Invitation Open Evening: Treasury Management & Corporate Finance | July 5 | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

29-06-2022 | treasuryXL |  VU Amsterdam | LinkedIn |

Boost your professional skills, knowledge and expertise in Treasury Management & Corporate Finance thanks to these high-level modules. Complete the programme and be awarded with the title of Registered Treasurer (RT).

The Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam invites you to join the Online Open Evening on Tuesday, 5 July 2022.

Treasury Management & Corporate Finance 19.00 – 20.00 hrs.

Sign up for the Online Open Evening

The postgraduate Executive Treasury Management & Corporate Finance programme combines two finance disciplines which largely overlap and are inextricably connected: Treasury Management and Corporate Finance. For this reason, it is a unique programme both in the Netherlands and abroad. It has now been running for more than 20 years at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. This postgraduate programme aims to promote development as an academic professional through a mix of academic theory and case studies of real issues in the field of treasury management and corporate finance.

Upon successful completion of this 18-month programme, you will be awarded with the title of Registered Treasurer (RT), a well-known and widely recognised title within the treasury professionals’ community. Exemptions apply to alumni of Dutch RC and RA programmes.

There are five key benefits of attending this programme

  • Broaden the perspective on the corporate treasury and finance disciplines that all-round corporate treasurers and finance professionals should master
  • Gain and master hands-on knowledge crucial in the daily practice thanks to a balanced mix of academic and professional expertise
  • Career development opportunities in a different setting thanks to the participation in the Thursdays lectures, leading to new ideas, insights and development
  • Interactive sessions are an added value of the programme, which explain and apply the main principles to professional practice through practical examples and business cases
  • Connect with the treasury community and fellow participants and build your own professional network

The programme Treasury Management & Corporate Finance at a glance

  • Start date: September 2022
  • Duration: 1,5 year (part-time)
  • Modules: 6
  • Time Investment: 130 hours per module including 8/9 weeks of four-hour teaching sessions and approximately 10 hours of self-study per week.
  • Tuition fees: € 22,500
  • Lectures:  Thursdays
  • Form: Physical classes (VU Amsterdam follows the advice of the RIVM for public health).

View all admission requirements, costs & practical information

Partners in delivering this programme are Orchard Finance, KPMG, PWC, Zanders and EY.

Best regards,

 

Herbert Rijken
Programme director

Unstable stable coins: how to regulate?

29-06-2022 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL | LinkedIn |

 

The crypto market was shocked by the sudden collapse of the third largest stablecoin TerraUSD early May. Long-time isolated from the falls in crypto coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum, stablecoins were designed to sidestep crypto volatility and supposed to remain stable across the crypto ecosystem.

The significant crash of TerraUSD that lost more than 90% of their value in a few days and the resulting crypto market turmoil however has put stablecoins in the regulatory spotlights. Regulators worldwide are prompting new calls for regulation highlighting the risk of certain cryptocurrencies and especially algorithmic stablecoins.

In this blog I want to highlight why TerraUSD, also called UST,  dropped below its target value, what the risks are of the various stablecoins, how regulators should react and what investors can learn from the crash of TerraUSD.

TerraUSD collapse

TerraUSD, also called UST, a so-called algorithmic stablecoin, had been another popular option for cryptocurrencies and was even the third largest stablecoin in the world at the threshold of the collapse. That system appeared to work well until then.

But TerraUSD was not able to withstand a panic outburst amongst investors, this notwithstanding they were providing a 20% interest. Sparked by a massive drop in the value of the crypto markets overall, investors lost faith resulting in a mass sell-off in the TerraUSD stablecoin. Luna Foundation Guard (LFG) tried to stop this slide by liquidating part of its 10 billion Bitcoin holdings.

The collateral, partly existing of Bitcoin, was insufficient to maintain its one to one peg to the dollar. As a result it slipped far from its $1 target price and dropped in value beginning May 9, 2022, hitting a low value of $0.015 at the time of publication of this blog.

As of this writing, the combined market capitalization of TerraUSD and partner stablecoin Luna was just over $4.5 billion, indicating a market decline of approximately $14 billion.

How did the  markets react?

Cryptocurrencies
In the wake of the TerraUSD collapse, other signs of the crypto sector’s vulnerabilities have emerged. When the Luna Foundation Guard sold almost its entire holdings of Bitcoin following the crash early May, as a result the price of Bitcoin, that lost already more than half of its value since last November from $64.000, sank to a 16-month low below $28.000 per coin. But also other cryptocurrencies were hit, triggered by  higher inflation and fears of raising interest rates. TerraUSD’s woes contributed to a slide in crypto markets that saw over $357 billion or more than 30% of digital asset market capitalization wiped out week-on-week. 

Stablecoins
While the TerraUSD collapse has spelled trouble for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, the chaos is somewhat contained in the stablecoin sector. That especially goes for the fiat collateralised segment, where most of the stablecoins such as Tether and Binance have the backing of actual cash and other valuable assets. TerraUSD  is however different from most of its stablecoin peers.

Investors fled TerraUSD into more trusted stablecoins such as DAI and USDC, which drove the price of TerraUSD further down. This increased demand for DAI and USDC temporarily increased their price and were shortly after arbitraged back to $1.

DeFi
The failure of TerraUSD’s peg already has sent shocks through the decentralised finance (DeFi) sector, with a key saving and lending protocol, Anchor, seeing massive liquidation of TerraUSD-collateralised loans and the pricing of other crypto tokens also being affected. This has led to further liquidation triggers throughout the ecosystem. ‘Bouts’ of volatility will probably continue as the cryptosector digests the repercussions of the failure of the TerraUSD peg, while US policy rate increases and equity volatility may pressure so-called ‘high-beta assets’.

Regulated financial markets
Recently the Financial Stability Board (FSB) pointed to the increased intertwining of the crypto world with the traditional financial world. Up till recently links between crypto markets and regulated financial markets remained weak. The potential for crypto market volatility to spill over and cause wider financial instability was limited. But that has changed.

A growing number of regulated financial entities have increased their exposure to cryptocurrencies, DeFi and other forms of digital finance in recent months. If crypto market volatility becomes severe the risks for the financial stability of the real economy could as a result escalate.

 

But not all stablecoins are the same

Stable coins are cryptocurrencies designed to be protected from the wild volatility of crypto currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. They attempt to maintain a constant exchange rate with fiat currencies, mostly through a 1:1 US dollar peg.

Stablecoins are often used for transactions within the crypto world and between cryptocurrencies and the traditional financial system. They have played a crucial role for cryptocurrency traders, allowing them to hedge against spikes in Bitcoin’s price or to store idle cash without transferring it back into fiat currency.

Regulators should however be aware that not all stable coins are the same. Some stablecoins are more vulnerable than others. The stablecoin sector is a critical and complex part of the crypto ecosystem. Stable coins are an umbrella term. They are not a monolithic asset class and every stablecoin operates differently.

Stablecoin models

Stablecoins can be divided into two broad groups based on how they choose to pursue price stability: collateralised stablecoins and non-collateralised stable coins. Collateralised stablecoins can be split into fiat-collateralised and crypto–collateralised. The newest group of non-collateralised stablecoins are so-called algorithmic stablecoins like TerraUSD.

Fiat collateralised
The value of fiat-collateralised stablecoins is backed by reserves comprising assets, such as fiat currency, mostly the dollar, as collateral assuring stablecoin’s value. Collateral can also consist of bonds, commercial paper, commodities like gold and silver as well as crude oil. But most fiat-collateralised stablecoins have reserves of US dollars.

Dollar-based collateralised stablecoins like Tether and true USDC use a more fluid collection of traditional assets to secure its stable coin. Most of these reserves consist of treasury bills, certificates of deposit, and cash deposits to match the value of outstanding tokens that are maintained by independent custodians and audited regularly to ensure that holders of these stablecoins guarantee they can redeem them for actual fiat money, at some point.

Crypto-collateralised 

Another category of stablecoins are crypto-collateralised stablecoins, with their underlying collateral being another cryptocurrency or basket of cryptocurrencies. Because the reserve cryptocurrency may be subject to high volatility, such stablecoins are often over-collateralised, whereby the value of cryptocurrency held in reserves exceeds the value of the stablecoins issued. The Dai stablecoin for instance which is pegged to the US dollar uses a basket of crypto assets as collateral at a ratio of 150% of the value.

Non-collateralised stable coins
And there is the newest group of stablecoins which are algorithmic or ‘decentralised’ stablecoin. While most stablecoins are reserve backed and are supposed to always be exchanged for one dollar, algorithmic stablecoins ‘forgo this failsafe’ and attempt to maintain their pegs through other means. Their primary distinction from collateralised stablecoins is the strategy of keeping the value of their stablecoin by controlling the supply through an algorithm and smart contracts to control the supply of tokens.

TerraUSD (UST)

TerraUSD, which trades with the symbol UST, is one of those algorithmic or decentralised stablecoins. To get somewhat more insights in this new type of stablecoin, let’s go more deeply into how it works.

The purpose of TerraUSD was to create a “crypto-native” dollar – with all of the supposed benefits of blockchains, like censorship resistance – that would be cheaper to use than a fully or partially collateralized option. It was intended to be worth exactly one dollar, enabling transactions to process with predictable results and giving cryptocurrency investors and traders an option to store their assets in cryptocurrency without the risk and volatility associated with typical digital currencies. Its peg to the dollar was supposed to be maintained by a complex algorithmically driven mechanism rather than by reserves of dollars or other assets, as is typical for stablecoins.

As TerraUSD’s popularity took off, its partner stablecoin Luna increased in value as well. The coin popped from around $5 in July 2021 to a high of $116 in early April 2022. Before its collapse TerraUSD was the third-largest stablecoin by market capitalization with about $18 billion and the largest algorithmic stablecoin.

 

How does TerraUSD work?

TerraUSD as an algorithmic stablecoin, is fundamentally different from most of its peers. Their value is assured not by financial collateral in the traditional markets – though owner Kwo diversified earlier this year their backing by purchasing $10 billion in Bitcoin – but backed by lines of computer code so-called algorithms to stay pegged to the dollar.

This stablecoin used a sophisticated but complex automated system of arbitrage to maintain its valuation at the 1:1 level. This mechanism relies on two coins: the TerraUSD stablecoin and the Luna governance token. It involved swapping TerraUSD coins with this free-floating cryptocurrency Luna to control supply.

The value-protecting transactions are executed by smart contracts on the Terra network. A computer algorithm thereby creates (mints) and destroys (burns) both TerraUSD and Luna to bring the price back into equilibrium. When the price of TerraUSD drops below $1, traders can burn TerraUSD—removing it from circulation, thereby reducing the overall supply —and raise the price back up. If the value of TerraUSD goes higher than $1, traders can burn Luna for TerraUSD, increasing the overall supply and lowering the price. This creates trading margins and supply and demand models that help keep the coin pegged to $1.

Another key part of the Terra ecosystem is the interest rates on TerraUSD deposits. These are offered through Anchor Protocol, a decentralized finance (DeFi) platform, which can garner annual percentage yield rates of 20 percent on TerraUSD tokens that could be borrowed by investors in need of dollar-like capital. The Terra decentralized finance (DeFi) network incentivized traders, holders, and users to either use, lend, or stake these crypto assets. This system worked reasonably well in practice from the inception up till early May.

Regulations

As things stand nowadays, stablecoins are very lightly regulated. A significant part lays outside the control of regulators. Given the explosive growth of the $130 billion market and its potential to affect the broader financial system, it is not strange that stablecoins have come under growing scrutiny by regulators. The recent turmoil has reignited calls in virtually every major financial market in the world for increased regulation of the crypto asset market in general and of stablecoins in particular.

Common themes in the discussions are the volatility, the lack of transparency with regards to crypto operations and the reserves they are supposed to hold, the overly optimistic promised returns and investors that are not well informed with regards to what is being purchased.

 

Reactions
Politicians have increased calls for tighter regulation of stablecoins. The falls in cryptocurrencies and the collapsing value of TerraUSD have further alarmed policymakers in both the EU and the US such as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler.

US Treasury Janet Allen
US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen has cited risks to broad financial stability due to stablecoins. She told a Senate Committee that the TerraUSD debacle has reinforced the need for proper oversight and for a “consistent federal framework” for regulating stablecoins and said that stablecoin guidance could come as early as this year.

“A stablecoin known as TerraUSD experienced a run and declined in value” “I think that this simply illustrates that this is a rapidly growing product and there are rapidly growing risks.” Janet Yellen

Fed semi-annual Stability Report
In its recent published semi-annual Stability Report, the Fed discussed the uncertainty of what is actually backing stablecoins and the lack of oversight in that market. The Fed repeated its concerns that stablecoins are vulnerable to investor runs because they are backed by assets that can lose value or become illiquid in times of market stress. The increasing use of stablecoins to meet margin requirements in leveraged crypto trades may further heighten redemption risks. A lack of transparency around the assets may exacerbate those vulnerabilities. A run on the stablecoin could therefore spill over into the traditional financial system by creating stress on these underlying assets, according to the report.

 

What sort of regulation

There are however still different visions on how to regulate stablecoins. Some regulators are preparing rules for stablecoins to make them look and function more like banks. Some others come up with proposed regulation that will look like more as governance tokens being considered securities. According to them, as tokens have claims against assets, or claims against cash flows, they are looked at the easiest target for regulators.

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) said stablecoins should be regulated as financial market infrastructure like banks alongside payment systems and clearinghouses. The proposed rules should focus on stablecoins deemed systemically important by regulators, with the potential to disrupt payment and settlement transactions.

The ECB is also increasingly worried about the risks for the financial stability of crypto investments. They are urgently calling for accelerating the implementation and acceptance of regulation to implement constraints to crypto currencies and stable coins. The EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets regulation, that would enter into force from 2024 onwards, is expected not not permit the issuance of algorithmic stablecoins and would require crypto providers to have a (bank-like) license and systemic stablecoin issuers  be backed by enough reserves.

What issues for regulators to consider?

There are important lessons to be learned from this crypto collapse, that regulators should keep in mind when designing legal frameworks for cryptocurrencies in general and for stablecoins in particular.

Like all new technologies, these assets — including dollar-backed, crypto-collateralized and algorithmic models — deserve a smart and thoughtful conversation around potential regulation, in order notto  frustrate financial innovations.

Regulators should thereby be aware that this collapse of TerraUSD is not a reflection of all stablecoins, because they weren’t all built the same under the same philosophy. As has been described before algorithmic stablecoins are very different compared to the collateralised stablecoin types.

Stablecoins in general should therefore not be forbidden but should be firmly regulated to prevent that a collapse like TerraUSD will happen again.  Buyers should understand what the risk are especially of these algorithmic stable coins. It therefore needs standards

Factors to keep in mind for regulators

There are a number of important factors policymakers and investors should keep in mind as stablecoins continue to develop and mature. This latter group take deposits without any insurance that customers rely upon to know their money is protected.

Regulators should likely pay more scrutiny to the risks surrounding stablecoins and their reserve attestations especially algorithmic stablecoins, given that UST’s problems have sparked wider crypto market volatility.

Stablecoins backed by reserve assets with clear fiat currency value however face a fundamentally different set of credit issues to algorithmic stablecoins, in our view. In such cases, the stablecoin’s stability risks can be more manageable, depending on various factors, notably the safety and liquidity of the reserve assets.

Asset-backed stablecoins therefore should become transparent about what is in their reserves. With traditional stablecoins, regulators also want to know that their operators have sufficient assets to pay out customers in the case of a run on the system.

Factors relevant to the credit profiles of issuers of reserve-backed stablecoins should include regulatory risk, counterparty risk (including reserve custodians), transparency over reserves and the extent to which the underlying assets are truly uncorrelated, the legal rights of stablecoin holders, as well as governance and operational risks.

In the case of algorithmic stablecoins, they should, in regulatory terms, not be [backed] one-to-one, but being over-collateralized because these are inherently more risky. Other issues to keep in mind that are relevant for regulators are:  what are the permissible reserves?;  who can issue a stablecoin?; how should an issuer and the reserved be audited?; and, what kind of disclosures are made to consumers?”

Factors relevant to the credit profiles of issuers of reserve-backed stablecoins should include regulatory risk, counterparty risk (including reserve custodians), transparency over reserves and the extent to which the underlying assets are truly uncorrelated, the legal rights of stablecoin holders, as well as governance and operational risks.

Final remarks

It is clear that regulation of stablecoins is urgently needed to prevent collapses like that of TerraUSD. There are still many open questions.

It is however still unclear how this new regulation will look like and what impact this new upcoming regulation will have for the future of stable coins in general and algorithmic stablecoins specifically. But also what would it mean for the further development of underlying technologies.

What is clear is that stablecoins are here to stay but in a more regulated framework. It does seem very likely that many more investors will choose collateralized stablecoins in the future. This will most likely result in a growing number of stablecoins with lower risks.

In the end this may further benefit the crypto industry as thanks to lower risks and increased transparency it may attract more players from the traditional financial world.

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

 

 

 

Source

Hedge Trackers, a GTreasury Company, Offers Advice to Treasurers Amid Interest Rate Uncertainty

28-06-2022 | treasuryXL | GTreasury | LinkedIn |

With interest rates rising and remaining unpredictable, corporate treasurers need to have a hedging plan in place. For many, this can be easier said than done.

Farah Lotia, the Director of Interest rate and Quantitative Analytics at Hedge Trackers, recently spoke with both Treasury Today and Euromoney Magazine about the purpose of interest rate hedging and how they can use it to their advantage.

Hedge Trackers was recently acquired by GTreasury.

Treasury Management & Corporate Finance | Become an official Register Treasurer

23-06-2022 | treasuryXL |  VU Amsterdam | LinkedIn |

Improve your professional practice by taking a broad, conceptual and professional view on Treasury

The postgraduate programme in Treasury Management & Corporate Finance at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam is running now for 25 years. In close contact with the treasury community, the VU keeps the curriculum up-to-date and relevant for professionals. Professional relevance is guaranteed by about 10 core lecturers and 20 guest lecturers from our partners KPMG, Orchard Finance Consultants, PWC, Zanders and by other finance professionals.

About the programme

The programme takes a broad view over Treasury Management and Corporate Finance from the of a non-financial corporate. Most graduates have an MSc and at least 3 years of experience in Treasury. Participants with a bachelor degree and sufficient treasury experience are successful in this programme as well

The programme offers participants an 18-month learning environment that stimulates professional development in 2 ways:

(1) Evolve as an academic professional. The goal is to facilitate the development as an all-round treasury professional. This is done by both building a sufficient knowledge base and training skills to apply general knowledge in specific cases. In addition, participants will be challenged to become experts in their own specific field of interest.

(2) Engage in career development and networking within the Treasury community. Increase your insights and expand your network in your treasury network. The programme may inspire participants to take next steps in their careers.

Along these two main lines of benefits, we are planning to give more information and explanation in two follow-up online sessions/recordings which will be posted on this platform in the coming weeks.

Why should I start with the programme?

The most important takeaway from this post is the fact that the TM&CF programme is NOT a long course acquiring just knowledge. It is much much more than that. Apart from just knowledge the programme puts a lot of attention on creative application of knowledge to your specific business situation. It trains you how to become a professional expert to some areas in the field of Treasury you have chosen. The programme helps you to connect with other members of the treasury community and to build your own professional network by connecting with fellow participants.

The programme provides you a substantial boost in your career, as the qualification is acknowledged in the labour market, and/or game-changer in your professional life as a Treasurer. It is a must-follow for all passionate about treasury. Successful completion of the programme results in the title of Register Treasurer, which is highly valued within the treasury community.

Also read: Why becoming a Register Treasurer is so much more than completing a course! (By Pieter de Kiewit)

Online Information Session | Register Today

On the 5th of July, an online information session on the programme will be given in which we also discuss the potential benefits of this program for Treasury professionals. You can sign up here.

Best regards,

Herbert Rijken
Programme director

Visit the website for more information.

For more info contact @[email protected]

LinkedIn page of the programme

GTreasury Adds Victoria Blake as Chief Product Officer; Ashley Pater Becomes General Manager at Hedge Trackers

21-06-2022 | treasuryXL | GTreasury | LinkedIn |

The product leaders bring veteran experience into their new roles, as GTreasury expands its treasury and risk management solutions and services for treasury teams and the office of the CFO

CHICAGO, Ill. – June 21, 2022 – GTreasury, a treasury and risk management platform provider, today announced that it has named Victoria Blake as GTreasury’s Chief Product Officer, and Ashley Pater as General Manager at Hedge Trackers. Recently acquired by GTreasury, Hedge Trackers is the global leader in accounting, consulting, and software services that protect clients against financial risk.

Victoria Blake joins GTreasury with more than 20 years of experience and success in product leadership roles across several SaaS and technology companies. Blake comes to GTreasury from Zapproved, where she served as the Vice President of Product. During her tenure at the e-discovery software provider, she led high-level strategy development, product definition, and market-facing thought leadership and vision. Before Zapproved, Blake was responsible for defining next-generation cloud services offerings as the Vice President of Product Management at Metal Toad, an AWS Consulting Partner. Blake has also held product management and leadership positions at WebMD Health Services, Jive Software, and Walker Tracker.

As GTreasury’s Chief Product Officer, Blake will lead the company’s global product and UX teams in developing and delivering innovative new solutions for GTreasury’s customers and partners. From modern automated treasury and transaction management to AI-powered SmartPredictions™ cash forecasting and visibility, GTreasury’s SaaS platform empowers treasury teams and the office of the CFO with the future-proof technology and capabilities required to drive confident financial decision-making. GTreasury has also continued to expand its broad ecosystem of connected partner technologies, via API integrations with ERPs, banks, and other external providers where instant data connectivity maximizes customer efficiencies.

“GTreasury has built its reputation as a leading treasury and risk management platform by harnessing innovative cloud, AI, machine learning, and emerging technologies that move our industry forward,” said Victoria Blake, CPO, GTreasury. “Just as importantly, GTreasury has always focused on product usability and ensuring that its powerful tools are always easily accessible and seamlessly connected for the teams that rely on them. I look forward to building on what GTreasury has created over the past three decades, and delivering even more next-generation tools to make CFOs and treasury teams more successful.”

Ashley Pater is now the General Manager of Hedge Trackers after more than a decade of leadership roles within GTreasury. Pater most recently served as GTreasury’s Chief Product Officer, where she was responsible for aligning product vision and strategy to the company’s business objectives. Pater previously held leadership positions in GTreasury’s marketing and account management functions, focusing on building global brand awareness, lead generation, event management, and cross-sell programs.

Pater will oversee daily business operations and lead growth strategy around Hedge Trackers’ FX, interest rate, and commodity price risk management services and consulting. Pater will also ensure alignment and integration opportunities within the broader GTreasury organization. Hedge Trackers offers best-in-class expertise and technical depth in meeting today’s unprecedented demand for effective hedging strategies, identifying exposure, managing risk, and meeting compliance and audit requirements. Under Pater’s leadership, Hedge Trackers will focus on bolstering its risk management expertise and bringing new solutions to market across the company’s risk product suite.

“Combining the strengths of GTreasury and Hedge Trackers makes us the clear market leader when it comes to both our treasury risk management products and our consulting acumen,” said Ashley Pater, General Manager, Hedge Trackers. “Today’s CFOs and financial leaders understand that risk management and hedging capabilities are critical to navigating volatile markets and achieving larger business goals. I’m excited to further our solutions and insight to equip customers with the solutions required for effectively and cost-efficiently managing their risk.”

“Both Victoria and Ashley possess the clarity of vision required to advance our GTreasury and Hedge Trackers products to meet our customers’ evolving needs today and well into the future—and both bring relevant, experienced, and proven leadership to accomplish those goals,” said Renaat Ver Eecke, CEO, GTreasury. “I’m glad to welcome Victoria and Ashley into their new roles and look forward to what’s to come from GTreasury and Hedge Trackers.”

About GTreasury

GTreasury is committed to connecting treasury and digital finance operations by providing a world-class SaaS treasury and risk management system and integrated ecosystem where cash, debt, investments and exposures are seamlessly managed within the office of the CFO. GTreasury delivers intelligent insights, while connecting financial value chains and extending workflows to third-party systems, exchanges, portals and services. Headquartered in Chicago, with locations serving EMEA (London) and APAC (Sydney and Manila), GTreasury’s global community includes more than 800 customers and 30+ industries reaching 160+ countries worldwide. Visit GTreasury.com

Perfecting the Cash Forecast

21-06-2022 | treasuryXL | Kyriba | LinkedIn |

 

By Bob Stark, Global Head of Market Strategy

Source

The number one treasury issue that causes CFOs the most potential concern is unreliable cash visibility and forecasts, according to a Nov. 2018 CFO Publishing survey, “3 Key Areas Where CFOs Say Treasurers Need to be More Strategic.”

Every organization talks about forecasting more effectively, but few allocate sufficient people, time, and technology to build an effective program. Understanding the importance of an accurate cash forecast that can be relied upon for key financial decisions is critical to making the right investments in forecasting. While there are many reasons to forecast, such as protecting against currency volatility, there are a few key areas that should be addressed to help CFOs and treasurers further make the connection between accurate cash forecasting and bottom-line financial performance.

So, what is cash forecasting? Cash forecasting, when performed accurately, enables greater certainty of projected cash balances. Longer term investing, reduced borrowing costs, more effective hedging programs and better mobility of global cash, cash positioning is concerned with today and often the next five business days. The purpose is to manage daily liquidity to ensure shortfalls are covered and surpluses are concentrated to earn some yield on excess cash. 

Cash budgeting is performed by finance teams such as FP&A and is more focused beyond one year – although with increased emphasis on free cash flow guidance, the reconciliation of indirect budget-based forecasts with direct cash flow forecasts is increasingly managed quarterly. 

Cash forecasting typically extends cash positioning with horizons anywhere from one week to one year. Forecasting leverages multiple data sources to increase confidence in the projected cash balances so that better cash decisions can be made. The value of forecasting is based upon the value of those better decisions.

So why forecast? Ineffective cash forecasting costs money and impacts shareholder value. A poorly executed program drives a number of negative consequences so it is critical to understand the link between effective cash forecasting and bottom line financial performance. Excuses such as “we’re cash rich” or “interest rates are too low” no longer satisfy investors who demand that cash be deployed or returned to them. Without adequate visibility of forecast cash and where cash needs to be deployed to meet growth targets, CEOs and CFOs risk looking foolish in front of shareholders and analysts. 

The volatility in global currencies shows no signs of abating, meaning that the pressure on CFOs to maintain the value of foreign cash inflows and outflows persists. Companies can experience earnings per share losses from unexpected and unhedged currency impacts or have difficulty in maintaining (let alone increasing) return on cash in a post-Basel III environment. 

Forecasting cash will allow segregation of operational and non-operational cash into time buckets as well as deliver the needed accuracy to allocate cash to longer duration investment strategies. This will help preserve previously realised investment returns or help to find an alternative for cash balances that are no longer wanted by your bank!

Certainty in projected cash balances drives the CFO’s ability to anticipate and prepare for corporate actions and strategic investments. For example, without confidence in cash forecasts, the CFO and treasurer are not relied upon to contribute to key M&A decisions such as providing guidance on the components of cash, debt and equity to calculate a total acquisition cost.

When cash is held globally, share buybacks or dividend hikes are a challenge. Often CFOs find it cheaper to borrow cash domestically than repatriate funds – yet this analysis requires certainty into projected cash balances. Confidence in the forecast is critical to optimize business value; CFOs need an effective cash forecast in order to make commitments on how to reinvest cash to meet organic growth targets. Lack of confidence will lead to unnecessary borrowing or equity financing.

Consolidation of data – Finding the right information and determining the most efficient (i.e. automated) way to integrate it into a consolidated forecast system is key. 

While automation is important, data quality is also paramount to success. When building the forecast, each line item may be sourced in different ways. The source of the information will determine the best way to build the forecast for each line item. For example, many treasury teams prefer to import accounts payable data directly from the ERP while for receivables information they may wish to extrapolate historical data and model using a linear regression. For treasury teams to be effective, it is important that all methods be fully automated and secure so that initial setup, maintenance, and daily execution to build the forecast are easy and can be maintained by the user (and not require re-programming).

Collaboration – Making decisions on the best data to build the forecast also requires determining who to collaborate with to smoothly access that key information. In many cases, treasury does not have direct authority over the people that own systems and/or business responsibilities that offer that data Yet, treasury relies upon this outside information to build a comprehensive forecast, so good internal communication skills are critical to receiving quality information in a timely way. Accounts Payable, FP&A, IT, Regional Controllers all forecast projections for decentralized organizations. Many treasury teams plan, with their CFOs, a top-down collaboration model that builds effective cash forecasting into the team’s objectives and compensation. This draws attention to the forecasting objectives and motivates each team to fulfill their roles.

Measurement – The most important – and often overlooked – step is the measurement of forecast accuracy. Implementing a process to measure forecast accuracy at a detailed level to identify the source of variances is critical to improving quality and ultimately reducing forecast variances. Equally important is implementing a feedback loop – to systems and to people – that ensure that forecast data is improved based on variances that were identified. The feedback loop is especially important when non-treasury resources are contributing to the forecast to ensure that the right behaviors and cash forecast numbers are positively reinforced while opportunities for improvement are well communicated. This is especially effective when feedback is aligned to KPIs and quarterly objectives of those outside of the treasury team.

Key to success – A forecast variance analysis should be detailed with multiple ‘snapshots’ taken. If only a summary picture is reviewed (e.g. how effective was forecasting over a 3-month period) then a lot of the variability is hidden within that timeframe. Measuring daily, weekly, or bi-weekly will help uncover the ups and downs between forecast and actuals that might otherwise go unnoticed. Fortunately, the business intelligence features of a TMS such as Kyriba offers the data visualization and analytics required to offer this level of detail. Cash forecasting is especially important if you are “cash rich” with a high percentage of non-operational cash deposits. Multinationals with significant foreign revenues must forecast better, so they can hedge effectively and deliver cash predictability to their stakeholders. The key to forecasting is flexibility so that you have many options to model the different streams of forecast data. The accuracy of your data will determine if importing, regressing, extrapolating, or other methods of calculations are needed to build your forecast effectively. 

Without measuring forecast accuracy, it is impossible to know if you are good at forecasting. Data visualization helps focus on important variances – whether by category, time bucket, or geography – and isolate what data needs to be improved for future forecasting. ROI of cash forecasting is very high.

In summary, the value of forecasting is driven by what your organization can do with additional cash. The value of cash can be measured by investing longer with higher returns on cash, repaying debt, earning yield from early supplier payments, or investing in new organizational projects. Perfecting the cash forecast means freeing up cash from working capital and directing towards these higher value uses.

Click here to view all blogs by Kyriba

Treasury & Banking in India

20-06-2022 | treasuryXL | ComplexCountries | LinkedIn |

This call took place against the background of the war in Ukraine – but it was a useful chance to catch up on the ever-improving situation in India.

India has always been complex, with many regulations and poor clarity. This is clear from the comments below, where participants often have different experiences on the same topic. But, overall, the economy is working well, people are making profits (this was not always the case), and regulations are becoming more user-friendly, even if they remain challenging.

Source

Business structure: most participants have one legal entity which faces customers, and a different one which acts as an international shared service centre, invoicing other companies in the group on a cost plus basis. This can lead to inefficiencies in cash management: everyone struggles with domestic cash pooling and intercompany loans, while the shared service centre has guaranteed profits and cash generation. One participant has all activities in the same legal entity, which makes life easier.

Intercompany loans within India create transfer pricing and tax challenges: there is a required or recommended interest rate of 8%, compared to deposit rates of 4% to 4.5%.

Cross border cash pooling and intercompany loans are generally very difficult: many approvals are required. Dividends are subjected to withholding tax of 15%, which is sufficient to deter some, but not all, participants from paying dividends. However, this is an improvement on the previous 22% dividend tax, which was often not creditable against tax in the receiving country.

Netting of intercompany invoices is not allowed. However, one participant is using an Indian entity to centralise all invoices within the country using a POBO/ROBO process, and limiting the transactions to a single, large, gross in/gross out settlement. They are also looking at a non resident INR account.

Participants mostly use deposits for investing their excess cash. One is using the TIDE deposit: the bank automatically sweeps fixed amounts of cash above a defined threshold into deposits. These receive a higher rate if they remain for more than two weeks, but can be released if needed, with a lower interest rate being paid.

Most participants use international banks, mainly Citi and BNPP. Most complained that Citi are reluctant to use automated FX platforms, and are behind on the electronic transmission of import documentation – but one participant had a more positive experience. JPMorgan again received positive comments for their approach.

The participants who use local banks generally had positive comments about them, and found they were a big help with pricing, especially on loans and letters of credit.

Tax remains complex and challenging.

 

Bottom line: the – excellent – report below reflects the significant complexity of doing business and managing treasury in India. But it is an important market, and one which is improving. So it is definitely worth the effort!

To access this report:

Access to the full report is available to Premium Subscribers.
Please contact us to find out about our subscription packages.

TIS acquires Cashforce, an AI-powered provider of cash management and forecasting solutions.

17-06-2022 | treasuryXL | Cashforce | TIS

 

Revolutionizing Global Liquidity Management for Treasury and Finance

 

Treasury Intelligence Solutions (TIS), a global leader in enterprise payment optimization, today announced their acquisition of Cashforce, an AI-powered provider of cash management and forecasting solutions.

This acquisition will see Cashforce’s leading cloud solution – currently deployed at many of the largest and most sophisticated corporate treasuries in the world – become integrated with TIS’ SaaS payments platform. This unified solution will provide enterprises with an unmatched suite of capabilities for cash management, global payments, and fraud mitigation along with superior connectivity, workflows, and reporting functions.

Over the past few years, TIS and Cashforce have collaborated closely to provide a complementary offering for treasury and finance teams. These efforts were met with immediate success in the market as demand for improved cash management and forecasting tools has risen sharply. Now, TIS’ acquisition of Cashforce presents the perfect opportunity to integrate both products together as part of a more complete offering.

For the thousands of enterprise treasury and finance practitioners who currently use TIS, this acquisition provides access to faster and more accurate cash reporting, forecasting, and working capital management. To date, cash positioning and forecasting are still being performed manually by many treasury groups, which represents a major pain point for CFOs and business leaders when attempting to make strategic financial decisions. However, the robust capabilities provided by Cashforce eliminate many of these inefficiencies and ultimately enable companies to gain quick and accurate insights into their financial position based on reliable payments and liquidity data.

According to Erik Masing, Group CEO of TIS, “Cashforce has been a premier partner of TIS for several years and has contributed significantly to the cash forecasting and management capabilities we offer clients. The acquisition is a natural extension of our business and will allow TIS to further integrate Cashforce’s solution with our platform in order to offer advanced forecasting and data management capabilities to all our clients. This means enterprises can significantly reduce complexity in their global payments and cash management tech stacks by leveraging standardization and transparency afforded by a single, elegant solution.”

 

 

For Cashforce, the acquisition means that existing clients can now supplement their robust forecasting capabilities with TIS’ industry-leading payments and bank connectivity features. As explained by Nicolas Christiaen, Founder and CEO of Cashforce, “Giving businesses complete visibility over their cash and liquidity data has always been the core objective of Cashforce. While we have spent years perfecting our capabilities in this regard, TIS has been strengthening their suite of payments, bank connectivity, and cash management tools. When combined, these two sets of capabilities form the ideal solution for global treasury and finance teams to achieve full control and visibility over their entire payments and liquidity architecture – including all entities, back-office systems, and banks.”

With the added capabilities of Cashforce’s solution, TIS now offers a single, scalable cloud platform for clients to address needs in the following areas:

  • End-to-end payment processing and bank statement management
  • Global bank connectivity and financial messaging
  • Real-time cash positioning and liquidity management
  • Multifaceted cash forecasting, cashflow analytics, and working capital management
  • Bank account management and bank documentation management
  • Payment compliance and sanctions screening control
  • Treasury security, regulatory compliance, and fraud mitigation tools

For more information on TIS’ acquisition of Cashforce and the advantages our combined solution will provide to enterprise treasury, finance, and executive teams, contact us at [email protected] or by using the information found on our website.

 

About TIS

TIS is reimagining the world of enterprise payments through a cloud-based platform uniquely designed to help global organizations optimize payments, manage cash visibility, and mitigate risk. Corporations, banks, and business vendors leverage TIS to transform how they connect global accounts, collaborate on payment processes, execute outbound payments, analyze cash flow and compliance data, and improve critical outbound payment functions. With $2 trillion in payments processed annually, the TIS corporate payments platform helps businesses improve operational efficiency, lower risk, manage liquidity, gain a strategic advantage – and ultimately achieve enterprise payment optimization.

Visit us for more information at https://www.tispayments.com.

 

 

 

 

The Relentless Rise of Real-Time Data


16-06-2022 | treasuryXL | Refinitiv | LinkedIn |

 

Demand for real-time data is growing fast as financial firms face regulatory, trading, operational and competitive challenges. Rob Lane, head of real-time feeds at Refinitiv, discusses the changing data needs of banks and buy-side firms and how the cloud is helping improve access to a key source of competitive advantage in pursuit of more informed and agile decision-making.

Read more

Build vs Buy: How Should Treasury Teams Upgrade Their Bank Connectivity & Payments Stack?

15-06-2022 | treasuryXL | TIS | LinkedIn |

This blog highlights the primary considerations that treasury and IT teams must make when determining whether to build custom in-house bank connectivity and payments solutions or contract the services and software of a specialized 3rd party vendor. After evaluating the main benefits and drawbacks of each option, we provide a list of helpful questions for practitioners to consider as they decide whether building or purchasing a solution best suits their needs.

Source

How Does the “Build vs Buy” Debate Typically Surface Within Organizations?

In today’s remote and digitally operated business environment, it’s no secret that organizations have grown deeply reliant on technology to manage and automate their core treasury and finance functions.

Realistically, a “modern” company operating in 2022 will be doing business through a myriad of banks, accounts, currencies, and entities. They will also likely have hundreds or thousands of vendors, partners, and customers within their network. As a result, digital payments and cashflows are moving in and out of the business constantly, and every movement must be monitored and controlled by treasury teams that often consist of just a few employees.

Because of treasury’s limited personnel bandwidth, any issues with adopting the right bank connectivity and payments stack to automate their core operations almost always lead to excess complexity and manual strain. It can also result in significant security and compliance gaps, along with general inefficiency across crucial processes like transaction processing, liquidity management, balance reporting, and cash forecasting.

But while most treasury and IT groups today can agree that developing a robust connectivity and payments stack is critically important, each internal stakeholder will likely have their own idea regarding what the “best-fit” version of this technology stack actually looks like.

Why is this?

As companies grow over time, the systems they use to manage payments and connect with their banks must evolve accordingly. Because managing a few bank accounts and transactions in a single country and currency is a fundamentally different task compared to managing dozens of banks, hundreds of accounts, and thousands of payments across numerous countries and currencies, companies cannot rely on the same solutions and structure they’ve always used to sustain them as they scale.

Instead, in order to maintain compatibility with new payment formats and channels like ISO 20022 and SWIFT GPI, connect with regional payment networks like NACHA and EBICS, or accommodate custom bank connectivity protocols (Host-2-Host / SFTP, APIs, etc.), growing enterprises will inevitably reach a point where their existing payments and banking architecture must undergo a significant overhaul.

Complexity grows as you scale. Scaling from just a few bank accounts, back office systems, and funds transfers being executed in a single country to managing dozens of international banks and systems, hundreds of accounts, and thousands of payments globally requires a drastically different tech stack for treasury.

However, as this evolution occurs and internal stakeholders recognize the need to upgrade their connectivity architecture, disagreements often arise over which vendor or “type” of solution is the best fit. Given that there are hundreds of available 3rd party solutions that could potentially address treasury’s requirements, as well as a variety of internally developed applications that could be created and deployed by IT teams, it is common for different stakeholders to have contrasting views over which option is the smartest choice.

This is where the “Build vs Buy” technology argument most frequently comes into play.

 

Understanding Both Sides of the Build vs Buy Argument

As organizations recognize the need to upgrade their payments and connectivity capabilities, there are two main approaches they could leverage to address the issue. The first is to use internal IT resources and expertise to build a customized solution for treasury, and the second is to purchase a specialized solution from a 3rd party provider.

But which option is the best choice?

Let’s quickly review the key benefits and drawbacks of each option.

The Pros and Cons of Building vs Buying a Treasury Solution

Building an Internal Connectivity Solution

Organizations that prefer to create their own custom connectivity solutions internally using IT resources and expertise will likely have a greater ability to customize the offering in a manner that best addresses all their needs. To date, several prominent ERPs offer modules or plugins that give  IT staff the ability to build custom formats and configure their own connectivity protocols. However, this option requires a significant amount of bandwidth and maintenance from treasury and IT teams, as well as a high degree of expertise and technical prowess to support the solution over time. The below pros and cons list highlights this reality in more detail.

PROS

  • IT and Treasury teams know firsthand what the main requirements and preferences are.
  • Support and maintenance for the solution can be handled internally.
  • The solution can be customized to fit the exact needs of the enterprise.
  • Complexity and redundancy regarding unnecessary features are kept to a minimum.

CONS

  • IT and treasury teams may not have the bandwidth to build their own internal solution.
  • Fixing bugs and patches requires internal support, which is not always readily available.
  • Not all internal teams have the expertise required to build complex connectivity solutions.
  • Supporting the need for new formats and connectivity protocols requires more custom work.
  • Scaling over time requires constant upkeep and maintenance from internal resources.

Adopting a 3rd Party Connectivity Solution

Compared to building an internal solution, adopting a 3rd party connectivity and payments solution usually requires less of treasury and IT’s time, and there is less effort required to develop, implement, and maintain the solution. However, there is also the chance that this solution will require the purchase of redundant or unnecessary features. At the same time, improper or incomplete implementation of a 3rd party solution can cause severe integration, security, and compliance issues over time. More about these pros and cons are highlighted below.

PROS

  • IT and Treasury teams have a minimized role in the solution’s implementation and upkeep.
  • Dedicated customer support staff can help resolve issues and requests.
  • Updates and patches are normally handled externally by the vendor.
  • Specialist functionality is pre-packaged to address best practices in connectivity and payments.
  • Liability on the company to maintain, host, and secure the solution is largely outsourced.

CONS

  • Specific customization of the product for treasury teams cannot always be assured.
  • Reliance on 3rd party vendors for support and upkeep may result in delayed responses and feedback.
  • Tech complexity can quickly escalate if companies start adopting numerous 3rd party solutions to manage various functions, especially if they do not integrate well with one another.
  • Using external solutions for data and payments can create additional security risks and compliance issues.

 

As showcased by the above bullets, a company’s decision to build or buy its payments and connectivity solutions should always depend on its unique circumstances. For instance, a company with sufficient IT personnel and internal expertise might have the bandwidth to create and maintain a solution on its own. However, if treasury and IT teams are already exasperated with their current list of responsibilities and don’t have the time or expertise necessary to create and maintain their own solution, it probably makes more sense to begin evaluating the services of a 3rd party provider.

For treasury teams who are presently evaluating their options and need help deciding on the best course of action, the following considerations will help provide more clarity during the decision-making process.

Elements to consider when evaluating build vs buy

 

A Checklist to Walk Through When Deciding to Build or Buy Your Next Connectivity Solution

1. Validate the Need for New Technology

Many organizations have their eye on new technology before identifying any legitimate business need. Sometimes this “cart before the horse” approach is due to rigid business processes, lack of technical knowledge, or pure product hype. Decision-makers are very often awed by product suite success stories, dynamite product demonstrations, and industry analysts’ evaluation of technology—even when they haven’t formally identified a need for the technology.

To avoid these pitfalls, treasury and IT teams need to first validate the need for upgraded connectivity and payment protocols, prior to even beginning to evaluate which solution makes the most sense.

Last, but not least, tech leaders need to provide an estimated return on investment (ROI) for any new solution, along with a description of how ROI will be measured. It is surprising how many programs are initiated without considering ROI or added business value upfront. Many of these projects consume a lot of budget and time before leaders realize that either the solution will not add value or there is not a legitimate business need.

 

2. Identify Core Connectivity & Payment Requirements

In large organizations, pinpointing core connectivity requirements is often easier said than done. Still, it is a critically important step to take before deciding to implement a new solution. A core business requirement is one that must be supported by the solution to continue functioning as intended. For multinational organizations, core connectivity requirements may involve compatibility with numerous format types (EDI, BAI, SWIFT MT, ISO 20022, etc.) as well as numerous bank channels (SWIFT, H2H, EBICS, etc.) and back-office integrations (APIs and plugins for ERPs or TMSs).

Although determining treasury’s exact connectivity requirements may be difficult, it is extremely important to identify these core functional requirements first—not technology or design requirements. This is the only way to ensure unnecessary or redundant functionality is not purchased erroneously, and also ensures that critical requirements are never accidentally overlooked and unaddressed through whatever solution is ultimately chosen.

 

3. Consider Your Technology Architecture Requirements

Going a step further than the above point, it’s safe to assume that organizations are already using technology to enable other business processes. To reduce the cost and liability of this technology, your organization has also likely adopted standards related to how internal solutions are implemented and maintained.

As such, it is extremely important to identify any architectural requirements or standards that a solution must adhere to before determining if a 3rd party solution or an internal solution is the best choice. Some factors that may restrict the solution choice are as follows:

  • Information security strategy, compliance policies, and privacy standards (SOC 1 & 2, GDPR, etc.)
  • The state of current / planned systems with which the solution will be interfacing
  • What the preferred hosting structure is for the new solution (on-premise, SaaS, etc.)
  • Type and complexity of integrations that must be supported by the solution
  • Operating systems in use by the organization and their partners/banks/customers/entities

 

4. Examine & Evaluate Existing Solutions FIRST

At this point, a business need has been pinpointed, ROI has been estimated, and both core business and architectural restrictions have been identified. Leaders should now take a good look at existing systems.

It is not uncommon that different departments or entities of a large, global organization are not aware of what systems exist in other areas of the company. As a result, businesses will often implement multiple versions or forms of the same technology, only to discover that another system within the organization could have supported treasury’s new requirements with little to no modification. Thus, before deciding on the “best-fit” solutions approach, you should determine if any existing system(s) within the organization can be easily scaled or extended to meet your business need.

 

5. Compare In-House Expertise & Bandwidth Relative to Current AND Future Capabilities Required

One major factor that can significantly reduce the ROI of a custom-built solution (and in many cases, ultimately causes the project to fail) is the lack of available personnel with proper skill sets. In reality, the process of designing and deploying custom connectivity solutions that are both scalable and extensible is a massive undertaking for both treasury and IT. Unless one of your business areas is product development or you have an abundance of available IT support, there is an extremely high probability that your operations and maintenance technology resources will not be able to build, sustain, and support an internal solution, especially as new needs and requirements arise over time.

It is never profitable to let personnel gain these skills and experience by developing business-essential systems. Yet, more often than not, decision-makers see the short-term cost differences between an internally-built vs 3rd party solution and decide to try and build their own in order to save money. However, unless you’re supremely confident in the skillsets and bandwidth of both your treasury and IT teams, this option is not recommended.

 

Why TIS is the Ideal Provider for Global Payments, Liquidity Management, & Bank Connectivity

Ultimately, any organization evaluating whether to build or buy its next solution will have to closely analyze its own operations in order to make the best decision.

In cases where organizations require support for a complex array of payments and bank connectivity protocols and are open to considering a 3rd party vendor, they should closely evaluate the capabilities provided by TIS.

The cloud-based, fully-supported platform provided by TIS offers a global, multi-channel, and multi-bank connectivity ecosystem that streamlines and automates the processing of a company’s payments across all their global entities and systems. By sitting above an enterprise’s technology stack and connecting with all their back-office, banking, and 3rd party solutions, TIS effectively breaks down department and geographic silos to allow 360-degree visibility and control. To date, the ~200 organizations that have integrated TIS with their global ERPs, TMSs, and banking landscape have achieved near-100% real-time transparency into their payments and liquidity. This has benefitted a broad variety of internal stakeholders and has also enabled them to access information through their platform of choice since the data that passes through TIS is always delivered back to the originating systems.

 

TIS Simplifies Global Payments & Liquidity

Because of the deep connections that TIS maintains with internal systems such as ERPs or TMSs, external banks, and 3rd party vendors, the process of managing payments is simplified for every internal stakeholder. C-suite executives, treasury, accounting, AP, legal, HR, and other key personnel can access whatever financial data they need, exactly when they need it. And by automating this flow of information for both inbound and outbound payments, TIS provides the control and flexibility that enterprises need to function at their highest level.

Finally, with the global payments data we have amassed and the decades of experience our team has in orchestrating enterprise payments, we are uniquely equipped to help enterprises accurately benchmark their payments performance and provide tailored advice on how to optimize, grow, and mature. Ultimately, this rich data and deep experience are what enable us to continually provide industry-leading payment solutions and support to our enterprise customers.

In the digital world of enterprise payments, TIS is here to help you reimagine and simplify.

For more information about how TIS can help you, visit our website or browse our latest resources!