EBF: Final TWG response to the first user consultation on ISO 20022 strategy for T2

04 July 2013

EBF issued the final TWG response to the first user consultation on ISO 20022 strategy for Target2. The TWG agrees with all five key issues of the proposal.

Whilst the TWG agrees with the proposals outlined in the consultation, they would like to stress that automated conversion to and from the equivalent MT messages will be essential for processing efficiency and to ensure it is possible to maintain existing STP capability.

It is therefore important that the MX messages content will be restricted to the corresponding MT data and any improper use of message formats leading to non-STP must be avoided once implemented. This is also important since pending global agreement on an ISO 20022 syntax for correspondent banking, it will be necessary to map between MX and MT and vice versa for an indefinite period.

• Key issue: Should the migration encompass the optional modules of TARGET2?
• Proposal: All the modules of TARGET2 should migrate at the same time.
• Feedback: The TWG agrees

• Key issue: What are the message types that should be migrated to their HVP MX equivalents?
• Proposal: Beyond payment related messages, i.e. MT 103, MT 103(+), MT 202 and MT 202COV, the migration should also include the MX equivalent messages of MT 204, MT 900 and MT 910, but not the equivalents of MT 940 and MT 950.
• Feedback: The TWG agrees

• Key issue: What about ASI MX proprietary messages?
• Proposal: ASI proprietary MX messages should be excluded from the migration.
• Feedback: The TWG agrees

• Key issue: What will be the impact on the Information and Control Module (ICM) for the U2A access?
• Proposal: Changes to the ICM design (for the U2A access) should be kept to a minimum.
• Feedback: The TWG agrees

• Key issue: Will the migration to MX messages affect the general design of TARGET2 in terms of payment flows?
• Proposal: The payment flow should be kept the same as with the current MT set of messages.
• Feedback: The TWG agrees. However, it is considered essential that the transport network used is transparent to users, subject possibly to an interface upgrade only.

Full information

© EBF