Colombia proposes more time to build open finance system

A Colombian draft decree would extend by six months the deadlines governing the Open Finance System and financial portability. The Unidad de Regulación Financiera draft would amend Article 4 of Decree 368 of 2026 and Article 6 of Decree 977 of 2026. It is a proposal, not an issued decree.

The changes concern four tasks assigned to the Superintendencia Financiera de Colombia (SFC): the standardisation work schedule, the participant directory, monitoring indicators and the standards and reporting information needed for financial portability. Each revised period would run from the entry into force of its respective underlying decree.

The draft’s mechanism is straightforward: it moves the dates for producing or operating the infrastructure on which the mandatory system depends. The obligations remain in place, while the SFC receives additional time to coordinate implementation and build the supporting arrangements.

Four deadlines move by six months

Under Article 4 of Decree 368, the SFC originally had six months to publish the work schedule for standardising the Open Finance System. The draft would extend that period to 12 months.

The deadline for putting the participant directory into operation would move from 12 months to 18 months. The SFC would also have 18 months, rather than 12, to define the indicators referred to in Article 2.35.8.7.2 of Decree 2555 of 2010.

Article 6 of Decree 977 concerns the transition arrangements for financial portability. Its current 24-month period for publishing standards and defining reportable information would become 30 months.

The draft therefore changes timing, not the underlying allocation of responsibility. The SFC would still have to publish the standardisation schedule, operate the directory, establish access, registration, amendment and withdrawal requirements, define indicators, publish portability standards and specify the information to be reported.

Portability is the link between the two instruments. The draft says it is a use case within the Open Finance System, so implementation of the Decree 977 obligation depends directly on the system’s standardisation and operation under Decree 368.

Capacity and coordination are the stated rationale

The draft relies on an implementation rationale rather than presenting a change in policy direction. It refers to an SFC letter dated 8 September 2026, which set out technical, operational and regulatory reasons for adjusting the mandates.

The document says compliance requires a coordinated strategy with the financial industry and prior strengthening of the SFC’s institutional capabilities. It also says the extension would avoid regulatory and technological rework and unnecessary adjustment burdens for participants.

That explanation identifies the control problem more precisely than a general delay: the system requires common standards, a functioning directory, monitoring indicators and reporting arrangements before portability can operate through it. The draft presents those dependencies as reasons to align the deadlines rather than pursue the existing timetable in isolation.

The government’s stated objectives remain inclusion, access to data, consumer control, competition and innovation. Those objectives appear in the draft’s description of the mandatory system, but the supplied instrument does not quantify their expected effects or establish a timetable for services beyond the amended SFC tasks.

For participants, the immediate legal position is unchanged unless the proposal becomes an instrument with legal effect. Existing deadlines under Decrees 368 and 977 remain the relevant requirements on the supplied record. The proposed dates cannot be treated as operative merely because the draft describes them.

The supervisory signal is therefore conditional but concrete: implementation will be assessed through the SFC’s ability to turn the revised timetable into standards, infrastructure and evidence. The draft gives no additional detail on the resources or governance arrangements that would address the capacity constraints it identifies.

The next test is publication and operation

The next observable test is whether a final instrument adopts the six-month extensions and whether the SFC then delivers each revised output within its applicable period. The sequence begins with the 12-month work schedule for standardisation.

The later tests are operational. The SFC must put the participant directory into operation within 18 months, define the monitoring indicators within the same period, then publish the financial-portability standards and define reportable information within 30 months under the Decree 977 transition provision.

The source does not establish that the proposal will be issued or that its dates will remain unchanged. Until that happens, firms should distinguish the draft’s implementation rationale from binding requirements and track the final instrument alongside the SFC’s schedule, directory arrangements, indicators, standards and reporting requirements.