Editorial & Advertiser Disclosure Global Banking And Finance Review is an independent publisher which offers News, information, Analysis, Opinion, Press Releases, Reviews, Research reports covering various economies, industries, products, services and companies. The content available on globalbankingandfinance.com is sourced by a mixture of different methods which is not limited to content produced and supplied by various staff writers, journalists, freelancers, individuals, organizations, companies, PR agencies Sponsored Posts etc. The information available on this website is purely for educational and informational purposes only. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any of the information provided at globalbankingandfinance.com with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. Globalbankingandfinance.com also links to various third party websites and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of the information provided by third party websites. Links from various articles on our site to third party websites are a mixture of non-sponsored links and sponsored links. Only a very small fraction of the links which point to external websites are affiliate links. Some of the links which you may click on our website may link to various products and services from our partners who may compensate us if you buy a service or product or fill a form or install an app. This will not incur additional cost to you. A very few articles on our website are sponsored posts or paid advertorials. These are marked as sponsored posts at the bottom of each post. For avoidance of any doubts and to make it easier for you to differentiate sponsored or non-sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles on our site or all links to external websites as sponsored . Please note that some of the services or products which we talk about carry a high level of risk and may not be suitable for everyone. These may be complex services or products and we request the readers to consider this purely from an educational standpoint. The information provided on this website is general in nature. Global Banking & Finance Review expressly disclaims any liability without any limitation which may arise directly or indirectly from the use of such information.


“The ECB figures showing migration levels of over 95% disguise several factors, most notably the failure of the SEPA project against the Terms of Reference: efficiency, harmonisation and cost. The operational efficiency of the SEPA project – especially in the Direct Debit scheme – has fallen dramatically compared to the legacy national schemes.

Bob Lyddon
Bob Lyddon

Currently, ECB figures track SEPA migration as the switch in the clearing from legacy payments schemes in local data format to SEPA payments in ISO20022 XML data format. The ECB figures do not measure the take-up by customers of ISO20022 XML: many are using a conversion service in order to bypass the need to adopt ISO20022 XML directly, and therefore they are, strictly speaking, non-compliant.

The ECB, the Commission and the EPC have no reason to challenge this non-compliance, because they wish SEPA to be seen as a success.

The whole SEPA project has been a failure in its stated aim of transforming a series of immature and inefficient domestic markets into a single efficient pan-European one right from the start. This is due to a number of reasons, namely that:

• The legacy markets were both mature and efficient, but in some cases small scale
• SEPA has transformed them into the same number of markets, but all immature, and all with their own version of ISO20022 XML
• The overall efficiency of European payments markets has fallen
• There has been a large investment cost which will not be recovered, and we have wasted 10 years: the EPC SEPA Roadmap was published in 2004, was supposed to conclude in 2010, but in 2014 we are still only a small part of the way there.”