银行支付义务（BPO）已被纳入跨境贸易的替代解决方案。通过ICC迅速浏览了一套BPO规则和相关的ISO 20022消息传递标准。但公司是否正在采用它们？短暂的答案是否定，到目前为止的卷是微量的。看Swift的银行付款义务继续奋斗.
To me, the BPO was designed to keep the banks intermediated in the cross border trade flow. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The chief reason is that finance can be enhanced because, for many corporate and commercial clients, the average supply chain would involve very high KYC costs to inject liquidity. It is too expensive to do, even for many of the strategic suppliers for a client. And, it is certainly too expensive for most banks without a global footprint. This is where the BPO can add real value.
您看，BPO提供了信用证的本质（以及其所有和解，风险缓解和付款服务，见 -So You Really Want an Letter of Credit?）但在电子世界。这对许多，特别是大规模出口商（或小）来说可能是有价值的，这需要在新兴市场中额外销售的额外保护，但不希望与纸质文件相关的延误。
But it is stuck in the mud and I believe it needs to go private for a better chance of success. In a large bureaucracy like SWIFT that must coordinate with its bank members/owners, things sometimes just don’t move fast enough. I think if there are commercial owners, they would need to understand the world, and adapt to it. For example, how B2B and supplier networks are changing the way data and documents are exchanged, and how real-time payments are happening.
私有化BPO可能并不容易，因为TSU匹配引擎用于将原始购买订单数据与来自供应商的信息匹配，因此是可行的。
I think commercial owners would quickly understand you need third party service providers to help push this along. One area where the service provides can help is straight-through-processing to truly make the BPO a cost effective bank-to-bank instrument and low-cost trade settlement product alternative for corporations. This involves:
- 公司到银行集成
- Bank-to-TSU Matching engine
- 银行到内部系统
Perhaps SWIFT’s bank partners will raise this issue. There is precedence here. SWIFT spun off Bolero who has since gone on to provide both a multi-bank application and ePresentation solution to the market. It's time this issue gets raised at this year'sSibos in Boston.
In a sense this is actually happening…without SWIFT. Your comments are on point David but institutionalizing the process with SWIFT has not occurred.
Cross-border trade settlement today is increasingly done via mobile payments and credit cards. Cell phones make payment accessible everywhere. Banks are involved in these processes but in a disconnected way. The U..S. company which sells overseas may wish to keep proceeds overseas in order to lower the tax consequences. Why else would U.S. multinationals keep an estimated $3 trillion offshore?
大卫你绝对是正确的，迅速需要加入游戏，但除非税法兼容资金股票的股票销售，银行将继续在全球贸易的艰难方面发挥一点部分流动。If Apple products, to provide an example, are deemed to be of Chinese origin, why would Apple in drop shipping these goods to Africa “recognize” the sales in USD onshore when the same funds can be kept offshore in a way that minimizes U.S. taxes? The issue involves corporations and SWIFT. It also involves international taxation.