BSB Newsletter – January 2017
Covering Bank Services Billing Standards Market Adoption: ISO 20022, TWIST, and AFP Global Service Codes
- Corporate case studies and presentations reflect growing adoption of the BSB.
- European and UK e-invoicing regulation addressing retail bank statements and could in future have an influence on wholesale providers and users.
- The vendor survey is completed! An initial view of the results are reported on in this issue of the newsletter. Surveys are in progress to assess corporations using BSB as well as banks providing bank billing statements in BSB format.
- Corporate practitioners attribute value to use of the BSB format:
- Reduced costs
- Detailed information on bank transaction services usage
- Accounting for unit consumption of banking services
In this edition
- BSB News and Events
- Recent BSB Pres Coverage
- BSB-Adoption and Current Availability
- In Progress – The Bank Service Billing Survey Progress in the Standardized of Bank Billing Codes
- Will History Repeat Itself? Standardizing Bank Billing Codes
- BSB going forward: Hindered or helped by EU Regulations?
- Vendor Survey Results
- BSB Q&A
- Editorial Staff & Resources
By Robert J. Blair, TWIST Standards, ASC x9, and Vick Consulting Group
The BSB (Bank Services Billing statement standard) is part of the family of ISO 20022 standards. Like the EDI 822 (EAA or Electronic Account Analysis) standard in the US, and other similar standards elsewhere, BSB responds to corporate practitioner demands for bank bill transparency. Unlike those earlier standards, BSB has been designed to address the bank fee statement requirements of domestic and cross border services globally, developed with modern technologies including business process modeling, a universal data dictionary, XML (and other) syntaxes, and is a part of the family of ISO 20022 of broadly used, open standards for financial services.
The creation of billing standards was driven by the interest of corporate treasury practitioners such as GE and many others. The continuing interest and advocacy of corporate practitioners is essential to the adoption and value of the BSB standard.
Analysis of bank bills can be complex and challenging. The newsletter will continue to promote the standard and seeks to improve understanding of bank bill analysis and the value standards bring to this activity.
BSB was originally published as a statement, not an invoice. The differences are subtle and the BSB schema can effectively be used for both purposes.
Version 2 of the ISO 20022 BSB (camt.086) was published in the first quarter or 2016 –
camt.086 is the newest version of TWIST BSB: Authored by TWIST in 2006 as a TWIST standard, re-developed by TWIST and SWIFT and published as an ISO20022 standard as camt.0086 version 1. As an ISO 20022 schema (message standard), BSB is supported with a broad family of financial services schema, and a market practice group, CGI-MP, working to harmonize and promote adoption of the standard.
camt.086 version 1 offers minor corrections and enhancements to the original TWIST BSB standard plus the advantages of commonalities with other financial schema found in the ISO 20022 family of standards. camt.086 version 2, published early 2016, enhances BSB to include ISO 20022 bank transaction codes (BTC) in addition to or in lieu of the AFP’s Global Service Codes (or other billing code series including bank proprietary codes). Camt.086 versions 1 and 2, is the recommended version of the standard for new users and providers.
Both code series allow industry standard identification of bill line items. The difference between the two code series:
- AFP GSC is specifically billing codes, covering all billable events.
- BTC are account statement transaction codes covering specifically transaction types resulting in a debit or credit to an account. Many billing items will be transactions, a few may be related to non-transaction activity.
Version 2 also includes a (minor) update to the schema required by the 2013 edition of the foundational elements of the ISO 20022 standards.
News from CGI-MP WG5 in 2016 -(Common Global Implementation Workgroup 5-BSB) continues its work on BSB which includes:
- A review of the Global Service Codes is now in progress to simplify the codes for improved standardization and ease of use.
- An e-Invoicing gap analysis is in progress. Findings and recommendations will be published in 2017.
- A case study “The Business Case for BSB for Corporates” is in development and will be shared in the next issue of the newsletter. An excerpt from the case study appears later in this issue.
EU and UK Regulation and Bank Billing – The EU’s “PAD” Directive, the Payment Accounts Directive is aimed at consumers but will be relevant for small businesses who use retail banking services and with possible influence on users and providers of wholesale banking services.
Payment service providers are required by the PAD to provide standardized fee statements to their clients. This regulation is aimed to protect retail customers of any payment services provider in the EU, delivering / facilitating:
- transparency & comparability of fee information
- switching of payment accounts by establishing minimum standards
- access to basic bank accounts for everyone
The relevant technical standards are defined by the EBA. The EBA published draft technical standards on 22 September 2016. The available documentation includes examples of fees in billing statements.
In the UK, and irrespective of any Brexit considerations, the Government has implemented the PAD, taking effect on 18 September 2016 by means of the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 (PARs –
Most of the provisions on transparency and comparability of fee information come into force at a later date, potentially 2018.
Progress in the Standardization of Bank Billing Codes – As of January 2016 there are over 50 subscribers to the AFP’s (the Association of Financial Professionals) Global Service Codes GSC). Among them are the top 15 global banks, including the largest 5 banks, large corporates from across various industries and a variety of technology vendors and treasury consultants.
May 2016 – Germany – Verband Deutscher Treasurer Annual Meeting (The German Association of Corporate Treasurers)
Results of a poll of German treasurers and their bank providers:
- 83% of bank respondents think providing e-Billing will definitely (72%) or possibly (11%) improve relations with clients.
- 95% of corporate respondents think receiving e-Billing will definitely (62%) or possibly (33%) improve relations with their banks.
- 52% of banks provide e-Billing statements globally and/or in Europe.
- 61% of corporate respondents receive e-Billing statements globally and/or Europe
May 2016 – US – NYCE Conference (the New York Cash Exchange). A corporate case study (Henry Schein, Inc.) was covered in this conference discussing the results of a bank fee analysis covering banks in China, France, Germany, US and elsewhere including Asia Pacific, Eastern Europe.
September 2016 – Global – Sibos (the annual SWIFT conference). “The Corporate Debate: Banks should stop differentiating non-competitive services”. GE Treasury, John Marshall, and Deutsche Bank, Michael Spiegel discussed the message from corporate treasurers: more needs to be done to standardize bank administrative processes and notably bank billing.
October 2016 – US – AFP (the annual US national corporate practitioners’ conference). Redbridge’s Bridget Meyer presented a session at the AFP National Conference entitled “Decoding Your Analysis Statements” which reviewed both US and Global bank fee statements and the challenges corporate treasurers and banks face. Redbridge DTA and Marriott Vacations Global Corporations presented “Collecting, Benchmarking and Negotiating International Bank Fees”. Discussion included the challenges of managing international bank relationships and the benefits of using the BSB.
Recent BSB Press Coverage
“Electronic Statements from International Banks”, Treasury & Risk (email and website), November 2016, Author: Susan Kelly
Excerpt: “…it’s up to companies to push banks to make electronic billing happen.” And “Comprehensive monitoring of banking charges – a TIP case study of Deutsche Post DHL Group”
“Top Flight Monitoring Bank Charges-Deutsche Post Case Study”, LinkedIn, November 2016, Hubert Rappold, TIPCO.
Excerpts: “Despite having over 1,500 subsidiaries spread across all continents, the corporate treasury department of Deutsche Post DHL Group can easily identify incorrect banking charges.” Hubert Rappold, TIPCO
“We now have a considerably stronger negotiating position vis-a-vis banks, which have noticed that we are carefully checking statements. Besides this, we now also have an overview of products and prices. Last but not least, we have been receiving major reimbursements as a result of the checks. “
Christine Pitzen, Senior Treasury Manager, Deutsche Post AG
“Keeping an eye on banks – managing and monitoring bank charges”. Siemens Case Study published by TIPCO
Synopsis: Bank fee controlling gained traction in Germany, Austria and Switzerland with 12 corporates performing bank fee controlling for a total of 22 banks in 80 countries world-wide on a monthly basis. Global technology powerhouse Siemens is explaining how they tackled this challenge and how they are benefiting from it in the following case-study:
Excerpt: “The most important information about bank meetings and discussions is available in an appropriate format within just a few minutes. “
Stephan Ziegler, Head of Bank Relations, Siemens Treasury GmbH
“Take control: manage both your bank charges & payments / collections efficiency”, CTMfile, Oct 2016.
A look at one BSB application with a focus on analytics.
BSB – Evolution of a Standard
The Bank Services Billing standard (BSB) is the latest development in a long history of bank billing standards developments. Unlike prior Electronic Account Analysis standards such as the US ANSI x12 822 which focus on a single domestic market, BSB supports requirements in all payments markets including tax and value added tax, currency and multicurrency, etc.
The initial version of the standard was developed by TWIST in TWIST syntax. The second generation of the standard was developed by TWIST and SWIFT addressing minor corrections and moving the BSB schema into the ISO 20022 family of standards. Published in 2012, the ISO 20022 BSB specification (camt.086 in ISO20022 terminology) has seen increasing support from banks and financial application providers as well as increasing use by corporate treasury practitioners.
- TWIST BSB published 2006.
- The new TWIST BSB standard sees first use by a corporate and a bank (Danske Bank).
- AFP publishes Global Service Codes to standardize service item identification.
- A new version of the TWIST BSB is published by ISO 20022 (camt.086) including various improvements.
- The new ISO 20022 version of the standard sees first use.
- CGI-MP forms Work Group 5 to harmonize use of the ISO 20022 BSB standard
- A new version of the BSB standard is published (ISO 20022 camt.086 version 2), enhanced to include support for ISO 20022 Bank Transaction Codes.
BSB Current Adoption and Availability
As previously reported, the last BSB survey reflects the following adoption of this standard:
- 16 banks are known to be in production with BSB (either or both the newer ISO 20022 version on the original TWIST version). Other banks may be in production but have not publically declared.
- 13 application vendors are known to support the standard: 9 for end users (bill recipients), 4 for banks.
The survey now in progress will provide updated statistics to be published in a future issue of the newsletter. Banks, fintech companies and end users are encouraged to participate. Information about participation in the survey may be found elsewhere in this issue.
In Progress – The Bank Service Billing Survey
By Bridget Meyers. Redbridge
So far, our Bank Service Billing survey, “Speak out to get satisfaction!” has attracted 18 corporate respondents. This is encouraging, but we would like to receive more responses to strengthen our results. This is why we have decided to extend the deadline to participate in the survey.
There is still time to participate in the surveys!
The Corporate Survey – Corporations who have not yet responded and use or are considering use of BSB are invited to comment on the industry standard, how they use it, where, and whether it has met their expectations.
Completing the corporate survey should take approximately fifteen minutes. The questionnaire can be accessed at the following URL:
For each complete response, Redbridge will donate $15 to the United Nations Children’s Fund to support its work in helping children across the world.
The Survey for Banks and Technology Providers – Along with the corporate survey, Redbridge is also conducting on behalf of TWIST and other interested parties two surveys targeting major international banks and software vendors providing BSB services. Ten banks have provided the full details regarding their BSB offer (see list below) and seven vendors. The vendor survey is now closed with summary results reported in this issue of the newsletter. The results of all surveys will be published in the next issue of the BSB newsletter.
Banks responding to the survey thus far include: Barclays, Commerzbank, Danske Bank, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, HSBC, SEB, Standard Chartered, Unicredit, and Wells Fargo.
Vendors who have responded to the survey: E5, Fiserv (Weiland), Hanse Orga, Infor, Redbridge Analytics, TIPCO, Vallstein.
Bankers, please consider responding to the survey if you have not already done so.
Global Service Codes Taskforce Launched
A global taskforce has been launched as a sub-committee of the CGI-MP Working Group 5 to update the AFP Global Service Codes. The last update was published in 2013 and banks that have implemented the AFP Global Code have requested some changes to the descriptions some additional distinctions in the code set.
The task force is seeking additional feedback from the newsletter community.
Suggestions, code requests, and ideas on how the AFP Global Code set can maintain relevance in today’s global transaction banking environment can be sent to:
Will History Repeat Itself? Standardizing Bank Billing Codes
By Bridget Meyers. Redbridge
What will the world learn from US bank billing?
When electronic account analysis statements (EDI 822) were first created in the US, the large corporations leading the charge approached the AFP (then known as the Treasury Management Association) for a standard unified billing code to facilitate automated reporting. To ensure adoption of the new standard code, ANSI required a “TMA code” to be assigned for each bank service included on the electronic statement.
Flash forward 30 years. Banks are still providing EDI 822s but the “TMA Codes” (renamed to “AFP Service Codes”) have not changed much since their original mapping years ago. AFP has traditionally updated the standard every 3-5 years but many of the banks are still using the 2004 or 2007 versions of the codes. The outdated code lists are further complicated by bank acquisitions, reduced budgets and resources, and the constant shift in a bank’s priorities due to ever evolving regulations.
What we have left is a mess: Banks are turning to increased fee income as interest rates stay low, the number of line items and average dollar amount being billed to corporations is larger than ever, and billing transparency is even more difficult to manage. The line item descriptions confusing and the codes are inconsistently applied across banks. Where they are used, the AFP Service Codes are mapped at a 40% accuracy rate.
The AFP attempted to solve the problem by creating the AFP Service Code Accredited Provider program in 2002. Banks who sign up to be “Accredited” have their billing systems audited and service codes mapped by a single source to the latest AFP code standard. Accredited banks are audited annually to maintain their status. Bank adoption of the program has been slow and steady but lacks the participation and support of the nation’s largest banks. Their absence in the program does not mean that the money center banks are better at mapping. In fact, at Redbridge, we spend considerable time correcting code assignments in order to launch an RFP and analyze bank offers. The inaccuracy not only frustrates the corporate end user who wants to be able to perform a comparison of fees across banks, it creates problems for the bank’s relationship managers who try in vain to use their incorrect codes to help them respond to RFP pricing schedules.
How can we prevent history from repeating itself?
We are at the exact point in time where the world’s global banks will either:
- Learn from their earlier experiences and solidify their commitment to a standard (and the accuracy of their mapping), or
- They will fall into the same trap.
The BSB format does not require a standard code nor does it specify which standard should be used. The CGI-MP bank participants have mutually agreed to adopt the AFP Global Service Codes as the unified standard used in the BSB, but there are still some who are not satisfied.
No matter which standard is adopted, banks must establish a clear process for ensuring consistency in their assignment of the AFP Global Service Codes as they implement BSB across all billing platforms.
Just as important, however, is to ensure on an annual basis that the mapping is still relevant and that new services are mapped with the same care.
Whether the process is outsourced or internalized through consistent training and internal efforts, the policies and procedures for the future need to be made now. A swimming pool is transparent when clean, but muddies quickly when not maintained.
BSB Going Forward: Hindered or helped by EU Regulations?
Tom Buschman, Founder and CEO, TWIST
As can be read in this newsletter, much progress has been made with the TWIST / ISO Bank Billing standard (BSB). It is accepted as the de-facto standard for the electronic billing of their services by transaction banks to their larger clients.
Counting the successes of BSB – From a corporate-led initiative the BSB has become a truly international and open ISO 20022 standard with adequate resources for its maintenance and propagation. Multiple banks have adjusted various systems in diverse countries to generate and deliver BSB compliant messages to customers. A number of these banks have started to use the wealth of data hidden in their bills to better understand the details of what services are delivered to these customers and at what price. These banks are keen for the standard to be more widely adopted by other banks and are happy to share their experiences of BSB implementation with their peers, clients and service providers.
A growing range of large corporates on the other hand have helped the standard through improvements and relentlessly pursue their banks with contractual requests to deliver electronic bank bills. The initial set of US-based corporates has been joined in their pursuit by many multinationals based in Continental Europe and beyond.
A diverse group of service providers has learned how to make money out of delivering tools and advisory services for the creation, receipt and / or analysis of electronic BSB messages.
Since there clearly is demand, there is willing supply and there are budgets spent on its implementation, the accelerated adoption of the BSB should now be assured? Perhaps not.
Industry changing regulation in the EU – The BSB has been developed to address the needs of wholesale banking services users (corporations and others) and their banks, maintained and propagated by a relatively small community. This isolation has made the BSB a great, content rich, standard but also poses risks of being overrun by other developments that have a profound impact on transaction banks and their corporate customers in the next one to two years.
The transaction banking industry is bracing itself for the adoption of industry-changing regulations in particular in the EU. Corporates on the other hand are increasingly impacted by their own industry-changing regulations. These regulations are still largely not known, ignored or left to others to deal with. But in combination they will have an impact for many years to come. Also, unlike most regulations, they affect client-supplier relationships and financial services at the same time. And unlike most regulations, they come with technical open-standards-based guidance that cannot be ignored.
Three EU driven initiatives that are happening at the same time are of particular import.
Standards-based optimization, driven by EU governments
- Pan European Procurement Online (PEPPOL). In order to foster the development of a Digital Single Market, the European Union has sponsored for development of Business Interoperability Specifications for eCatalogues, eOrdering, eInvoicing, eAttestation (VCD) and eSignature validation. Plus Network specifications for open and secure documents exchange. The EU safeguards a fair and open market with its PEPPOL Network Governance. The result is a program now adopted by many public procurement bodies in the EU. Suppliers are contractually requested to certify themselves and issue commercial documents to government agencies through the PEPPOL network, using PEPPOL standards.
- Revised Payment Services Directive (PSD-2). Aimed to ensure modern, efficient and cheap payment services. And promoting innovation plus improving payment security. All payment service providers (banks and non-banks) that operate in European countries (including the UK) are adopting this PSD-2 in just over one year from now – before the end of 2017. Core component is that payment service providers are obliged to allow access to their systems for non-bank service providers as long as specific data security rules are being adhered to.
- Payment Accounts Directive (PAD). The objective of the EU Commission with the PAD is to help people switch payment accounts, and ensure every EU resident has access to a basic bank account. All retail banks in the EU are requested to adopt before mid 2018 standardized terminology for payment accounts across the EU and structuring in detail fee information to consumers.
Neither SWIFT nor the European Payment Council (which was responsible for the SEPA Rulebooks) appear to be driving the development and implementation of the technical standards that are needed with these regulations.
The EU has established the OpenPEPPOL Association for the governance and maintenance of the PEPPOL specifications. The e-Invoicing standard applied by PEPPOL is UBL, which stems from the EDI-based Edifact standards of the nineties. For the classification of products and services, the PEPPOL community is relying on GS1, which has been set up by large retailers such as Walmart to structure product coding, supplier identification and the resulting barcoding.
When it comes to payments standards, the European Banking Authority (EBA) was tasked end of 2015 by the EU Commission to define the technical standards that are required for both PSD-2 and PAD.
Aligned objectives? – The BSB community has identified that treasurers and cash managers wish to implement the BSB for the following reasons:
- Transparency – Know what you pay and what is happening.
- Efficiency – Get rid of manual/paper based workflows.
- Simplicity – Make things easy, get analysis fast
- Serenity – Make your auditors happy
- Advice – Give strategic input to management
Source: A soon to be published CGI-MP corporate case study The Business Case for BSB for Corporates”.
The UK’s healthcare authority has identified the following benefits to buyers and suppliers from widespread implementation of the PEPPOL framework in the healthcare sector:
- Reduction in data input errors
- Reduced transaction costs and cycle times
- Planning and forecasting
- Improved performance through supplier measurement information
- Faster payment
- Improved management information
- Vendor Managed Inventory / self-billing
- Improvements in Just in Time deliveries
- More accurate deliveries due to reduced input order errors by suppliers
- Reduced stock due to shared sales/forecast information
Based on studies by McKinsey, the UK government expects to save between USD 3.5 and USD 6.0 million per average sized hospital per year with the implementation of the PEPPOL framework.
With regards to access to banking systems, the EBA has stated that its standards “will ensure appropriate levels of security, while at the same time maintaining fair competition between all payment service providers and allowing for the development of user-friendly, accessible and innovative means of payment.”
And the EBA’s technical standards for billing of retail bank services are “aimed at enhancing the comparability of fees through standardized terminology and disclosure documents across the European Union. This will allow consumers to compare offers from different payment services providers and to make informed decisions on the payment account that best suits their needs.”
These objectives appear to be very much aligned. The devil however is as always in the detail of the standards that are applied.
Push for implementation in 2017 – The PEPPOL framework is operational with hundreds of service providers. The EBA technical standards have been developed and were this summer subjected to public consultation. The EBA is expected to formally publish them before the end of 2016.
All banks in 27 EU countries will then have until the end of 2017 to implement the EBA’s technical rules for virtually all their payment services with regards to access to account. And all retail banks have until mid-2018 to implement the EBA’s standards for billing.
All this has significant impact on the data management and application of security by all retail banks in the EU, including the UK. Plus opens up their market to lightly-regulated third party solution providers.
Relevance for the BSB standard – The PEPPOL and EBA standards will be rolled out alongside the ISO 20022 standards, including BSB. It will be hard for banks that service public authorities in the EU to ignore PEPPOL. And where the processing of bank bills is increasingly seen by corporates as part and parcel of their standard procure-to-pay process, corporate treasuries and their bank providers will likely have to pay notice to the PEPPOL framework as well.
With the coding of bank services seen as complex and unstructured by corporate treasurers, the GS1 standards may be seen as a welcome alternative. The treasury community can also seek inspiration from the EBA standards for retail payment services, which present clear and easy-to-understand templates including instructions for banks on how to fill in these templates.
And if banks cannot deliver the bank bills in the required structure to corporates, third party service providers could offer translation services and gain access to bank systems by applying the EBA technical rules for access to account.
The Opportunity for BSB Community – It would be a shame if the BSB standard would be overtaken by events without ensuring that new standards fulfil in detail the benefits that corporates and banks obtain from the BSB.
There is enough time in the coming months for the BSB community to analyze these EU regulations and technical standards in detail. There is also enough time to drive the direction of their adoption.
The BSB community could decide to engage with PEPPOL and EBA and through PEPPOL with GS1 with the objectives to:
- Ensure that minimal additional investments will have to be made by banks and treasurers to leverage on the standards of PEPPOL, EBA and GS1. And
- Further accelerate the growth of the BSB in connection of these standards and the regulations that drive them…
The Vendor Survey Results – The results of the vendor survey are just in! Of the 15 fintech companies known to be providing bank billing related capabilities, 7 have responded. See below for an initial view of the results. A more detailed view of the responses will be made available in future.
A full list of Frequently Asked Questions including those carried in the last newsletter. Additional contributions welcomed.
- Q: What is the “Bank Services Billing standard (BSB)”?
A: The BSB standard defines an electronic statement that can be sent by a bank to its wholesale customers (e.g., corporations, governments, institutions) detailing their usage of financial services and their related charges. A BSB statement includes volumes and associated charges for all billable services rendered during a billing cycle, usually one month. In addition to its use as a statement for which it was designed, BSB may be used as an e-invoice in most countries.
- Q: Why was BSB created?
A: This standard was developed by TWIST at the request of a corporate interest group, led by General Electric.
- Q: What value does it offer corporations and other wholesale bank clients? And banks? /ol>
A: BSB has been created to help corporations:
- Enhance control over the cost of banking services
- Automate account reconciliation and account for bank fees
- Simplify the task of complying with market regulations such as Sarbanes Oxley
- From the perspective of the bank, BSB represents a new information product which helps differentiate bank transaction services
- Q: What information is included in a TWIST BSB statement?
A: A TWIST BSB statement is designed to report on all bank services rendered during the reporting period. A BSB statement includes:
- For one or more accounts in a client/bank relationship
- For a defined period in time, typically the most recently concluded monthly bank billing cycle
- Identification of all chargeable services used in the period
- The volume of those services during the period
- The per item and total charge for those services
- Select balance and interest information
- Relevant tax information
- Q: Where can BSB be used?
A: For reporting of periodic bank fees, any & all countries. BSB is offered in approximately 100 countries today. Note: A small number of countries may disallow use as an e-invoice.
- Q: What reporting period do the BSB statements cover?
A: Any period as agreed between the bank and its client. A single calendar month period is most common.
- Q: What industry recognized codes can be used in the optional element to identify service fees? <
A: Different code series may be used to identify service fees including bank proprietary codes as well as the Global Service Codes published by the AFP.
- Q: TWIST BSB and ISO 20022 camt.0086, what’s the difference?
A: They are the same thing! TWIST BSB is the first version of this standard. TWIST has worked with ISO 20022 and SWIFT on newer versions of the standard to allow the publication of BSB as a part of the ISO 20022 family of financial services standards. ISO 20022 camt.086 continues to be managed by TWIST as submitter and contains certain fixes and enhancements over earlier versions of this standard.
- Q: How does it relate to the US standard ANSI x12 822 Standard?
A: Conceptually, BSB is the global equivalent to the ANSI 822. Essentially a superset of the 822, BSB includes virtually all of the substantive business requirements and capabilities found in the 822. BSB accommodates multi-currency and value added tax, features not found in 822.
- Q: How does BSB impact existing business bank practice regarding service fee billing?
A: BSB is a control tool. It has been devised to complement existing activities, such as invoicing and account reconciliation, not to replace them.
- Q: If a statement contains one customer account, how can sub accounts be implemented?
A: A BSB message supports multiple statements as well as multiple accounts. In fact a statement can be articulated in a hierarchy of parent and child accounts all identified by codes, to reflect most organizational requirements.
- Q: What does a BSB “communication exchange” looks like? Are there any other standard messages involved (e.g. acknowledgement, status)?
A: In a BSB communication only the TWIST BSB message is provided as a standard document. In fact the purpose of a BSB communication is fulfilled when the BSB message is delivered from the originator to a recipient. How the message is sent and received, frequency, method of transmission (push/pull), and security are all out of the standard’s scope and are agreed between the sender and the receiver. Internet protocol based file transmission, SWIFT FileAct and other means are all currently used to send BSB files from banks to their wholesale clients.
- Q: What reporting period do the BSB statements cover?
A: Most frequently, the reporting period is one month. The period used is bilaterally determined by the bank and their client.
- Q: What codes may be used to identify billing line items?
A: The AFP’s Global Service Codes, bank proprietary codes, as well as other code series may be used. As of the latest version of camt.086, the ISO 20022 Bank Transaction Codes are also supported. The actual codes used are dependent on the reporting banks abilities. As a global standard, use of the AFP’s code series is encouraged.
- Robert J. Blair, Consultant, ASC x9 and TWIST Standards.
- Andrew W. Griebenow, HSBC
- Emmanuel Léchère, Redbridge DTA (ex bfinance)
- Sandrine Legoff, BNP Paribas
- Bridget Meyer, Redbridge DTA (ex The Montauk Group)
- Jacques Molgo, Air Liquide
- Lisa Novick, Citi
- Martin Postweiler, Hansa Orga
- Hubert Rappold, TIPCO
- AFP – The Association for Financial Professionals
- The US national treasury practitioners association.
- Publisher of the US and global versions of the Electronic Account Analysis (aka BSB) Service Codes– Source of the billing fees codes list as well as a whitepaper providing details on its history and use.
- CGI-MP – Common Global Implementation-Market Practice
- A group of banks, corporate treasury practitioners, financial application vendors, and standardizers working to harmonize use of BSB and other standards. Work Group 5 addresses BSB.
- ISO 20022 – International Standards Organization
- Current version of the standard BSB (ISO 20022, camt.086) and related documentation. including:
- Message Usage Guide describing “…the data content requirements of the Bank Services Billing (BSB) standard as defined by ISO 20022.” A useful guide for implementers.
- A sample file as well as a field by field cross reference document: ISO 20022 to TWIST to ANSI x12
- ISO 20022 Newsletter with periodic coverage of BSB
- Current version of the standard BSB (ISO 20022, camt.086) and related documentation. including:
- TWIST – Transaction Workflow Innovation Standards Team
- Author/submitter of the TWIST and ISO 20022 BSB.
- AFP presentation on BSB, and this newsletter, FAQ, business process information.
- A non-technical introduction to the standard.
Contacting the Newsletter Staff – Comments, Contributions, Additions to the Mailing Lists and Surveys
- Survey – To participate in the BSB survey:
- Newsletter – To join the mailing list, comment on this edition, or contribute news or articles to a future edition of the newsletter:
Please feel free to share this publication with others interested. Copies of this and prior BSB newsletters are available on the TWIST Standards site: http://twiststandards.org/
—– To contribute to this newsletter, please send an email to TWISTBSB@TWISTstandards.org —–
- February 2017 (1)
- February 2016 (1)
- January 2015 (1)
- October 2013 (1)
- October 2012 (2)
- October 2011 (1)
- November 2010 (1)
- November 2009 (1)
- March 2009 (2)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (6)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (1)
- January 2008 (23)
- December 2007 (10)
- September 2007 (1)
- June 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (1)
- November 2006 (1)
- September 2006 (1)
- August 2006 (2)
- July 2006 (2)
- May 2006 (1)
- February 2006 (1)
- December 2005 (1)