Skip to content

GRA · Fintech Nexus

Spatial financeWhere capital meets hazard, exposure and transition

Payment and financial market technology

Payment and financial market technology is the base of this field: the messaging, clearing, settlement and liquidity systems through which value moves. Applied to risk, it traces how a fault, an attack or a liquidity shortfall travels from one participant or provider through a system to the wider economy, and which design choices contain it.

01Register

Payment and financial market technology on the record.

Method recordSTEM method
  1. MethodPayment and financial market technology
  2. Applied inFintech Nexus
  3. Canonical pageSTEM Commons
02Application

What payment and financial market technology does here.

Payment and financial market technology covers the systems that clear and settle transactions and support trading. Their continuity is essential for economic activity and crisis response. In capital markets and investment, cyber and digital resilience and digital public infrastructure, payments analysis shows how operational outages or cyber events can freeze liquidity across the economy. It informs resilience standards and contingency arrangements. The canonical description is on the STEM Commons.

Dependency mapping of a payment chain

Each step from customer initiation to final settlement is traced to the systems, providers and liquidity it needs, so single points of failure and shared processors are visible before an outage reveals them.

Liquidity stress simulation

Settlement records are replayed under scenarios such as a participant default, a weekend outflow or a delayed central bank window, to show where queues and gridlock build and how liquidity-saving mechanisms respond.

ISO 20022 data-quality assessment

Message fields are checked for completeness and structure across migration and translation points, to find where data used for screening, reconciliation and fraud detection is truncated or lost.

03Stress test

How a shock to assets becomes a system loss.

The equity the system loses after interbank contagion, against the initial hit, as leverage, interconnection and recovery rates change, the core of a macroprudential stress test. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction.

Controls

Fall in external assets
2.0%
Leverage (assets over equity)
10 times
Interbank share of assets
10%
Recovery on interbank claims
40%
Banks in the system
20
Core banks
20% of banks

Readouts

Equity lost to the initial shock
18.0%
Equity lost after contagion
45.0%
Added by contagion (DebtRank)
27.0 points
Banks in default
0
Numbers, methods and sources
RoundSystem equity lost (%)Banks in default
018.000
128.800
235.280
339.170
441.500
542.900
643.740
744.240
844.550
944.730
1044.840
1144.900
1244.940
1344.960
1444.980
1544.990
1644.990
1745.000
1845.000
1945.000
2045.000
2145.000
2245.000
2345.000
2445.000
2545.000
2645.000
2745.000
2845.000
2945.000
3045.000

Methods

  1. DebtRank Battiston and others (2012), Scientific Reports 2:541
  2. Differential DebtRank Bardoscia and others (2015), PLOS ONE 10
  3. Contagion in financial networks Gai and Kapadia (2010), Proc. R. Soc. A 466
  4. Clearing in financial networks Eisenberg and Noe (2001), Management Science 47
  5. Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
  6. One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley

Data

No observed data enters this model: it runs on the teaching values set by the controls, to be replaced with a programme's own evidence.

How a shock to assets becomes a system loss. Illustrative teaching model: it runs on the values set by the controls, not on measured data. Methods: DebtRank (Battiston and others (2012), Scientific Reports 2:541); Differential DebtRank (Bardoscia and others (2015), PLOS ONE 10); Contagion in financial networks (Gai and Kapadia (2010), Proc. R. Soc. A 466).

Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium

04Data

What the method consumes.

Datasets and records used by payment and financial market technology on this platform, with the role each plays and the label its values carry. Sources are listed in the source register.

DataRoleLabel
Settlement system transaction recordsLiquidity simulation and flow analysisOBSERVED
Operator availability and incident logsContinuity and recovery analysisPublished statistics
CPMI Red Book statisticsCross-country comparison of system usePublished statistics
PFMI assessment reportsDesign and governance baselinePublished statistics
Participant liquidity positionsStress scenario inputsREPORTED
05Exposure, loss and capital

What payment and financial market technology means for exposure, loss and capital.

The exposure, loss, scenario and capital views a risk officer, supervisor or ministry of finance would ask for, with the frameworks they report against. Structures follow supervisory and actuarial practice. Values are illustrative: never prices, ratings or advice.

Transmission channels

How a shock in payment and financial market technology reaches credit, market, underwriting, liquidity and operational risk, and feeds back.

Channel structure after the Basel Committee's work on climate-related risk drivers and transmission channels; links shown are typical paths, not estimated exposures.
NGFS climate scenarios · Network for Greening the Financial SystemIFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures · ISSBTCFD recommendations · Financial Stability Board TCFDPrinciples for the effective management of climate-related financial risks · Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
06Validation

How results are checked.

Systems are tested through failover exercises, liquidity simulations and supervisory oversight. Reconciliation checks the integrity of settled positions.

CheckHow it is done
Replay against historySimulations are run on past days with known outcomes before any scenario is relied on
ReconciliationSettled positions in the model are reconciled with the operator's end-of-day records
Behavioural sensitivityResults are reported across assumptions about how participants delay or withhold payments under stress
Operator comparisonDependency maps and scenarios are compared with the operator's own business continuity assumptions

Interdependence among participants and third-party providers can produce unexpected failures. Simulations may not capture behavioural responses under stress.

08Stewardship

Who maintains the method.

Payments and Market Infrastructure stewards payment and financial market technology for the Consortium and reviews how it is applied across platforms.

10Questions

Questions and answers.

What are the limits of payment and financial market technology in this field?
Interdependence among participants and third-party providers can produce unexpected failures. Simulations may not capture behavioural responses under stress.
How are results checked?
Systems are tested through failover exercises, liquidity simulations and supervisory oversight. Reconciliation checks the integrity of settled positions.
Are the values on this page real?
The data names, roles and checks are real descriptions of practice. The canvas shows a design of the method's use, not a run; no result is reported here.
Where else is this method applied?
The canonical method page lists every platform that applies it.
ReportsContribute

Contribute evidence from this page.

Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.

Global Risks AllianceFintech NexusExponential TechnologyFinance and Insurance Readiness
Fintech Nexus

Bring an exposure or capital question to the Alliance.

Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.