last fall. the u. s. federal banking agencies are working hard to develop an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or anpr, that will explain concretely their vision of how basel ii would be implemented in the united states. the anpr will be tailored to the u. s. context in a way that particular banks will be able to see whether the proposal applies to them and what it will mean for them if it does. the anpr will also seek to pose questions in several areas in which the u. s. agencies need specific feedback. we hope to issue the anpr by the end of june. the next stage in the process will be the feedback that we receive from you and other interested parties, both on the cp3 and especially on the anpr in the united states. the federal banking agencies will consider these comments very carefully. i should be very clear about this. some believe that with the issuance of cp3, the shape of basel ii is essentially set in stone. this is wrong. if the cp3 or anpr comments show that elements of the proposal need to be modified, the u. s. agencies will seek such modifications. these views do not conflict at all with those that i elaborated a few minutes ago. as i indicated, there is a well - understood need for a basel ii and any realistic version of it will need to balance flexibility and comparability in the use of modern risk - management techniques. but the members of the basel committee need to remain open to the possibility of specific improvements to the proposals. let me describe some of the conceptual issues that have been raised regarding the proposals and provide some perspective on them. first and foremost has been the issue of complexity. concern over this issue appears to have several aspects. the first is a concern over the sheer volume of the proposals. this aspect of the complexity concern is, i think, somewhat misguided because it has typically equated the basel proposals with the sum total of those background papers that have been released in an effort to explain more transparently not only what the proposals are but why they look the way they do. nevertheless, there is no doubt that the basel ii proposals themselves are several times longer than basel i. one reason for this is that basel ii contains several different versions - - it is no longer a one - size - fits - all approach. but in the united states, we are not proposing to implement every flavor of basel ii. the anpr should therefore

- border payments beyond the euro area struggle to meet the needs of consumers. the european commission is therefore proposing to facilitate linkages between european systems and instant payment systems of third countries. in april this year, the ﬁrst cooperation agreement to allow settlement of non - euro instant payments in tips was concluded with the swedish central bank. https : / / www. bundesbank. de / en / press / speeches / shaping - the - future - challenges - in - the - european - payments - market - 851850 6 / 9 01 / 12 / 2020 shaping the future – challenges in the european payments market | deutsche bundesbank looking beyond europe, the g20 is stressing the need to make cross - border transactions more [UNK], as problems are particularly pronounced for low - value remittances. according to the world bank, remittance ﬂows reached a record of almost us $ 550 billion last year, [ 19 ] surpassing foreign direct investment ﬂows. at the same time, the global average cost for remittances remains high. to send us $ 200 home, migrant workers from low - and middle - income countries have to pay almost us $ 14 on average. clearly, improvements in this area could foster economic development and ﬁnancial inclusion, thereby helping the poorest in the world. in this context, the bundesbank is proposing “ amplus ” : an international multilateral settlement platform which would not compete with established cross - border solutions. it would be limited to low - value transfers that are often characteristic for remittances. thus, amplus is not about building a “ correspondent banking highway ”, but rather a “ one - way - street ” for remittances. 3. 3 token - based solutions moreover, in order to ultimately serve the consumer, the needs of businesses are also essential. as digitalisation is fully automating more and more processes, a programmable payment medium would be practical and relevant for smart contracts or machine - to - machine payments. representatives from the bundesbank, the federal ministry of finance, the ﬁnancial industry, and the real economy are investigating and advancing the idea. one option may be to build a bridge from private blockchain networks to the existing payment infrastructure. bundesbank experts are exploring the so - called “ trigger solution ”, which could allow smart contracts to trigger conventional target2 transactions. thus, dlt - based trade would be settled in central bank money. another step would