ISO20022 Migration - SWIFT for Cross Border payments

& RTGS Clearing – Temenos solutions and roadmap

Oct 2019
Internal only
 Agenda

 Overview of ISO20022 migration & Temenos approach

 ISO20022 migration calendar – SWIFT & RTGS clearings
 Temenos Payments – ISO20022 migration roadmap
 Migration options for existing FT clients
 Options for existing T24 clients using non payment modules (to send SWIFT payments)
 SWIFT Translator Options from Temenos
 Appendix

2
 Summary: ISO20022 migration of SWIFT & RTGS clearings
 ISO20022 is now the global standard for payment messages. A number of High Value Payment systems
(RTGS Clearings) such as TARGET2, CHATS Hong Kong, CHAPS UK and Fedwire US will adopt ISO20022
messaging standards and go live from Nov 2021 onwards with a big bang migration (i.e. no co-
existence period for MT messages for RTGS clearings#).

 Further, SWIFT is also migrating to ISO20022 (MX) messaging standards for cross border payments from
November 2021. However, a key difference is that SWIFT will support a four year coexistence period
(from Nov 2021 to 2025) to allow all member banks of the SWIFT community to make the full switch by
the end of 2025#.

Temenos will provide comprehensive solution for all its existing and new clients to meet all requirements
arising from these industry changes:-
 Temenos Payments will support full ISO20022 messaging standards for SWIFT cross border payments &
RTGS clearings (refer to slide 7 for full details)
 Existing FT clients have the option to a.) Migrate to Temenos Payments (recommended option) or b.) go
with MX to MT conversion using the SWIFT translator integrated with Delivery (DE) module (refer to slide 8
for more details)

# Refer migration calendar on slide 4 3

ISO20022 Migration Calendar – SWIFT & RTGS

4
SWIFT ISO20022 migration – guidelines on co-
existence period (Nov 2021-2025) for banks

5
SWIFT ISO20022 migration - Availability of CBPR+
specifications dates

CBPR+- Cross Border Payments and Reporting Plus 6

 Temenos Payments - ISO20022 migration roadmap
Clearing Name MT messages currently supported ISO 20022 message equivalents Roadmap Temenos
Modules
TARGET2 MT103, MT202, MT202COV, MT019 pacs.008, pacs.009, pacs.004, pacs.002 June 2020

CHATS MT103, MT202, MT202COV, MT019 pacs.008, pacs.009, pacs.004, pacs.002 July 2020*

CHAPS MT103, MT202, MT202COV, MT019 pacs.008, pacs.009, pacs.004, pacs.002 Dec 2020*
Temenos
Payments
SWIFT Payment MT101, MT102, MT103, MT200, MT202, pacs.008, pacs.009, pacs.004 Sept 2020
(TP/TPH)
Messages MT202COV, MT203
MT110^
SWIFT cash MT210 (outward), MT900, MT910 camt.057 (outward), camt.054 Apr 2021 (R21)$
management and
investigation messages MT191^, MT199^
MT940/MT950 camt.053 IX module Banking
MT910, MT900 camt.054$ (currently not supported by IX) Dates to be confirmed Framework
MT210 (inward), MT910 ( inward) camt.057, camt.054 ( inward) Apr 2021 (R21)$

MTn92, MTn95, MTn96 camt.056, camt.029 , camt.026, camt.087 Apr 2021 (R21)$

M111^, MT112^, MT190^, MT191^, MT199^

*Subject to availability of final clearing specifications by Nov 2019 ^ Not in scope, no equivalent MX message type available currently
$ Dates to be confirmed, subject to publication of CBPR+ specifications Will be reviewed and planned, as and when specifications are published by SWIFT

Note: Upon request, changes can be back-patched to R18+, if there is specific client requirement.
Back-patches will be chargeable. 7
 Migration options for FT clients
Nov 2021
2021-2025
Start of SWIFT migration and Big Bang
Timelines (4 years co-existence period for SWIFT cross From Nov 2025
migration for RTGS Clearings (TARGET2,
border payments)
EURO1, CHATS etc.)
Requirements 1. All SWIFT member banks should have minimum capability to receive ISO 20022 payment All SWIFT member banks
messages (maybe with translation). send and receive ISO20022
(Note - #3 only 2. SWIFT members also need to build capabilities for full ISO support – i.e. send and receive payment messages (full
applicable for banks ISO20022 messages and support all the related workflows and additional data, in time for ISO20022 support)
connected to RTGS full migration by Nov 2025.
clearings) 3. Member banks of RTGS clearings to send and receive ISO 20022 payment messages
using full data set for payment processing.
Option 1 Upgrade to R18+ release and migrate to Temenos Payments (TP or TPH) to fully support ISO20022 messages for cross border
payments and RTGS clearings.
This option addresses all requirements mentioned above and delivers a ISO20022 ready solution for Nov 2025 and beyond.

Option 2 If upgrade is not at all an option, consider installing standalone TPH and implement TPH for cross border payments and
RTGS clearings and integrate with existing T24 (minimum release R14).
This option addresses the requirements mentioned above, but may involve additional integration work.

Option 3 Use FT to receive ISO20022 SWIFT payment messages via SWIFT Central translation API or This option does not meet
SWIFT local translator (FT will be enhanced to support these translation options). Integration the requirements from Nov
to SWIFT translation services will be available in R20 AMR release. 2025
This option covers only requirement 1. It will not provide full ISO support for SWIFT and RTGS
clearings.

Recommendation Option 1 is ideal for majority of the clients and provides a future ready solution
Option 2 is suitable for clients that cannot plan an upgrade in the foreseeable future. Future ready solution.
Option 3 is an interim solution till Nov 2025, by which time the bank should have chosen option 1 or 2.

Note: Upon request, FT translator changes can be back-patched to older T24 Transact releases if there is a specific client requirement. 8
Back-patches will be chargeable.
Options for existing T24 clients using non payment
modules to send out SWIFT payments
 Non-payment modules of T24 such as FX, MM, LC, MD, SC, DX, etc. (for full list refer Appendix) also
currently support generation of outward SWIFT MT payment messages (for settlements). These modules are
being enhanced to generate Payment Orders (refer Appendix for details) for execution of SWIFT payments
using Temenos Payments (TP/TPH) or an external payment system.

 Also, these modules will provide the ability to use the SWIFT translators or any 3rd party translator solution (of
the bank’s choice) to convert MT to ISO20022. Integration to SWIFT translator will be available in R20 AMR
release.

 Until Nov 2025 there is no impact as our clients can continue to send MT messages to SWIFT. If required,
they can choose to convert MT messages to ISO20022 (MX) messages using the SWIFT translator (central or
local).

 From Nov 2025, clients using non-payment modules and directly connected to SWIFT for cross border
payments, must also upgrade and implement Temenos Payments (TP/TPH), to generate Payment Orders
and process them via Temenos Payments.

9
SWIFT Translator Options from Temenos
 Summary
 Temenos Payments (TP/TPH) is the recommended long term solution for payments
 CAMT module is the recommended solution for statements
 The SWIFT translator will be utilised to preserve MT functionality
 FT can still be used to process MT messages
 It will not offer additional options that MX provides

 Non-payment applications will still be able to generate outward MT messages

 4 levels of SWIFT translator integration will offered
 Translation pre-defined hosted by SWIFT inward only (charged by SWIFT)
 Translation pre-defined hosted by SWIFT inward and out (charged by SWIFT)
 Translation pre-defined locally hosted inward and out (SWIFT runtime, library & Temenos translation
library)
 Translation customisable locally hosted inward and out (SWIFT runtime, library, designer & Temenos
translation library)

11
 SWIFT Translator – Option 1 Central Translation
Summary:
- Ordering Bank is able to send MX
- Banks sends MX to Receiver Bank
- Receiver Bank is unable to process MX
- Receiver Bank requests SWIFT to receive an
additional MT equivalent of the MX message

Implementation:
Pros 
- Change required to T24 to receive MX message for reference only - Minimal change
- No change required to process MT message - Managed by SWIFT
- Bank requests to SWIFT to receive MT messages - Message translations provided
- SWIFT will automatically opt banks in for this method and maintained by SWIFT
- Pay for use after year 1
Charging:
- SWIFT intends to offer this service free of charge for year 1 (2021)
- SWIFT will charge per message in subsequent years – to be announced
Cons 
- Limited set of messages
Suitability of Solution: provided
- Banks with low volumes who only use payment messages who wish to do - No capability for the bank to
minimal change to T24 or surrounding processes for CBPR customise
- No ability to send MX
- Not available after 2025
12
 SWIFT Translator – Option 2 Central Translation via API
Summary:
- Ordering Bank is able to send MX
- Banks sends MX to Receiver Bank
- Receiver Bank is unable to process MX
- Receiving Bank software requests translation of
message at SWIFT
- Also available on outward flow (not shown)

Implementation:
Pros 
- Change required to T24 to receive MX message - Translation is Managed by SWIFT
- Change required to T24 Delivery to invoke translator API remotely in and out - Message translations provided
- No change required to process MT message and maintained by SWIFT
- T24 Delivery has the option to translate MT generated or received to MX using - Bank can control messages to
SWIFT API translate out and in
- Pay for use only after year 1
Charging:
- SWIFT intends to offer this service free of charge for year 1 (2021)
based on usage
- SWIFT will charge per message in subsequent years – to be announced
Cons 
Suitability of Solution: - Limited set of messages
- Banks looking to be able to send MX equivalent and selectively translate for provided
CBPR - No capability for the bank to
customise
- Not available after 2025
13
 SWIFT Translator – Option 3 Local Translation Run Time
Summary:
- Ordering Bank is able to send MX
- Bank sends MX to Receiver Bank
- Receiver Bank is unable to process MX
- Receiving Bank software requests translation of
message locally
- Also available on outward flow (not shown)

Implementation: Pros 
- Change required to T24 to receive MX message - Bank can control messages to
- Change required to T24 Delivery to invoke translator locally API in and out
translate out and in
- No change required to process MT message
- T24 Delivery has the option to translate MT generated or received to MX using
- Full message set can be
SWIFT API supported with addition from
Temenos
Charging: - Utility remains available post
- SWIFT translator run-time to be licensed (priced by bank tier) 2025
- SWIFT translation library to be purchased
- Temenos packaged translations license
Cons 
Suitability of Solution:
- Bank implements translator run-
- Banks looking to be able to send MX equivalent – including those not auto time locally
translated by SWIFT and selectively translate using out of the box translation for - No capability for the bank to
CBPR customise
14
 SWIFT Translator – Option 4 Local Translation Run Time & Designer
Summary:
- Ordering Bank is able to send MX
- Bank sends MX to Receiver Bank
- Receiver Bank is unable to process MX
- Receiving Bank software requests translation of
message locally
- Also available on outward flow (not shown)
Implementation:
- Change required to T24 to receive MX message Pros 
- Change required to T24 Delivery to invoke translator locally API in and out - Bank can control messages to
- No change required to process MT message translate out and in
- T24 Delivery has the option to translate MT generated or received to MX using - Full message set can be
SWIFT API supported from Temenos
- Bank can customise and build their own translations
- Utility remains available post
Charging: 2025
- SWIFT translator run-time to be licensed (priced by bank tier)
- SWIFT translation library to be purchased Cons 
- SWIFT translator designer - Bank implements translator run-
- Temenos packaged translations license time locally
- No capability for the bank to
Suitability of Solution:
- Banks looking to be able to send MX equivalent – including those not auto
customise
translated by SWIFT and selectively translate and customise themselves for CBPR
15
Thank You

temenos.com
 T24 modules roadmap to support PO generation
Product Module Available/
Planned release

Banking Framework AC (STO) 201809

Retail AA R18 AMR

Treasury FX, MM, SW, ND, FR 202002

Wealth SC, FD, DX, SY 202002

Trade Finance LC, MD, BL R20 AMR

Corporate SL R20 AMR

Retail LD, AZ Modules in care and maintenance. Discuss with

module owners if PO generation is required
 Key product contacts

Product Module Product Owners Email

Compliance Swift Lisa Hall lhall@temenos.com

Payments PI, TP (PP), TPH (PH) Sujatha Venkatraman vsujatha@temenos.com
Shrey Rastogi srastogi@temenos.com
Banking Framework AC, EB, FT, IX Phil White pwhite@temenos.com
Cristina Cioroboiu CCIOROBOIU@temenos.com
Amreeta Hosanee ahosanee@temenos.com
Treasury FX, MM, SW, ND, FR Adam Gable agable@temenos.com
Alex Mathew amathew@temenos.com
Wealth FD, SC, DX, SY Pierre Bouquieaux pbouquieaux@temenos.com
Viswanath BS bsviswa@temenos.com
Corporate, Trade LD, SL, LC, MD, BL Maurya Murphy mmurphy@temenos.com
Steve Scott sscott@temenos.com
Retail AA, LD, AZ Valmina Prezani vprezani@temenos.com
Country Model Banks CMB Vanessa Webber vwebber@temenos.com