Chris Hamilton

Towards a sensible dialogue on cybercurrencies

3 November, 2014
Chris Hamilton
Payment System

If you work in payments, you will for sure have been part of a Bitcoin debate in the last 12 months. Until recently, such discussions usually took one of two forms: they were either pep rallies or exorcisms. Actually, the most entertaining events in my memory happened when participants turned up expecting one, and got the other. A brief terminological note: “cybercurrencies” in this context means any open protocol for the retention and transfer of value where the attribution of value, and the recognition of ownership, does not derive from or rely on a national currency. There are many ways of doing this, including open loyalty schemes, game currency platforms and algorithmic currencies, but the best known is Bitcoin.

Of payment regulators and payments councils

Try Googling "Payments Council", at least from Australia, and the first entry you get is the UK Payments Council home page, trumpeting its Faster Payments service, its mobile to mobile payments facility "Paym" and its automated account switching service. The next four entries relate to the joint RBA/APCA consultation on, and establishment of, an Australian Payments Council, which is approaching completion with an inaugural meeting later this year. One might be forgiven for assuming that Australia is in the process of establishing the same kind of body that already exists, and appears to be doing quite a good job, in the UK. Now try Googling "Payment Systems Regulator". The first four entries relate to the UK development of a new regulator with extensive powers over retail payment systems. The fifth entry is the home page of RBA's Payments System Board, established more than 15 years ago with (rather less extensive) powers to regulate Australian payment systems. Again, one might be forgiven for assuming that the UK was in the process of establishing a regulatory framework on the long-standing and, according to the Financial System Inquiry (FSI), successful Australian model. Both these assumptions would be wrong. Beware the besetting sin of an information-rich age: analysis by search engine.

Payments World USA

In April, I took a quick trip to Disney World...well, kind of. The annual conference of NACHA, APCA's equivalent body in the USA, was held at Disney World's home: Orlando, Florida. Around 2,200 bankers turned up to hear three days of presentations on the state of US payments - and possibly catch a few rides. I hope they had some fun amongst the work, because these are stressful times for US payment providers. Having weathered the GFC with tightened budgets, US bankers are acutely conscious of new payments system developments in other countries and pressure from the US Federal Reserve to follow suit or be left behind; but they are a long way from agreeing amongst themselves what is to be done, and who will pay. My small contribution was to outline the policy logic behind Australia's New Payments Platform (NPP) proposal as a comparative example. There was much interest.

Fast payments – the difference a year makes

This time last year, I reported on the lodgement of an industry proposal to develop new real-time payments architecture for Australia. Rashly, I suggested that: - The Payments System Board would back the industry proposal (they did); - APCA would publish the proposal in full, so everyone knew what we were on about (we did); and - Industry collaboration on the new architecture would need to get going quickly if we were to have a shot at meeting the challenging timeframes set by RBA (and that happened too!)

Australia, South Africa and mobile payments

When it comes to consumer payments, the future is obviously mobile. But the "how" of mobile payments turns out to be rather complicated. I recently had the opportunity to participate in the Annual Conference of the Payments Association of South Africa. Systemic comparison is one key benefit of such an experience. Here we have two resource-driven economies of roughly similar size, similarly large physical distances but markedly different population demographics. The retail payments systems are diverging, rather than converging. This highlights the obvious point that payment systems are shaped by people's habits, not by economics. Consider, for example, some simple comparisons between bank account ownership and mobile phone ownership. According to the World Bank, Australia is one of the most heavily banked populations on earth, with a 99% banking rate in 2012 - that is, 99 out of 100 Australians over the age of 15 had a bank account in 2012. South Africa, by contrast, has a 54% banking rate, and therefore a large community that is still cash-based. Now let's look at mobile phones: the "phoned" rate in Australia is a healthy 106%; in South Africa, 135%. Yes, every person in South Africa has a mobile phone subscription, and every third person has two. If you suspect the interaction of these two comparison pairs leads to different payment evolutions, you would be right.