In mid-February, we discussed how important it is for banks to retain an overview when it comes to the Fontus project, which involves the modernisation of master data delivery for securities by the WM Datenservice. At DPS, we have set up an info mail for the affiliated institutions in this regard. We have received numerous questions about how to use the early D20 fields, which is the reason for this update.
Where do we stand: WM Datenservice recently announced in a customer information that certain fields of the D20 specification will be available as early as 28 April 2025. Banks can therefore choose to use them earlier or wait for the regular delivery on 23 June 2025, when the 107th amendment service is delivered. But when is it really worth bringing it forward?
This guide helps banks to assess whether it is worthwhile to bring forward their Fontus project:
1) Critical comparison of the early D20 fields with their own projects
Not all fields of the D20 specification are brought forward, but only a certain percentage per area of work. Banks that purchase the complete package from WM should check particularly carefully whether an early complete conversion makes sense.
- Suitable: master data (G) – 70% of the fields here have already been brought forward, so that clearly defined scenarios can be derived.
- Limited suitability: Annual general meetings (66%), corporate actions (62%), income (56%). Essential fields could be missing here, so that a complete conversion may not be practical if necessary.
- Not suitable: Trading segment data and trading venue data, as no fields are brought forward here according to current planning.
2) Comparison with the data from the previous project EDDy_neu and mapping
Another important aspect is the alignment with the fields already migrated from the previous EDDy_neu project. The following questions are relevant:
- Are the migrated fields included in the new delivery and correctly assigned?
- In which assignment (relationship), e.g. a 1:1, N:1 or 1:N, do these fields stand in relation to each other and how long are old fields basically supplied with information?
- Is there already an integrated mapping that provides clarity about the field relationships? (Note: use mapping from EDDy_neu!)
- Where are there business or technical gaps between the existing and new data structures?
- Which deltas to the final D20 specification are still open, and have these already been checked by the institutions in advance?
- Have the open points from EDDy_neu been resolved in the meantime, or are there still ambiguities?
Good to know: thanks to our automated test tool, we can efficiently map the old and new data worlds and identify possible gaps at an early stage. This makes test activities and subsequent migration considerably easier and reduces the risk of unexpected errors.
Conclusion
Not every bank can or should use the early D20 specification directly. The greatest added value arises for institutions that work with master data (G), since the highest and at the same time clearly definable share of early fields is available here. A precise analysis of one’s own processes and a comparison with the results from EDDy_neu are essential in order to make a well-informed decision. Those who check early can specifically rectify their Fontus project and reduce possible risks. This process can be significantly simplified by using the DPS mapping tool.
Read also our articles Fontus project: banks must keep an overview and Fontus project: the future of master data delivery
