Autorisaties en bevoegdheden vastleggen – ook noodzakelijk voor het MKB

| 5-5-2017| Jan Doosje |

 

Helmi van Bergen van Juridiqua heeft onlangs een interessant artikel gepubliceerd over autorisaties en procedures rondom autorisaties. Vorig jaar heb ik een artikel voor TreasuryXL geschreven betreffende autorisaties en procedures met betrekking tot cash en treasury management. Ik zie het artikel van Helmi van Bergen in het verlengde hiervan.

“Bureaucratische” regels

Het is mij bekend dat veel bedrijven in het MKB wars zijn van al teveel bureaucratische regels. Echter, als deze “bureaucratische” regels (lees: autorisaties) helder en kernachtig zijn geformuleerd, geformaliseerd en ook gecommuniceerd zijn levert dit ook (of wellicht vooral ook) in het MKB veel rust in de bedrijfsvoering op.

Door een goede implementatie in de (financiële en logistieke) systemen hoeft het werken met autorisaties overigens ook niet te leiden tot een uitbreiding van indirecte kosten het is eerder te verwachten dat er efficiënter gewerkt kan worden (minder discussies en minder onduidelijkheden). Het argument van hogere kosten kan m.i. gemakkelijk weerlegd worden en is dus geen excuus om procedures en autorisaties niet vast te leggen.

Autorisaties

Zowel eigenaren/directie als de medewerkers kunnen veel winnen bij het invoeren van autorisaties en een autorisatietabel. Geen discussies of onzekerheden bij de medewerkers of iets al dan niet mag of voor welk bedrag er (bijvoorbeeld ) een verplichting aangegaan mag worden. Het is uiteraard aan de ondernemer zelf om te bepalen in hoeverre hij zijn staf- of lijnorganisatie het vertrouwen wil geven om zaken zelfstandig op te pakken, uiteraard ook afgezet tegen zijn ‘risk appetite’ en financiële draagkracht.  Voor veel werknemers zal het een verrijking van hun werkzaamheden betekenen, de organisatie spreekt (impliciet) vertrouwen uit en dat werkt veelal enorm motiverend.
Voorwaarde is wel dat er voldoende waarborgen in de procedure zijn opgenomen waaruit blijk dat functionarissen hun bevoegdheden niet te buiten zijn gegaan en dat er, naast beloning, ook “straf” gegeven kan worden als bevoegdheden worden overschreden.

Vanuit oogpunt van certificering helpt het ook als procedures formeel worden vastgelegd en ook blijkt dat er navolging aan wordt gegeven alsmede controle op bestaat. De organisatie heeft meer grip op het proces en heeft meer zekerheid dat doelstellingen op de juiste manier worden behaald.

Ook de accountant zal over het algemeen blij worden van een juist ingevoerde procedure en autorisatietabel. Dit geeft een goed beeld over de mate van professionaliteit van de organisatie.

Conclusie

In aanvulling op het artikel van Helmi van Bergen concludeer ik het volgende:

Het vaststellen van procedures en vastleggen van autorisaties is ook voor het MKB erg belangrijk vanwege de volgende redenen :

  • Het schept helderheid in de organisatie over de taken, verantwoordelijkheden en bevoegdheden.
  • Daar deze helderheid ontstaat er meer grip op de organisatie, de controle neem toe.
  • Implementatie gaat niet gepaard met hogere kosten, het is eerder de verwachting dat er efficiënter gewerkt kan worden
  • De ondernemer dient zelf te bepalen in welke mate hij het vertrouwen aan de medewerkers wil geven, mede ingegeven door zijn eigen ‘risk appetite’ en financiële draagkracht
  • Implementatie ondersteunt het MKB bij het verkrijgen of behouden van (bijv.) ISO-certificaties
  • Een accountant zal positief oordelen bij het inzien van een op juiste wijze geïmplementeerd en nageleefd systeem van procedures en autorisaties
  • Implementatie kan een enorme boost geven aan de motivatie van medewerkers vanwege het (impliciet) gestelde vertrouwen
  • Naast implementatie dient er periodiek gecontroleerd te worden of op een juiste wijze gewerkt wordt
  • Bij overtreding van autorisaties of afwijking van procedures dient duidelijk te zijn welke sancties hier vanuit de organisatie aan gesteld worden.

Vraag die nog beantwoord dient te worden in welke mate de vastgestelde autorisaties ook in het Handelsregister vastgelegd dienen te worden.

Ik hoop middels deze blog extra input gegeven te hebben aan het artikel van Helmi van Bergen.

Jan Doosje

Jan Doosje

Owner of Fimterim Advies & Consultancy

 

 

 

 

Meer artikelen van deze auteur:

Basisprincipes van interne beheersing op het gebied van treasury – Deel I

Basisprincipes van interne beheersing op het gebied van treasury – Deel II

 

The end of the Euro as we know it – when the party ends?

| 4-5-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

 

The papers are full of stories about the level of Government debt within the Eurozone (Italy has a debt to GDP ratio of more than 130%), probable new bailouts for Greece, lack of suitable bonds to purchase for Quantitive Easing, Brexit, the rise of populist rightwing politics etc. Well at least we have all the bad news out in the open – don’t we?

Target 2

A new problem has arisen that was partly accelerated by QE – namely the outstanding national balances within Target 2. This is the “Trans European Automated Real-time Settlement Express Transfer System” foe the Eurozone. The key word is “Settlement” as I shall explain.
When a financial transaction is agreed 2 actions have to happen – clearing and settlement. Clearing entails all the actions that must be undertaken up to settlement, such as delivery of bonds, securities or shares. Settlement means the exchange (transfer) of money for goods or bonds etc.

When a party in Italy buys goods from the Netherlands, they instruct their bank to debit their account and credit the account of the seller. This is a cross-border transaction. But, within the Eurozone monetary settlement does immediately take place between banks. The Italian bank will have its balance reduced at the Banca D’Italia and the Dutch bank will have its balance credited at de Nederlandsche Bank. However, the balance is not settled between the 2 central banks – a new claim is shown on their books.

At the end of 2016, according to the Euro statistics website Italy has a negative Target 2 balance of EUR 420 billion with other countries in the Eurozone. This amount has been accumulated over the years since 1999 and now represents more than 25% of GDP. This is on top of the Italian Government debt of 130% of GDP. If a country were to leave the Eurozone they would be liable to immediately settle their Target 2 balances – something that is not realistic. Under the current agreement the other countries within the Eurozone would be liable to cover the debt. Target 2 balances do not have to be settled as countries would never default appears to be the thinking.

At the other end of the scale, Germany has an outstanding claim on other Eurozone countries of EUR 830 billion. At the moment these amounts are shown at full face value in the books – it would appear that politically, no one wants to acknowledge that the claims can not be settled in full under the current constraints within the Eurozone. If the Eurozone are 100% committed to supporting the Euro and, the balances are not going to be settled within the foreseeable future then, eventually, something will have to break.

Emperor with no clothes

Confession time – I am English (and proud of it). If I had been able to vote in last year’s referendum in the UK, then I would also have voted for Brexit. This does not make me anti-European; rather the reality of the Eurozone is very much like the fable of the Emperor with no clothes. Everyone sees it, but no one will say it. Perhaps, a solution can be found that does not mean debt forgiveness, writedowns, defaults or exits, but common sense would imply that this is wishful thinking.

When I was a young boy at Grammar School I had to learn some poetry for my English Literature exam – it included D.H. Lawrence. As a wild youth I could cope with Shakespeare, had a hard time with Chaucer, but fell in love with a poem by Lawrence entitled “A Sane Revolution”. He told us to make a revolution for fun and not in seriousness. Also I knew the poem as it was quoted by Mott the Hoople who got me through my teenage years with their music.

The creation of the Euro is a revolution in European history, but could it ever be called sane?

TARGET 2 BALANCES

Source: http://sdw.ecb.europa.eu/reports.do?node=1000004859

 

GOVERNMENT DEBT

Source: http://www.debtclocks.eu/select-an-eu-member-state.html

Lionel Pavey

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

1 juli stopt GMU – hoe houdt u uw bedrijfsprocessen op orde?

| 3-5-2017 | Mark van de Griendt | Sponsored content |

GMU, het formaat wat al jaren door ING wordt gebruikt als formaat voor de bankafschriftinformatie, wordt vanaf 1 juli niet meer door ING aangeboden. Dit formaat wordt al tientallen jaren door ING geleverd en wordt ‘ingehaald’ door formaten die uitgebreidere (incasso) informatie kunnen geven. Wat houdt deze verandering precies in? En wat zijn oplossingen voor het verdwijnen van GMU?

 

Van GMU naar CAMT

Al jarenlang gebruiken klanten van ING GMU als formaat om bankafschriftinformatie in te lezen in hun systemen. Het is noodzakelijk voor een bedrijf om te weten dat als een automatische incasso niet kon worden afgeschreven bij de klant, welke reden dit dan heeft. Aangezien het bedrijf dan weet welke vervolgstappen er richting de klant genomen moeten worden. Dit werd dan in een bestand gezet (GMU formaat) en ingelezen bij het boekhoudingssysteem van het bedrijf. Hierdoor werd er zonder moeite of tijd een overzicht gecreëerd om te kunnen inzien voor het bedrijf. Indien u gebruik maakt van het GMU formaat, heeft het uitfaseren van dit formaat veel gevolgen. De opvolger van GMU is het formaat CAMT 0.53. CAMT is een formaat dat al enige tijd beschikbaar is. Waar GMU een Nederlands en ING-eigen formaat is, is CAMT is een internationaal formaat en biedt dezelfde, zo niet net meer informatie dan GMU. Zo kun je met CAMT de exacte reden inzien van een incasso die niet geïnd is. Aangezien veel huidige systemen om het GMU formaat zijn gebouwd, moet een bedrijf dus een oplossing hebben om ook na het uitfaseren van GMU het de bankrapportage in te kunnen lezen.

 Welke oplossingen zijn er?

Gebruikers van het GMU bestandsformaat hebben systemen die om het GMU-formaat heen gebouwd zijn ten behoeve van hun reconciliatie en daarom heeft het verdwijnen van GMU gevolgen voor deze bedrijven. CAMT bevat dezelfde informatie als GMU (platte tekst met codes), maar aangezien het een ander formaat is en dus een andere indeling heeft, kan CAMT (XML-bestand) niet in het huidige systeem van een bedrijf worden ingelezen. De oplossing voor bedrijven is tweeledig. Er kan gekozen worden om het huidige systeem om te laten bouwen door de software leverancier zodat het systeem CAMT kan inlezen of er kan gekozen worden om GMU nadat het uitgefaseerd is door ING alsnog te blijven gebruiken door een GMU-converter aan te schaffen. Deze GMU-converter zet CAMT bestanden om in GMU formaat zodat het huidige business proces van een bedrijf ongestoord verder kan gaan.

Systeem ombouwen van GMU naar CAMT

Om het huidige systeem om te laten zetten zodat het CAMT bestandsformaat ingelezen kan worden, moet de systeem leverancier van het huidige systeem worden ingeschakeld. Deze moet de functie om het nieuwe formaat in te kunnen lezen dan in het systeem ontwikkelen. Afhankelijk van zaken zoals het aantal gebruikers van het systeem, kan dit een complex proces zijn met een lange (ontwikkel) doorlooptijd en relatief hoge kosten. Aangezien deze optie vaak veel tijd kost, is hier meestal ook veel geld mee gemoeid. Het is natuurlijk erg vervelend als u bijvoorbeeld een systeemverandering over 2 jaar heeft ingepland, dat u dit nu dus naar voren moet halen aangezien het GMU formaat dus binnenkort gewoonweg niet meer geleverd wordt. Deze optie kost dus veel tijd en geld en hiernaast heeft het ook nog haast. Gelukkig is er nog een optie, de PowertoPay GMU-converter.

GMU-converter

De GMU-converter kan het CAMT formaat overzetten in het GMU formaat. Het is begrijpelijk dat het best lastig is om over te stappen naar een ander formaat als een bedrijf al jaren op dezelfde manier de betalingen verwerkt in het systeem. Daarom is er een oplossing (de GMU-converter) bedacht om veel kosten, tijd en risico’s te besparen voor bedrijven die nog gebruik maken van GMU. PowertoPay biedt deze GMU converter. Dit gaat als volgt in zijn werk: PowertoPay ontvangt het CAMT bestand van ING, wij zetten dit om in GMU en versturen het vervolgens naar uw bedrijf zodat de betalingen op dezelfde manier verder verwerkt kunnen worden. Deze oplossing is super voor bedrijven die gewoon gebruik willen blijven maken van GMU. Maar ook voor bedrijven die wel willen over gaan op CAMT, maar wat meer tijd willen hebben om dit project rustig uit te voeren, is deze GMU-converter een oplossing. De GMU converter is qua kosten veel vriendelijker, aangezien een grote systeemverandering niet alleen geld kost om het te laten maken, maar ook veel geld kost omdat er vaak een project opgezet moet worden om een systeemverandering in de organisatie door te voeren (denk aan: trainingen voor het personeel). Hiernaast kunnen bedrijven vrijwel direct gebruik gaan maken van deze converter, en kan door worden gegaan met het verwerken van het betalingsverkeer zoals u dat al jaren doet.

Conclusie

GMU verdwijnt. Als uw bedrijf werkt met dit bestandsformaat, betekent dit dat u actie moet ondernemen. U kunt ervoor kiezen om het huidige systeem om te laten bouwen zodat u betalingsbestanden in het formaat CAMT kunt ontvangen. Dit is echter een duur en lang proces. U kunt er ook voor kiezen om na de uitfasering nog steeds te werken met GMU, door de GMU-converter van PowertoPay in huis te nemen.

Mark van de Griendt – Cash Management Expert at PowertoPay

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/mark-van-de-griendt/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

Guide to Treasury Technlogy by ACT & AFP

| 1-5-2017| treasuryXL | ACT | AFP |

ACT and AFP have published a Guide to Treasury Technology sponsored by Bloomberg, which might be interesting for you.
Managing treasury tasks has become more complex due to globalization of markets and increasing uncertainty in business since the first AFP edition appeared in 2011. Since then treasurers faced multiple challenges to exercise control of treasury activities, especially group activities.

Managing treasury has become more complex during the years in the face of global change and increasingly uncertain markets. Treasury practitioners face magnified challenges, as they try to gain more visibility and exercise more control over group activities. Treasury technology developed quickly to help them to operate more efficiently and answer compliance requests with ever more stringent regulation. Automate processes was one of the biggest challenges. Technology can help treasury play a more strategic role, automate routines and be compliant with regulatory environment.

Joint AFP/ACT publication, sponsored by Bloomberg

This guide is the first joint AFP/ACT publication and aims to help practitioners to identify a cost-efficient solution.

The first chapter starts with a detailed introduction of the development of treasury technology, expectations towards this technology and how the evolution of the Corporate Treasurer took place. This chapter illustrates how the technology available to treasurers has developed over the last 15 years. A brief explanation of how dedicated treasury technology was first developed is followed by details of how a series of factors have moulded the treasury technology market into the one we see today. Three points are highlighted: that the treasury technology market has matured, tremendous improvements in the quality of connectivity and what the changes brought with them for Corporate Treasurers.

Why review technology?

In Chapter 2 the drivers for reviewing the technology and a case study are presented.
With the rapid changes in available technology, the increased opportunity for treasury centralization and the need for treasurers to be able to demonstrate control over activities, treasurers were reviewing how best to deploy technology in order to help them perform their various roles effectively. Given the different environments in which companies operate, the potential benefits from the deployment of a new technology solution can vary significantly. This chapter outlines some of the key drivers that are encouraging treasury practitioners to review their use of technology.

Purpose of technology

Chapter 3 deals with the purpose of technology and identifies the core roles of the treasury department. Also how treasury structure can affect the use of technology. When assessing a deployment of technology, treasurers need to determine their requirements of the technology. This chapter includes a series of questions to help treasurers clarify their existing operations and also identify how structures and processes might change with the adoption of new technology. A case study shows how a company uses a certain technology to improve process quality.

Technology solutions

Chapter 4 presents treasury technology solutions.
A wide range of technology solutions is available to support treasurers. Treasury management systems are able to support the majority of the work of most treasury departments. However, it is also possible to develop a technology solution that supports treasury departments, including those with complex operations, without adopting a treasury management system. This can be achieved by developing in-house solutions or by using tools offered by banks and other vendors. A range of potential solutions available to support treasurers is presented in this chapter.

Evaluation and building a business case

Chapter 5 is about the evaluation process and how building a business case can help to evaluate which technology fits best. How to build a business case and then how to develop a requirements definition is explained in detail. The requirements definition is a critical part of the process: it helps to set the scope for the project and is the core document in the selection process. The process of developing the requirements definition also helps to build support for, and awareness of, the project throughout the rest of the organization.

Selection, implementation and maintaining the solution

Chapter 6, 7 deal with the selection and implementation process, while chapter 9 tells you more about maintaining the solution over time.

Trends

Chapter 10, the final chapter describes some of the current trends in treasury technology and lines out how they might impact treasurers over the coming years. Some of the key areas of development in technology and also some of the market changes which might require a technological response are presented.

In the appendix of the guide you will find information on how to develop a request for proposal (RFP) , a checking list for this RFP and a very detailed country reports list.

Source: © Association for Financial Professionals, ACT (Administration) Limited and WWCP Limited (except articles by Bloomberg LP), 2016, ISBN 978 1 899518 47 0 book 978 1 899518 48 7 CD ROM, for the articles  Bloomberg LP, 2016 | TMI

Our conclusion

A very detailed, valuable guide for all who want to learn more about treasury technology, want to find out more on how to select the best technology solution that meets the specific requirements of their company and what to focus on during the purchase and implementation process. You can find the guide on tmi, after registering for free.

 

Review Dutch Fintech Awards: I’ll be back next year!

| 28-4-2017 |  Pieter de Kiewit |

Last Friday I had the pleasure of visiting the Dutch Fintech Awards. Diversity, technology, marketing and entrepreneurship are the key words that in my opinion describe the event best. Both contenders as well as audience were mainly Dutch. Although the language used was English, the communication style, also due to the moderator, was very “Dutch direct”. This kept the program entertaining during the pitches of companies of less relevance for me.

Dutch Fintech Awards

The event was not about parallel sessions or handing out brochures between presentations. One large, very representative room at the headquarter of Rabobank, a moderator who used interactive technology (on my smartphone!), a number of categories where three contenders pitched, an expert giving his opinion and a jury. At the end of the day the winners got awards and one of them won the event over all.

Pitches with various approaches

In comparison to previous versions of the event, I liked that there were no parallel sessions. There was plenty of time to network, people did not feel the need to skip presentations. One could notice that the pitches had various approaches: some of them were purely focused on the product or solutions as if to land extra clients. Others pitched as if to land extra funding. That made the task for jurors harder. Perhaps by coincidence, the less professional pitches were in the same categories.

The overall winner: BUX

The categories catered various target groups. Private persons could learn about financial planning tools & innovative on-line banking, SMEs about expenses management & crowd funding and large corporates about internet fraud & credit rating. I will not go into details about specific company pitches, you can read about them on www.fintech.nl. The only company I want to mention is the winner: Bux. The pitch had flair, a clear target group, a structured & smart approach and success was described in numbers. Both the proposition as well as the business case (funding!) were presented and questions were being answered with confidence.

I left later than planned, inspired, made new connections and met old friends. I will be back next year.

Pieter de Kiewit

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit
Owner Treasurer Search

 

 

More articles of this author:

Fintech recruitment considerations

Consider a treasury intern!

Singing from the same hymn sheet

| 26-4-2017 | Hubert Rappold | Sponsored content |

Hubert Rappold from TIPCO Treasury & Technology, puts the case for a treasury information platform (TIP), which acts as an information hub for the treasury department and reduces companies’ reliance on “Excel-based monstrosities” that are doomed to fail.

 

A typical treasury department runs a number of systems: a treasury management system for day-to-day operations, a trading platform, a market information system, electronic banking software and so on. So why on earth would you really need a separate treasury information platform (TIP)? After all, the data already exists in a multitude of other systems. Well, that is certainly true but also part of the challenge. If there is no single place where all the data can come together to create your reports at the press of a button, you will most likely be forced into a mediocre data warehouse solution also used by other departments or into a ‘handmade’ spreadsheet-based solution with all its drawbacks.

On top of that, even in an ideal world, when all your data is in a single system, there are circumstances where it is almost certain that you will need to integrate additional data. Just think about acquisitions. lt usually takes years before the systems are harmonised. So what do you do in the meantime?

Requirements of a TIP

A TIP needs to fulfil a range of requirements in order to satisfy the needs of treasury departments.

  • lt needs to be easy to use
  • lt needs to integrate existing data sources
  • lt needs to have a flexible reporting engine
  • lt needs to be easy to maintain
  • lt needs to be extensible

What happens if these requirements are not fulfilled is quite easy to imagine. Your reporting will be cumbersome, error-prone and data quality will be poor. Ultimately, the reporting project will fail and a new generation of interns will develop yet another Excel-based monstrosity doomed to failure.

Let’s look at these requirements in greater detail:

  • If it is not easy to use, it will not be accepted by your users, resulting in poor data quality and frustration. The benchmarks are spreadsheet­based solutions. If the handling is as easy as in these systems, then your users will be happy.
  • If it does not integrate existing data sources, you force users to duplicate entries, resulting in frustration and hence in poor data quality. Of course this is not a one-way street. Think about the FX exposure captured by your subsidiaries as part of the forecasting process and locally contracted FX transactions. Your risk manager will be more than happy to have this information in his or her treasury management system. Think about payment advices. Collect this information and you can use it to optimise the funding of your cash pools. Your TIP will act as an information hub for the treasury department, passing data back and forth between various systems.
  • If it does not provide a flexible reporting engine, you will not be able to react to ever­changing requests from internal and external sources and will essentially resort to time­consuming, cumbersome and error-prone spreadsheet reporting. Flexible not only means that it covers all functional aspects. lt also means that even without being an IT guru you should get meaningful information out of the system. However, be on your guard if you are told that you will be able to create sophisticated reports within minutes without any training. That only works well in promotional videos. Invest some time in proper training and be the master of your reports.
  • If it is not easy to maintain, you will be frustrated by the administrative overhead of the system instead of working straight on the analysis of the data. lt needs to be straightforward to add new users, companies and company groups. Whether via manual input or interfaces, the data needs to end up in your reporting solution without delay, without reprogramming, and without any external expertise.
  • If it is not extensible, you will be forced to install even more systems if a new function is required, such as cash flow forecasting, bank relationship management and guarantees. Therefore, think ahead. Before selecting a system, clearly state what you want it to do now and in the future.

Outline of system architecture

Below, I have outlined how such a system could fit into your existing system environment and what the interactions are between these components.

The TIP acts as the information hub between the various systems. lt receives and passes on data to and from other systems. Based on this data, all the reports are created without any need for manual consolidation.

Benefits of a TIP

  • The TIP receives the data from other systems and passes it on to other systems. This reduces the number of interfaces between systems and hence the overall complexity.
  • The reports are created from a single common data source. There will never again be any more mismatches between different reports as they are all created from the same set of data.
  • lt becomes less costly and less risky to replace components of your system architecture. If you need to replace one of the components, you can be sure of having a minimal impact on the overall system architecture. If you use a new treasury management system (TMS), you only need to replace a few interfaces between the TIP and the TMS. If you switch to a new market information provider – no problem, just replace the interface to the TIP. lt will pass on the data in the established way to all the other systems involved.
  • lt becomes easier to add new functionality: If you require a new function, for example, cash flow forecasting, it is also easier to update or extend a lightweight TIP instead of relying on the next release cycle of your TMS provider.
  • lt becomes easier to add acquisitions: Even if newly acquired companies are not integrated into your system infrastructure, they can use uploads or simple screens to provide their data.

Selecting a TIP

Usually, a TIP is selected because there is one burning issue that needs to be solved, for example, a group-wide overview of bank accounts or cash flow forecasting. If you select a TIP for any of these functionalities, always ask yourself what could be the next burning issue. These are usually identified by analysing the existing spreadsheet-based solutions. Any of these is a good candidate to be replaced by the TIP.

With this list in mind, look at the existing providers and make sure that they cover all your needs and not only the one that currently causes most of the pain. Also make sure that the system provider has treasury experience. Just think about cash flow forecasting. Most system vendors will tell you that planning is part of their system. However, a closer look will show you that basic functionality is missing; for example, the connection to the financial status as the starting point of the forecast or the display of credit facilities according to their maturity structure. Basic things, if you are treasurer, but a different world for the average system provider.

Also make sure that the system has an intuitive user interface, especially where large amounts of data are captured, for example, for the cash flow forecast. lt should be as easy as a spreadsheet­based solution in order to gain the acceptance needed. Interfaces should exist to all relevant standards and systems. Last and definitely not least, a large customer base that happily acts as references is a must. If this does not exist, the chances are high that the system provider will develop the system at your expense.

Look at your current treasury reporting. If you encounter lots of spreadsheet-based solutions, if you see files transferred via e-mail, if a lot of manual work is needed to create reports and if you find yourself tracking down differences between different reports time and again, you should consider a treasury reporting solution like TIP.

For more information please refer to TIPCO Treasury & Technology

Hubert Rappold – CEO at TIPCO Treasury & Technology

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/hubert-rappold/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

Blockchain and the Ripple effect: did it ripple?

|24-4-2017 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

Our expert Carlo de Meijer has published an interesting article about a blockchain initiative that we want to share with you. We have slightly shortened the original article about Ripple.

 

Who is Ripple?

Have you ever thrown a stone in still water of a river or a lake. I did! The effect is rippling the water in a way that can be followed outwards incrementally. It might be this effect that the founders of Ripple, the payments blockchain network had in mind when choosing the name for their project. Did it ripple?

San Francisco based Ripple is seen as one of the most advanced distributed ledger technology (DLT) companies in the industry, which focuses on the using of blockchain-like technology for payments.

In just four years, Ripple has established itself as a key player in the fast-growing distributed ledger technology world. Since 2013, the Ripple Protocol has been adopted by an increasing number of financial institutions to “[offer] an alternative remittance option” to consumers. Especially the years 2015 and 2016 marked the expansion of Ripple, with the opening of an office in Sydney (April 2015) and the opening of European offices in London (March 2016 ) and in Luxembourg (June 2016).
In June last year, Ripple obtained a virtual currency license from the New York State Department of Financial Services, making it the fourth company with a BitLicense. As of 2017, Ripple is the third-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalisation, after Bitcoin and Ether.

What is Ripple?

Ripple is a financial real-time gross settlement solution, currrency exchange and remittance network using distributed ledger technology. Released in 2012, it purports to enable “secure, instant and nearly free global financial transactions of any size with no chargebacks”.
Ripple is built upon a distributed open source Internet protocol, consensus ledger and native currency called XRP (ripples) enabling (cross-border) payments for retail customers, corporations, and other banks.
The Ripple Protocol, described as “basic (settlement) infrastructure technology for interbank transactions”, enables the interoperation of different ledgers and payment networks and brings together three aspects of modern payment solutions: messaging, settlement and FX management. It allows banks and non-bank financial services companies to incorporate the Ripple Protocol into their own systems, and therefore allow their customers to use the service.

The protocol enables the instant and direct transfer of money between two parties. As such the protocol can circumvent the fees and wait times of the traditional correspondent banking system. Any type of currency can be exchanged including USD, euros, RMB, yen, gold, airline miles, and rupees.
“Ripple simplifies the [exchange] process by creating point-to-point and transparent transfers in which banks do not have to pay corresponding bank fees.” Chris Larssen, former CEO Ripple

The Ripple company also created its own form of digital currency dubbed XRP in a manner similar to bitcoin, using the currency to allow financial institutions to transfer money with “negligible fees and wait-time. One of the specific functions of XRP is as a bridge currency, which can be necessary if no direct exchange is available between two currencies at a specific time. For example when transacting between two rarely traded currency pairs. Within the network’s currency exchange, XRP are traded freely against other currencies, and its market price fluctuates against dollars, euros, yen, bitcoin etc.

Did it Ripple?

Growing adoption by banks
Ripple has experienced a growing adoption by banks. Many financial companies have subsequently announced experimenting and integrations with Ripple. The first bank to use Ripple was the online-only Fidor Bank in Munich, which announced the partnership early 2014. Fidor Bank would be using the Ripple protocol to implement a new real-time international money transfer network.
Since then a host of major banks have adopted Ripple to improve their cross-border payments, and many have completed trial blockchain projects. These banking institutions – including Santander, UniCredit, UBS, Royal Bank of Canada, Westpac Banking Corporation, CIBC, and National Bank of Abu Dhabi, among others – view Ripple’s payment protocol and exchange network as a valid mechanism for offering real-time affordable money transfers.

Some recent developments in the Ripple network

The real uptake of Ripple however started to take place in 2016 and continued during the first quarter of 2017.

National Bank of Abu Dhabi (February 2017), Axis Bank (January 2017), SEB (November 2016), Standard Chartered (September 2016), and National Australia Bank (September 2016) are the latest banks to join Ripple’s blockchain-powered network for cross-border payments. And more banks will get on the Ripple bandwagon during 2017. Ripple says its network now includes 12 of the top 50 global banks, ten banks in commercial deal phases, and over 30 bank pilots completed.
“Banks and their customers have been hearing about the promise of blockchain technology to enable real-time cross-border payments. Now, some of the most innovative and successful banks like NBAD are making this a reality by offering Ripple-enabled payments to their entire customer base, and in doing so, paving the way to make 2017 the year we see broad commercialization of blockchain take hold globally.” Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of Ripple

Further Rippling: enlarging the network

Global Payments Steering Group
Last year September Ripple created the “first: interbank group for global payments based on distributed financial technology. Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Santander, UniCredit, Standard Chartered, Westpac, and Royal Bank of Canada have joined as founding members of the network, known as the Global Payments Steering Group (GPSG). CIBC will also join the GPSG as a new member.
“The creation of GPSG is significant because this represents the first time that major banks have formulated policies to govern the transfer of money across borders using blockchain,” Donald Donahue, GPSG chairman.

GPSG aims to use Ripple’s technology to slash the time and cost of settlement while enabling new types of high-volume, low-value global transactions. The group will oversee the creation and maintenance of Ripple payment transaction rules, formalised standards for activity using Ripple, and other actions to support the implementation of Ripple payment capabilities.

R3CEV
Last year October R3 and twelve of its blockchain consortium member banks – including Barclays, NAB, Nordea, Royal Bank of Canada, Santander – have trialled Ripple’s Digital Asset XRP, to tackle the costs and inefficiencies of interbank cross-border payments. Ripple says XRP has the “fastest” settlement speed, settling in about five seconds or less.
“The prototype paves the way for a major overhaul of how banks process and settle cross border payments”. David Rutter, CEO of R3

Banks traditionally provision liquidity for cross-border payments by holding various currencies in local accounts with correspondent banks around the world. But these ‘nostro’ accounts are costly because banks have to fund them, trapping capital. Ripple argues that this can be fixed by instead using a digital asset – such as its XRP – which provides liquidity on demand.
Ripple’s network was trialled in R3’s lab and research centre, making markets for fiat currencies using XRP and then completing authenticated payments without multiple nostro accounts. The trial introduced XRP to test the feasibility of reducing or retiring the use of current nostro accounts for local currency payouts.

Ripple Innovations

In the meantime a number of important innovations were announced in the Ripple offering.

Ripple Validator Node
Global IT company CGI announced it is the first commercial enterprise to implement the Ripple Validator Node. Ripple validators are servers that confirm Ripple’s distributed financial technology transactions on the network. The CGI-hosted Ripple Validator Node provides banking clients with a trusted network partner for Ripple’s distributed financial technology that settles international and domestic transactions in real-time.

Smart Token Chain
Smart Token Chain (STC), a blockchain specialist in the FinTech sector, has completed its first full Smart Token transaction across the Ripple Network. Using Ripple gives STC universal access to a wide range of partners and customers without having to physically craft a digital relationship with each one. STC is leveraging Ripple’s open, neutral platform, called “Interledger Protocol” to move payments globally across different ledgers and networks.
Leveraging the Ripple platform with new Smart Token solutions is accelerating the move toward the launch of a truly useful blockchain and smart contract implementation, which has great potential for making global exchanges of value fast, affordable and highly secure. It also provides a well-documented audit trail that will make dispute resolutions more efficient and less frequent.

Ripple’s new cost model

Ripple created a cost model, designed specifically to help banks understand their cost structure and how Ripple can help them overcome current inefficiencies. With Ripple’s new cost model, banks can easily enter transaction volume and operational metrics to receive a custom cost analysis. The cost analysis breaks down cost to a per-payment level, for both a bank’s current system and if it were to use Ripple. By using this model banks can easily estimate the efficiency gains it could achieve using Ripple for international payments.
XRP Incentive Program

The XRP incentive program is designed to accelerate the use of XRP as a universal bridge currency by creating deep and liquid markets at the outset of being listed on digital exchanges. The program is funded by Ripple and will be operationally managed by exchanges for their liquidity providers.

Global financial institutions are increasingly looking for solutions to consolidate the liquidity tied up with the nostro accounts required to fund their overseas payments. Digital assets such as XRP allow for banks to fund their payments in real-time, and in the process, cut down their dependency on nostro accounts.
As a bridge currency, it can enable liquidity concentration around fewer currency pairs, making cross-border payments more efficient. As evidenced by R3’s trial with XRP for interbank cross-border payments, the use of Ripple and XRP can enable both cost-cutting and revenue opportunities for participating institutions.

BitGo makes XRP more accessible
Ripple’s efforts to build an active ecosystem around its XRP digital asset has been boosted by a deal with virtual currency processor BitGo. Under the programme, BitGo will provide multi-signature security, advanced treasury management and additional enterprise functionality for XRP, which will be integrated into the BitGo platform this year.

The Rippling goes on!

Ripple plans to enlarge the number of exchanges trading XRP. Working with a greater number of exchanges to list XRP is an important step to serve the growing demand for global payments in major and exotic currency corridors. Ripple has previously commented that by using its network and XRP as a bridge asset, banks can save up to 42% on interbank international payments.

“This cost-saving frees up capital to generate revenue opportunities, including new product offerings for high-volume, low-value payments and access to new corridors”, claims Ripple.

The Ripple effect goes on!

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

Communicatie en transparantie – het ontbreken ervan kan funest zijn voor treasurers

| 21-4-2017 | Kasja Reinders | treasuryXL

De meeste artikelen op treasuryXL zijn uiteraard treasury-gerelateerd en onze experts schrijven over de meest uiteenlopende onderwerpen. Toen wij expert Kasja Reinders vroegen om eens een onderwerp te kiezen dat relevant voor treasurers maar niet onmiddellijk vak-specifiek is, kwam zij met ‘Communicatie en transparantie’. Verrassend en toch – treasurers kunnen niet zonder.

 

Kasja Reinders:
In de loop der jaren en met de ervaring als treasury professional bij verschillende bedrijven merk ik dat de communicatie binnen bedrijven niet optimaal is.

Medewerkers zijn of worden niet geïnformeerd over zaken die hun aangaat. Zeker als het om verschillende afdelingen, zeker ook de financiële afdeling of treasury binnen een bedrijf gaat wordt er slecht tussen de afdelingen gecommuniceerd. Mensen zitten op een “eilandje”, zijn bang om informatie te delen. Afdelingen weten niets of weinig van de processen in andere afdelingen. Verkoopprocedures worden niet besproken met financiële afdelingen en financiële afdelingen informeren te weinig over betalingen en cash flow issues. In mijn optiek zal het juist de sfeer in een bedrijf verbeteren als mensen open communiceren en anderen laten weten waar ze mee bezig zijn en als er nieuws of veranderingen te horen krijgen dit ook met anderen delen. Dit verbeterd de kwaliteit van het werk, voorkomt “dubbel werk”, fouten en zelfs situaties die het voortbestaan van het bedrijf in gevaar brengen. Het wiel hoeft ook niet nog een keer uitgevonden te worden. Ook met betrekking tot ERP systemen. Zorg ervoor dat de GL accounts duidelijk omschreven zijn in het systeem zodat iemand zich niet hoeft af te vragen wat voor een GL account het is.

Managers van verschillende afdelingen zouden hier wat meer aandacht aan kunnen besteden om hun mensen beter te laten communiceren. In plaats van te e-mailen zou je bij elkaar langs kunnen lopen of die persoon kunnen opbellen. Email is goed maar niet altijd effectief. Een email kan verkeerd begrepen worden terwijl dat niet de bedoeling is. In een email kun je de verkeerde toon aanslaan. Daarom zou ik aan willen raden: Pak de telefoon of loop even bij je collega langs en probeer open en duidelijk te communiceren over je werk en de uitdagingen die je ondervindt.

Kasja ReindersKasja Reinders – Treasury/Cash Manager

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/kasja-reinders/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

Regulatory demands: compliance required!

| 20-4-2017 | Olivier Werlingshoff | Sponsored content |

 

Complying with regulatory demands is a must, and banks know it. In practice, however, the majority still can’t manage to meet all requirements. Manual solutions prove to be insufficient and important rules are often overlooked. But how does one ensure that all regulatory demands are complied with?

Facilitating screening

Today, most banks offer apps that customers can use for online banking purposes, such as opening an account. However, there are two important aspects when onboarding a customer. First, you need to have adequate controls and procedures in place to know the customer with whom you are dealing. Adequate due diligence on new and existing customers is a key part of these controls – which can be done using advanced software that is linked to different sanction lists. Second, all customer transactions should be monitored for AML – which is done after the settlement of a transaction and live transaction screening, which happens in real time. The moment a payment is made and a beneficiary bank receives it, sanction lists are instantly scanned to check if there is a hit or not. This is done for every transaction, ensuring that regulatory demands are met.

Compliance: points of attention

Some banks still don’t comply with regulatory demands. They merely check sanction lists for the customer’s name – often manually –, which is by no means sufficient! For example, one should also verify whether the customer’s name appears in any media or lawsuits, and a customer’s partner needs to be checked as well. So what you need is a comprehensive solution that takes all these different aspects into account.

Implementing a solution

Proferus helps banks and corporates opt for a proper automated solution based on the demands involved. We assist in choosing the right software and support teams that have to learn to work with it. Basically, we help them in two respects: we provide consultancy – by conducting business analyses – and we implement the technical solution!

Olivier Werlingshoff - editor treasuryXL

 

Olivier Werlingshoff

Managing Consultant at Proferus