APPENDIX

SDK reform in the move to a market system

Functions of the SDK

A. Payments clearing >up<

The raison d’être of the SDK centered on its payments functions. Once legally established, all organizations had to register with the SDK, and open a single so-called “giro account,” maintained at the SDK office where the legal entity was located. All payments had to go through these special accounts. When the giro account was opened, its holder designated one or more sight deposits (with special code numbers under the banking accounting plan) with a commercial bank of its choice. These were the accounts where the money would be held, and where in- and out-payments were made. The single giro accounts held with the SDK were mere duplicates of the matching deposits held with banks. Through the giro accounts, the SDK, instead of the banks, was the manager and record keeper of the matching bank deposits. The SDK giro accounts functioned as mirror images of the bank accounts, and the SDK itself did not perform any deposit-taking or lending operations. Legal entities could hold time bank deposits not linked to SDK accounts. However, debits and credits to these accounts would have as a counterpart a credit or debit to the sight deposit controlled by the SDK, as any other financial or nonfinancial transaction.
            Each government agency or spending unit also had one (occasionally more than one) SDK giro account (typically a #603 account), which mirrored a deposit with a commercial bank, rather than with the national bank. Although main ministries and other first-level budget institutions (direct spending units, DSUs) usually had their accounts in the national bank (designated #637). In addition, there were numerous transient giro accounts where tax receipts were credited, before being transferred to a general “budget giro account” (account #630). The latter typically had a matching deposit with the national bank that was under the control of the MOF and was debited with budget payments (actually transfers to the giro accounts of the spending units). Thus, expenditure took place by electronic transfer, debiting the main budget account #630, and crediting the #637 accounts of main budget users, the DSUs. The latter distributed these funds to their subsidiary units, ISUs, to #603 accounts.

Banks also had a single giro account with the SDK, which mirrored their ordinary deposit account (or giro, account) with the national bank, which, in turn, also had an SDK account. The SDK knew the balances held by banks in separate required reserve accounts with the NBM, as it could exceptionally draw on them. The SDK had a monopoly on payments –legal entities were obliged to carry all domestic payments through the SDK– this included all government agencies, banks, and even the national bank. It also included payments that were a counterpart to credits or other financial operations, as in the case of bank or the national bank. By contrast, foreign exchange payments (both abroad and domestic) were performed by the banking system, without the intermediation of the SDK. As the SDK covered only legal entities, households interacted directly with banks, where they held their accounts. They could deposit cash, and get reimbursements in cash, or issue payment orders, which were executed directly by banks through the SDK system. Payments were executed through the SDK on the basis of payment orders, whereby money was transferred from the payer’s account to the payee’s account

Using its extensive computer facilities and regional branch network, the SDK was able to execute almost all payment orders within 24 hours across the whole country, as legally prescribed. The system was highly efficient from this point of view, though highly inefficient if account is taken of the effort required to deliver payment orders to SDK offices and to retrieve information on payments inflows and final deposit balances from the SDK. The inability of banks and the national bank to directly credit or debit their clients on account of other financial operations, as well as to carry out payments among clients of the same institution, involved additional inefficiencies.

B. Bank clearing >up<

C. Cash distribution >up<

D. Tax collection functions >up<

The collection of taxes was also made through the SDK. On tax collection dates, enterprises had to present to the SDK a payment order, together with a form specific for each tax. Tax proceeds were credited in some transient giro accounts in the SDK, according to the type of tax. These were subsequently debited, and the total revenue was credited to the general budget giro account #630, controlled by the MOF.
Since the most important taxes (sales, wages) were based on payments which must have been carried out through the SDK, it was in a position to immediately check the accuracy of the assessment. In case of failure in presenting the payment order when due, or of disagreement with the tax assessment, the SDK would stop the execution of any payment order of the defaulting entity and would charge penalty interest rates on delayed tax payments. Eventually, the SDK was in charge of procedures for sanctioning tax default. This was in the past a very expedient system of tax collection; however, with the introduction of new taxes, this became a large source of tax evasion. Enterprises, particularly in the case of the new private enterprises, turned to cash payments, avoiding SDK mediation partly or altogether, and so avoided the payment of taxes assessed or controlled through gross payments.

E. Control functions >up<

Apart from the information stemming from payment orders, the SDK was obligated to receive different reports submitted by all legal entities, including government agencies, concerning their activity. Enterprises had to submit quarterly reports on taxes paid and other legal obligations; and half-yearly reports with income statements and balance sheet. Other legal persons were obliged to submit yearly reports. This information was the basis for the general audit functions assigned to the SDK. These functions centered on the legality aspects, rather than on performance criteria. A special role was typically assigned to the SDK in starting bankruptcy procedures of legal entities facing payment difficulties.

F. Information functions >up<

In addition to providing each account holder with all the relevant payments information, the SDK produced a large number of reports, some yearly, some quarterly or monthly. For example, the monthly reports on budget revenues made to the MOF was critical for cash-planning purposes. There were some annual and semi-annual reports on government expenditure, which, however, were not based on information collected through the payments mechanism, but on the reports submitted to the SDK by the spending agencies. Except in the case of government agencies, the SDK charged fees for these reports. The SDK was a major source of data for the official statistical yearbook.

Quite clearly, the SDK was a very powerful organ of the socialist state. The concentration of power to move funds, and the consequent information it possessed, were viewed suspiciously even before the collapse of the SFRY. Clearly, it carried out many of the control and supervisory functions of a central bank and hence stood in the way of the more modem conception of an independent and powerful central bank. Moreover, its monopoly on payments transactions was a barrier to allowing the commercial banking system to develop on market-based lines.

The progress in reforming the SDK system is summarized below:

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Federation of BiH and Republic Srpska (FBiH & RS)

The closure of the 3 Bill payments bureaus15 by 31st December 2000 was agreed to by all parties at the Madrid conference following the Dayton accords, and follow up pressure from the international community ensured that this decision was implemented on that date. While the closure of the PBs was abrupt with immediate and wholesale movement to the banks for all customers, the implementation of new treasury systems to replaced transaction processing previously managed by the PBs was considerably complicated by the number of levels of government involved –the State of Bosnia and Hezegovina (BiH), the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH), the Republic of Srpska (RS), and the FBiH cantons, not to mention lower level local governments and municipalities. On the revenue side in particular, the transition was difficult and problematic, as tax payment transactions through the banking system failed to identify both the taxpayer and the nature of the payment, making the accounting (and sharing of revenues) impossible. The government banking arrangements were further complicated by the unwillingness of the RS and the FBiH to use the “common” central bank for its main operating account. Instead they used commercial banks that were individually favored by each government for political reasons (which resulted in 2 banks for the FBiH).
            The changeover was assisted by external involvement in the process, in particular in the provision of computerized systems for the new treasury operations. USAID provided the bulk of this assistance, through the provision and customization of the Oracle Financials software to support the various treasuries (locally known as the SUFI system) whose deployment started in 2001 but was only completed in 2002. USAID also provided last minute support for the development of a special software application for revenue recording and sharing which was ready in January 2001. Both these systems went a long way towards replacing the functions previously performed by the PBs. These systems allowed the maintenance of treasury general ledgers, so that with the closing of the budget institutions’ bank accounts, new ledger accounts could be opened instead, thus allowing a TSA to be established in each entity (FBiH and RS). In the RS the treasury management and banking arrangements went further with the establishment of branch treasury offices operating zero balanced transit accounts in commercial banks, to look after regional revenue collection and to service the transactions budget users based within their region. In contrast, the FBiH has only two branches (Sarajevo and Mostar) to cover, given that most service delivery operations are carried out in the cantons. To simplify the move, both entities limited the need for cash transactions for the launch of the new system.

The Bosnia State Treasury’s conversion to a TSA was delayed to mid-2002, owing to delays in the software implementation and the special problems of putting in place arrangements for making payments to field locations (e.g., State Border Services).

In Republika Srpska the successor to the SDK, the SPP, was closed and its activities passed to the APIF, as an independent but publicly owned entity in charge of payments clearing. The Central Bank of BIH (Banja Luka Branch) took over the bank clearing, and the institutions transferred their accounts from the SPP to the commercial banks. The APIF took control of former payments bureau functions such as registration of legal entities, and statistical returns, and maintained a residual IT capacity, which in theory allowed it to supply services to anyone, but in practice mainly to government bodies. Tax administration received some staff from the SPP, with tax collection made through the banks, and other staff joined the Treasury.

In retrospect, the “big-bang” approach to the payments bureau reform was not as disruptive as would have first been expected, largely due to significant levels of external technical assistance, but also because in the BiH the SDK system had already broken down. At the same time, there were losses of information (e.g., company statistics collection from end of year accounts had a two-year gap in their completion) and the lack of preparation in the treasury initially resulted in a significant loss of control over public finances, particularly in the FBiH.

The Croatian payments bureau (called Zavod za platni promet, ZAP) was transformed into the Financial Agency on January 1, 2002, based on the Financial Agency and National Payments System Acts. Under these new arrangements, the responsibility for payments systems operations that were performed by ZAP were transferred to the Croatian National Bank, and the commercial banks were put in charge of processing and clearing their own payments. The National Bank had previously established a RTGS system in April 1999. The National Clearing System was established in 2002, as an independent operation managed by a branch of the Financial Agency. The Financial Agency also continues to provide agency services to the banking sector to handle payments operations, as many of the commercial banks had not made the required investment in systems and resources by the time the new law came into force. ZAP employees continued working as employees of the Financial Agency.

            In Croatia, the migration of accounts from the ZAP to the banks was completed in one step, including the accounts of the DSU and ISUs. However all DSUs and ISUs accounts are to be reported to the Financial Agency, and the banks are to provide regular balances on them. According to the Croatian National Bank Law, the accounts of the republic are managed through the National Bank, but the SU accounts are opened and managed through the commercial banks. The banks also receive and process payment orders for revenues and other budgetary receipts, that must be filled in according to an 2000 Order of the MOF, and banks must have IT applications that assure the compliance with this Order.

            Banks that maintain the accounts of local government and municipal accounts are obliged to report daily on payments made and disbursements from that account. Information is sent to the Financial Agency on magnetic media in a form prescribed by the MOF Order. Since the Financial Agency also provides services to the banks in processing revenue payment orders, there was little change in the flow of information. For those banks not using this service, there were some initial problems in information that appear to have been resolved. On a contractual basis, the Financial Agency also performs tax sharing between central and local governments. In the Treasury, the MOF has the capacity to process a significant part of the wage bill. Salary slips from ISUs in the education, social welfare, and judiciary branches are collected and processed by the Financial Agency and settled centrally from the various transfer budgets. Cash management is now a treasury function.

Serbia only began a transformation of its payments bureau (called ZOP) beginning in October 2001, although it had taken a first step in the early 1990’s by placing it under the supervision of the Federal Central Bank. The Law on Payments Transactions was adopted on January 2002, to take effect on January 1, 2003. This prescribed that all accounts of legal entities and physical persons would be moved to the banks, and only denominated in dinars. The National Bank of Yugoslavia (NBY) will maintain clearing house settlement accounts, and the giro accounts of the federal government and the Republic of Serbia. As in Slovenia, a part of the ZOP was employed as an agent for government payments transacting. And as in Croatia, the ZOP can provide agency services to the banking sector. The Federal and State governments have until December 31, 2003 to establish TSA. The payment system is based on a RTGS run by the NBY, and a clearing house for small-scale transactions. To participate in the RTGS, a bank must be licensed by the NBY. The transitional period for migration was very short, but it appears that, despite some minor disruptions in tax collections, the changeover on January 1, 2003 went rather smoothly, probably owing to lesson learned from the experience of Bosnia. It is envisaged that the NBY will maintain accounts for collection of public funds and allocate funds from such accounts up until December 2003.

The approach to payments bureau reform in Montenegro was to divest all nonpayments functions from the ZOP, and reallocate them to successor institutions. The retained central processing and communications network were then taken over by the central bank, and the ZOP branch network was transferred to the commercial banks, still connected to the central processing hub. This meant that the payments service, its role as fiscal agent, and the giro and wide area network (WAN) services were integrated under the Central Bank of Montenegro (CBOM) management. In this way, Montenegro shied away from major changes, opting for modifications of present systems. There was no major investment in new IT systems (RTGS, a clearing house, or even commercial banking systems), providing a breathing space for the development of more modern and market oriented systems. At this time, it is unclear that this deregulated giro system and WAN communications service for the banks is sustainable in the long term. Much will depend on the extent they are willing to subscribe to these services and how much they will opt for other solutions. At the moment, the interbank RTGS operating within the modified system appears to be functioning reasonably well.

In the nineties, the ZPP worked closely with the MOF to develop more effective reporting systems for government transactions, particularly on the expenditure side. This close collaboration began to wane, however, when it became evident that the government wished to reform the payments system in line with market economy practices. FYR Macedonia passed the ZPP Reconstruction Law in 2001, and in December 2001 it dismantled its payments bureau. The law provided for the accounts of budget users to be transferred to the treasury from the ZPP. A RTGS system managed by the National Bank of Macedonia (NBM) and the Agency for Inter-Bank Clearing System (KIBS), were the successor institutions to handle payments. A new revenue payment order was established, requiring the taxpayer to enter the correct tax code when making payment, and thereafter the Public Revenue Office (PRO) took over ZPP branch offices as local tax offices. A Skopje Treasury Office was formed (with staff and associated software transferred from the ZPP) to handle payment requests in the capital area. The other payments covered by a small treasury presence in the regional branch offices were taken over by the PRO. This was preceded by intense activity in 2001 in completing the alternative treasury system, based on the operation of a TSA. This was accomplished in two phases. The first phase, before the closure of the ZPP at end-2001, required the treasury to create a software for the Treasury General Ledger (TGL), and the NBM to create a new payment system based on a clearinghouse for small-scale transactions and the RTGS for large-scale transactions. The system required budget users to submit monthly spending plans to the Treasury Department, which approves and records them using a specifically tailored software. The treasury then gives the budget user authority for its monthly expenditures. The budget users submit their requests centrally to the treasury, which electronically submits a payment order to the central bank, recording the transactions in a TGL. The central bank, via the new clearing RTGS, credits the accounts of the suppliers, giving online electronic reports of the inflows, outflows, and balance of the TSA to the treasury.
            The second phase of the reform process underway involves budget units having increasing electronic access to the system, so that they can view their accounts and obtain online reports through a combination of prepared reports and download capability. At first, only the main budget units, the major DSUs, would be online to the treasury, and the ISUs would communicate electronically through their supervising ministries (DSUs). Beginning in 2003, the plan is to extend online connection to the smaller DSUs and larger ISUs, as well as to improve the methods for ISUs to directly communicate with their supervising DSU.

Slovenia >up<

Work on the payments system reform started in the early 1990s, although institutional difficulties prevented the reform from being concluded at that time. However, in the mid-1990s, the Central Bank established the RTGS and small values clearing systems, imposed in-day reporting on the position of the banks at the payments bureau, and developed its own retail account management system for government users. During this period, the payments bureau shed some of its tasks, namely tax functions to the Tax Administration (along with 600-800 staff), banknote distribution to the Central Bank, and auditing to the Court of Audit. With this background, and with mounting pressure to implement a payments system reform, a renewed and concerted effort started in 1999, this time with MOF involvement as both referee and interested party. The Law on the Reform of the Payments System was drafted, with sections added to deal with the dismantling of the payments bureau, including the creation of two new entities, the Office of Public Payments (UJP), and the Office of Public Financial Records. The work on treasury reforms strongly influenced the drafting of the law, particularly with regards to the UJP, which was assigned the specific task of handling all general government transactions.
           
This law was adopted in March 2002 and implemented on July 1, 2002, determining the closure of the payments bureau at end-2002. Migration of business legal entities started in batches from late 1999, under provisions in the old legislation. The gradual migration gave the banks time to adapt their operations to suit the needs of corporate clients, and the payments bureau time to downsize its operations and shed its staff gradually, with full union involvement and agreement. The 2003 Budget received a windfall from the accumulated reserves of the payments bureau, part of which was earmarked for the development of a TGL system to be installed in the UJP, with the staff complement of around 250. By July-2002, 193 TSA accounts were established at the Central Bank (1 central government and 192 local governments), and all accounts of central government, EBFs, and local governments, as well as those of the 1,500 third level institutions (zavods), were established as subaccounts of one of these TSAs. All general government budget users have therefore de facto become part of the TSA system and do not have their own bank accounts. All transactions (including own-source receipts and payments, and tax receipts) are processed through TSA subaccounts maintained by the UJP. For the moment, ISUs continue to deposit their surpluses in the commercial banks independently, although the central treasury has begun to offer its own short term deposit facilities aimed at attracting these surpluses.

Notes

15 In the FBiH, there were two PBs, ZAP in the Croatian-dominated part, and ZPP in the rest. In the RS, the PB was known as the SPP. All three PBs had become heavily involved in financial transactions in support of the ethnic conflict, and were perceived to be highly politicized and factional after the Dayton accords.