This is a question that in itself does not concern the choice of whether or not we should have electronic trading. All business is settles, whether this is done through a traditional market-maker system or by electronic trading. Those buying fixed income instruments want to be sure of receiving what they have bought an those selling want to receive the money they have been promised, regardless of the trading form. On the other hand, it is clear that it would be desirable to take the opportunity to design a new system that would provide a good means of handling settlements. This is particularly important as the increased volumes hoped for, which are the whole point of the new system, will create increased risks in terms of settlement. Today settlement on the fixed income market is done by means of net settlement in VPC. This works well in many ways and the routines are perceived as manageable by the market players, as far as I understand it. However, the system is nevertheless obsolete and involves risks. If one of the parties involved failed to meet its payments during the daily settlement, for instance, if one party was forced to make a suspension of payments or simply lacked sufficient liquidity, the situation could become troublesome. The existing routines can be called into question. One can imagine situations where settlement is not achieved, which could have consequences for the liquidity of the banking system. From the point of view of financial stability, this is an unsatisfactory situation.
•  This means that you will be able to make payments through FAST as long as you know the payee’s mobile number. BIS central bankers’ speeches  3  •  May I suggest to the industry to go one step further and explore an “all-in-one” addressing system? •  This means being able to pay someone through FAST using also the payee’s email address, social network account, or other proxies. Unified Points-of-Sale Let me move on from card issuance to card acceptance. In Singapore’s retail payment scene, multiple Points-of-Sale (POS) terminals at the payment counters are a common sight. They are a source of clutter and inconvenience. And as more stores and restaurants introduce self-checkout facilities to improve productivity, these multiple terminals have become a source of confusion as well. Our vision is a unified POS – a single terminal, preferably mobile, that can read all kinds of cards. This will: •  allow merchants to enhance efficiency by simplifying front-to-back process integration; and  •  enhance the shopping or dining experience of customers. A unified POS requires merchant acquirer systems to be able to communicate with one another. This interoperability can be achieved through standardisation. The technology exists but it requires some effort and some cost. I am pleased that The Association of Banks in Singapore has formed a working group to look into standardising the POS applications to operate efficiently and seamlessly. I commend them for their resolve to address a long-standing bane in our retail payment scene.