disappear and the distinguishing services of bigger SSBs will prove to be an important factor in retaining and attracting clients.
Services offered by SSBs range from providing a connecting service to SWIFTNet, to value-added services such as on-boarding assistance to sign-up to SWIFT, data transformation, data enrichment, integration and format translation, electronic bank account management (eBAM), compliance and anti-money laundering services and cash/balance reporting. These additional services will be unique selling points for SSBs in future, instead of only offering connectivity to SWIFTNet.
The service provided by AL2 can be compared to an SSB, except that AL2 only offers a connection service to SWIFTNet and has the distinct advantage of eliminating a third party and simplifying the process. By dealing directly with SWIFT, it could be argued that it removes any security and performance questions around the capability of SSBs to deliver services that would need to be addressed during the selection process.
Among the main driving forces of the decision to choose between AL2 and an SSB solution is still the pricing, but other factors that can be a determining factor in the choice between AL2 and an SSB are IT policy and security, integration with an enterprise resource planning (ERP) or existing TMSs and additional services or support.
Alliance Lite2 is priced using bands to determine the base licence fee and monthly subscription. Pricing is scalable, meaning the amount you pay is based on how much you actually use the service. Messages and files are charged as per standard SWIFT prices. There is an automatic band upgrade or downgrade every six months, based on the 12-month average network-based invoice (NBI).
The estimated cost of using AL2 is compared below with the estimated cost of choosing an SSB based on a low volume example of 50 FIN messages per day and 1,000 FileAct messages per day.
| Once off | Yearly | 5 years | |
| AllianceLite2 | € 10,000 | € 15,000 | € 85,000 |
| SSB average | € 30,000 | € 40,000 | € 230,000 |
The initial costs include only the basic implementation costs, but should any further assistance from SWIFT be required, this could lead to additional consulting costs of around € 1,500 per day. As an alternative, SWIFT offers a peace of mind support pact at an additional cost.
The range of the initial once-off cost for AL2 could vary from as little as € 10,000 (based on band 4 pricing) to an estimated €40,000 (based on a band 1 pricing), depending upon the expected volume of transactions, with the cost of connecting via an SSB ranging from around €25,000 to € 40,000, depending on the SSB.
Comparing the monthly costs of joining an SSB with AL2 shows a big difference. This is not surprising, as AL2 is based on the standard SWIFT message prices, while SSB pricing includes a margin. Over a five-year period this difference could lead to significant savings.
Although the pricing difference is a major consideration, it shouldn’t be seen in isolation. The compliance with IT policy and security standards can be a major deciding-factor in choosing between AL2 and an SSB.
Ensuring that the SWIFT connection is secure is a basic requirement and one of the main concerns of IT departments. The current requirement of AL2 to make use of a hard token will not comply with the IT and security policies of many corporations and could be a deal breaker, leading to an early decision to select an SSB.
Furthermore, the use of AutoClient as a part of a requirement to automate the payment process is raising concerns in some IT departments as it is currently not possible to move an encrypted file from a TMS via AutoClient.
Another determining factor that will influence the decision between AL2 and SSBs is the availability of in-house skills with ability to implement SWIFT and also assist with other related projects. The implementation of SWIFT is seldom a standalone project, but is most likely part of a bigger project to consolidate the banking landscape, implement an in-house bank (IHB)/payment factory or improve TMS integration and straight-through processing (STP).
Having the required skills in-house would enable a corporation to conduct their own formatting and mapping of information to the required SWIFT formats using their TMS or ERP system, providing future independence from a third party. Should these skills not be available, then choosing an SSB could be an attractive option as this is one of the areas where an SSB can provide a value-added service in using the existing TMS or ERP output and translating it into the required SWIFT formats.
Choosing between AL2 and an SSB could thus imply a choice between outsourcing a part of the solution and keeping it in-house.
With AL2’s entry into the market, there is now greater choice when it comes to selecting connectivity to the SWIFT network. One can simplify the task by considering how you would use the AL2 option and then consider reasons why that would not be possible or desirable.
Currently, the recurring issue mentioned as a major reason for not selecting AL2 remains the use of hard tokens. This affects more than one of the major decision-making areas including IT security, integration and STP, and is probably the main disadvantage standing in the way of AL2 becoming an even more serious contender in the current SSB market.
With SWIFT indicating that it is working on resolving this issue in the near future, SAP’s development of its financial services network and the consolidation expected between the SSBs could set the scene for increased competition among the major players in this market. This in turn should enable treasurers to benefit from better service, performance and a more secure connection solution.
Yet, the ongoing dilemma lies in achieving optimal returns on these investments. In this intricate financial landscape, the importance of delivering robust financial performance not only at
Find out more
Treasurers dealing with multiple jurisdictions, scattered banking landscape, and local requirements face many challenges in this regard. Japan is one of the markets where bank connectivity
Find out more
The EMIR Refit was originally introduced with the goal of simplifying regulations, and these new requirements took effect in 2019. Following the EMIR Refit, there has been a subsequent round
Find out more
First and foremost, the long period of low and even negative swap rates was followed by strongly rising rates and a volatile market, which impacted the behavior of both customers and banks
Find out more
On Thursday 15 June 2023, Zanders hosted a roundtable on ‘Climate Scenario Design & Stress Testing’. In our head office in Utrecht, we welcomed risk managers from several Dutch banks.
Find out more
Seventy banks have been considered, which is an increase of twenty banks compared to the previous exercise. The portfolios of the participating banks contain around three quarters of all EU
Find out more
The CSP helps reinforce the controls protecting participants from cyberattack and ensures their effectivity and that they adhere to the current Swift security requirements. *Swift does not
Find out more
Machine learning (ML) models have proven to be highly effective in the field of credit risk,outperforming traditional regression models in their predictive power. Thanks to the exponential
Find out more
In this third article in the ISO 20022 series, Zanders experts Eliane Eysackers and Mark Sutton take a focused look at the Common Global Implementation Market Practice Group (CGI-MP).
Find out more
As a result of the growing importance of this transformative technology and its applications, various regulatory initiatives and frameworks have emerged, such as Markets in Crypto-Assets
Find out more
However, possibly the most important point for corporates to be aware of is the planned move towards explicit use of the structured address block. In this second article in the ISO 20022
Find out more
Over the past decades, banks significantly increased their efforts to implement adequate frameworks for managing interest rate risk in the banking book (IRRBB). These efforts typically focus
Find out more
While SAC is a planning tool to be considered, it requires further exploration to evaluate its fit with business requirements and how it could unlock opportunities to potentially streamline
Find out more
After the collapse of Credit Suisse and the subsequent orchestrated take-over by UBS, there are widespread calls for increasing capital requirements for too big too fail banks to prevent
Find out more
This article provides a thorough comparison of the Survival Analysis and Migration Matrix approach for modeling losses under the internal ratings-based (IRB) approach and IFRS 9. The optimal
Find out more
The Zanders purpose Our purpose is to deliver financial performance when it counts, to propel organizations, economies, and the world forward. Recently, we have embarked on a process
Find out more
To fully leverage the benefits of this technology, it’s essential to understand and address security threats when implementing blockchain solutions. As a decentralized distributed
Find out more
The start of the migration from the SWIFT FIN format to the new ISO 20022 XML format, which is a banking industry migration that must be completed by November 2025. Whilst at this stage
Find out more
In today’s world, supply chain disruptions are consequences of operating in an integrated and highly specialized global economy. Along with affecting the credit risk of impacted
Find out more
Large systemic financial institutions have to show that they are resolvable during times of great stress. In this article, we discuss a specific requirement for resolution planning: the
Find out more