#5 Getting Overwhelmed by Complicated Administration (Dutch Item)

19-08-2021 | XE | treasuryXL |

Companies that regularly need Foreign Exchange often fail to see the bigger picture more because of all the details of the daily Payments and other transactions. Perhaps are you so busy processing foreign currency that you don’t get around to a lake strategic view of the total Risk of your company. Or maybe those transactions take time equipment that could be spent more productively on other things. It may even be so
that manual data entry procedures are prone to human error that lead to unnecessary delays.

Dit is vaak een probleem voor groeiende MKB-bedrijven, waarvan de eigenaar of oprichter buitenlandse betalingen zorgvuldig wil blijven volgen, maar geen tijd meer heeft voor de toenemende administratieve last. Zij moeten verantwoordelijk blijven voor het autoriseren van betalingen, vooral van grote bedragen, maar hebben geen tijd voor de verdere verwerking.

Uw huidige valutaprovider zou u moeten kunnen helpen om dat probleem op te lossen. Zo zou uw provider een systeem moeten kunnen
maken dat sommige gebruikers beheerdersrechten geeft voor de verwerking, maar het autoriseren van betalingen voorbehoudt aan specifieke personen. Uw provider zou eenvoudige, veilige en betrouwbare verwerking moeten kunnen bieden. En uw provider zou u moeten kunnen helpen vertraagde betalingen te traceren.

Als u niet de beschikking hebt over dit soort diensten, kan het beheren van vreemde valuta al snel een kostbare, tijdrovende taak voor uw bedrijf worden. Daardoor wordt het nog moeilijker om uw activiteiten strategisch te benaderen om de risico’s te beheren, proactieve besluitvorming mogelijk te maken en vooruit te plannen. Vooral grotere organisaties kunnen kwetsbaar zijn voor deze fout.

Maar bedrijven die voor vreemde valuta nooit verder hebben gekeken dan hun huidige provider en nooit op zoek zijn gegaan naar een alternatieve partner, weten misschien niet eens dat er andere mogelijkheden zijn. Als u verstrikt raakt in de details van valutatransacties, praat dan met alternatieve providers over hoe zij u kunnen helpen effectiever te functioneren.

 

Klik hier voor meer Info en Download WhitePaper



Round Table “Payment Challenges in a Post-Covid World” | Toekomst Betalingsverkeer

18-8-2021 | François de Witte | treasuryXL |

On September 9, 2021, the event “Toekomst Betalingsverkeer” will take place in Amsterdam. This annual event on the Future of Payments has been the meeting place for 20 years.

With upcoming edition following topics will amongst others be covered:

  • The Fintech evolution of banking.
  • Platform strategies & developments big tech.
  • Customer experience strategies.
  • Open banking.
  • Instant payments.

Close to 30 experts will share their views on the various developments and challenges in the payment world.

Round Table Sessions

I will be hosting two round table sessions on “Payment Challenges in a Post-Covid World”.

The Covid19 crisis had a huge impact on the payment landscape. We have seen interesting developments such as:

  • A large growth of e-commerce transactions.
  • An increased use of contactless payments.
  • A Surge in marketplaces and the increased importance of the platform strategy.
  • The payment experience is more critical than ever.
  • The increased use of cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and Central bank digital currencies (CBDC).
  • The increasing Demand for Mobile Point of Sale.
  • Online payments increasing in importance, replacing partially card-based payments;

TOPICS

During the round table, we will make a deep dive on the following 3 topics:

  • Instant Payments – the new “normal” ?
  • Request to Pay: the bridge between customer convenience and reconciliation?
  • Digital currencies for a digital future ?

I will not tell more about this, but hope to meet you there.

For more information and program overview, click here

 

François de Witte

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to Start Avoiding Payment Fraud from Happening

| 18-08-2021 | treasuryXL | Nomentia |

It’s 2021 and even with advancing technologies and AI detecting fraudulent behavior, payment fraud remains an ever-present Risk for any company.

The other day we met with someone who has recently been a target of Payment Fraud and is now implementing a payment factory in order to reduce the risk. We wanted to take a look at how we approach the subject with our solution. Having the right software in place is important, sure but it goes beyond technology.

Let’s start with the Software, Nomentia’s Cash Management solution has several mechanisms in place that protect you against fraud.

Here’s a Quick list

  • First of all, our software creates a single point of managing all payments. We talk a lot about centralizing, and this is just that. Our product brings all these payments into a single view. If we think of a typical case, a company might upload some payments to internet banks, some to a service bureau, use host-to-host connections for others and maybe even run some payments via SWIFT. That creates at least 5 times X channels where payments are executed. This means all payments can’t be seen from one view, which already makes it impossible to detect fraudulent or suspicious payments. But in addition, those 5 times X channels also mean 5 times X places where user rights need to be maintained and controlled.
  • This brings us also to the second point; our software comes with a comprehensive user and user rights management. Our software creates a clear structure and visibility as to who has rights to which companies and accounts and what kind of user roles they are having. We create visibility and an easy way to maintain those rights.
  • When payments are transferred from one source system such as ERP, payroll and the likes to our cloud, files cannot be altered. This creates additional security measures that protect companies from attacks.
  • Lastly, we have created capabilities to set up straight forward approval flows that ensure a segregation of duty into the way payments are done, within the users’ approval limit. Approval limits can be set for each user when working in different roles for multiple companies.

Those are the things that come built into our software. But it’s important to highlight one key fact, most fraud attempts have a human factor and that’s why it’s important to look beyond the software and take a critical look at the processes. As a matter of fact, despite all the noise about external risks, fraud and theft are more likely to be committed by an internal actor than an external actor (Source: FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center).

In other words, if you focus on validating data for possible fraud, you probably should take steps to minimize the possibility of fraud in the first place. Otherwise, proverbially speaking, it’s winter (Northern Finland winter for that matter) and you are going out in shorts and with wet hair.

Apart from controlling user access rights, we would like to share some more tips and ideas that can help to mitigate the risk of fraud.

  • Payments that are made from ERP but rejected by the bank cannot be modified by all users. In practice this means when a payment is made from the ERP system but rejected by the bank, it bounces back where users need to review the failed payment, before sending it to the bank. Fixing the payment data on ERP master data instead of manual adjustments. This would highlight and prevent for example internal fraud attempts.
  • Consider working with your system admins to install payment templates that your end users can use. This decreases the risk for fraud and error by limiting the manual work of filling in information.
  • Make use of the full audit trail that we provide. You can see the whole lifecycle of a payment from its creation to its reconciliation, including by whom and which changes were made, who has approved and sent the payment.
  • Create clear rules on manual payment creation. We enforce a 4-eye approval flow before sending it. In manual payments, there might be a reason to have more than 2 persons approval. If you are having SSC’s in use or even multiple SSC globally. Use the standard 4-eye approval flow locally but have additional approval from another SSC to reduce the internal actor.

These are a few ideas from our side. We are always happy to hear more ideas and feedback on how we can together create safe payment processes.

DOWNLOAD PAYMENT FRAUD E-BOOK

 

 

The real value of Multi-Dealer FX trading platforms

16-08-2021 | treasuryXL | Kantox

(Spoiler: it’s not about trading costs)

A few years ago, PwC consultants proposed a clever analogy to illustrate the difference between single-dealer platforms (SDPs) and Multi-Dealer Platforms (MDPs). For banks looking to provide products and services to corporate clients on a platform, SDPs are like an airline’s website, where high-margin sales occur. Multi-Dealer Platforms, in turn, are the equivalent of online aggregators that let customers compare fares and schedules. While the former emphasizes customer relationship intimacy, the latter work as “transactional supermarkets” with a higher degree of automation.

When it comes to the corporate FX market, where spot and forward transactions take the lion’s share in terms of traded volumes, Multi-Dealer Platforms like 360T and SWAPs have been the venue of choice. The shared technology of Multi-Dealer Platforms has enabled them to better adapt to changing customers’ needs than the proprietary technology of most Single-Dealer Platforms. As a result, corporate treasurers have moved en masse to Multi-Dealer Platforms to improve FX trading processes and reduce spreads. As Kantox’s CEO Philippe Gelis argues, the success of Multi-Dealer Platforms has resulted in a spectacular “compression of FX spreads for vanilla products”.

Beyond trading costs: the value proposition of Multi-Dealer Platforms

Lower FX trading costs, the natural result of the Multi-dealer platform proposition, play an important role by facilitating the participation of firms who see a benefit in ‘embracing currencies’ to access new markets and grow their business. But the fixation with lower spreads is unwarranted. Going forward, treasurers will care less about paying 9 bps instead of 10 bps, if a 2% move in the exchange rate can be easily and efficiently handled by an automated hedging program.

To see where the real value of Multi-Dealer Platforms lies, let us start by briefly looking at the three phases of the FX hedging workflow: pre-trade, trade and post-trade.

The pre-trade phase involves sourcing exchange rates for the purpose of pricing as well as capturing and processing the relevant exposure. Once the FX trade is executed and confirmed, the post-trade phase kicks in with reporting and performance analytics as well as accounting and payments and collections.

In this increasingly automated series of steps, MDPs play a key role. Kantox’ partnership with 360T, for example, provides straight-through processing integration for corporates of all sizes to tailor their Multi-Dealer Platform setup to execution and routing rules of their own making. The range of functionalities includes:

  • Trading in spot, forwards, NDFs and swaps with hundreds of liquidity providers
  • Automated trade and data requests via API
  • Transparent pricing with greater efficiency in sourcing
  • Diversification in order to lower counterparty risk
  • Ability to select preferred liquidity providers
  • Complete trade history and audit trail
  • 24/6 execution capabilities
  • ‘Best price execution’ functionality that puts liquidity providers in competition with one another
  • Conditional orders setup with order management tools
  • Automated trade confirmation by API or email

What emerges from this picture is clear: the ‘trade phase’ of the FX corporate workflow is being automated at lightning speed. The reduction in spreads, while important, only tells part of the story. The real value proposition of a Multi-Dealer Platform lies elsewhere: they are an integral part of the seamless, end-to-end management of corporate currency workflows that Currency Management Automation solutions provide.

This process of automation comes with an added bonus: Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) ensure that data can flow seamlessly between different systems (ERP, TMS) without any need for spreadsheets, reducing spreadsheet risk and freeing up valuable treasury resources.

When viewed in this broader dimension, as part of a larger process that includes all the phases of an automated FX hedging program, Multi-Dealer Platforms are part of an ecosystem that allows companies to benefit not only from automating, one by one, the different phases of a hedging program but to have all these processes integrated with one another, thus creating more value than the sum of the parts.

GO TO PARTNER PROFILE

How to set up a forward contract and lock in a rate for your business

12-08-2021 | treasuryXL | XE |

A forward contract gives you and your business certainty, allowing you the peace of mind to have confidence that your international exposures are taken care of.

At Xe, they work with businesses of all sizes across many industries. They recognize that each business has its own requirements for its payments, and thus do they offer a diverse suite of money transfer products and solutions in order to meet each business’s international payment needs.

Let’s say that you’ll need to make a payment in the future. Right now, the rates are in your favor, but your payment is weeks or even months away, and you’re worried that the rates could change in the coming weeks, which would make your upcoming payment much more expensive than it would be now. You can’t influence the markets, but is there anything you can do to avoid feeling the brunt of currency market volatility?

In that case, the forward contract would be the right solution for you. Let’s take a closer look at what that is and how it could help your business.

What is a forward contract? 

A forward contract is an agreement to buy or sell an asset at a specified price on a specified future date. In the context of money transfer, this is how it works:

  • You specify which currencies you’d like to exchange, and get a quote at the current exchange rate.

  • You select the date on which you’d like to send this transfer, and provide all necessary recipient and payment information.

  • On that date, the transfer will automatically trigger, and will convert and send at the previously established rate.

You could think of it as the “buy now, send later” money transfer option. You’ll do the work of setting up the transfer now, and your currency exchange will happen at the current exchange rate, but the transfer itself won’t happen until the date you’ve specified.

Why is a forward contract useful? 

A forward contract can be useful in two ways: allowing you to lock in your rate to avoid future volatility, and to ensure that your payment will be sent (and delivered) by a certain date.

Changes in currency values can dramatically impact the cost of your business money transfers. If the currency that you’re sending weakens, or the currency you’re transferring to strengthens, a simple payment could suddenly become much more costly for your business. A forward contract gives you and your business certainty, allowing you the peace of mind to have confidence that your international exposures are taken care of.

Additionally, if your payment needs to be delivered by a certain date, arranging your payment in advance can ensure that it will be sent on time. No matter how busy things get leading up to the transfer date, you can rest assured that your payment is taken care of.

How to set up a forward contract 

If you’re interested in setting up a forward contract and securing a rate for your business’s upcoming money transfer, give them a call to set that up with our team. If you don’t already have a Xe account, take a look at their guide to registering for a business account.

Get Started

Get in touch with XE.com

About XE.com

XE can help safeguard your profit margins and improve cashflow through quantifying the FX risk you face and implementing unique strategies to mitigate it. XE Business Solutions provides a comprehensive range of currency services and products to help businesses access competitive rates with greater control.

Deciding when to make an international payment and at what rate can be critical. XE Business Solutions work with businesses to protect bottom-line from exchange rate fluctuations, while the currency experts and risk management specialists act as eyes and ears in the market to protect your profits from the world’s volatile currency markets.

Your company money is safe with XE, their NASDAQ-listed parent company, Euronet Worldwide Inc., has a multi-billion-dollar market capitalization, and an investment grade credit rating. With offices in the UK, Canada, Europe, APAC and North America they have truly global coverage.

Are you curious to know more about XE?
Maurits Houthoff, senior business development manager at XE.com, is always in for a cup of coffee, mail or call to provide you the detailed information.

 

 

Visit XE.com

Visit XE partner page

 

 

 

Strength in Numbers: A Community-Based Approach to Fighting Digital Payments Fraud

11-08-2021 | TIS |

This article provides a modern review of the tactics used by cyber criminals to target enterprises with fraudulent schemes and also evaluates the primary methods used by companies for defending against digital payments fraud. This is followed by an introduction to TIS’ innovative Payee Community Screening (PCS) solution, which addresses payments fraud on a global scale by curating a community-based network of trusted beneficiaries, vendors, and bank account information that enterprises can use to verify the legitimacy of their outbound payment instructions.

Enterprise Payments Fraud in 2021 is More Elaborate & Subversive than Ever Before

Within the past year alone, thousands of finance and treasury practitioners across the world have learned through bitter experience that digital payments fraud is rarely orchestrated by your average, everyday criminal.

Rather, the vast majority of today’s technology-oriented attacks, particularly those that target large enterprises, are led by sophisticated, well-funded, and innovative fraudsters.

In many cases, these software-savvy perpetrators are working on behalf of state-sponsored actors or underground “black-hat” organizations. And because these groups are well-organized and well-funded, they can provide members with the latest technology and training. Ultimately, this has led to rapid digital innovation within the criminal underworld, and subsequently to a growing frequency of highly-orchestrated payments fraud attacks against the corporate environment.

Consisting primarily of software hacks or malware attacks, many of the most prevalent forms of fraud in existence today involve numerous layers of subterfuge and deception, which is necessary for bypassing the various security controls that organizations have in place. Common examples include the use of cleverly disguised Business Email Compromise (BEC) schemes, “Man-in-the-Middle” tactics, invoicing fraud, and the use of ransomware or other forms of “system takeover” fraud.

But of course, enterprises are not entirely helpless in defending themselves.

What Payment Security Tools Does a Modern-Day Treasury Group Utilize?

If you’re operating in a role with direct access or authority over an enterprise’s outbound transactions, you could probably name a broad number of tools at your company’s disposal for detecting and preventing payments fraud.

Some quick examples?

When initially establishing internal payment protocols, most companies will require clear segregation of duties between each stakeholder in the payment process. This includes dual or multi-user approval controls for executing, reviewing, and approving payments. Other standard security components, such as the use of encrypted Wi-Fi networks or VPNs, help restrict access to the enterprise’s digital software to only trusted sources. IP safe-listing tools provide even greater control over who can access these internal systems. As users log in, configuring multifactor authentication (MFA) tokens to be used in conjunction with standard usernames and passwords is another effective technique that prevents unauthorized users or personnel from accessing payment systems via stolen credentials. Biometric versions of these MFA tokens, such as fingerprint or retinal scanners, may be leveraged for even greater security. And finally, user auditing software is often adopted by companies to help monitor the activity of various personnel within their payment systems in order to detect suspicious activity, such as a login attempt from an unknown IP address, at an odd time of day, or from an obscure world region.

Treasury Payments Security

When all combined together with regular employee testing and training, these various security techniques have proven very effective for combating most forms of digital treasury and payments fraud in existence today. And in the years ahead, these tactics are expected to remain as core features of most enterprise’s fraud prevention strategies.

However, suppose that the criminals targeting your organization are not launching direct attacks against your internal payment systems or architecture, but instead decide to infiltrate the operations of your suppliers and partners.

Their reasoning?

Although your enterprise might have the appropriate defenses in place for preventing direct hacks and internal breaches, are your controls just as effective at identifying anomalous activity that is perpetrated through the guise of a trusted vendor?

For a surprising number of enterprises today, the simple answer is no.

Successful Fraudsters Learn How to Operate Outside the Purview of Enterprise Visibility

Although many of the fraud attacks that garner widespread media attention are those that result in millions or billions of losses in a single swoop, these are not the only types of attacks that organizations should be worried about.

In reality, many of the attempts perpetrated by criminals are not targeting billions of dollars. Instead, they focus on extracting smaller amounts of funds over time, often by disguising their activity through the lens of normal business operations.

Take, as an example, fake invoices submitted by criminals that are designed to mimic one of the thousands of vendor or supplier payments that a global enterprise makes every month.

Usually, vendors are submitting invoices to enterprises via email, an online e-commerce platform, or via an ERP system. Subsequent payments are then delivered from the enterprise to the various recipients whose invoices have been approved, usually as an account-to-account transaction that goes directly to the bank account listed in the invoice.

However, suppose that a criminal is able to infiltrate the email account, e-commerce platform, or payment system used by one of your vendors. And over time, the criminal monitors the activity and communication that occurs between this vendor and your enterprise and learns how to mimic the workflow, presentation, and delivery of new invoices for payment.

In this scenario, the criminal knows that your company is receiving hundreds, if not thousands, of new invoices from a variety of vendors every day. They also know the average dollar amount of each invoice delivered by particular vendors, as well as the frequency and timing of their submissions. And if an email account or e-commerce platform has been hacked, they have also probably been studying the language and messaging that the vendor uses to correspond with you.

After taking time to evaluate these invoicing and communication processes, the criminal will create a falsified invoice using the same email address or payment platform that you’re familiar with. The invoice will probably be for the same amount and to the same beneficiary that you’re used to paying, but with a slight variation to the underlying bank account details.

The typical result being?

Unless you are actively tracking and inspecting the vendor records, bank account numbers, and beneficiary details for EVERY payment initiated by your enterprise to your global network of partners and vendors, then catching these attempts will be incredibly difficult.

But if your company cannot catch this errant invoice the first time, then what is going to stop the criminal from submitting numerous invoices over and over, or even going on to target other vendors within your network and duplicating the process on a broader scale?

It might sound like an Ocean’s 11 heist on paper, but in reality, these types of attacks occur all the time. In fact, a single instance of invoice fraud cost Amazon nearly $20 million in 2020. Other forms of fraud, such as BEC schemes, cost a combined $12.5 billion for organizations in the same timeframe, and these numbers are not decreasing over time.

Instead, they are continuing to rise.

Introducing a New Way to Quickly Identify Suspicious or Fraudulent Payment Details

Although subversive types of fraud attacks like the invoice example above are difficult for large companies to identify, suppose there were a way to quickly scan all vendor and supplier payments in real-time against a global library of beneficiary and bank account data?

Going a step further, what if you could also scan outbound transactions being delivered to first-time vendors against a community ledger of payments data in order to verify that the underlying account details and remittance info have never been flagged as suspicious or fraudulent by other enterprises?

With this functionality, the threat of fraud being perpetrated through more obscure and subversive channels become much easier to identify, and they go a long way in protecting your enterprise against attacks that spawn through exposures related to your partners, vendors, and suppliers.

This suite of tools is exactly what TIS is now providing enterprise clients with our innovative Payee Community Screening (PCS) solution.

Developed in direct response to a noted increase in invoice and BEC fraud, TIS’ PCS network works by aggregating payments data across our trusted community of global enterprises and bank partners. As new payments are submitted by various enterprises through TIS, this module compares the underlying beneficiary and bank account information against a comprehensive record of all other transactions executed through the system, including those made by other enterprises in the network.

In practice, this validation process effectively protects against four fundamental threats:

  1. If you are making payments to a new beneficiary or bank account for the first time, an alert will be generated by the system warning you that an additional review of the information is recommended.
  2. If you are making payments to a beneficiary which is completely unknown to other members of the PCS network, then the payment is flagged and a review workflow is initiated.
  3. For new vendors that you are paying for the first time, if the invoice and payment details do not match what other enterprises in the network have used to pay the vendor (i.e. a different bank account number was provided to your enterprise than what was provided to other enterprises in the network), then the payment is flagged and a review workflow is initiated.
  4. If the beneficiary or bank account details provided in an invoice ever match with a known criminal, sanctioned, or otherwise fraudulent party, the payment is automatically flagged and a review workflow is initiated.

In this way, by inspecting every outbound payment initiated by your enterprise in real-time against a global library of payments information, enterprises can strengthen their security controls by accessing a much broader pool of data and information than what is available in-house. To date, TIS’ network has managed over 11 billion payments globally across 11,000+ banks and 15 million+ distinct beneficiaries, which makes our library of payments information virtually unparalleled in the market. And now with the addition of PCS to our solution suite, we can better protect our enterprise clients from fraud by confirming the validity of every outbound transaction they are attempting to make.

TIS Payee Community Screening

In an environment where subterfuge and deception are a criminal’s main assets, these community screening techniques are essential for ensuring that fraudsters cannot bypass your controls simply by infiltrating those of a different company within your network. They also ensure that as soon as fraudulent or suspicious payment info is identified by one enterprise, the data can be quickly shared across all other enterprises in the network for purposes of quickly halting subsequent payments to that account or beneficiary.

For TIS’ enterprise clients, these tools are already becoming a pivotal component of their core security structure, and we are excited to continue deploying the solution across more global enterprises in the months and years ahead.

Learn More About How PCS Can Bolster Your Treasury & Payments Security

Although no single tool should ever be relied upon to defend against all forms of fraud, it is strongly recommended that enterprises making hundreds or thousands of vendor payments every day undergo a thorough evaluation of their payment controls. More specifically, treasury and AP teams should take time to analyze whether the threat of invoice or BEC fraud leaves them exposed, especially if a vendor or supplier within their network is compromised.

For enterprises that identify gaps, we invite you to learn more about how TIS can help.

For more information about TIS’ PCS tool, the associated benefits, and the technical aspects associated with its architecture, download our latest factsheet. You can also request a meeting with one of our payment experts or learn more about the other security-related components of our solution suite.

Stay vigilant, stay safe, and as always, thank you for reading.

About TIS

TIS is reimagining the world of enterprise payments through a cloud-based platform uniquely designed to help global organizations optimize outbound payments. 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. The TIS corporate payments technology platform helps businesses improve operational efficiency, lower risk, manage liquidity, gain strategic advantage – and ultimately achieve enterprise payment optimization.

Visit tis.biz to reimagine your approach to payments.

 

Partner Interview Series: Ramon Helwegen of EcomStream, specialized in optimization of online payment solutions

10-08-2021 | treasuryXL | EcomStream |

treasuryXL are delighted to share the interview with Founder and Managing Director of EcomStream, Ramon Helwegen.

EcomStream is an independent consultancy and is specialized in optimization of online, omnichannel and marketplace payment solutions, and optimization of checkout flows.

Meet Ramon

treasuryXL are delighted to share the interview with Founder and Managing Director of  EcomStream, Ramon Helwegen. Ramon has over 20 years of experience in E-Commerce, Online Payments and IT Managed Services outsourcing at organizations such as: Verizon, GlobalCollect (Ingenico e-payments), EMS (ABN AMRO/Fiserv) and Newgen.

Ramon has then founded EcomStream in 2017. A consultancy specialized in adding value by assessing the client’s checkout and payment solution, to sell more and pay less. For online, omnichannel and marketplace businesses.

International corporates (B2C & B2B) and Twinkle100 is the main target market. Clients include: Bax Music, Kwantum, Leen Bakker, Staples Solutions and vidaXL.

Let’s wait no longer and take the deeper dive with Ramon and his personal story about EcomStream. We asked him 8 interesting questions, let’s go!

INTERVIEW

1. What is the main goal of EcomStream?

EcomStream has been founded in 2017 and provides optimization services in the field of payment and checkout for online, omnichannel and market places. Both functionally and from a cost perspective. The goal is to provide clients the opportunity to sell more at lower costs.

Many times a client is not fully aware of optimization features that can be provided by their existing providers. This is often low hanging fruit. I also make sure that clients get value for money by benchmarking and renegotiating their rates and fees. Furthermore I’m often asked to optimize the end-to-end checkout flow to make sure the risk of drop offs is reduced to a minimum, and conversion is optimized.

2. Why are clients choosing for your services?

Assurance. Clients never have to worry again about having the best deal and set-up regarding cost and conversion, and often the service is performed on a no-cure no-pay basis.

3. What would be the biggest benefit for clients when working with EcomStream?

The payment market is very dynamic and todays knowledge gets outdated quickly. With EcomStream clients have access to up-to-date knowledge and expertise, just when they need it, and are assured of having the best deal (costs and features) with their providers at all times.

4. What client profile benefits from your services?

Rule of thumb says that most value can be generated for clients in online, omnichannel or market places, who have established mature volumes for a few years already. Clients within the Twinkle250 rankings or large corporates in B2B with direct distribution models would benefit greatly. But frankly, every merchant is very welcome to have a chat to see where I can help.

5. What is the common ground between treasury and EcomStream?

Many of the decision makers that I work with are from treasury departments. However not every treasurer understands payments, fintech, checkout and conversion as much as they would like to. Treasurers are often challenged by other stakeholders in the company to come up with cost savings or additional features, or they are pro-actively looking for opportunities to improve their KPI’s. I’m there to help them and to deliver.

6. What has been your biggest challenge with EcomStream so far?

When managing your own business you don’t have the luxury where you can rely on a large established corporate, with an enormous historical track record, that backs you up. This can be challenging. Especially when getting trust and commitment from the stakeholders and decision makers at a client side, it is your own performance that counts, for each and every project, time and time again.

7. What has been your best experience since the start of EcomStream?

First of all the strength lies within the fact that EcomStream operates an independent business model. I only work for merchants, so there are no projects taken onboard for providers or other parties in the value chain. There is never a conflict of interest but always a full commitment to the merchant.

Furthermore, I’m very pleased that I have received quite some positive work references from clients. Together with an explanation of the merchant business case, these are showing on the website.

8. What will the future hold for EcomStream?

Direct (online) distribution models are getting mainstream more and more. For B2C companies but also for B2B. Often these companies originate from traditional business models and evolve towards digital / omnichannel companies with business challenges they were not aware of before. EcomStream is there for them to unlock opportunities in the field of payment and checkout optimization, so they can sell more at lower costs.

Contact EcomStream directly

Curious to know more? Ramon Helwegen is happy to tell you more about EcomStream and his experience. Contact him directly via [email protected].

 

Go to Partner Page

Stablecoins are not that stable: what regulatory approach?

09-08-2021 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

Stablecoins are one of the newest hot spots on the crypto market. They  have the potential to enhance the efficiency of the provision of financial services including payments, and to promote financial inclusion. They might offer a new way to transact and retain value, starting to redefine modern finance. We all have seen their incredible growth in 2020 and 2021 under the DeFi market influence as I described in my former blog. Stablecoins however bear a number of risks that could harm. They are not that stable as is suggested. And think of the systemic risks when stable coins are being used all over the world. Disruptions in the value of a stablecoin could not only have damaging impact on the broader crypto market, but also on the real financial world, unless regulators step in. Main question is: what kind of regulatory oversight would work best without harming innovation?


What are stable coins?

Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrencies that are pegged to and/or backed by the underlying real-world assets what can be anything from fiat money, commodities or even another cryptocurrency. Like their name suggests, stablecoins are designed to have value that stays (rather) stable with traditional currencies or the underlying commodities. Many stablecoins are collateralized at a 1:1 ratio with their peg, which can be traded on exchanges across the world.

Stablecoins have been created to overcome the price volatility of crypto currencies such as Bitcoin or Tether, which stems from the fact that there is no robust mechanism to determine their real-world value. Given high levels of distrust in those cryptocurrencies, investors tend to resort to safer options like stablecoins. These may leverage the benefits of cryptocurrencies and blockchain without losing the guarantees of trust and stability that come with using fiat currencies. Currently, there are more than 200 stablecoins. At the time of writing of this blog the total value of stablecoins issued on public blockchain networks has surpassed $110 billion, compared to $28 bn at the start of 2021, which reflects the high institutional and retail demand in unstable times.

Types of stable coins

Based on design, we can split stablecoins into a number of major types: fiat-collateralized, crypto-collateralized, commodity-collateralized, and algorithmic or non-collateralized.

Fiat-collateralized

Fiat-collateralized stablecoins are the simplest and most common type. They are pegged to fiat currencies like the US dollar or the Euro, and usually backed at a 1:1 ratio, by holding a basket of dollar- or euro-denominated assets. This means that for each of such stablecoin in existence, there is a fiat currency in a bank account. Traders can exchange their stable coins and redeem their dollars directly from the exchange at any time. The most popular fiat-collateralised stablecoins are Tether (USDT) (market cap $62 bn) and USD Coin (USDC0 (market cap $ 27,3 bn).

Commodity-collateralized

These are stablecoins that are backed by commodity assets, like precious metals, gold, silver, real estate, or oil. This theoretically indicates to investors that these stablecoins have the potential to appreciate in value in parallel with the increase in value of their underlying assets, thereby providing an increased incentive to hold and use these coins. One example of these stablecoins is PAX Gold (PAXG) (market cap $330 mio), that relies on a gold reserve.

Crypto-collateralized

Another type are crypto collateralized stablecoins. These are pegged to other cryptocurrencies as collateral. Because the crypto values themselves are not stable, these stablecoins need to use a set of protocols to ensure that the price of the stablecoin issued remains at $1. They are often collateralized by a diversified reserve of cryptocurrencies that can sustain shocks and yet remain stable. Another mechanism involves over-collateralization, which means for a crypto-backed stablecoin that is pegged 1:2, for each stablecoin, cryptocurrency worth twice the value of stablecoins will be held in reserve. Since everything occurs on the blockchain, these crypto-backed stablecoins are much more transparent, have open source codes, and can be operated in a decentralized manner, unlike their fiat-backed counterparts. However, they are also more complex to understand, and therefore lack popularity. The most popular crypto-backed stablecoin is Dai (market cap $56.8 mio), created by MakerDAO, whose face value is pegged to the US dollar, but is collateralized by Ethereum.

Algorithmic or non-collateralized Stablecoins

A fourth class are so-called algorithmic stablecoins, also known as non-collateralized stablecoins. This is a very different design as it is not backed by any collateral. It operates in the way fiat currencies work, in that it is governed by a sovereign such as a country’s Central Bank. Given the evident difficulties these stablecoins have at maintaining value stability their usefulness is limited.

Algorithmic stablecoins use total supply manipulations to maintain a peg. The basic mechanism is creating a new coin, setting a peg, and then monitoring the price on the exchange. This can be done algorithmically, in a decentralized way, with open source code that is visible and auditable by everyone. This so-called rebasing is a speculative investment asset where the probability of gain and the probability of loss are both greater than zero. A second category of algorithmic stablecoins are coupon-based coins. The difference from rebasing coins is that holders don’t see their number of tokens change unless they do specific actions. The downside, however, is that coupon-based coins seem to be much more unstable. Some of the more known ones include Ampleforth (AMPL), Based, Empty Set Dollar (ESD) and Dynamic Set Dollar (DSD).

How do stablecoins work?

Some central stablecoins, such as Tether, require a custodian to regulate the currency and then reserve a certain amount of collateral. Tether holds the US dollar in a bank account. The amount held must be equal to what they issue to maintain the order of the system. In this way, price fluctuations should be prevented. However, there are other stable decentralized cryptocurrencies, such as the crypto-backed stablecoin Dai that achieve this goal without a central authority figure. They use smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain to manage the collateral and maintain order. Stablecoins automatically adjust the number of tokens in circulation to keep the price stable. This means that the value of stable coins should (in theory) not fluctuate frequently, as in normal crypto assets.

Why are stablecoins used?

Stablecoins are used in the crypto market for a number of reasons. Crypto currency owners may turn profits into stablecoins in the short term with the intention of investing in other cryptocurrencies when opportunities arise, rather than turning profits into fiat money and transferring them to their bank account.

Stablecoins are also invested in cryptocurrency exchanges or decentralised finance (DEFI) applications to return interest and yield. Investing in crypto currency exchanges in particular offers a safe and attractive alternative to traditional savings methods offered by legacy finance. They empower more people to harness the benefits of the blockchain without the risk of large market fluctuations. In the event of a local fiat currency crashing, people can easily exchange their savings with US dollar backed or Euro-backed or even gold-backed stablecoins, thereby preventing the further depreciation of their savings.

Where are stablecoins used?

With the growing number of stablecoins the use cases keep growing.

Switch between volatile cryptocurrencies and stablecoins

Stablecoins are most popularly used to quickly switch between a volatile cryptocurrency and a stablecoin, while trading, to protect the value of holdings. They provide traders with a ‘safe harbor’, which allows them to reduce their risk to crypto-assets without the need to leave the crypto ecosystem.

Allow the use of smart contracts

Stablecoins allow for the use of smart financial contracts that are enforceable over time. These are self-executing contracts that exist on a blockchain network, and do not require any third party or central authority’s involvement. These automatic transactions are traceable, transparent, and irreversible, making them an ideal tool for salary/loan payments, rent payments, and subscriptions.

Mainstream commerce

Because these stablecoins are seen as relatively less volatile compared to other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ether, the idea is that stablecoins might be more widely accepted in mainstream commerce. Consumers, businesses and merchants would therefore be more comfortable with using stablecoins as true units of exchange.

Payments

Stablecoins allow payers to get as close to the benefits of cash as possible. Stablecoins are freely transferable just like cash; anyone on the blockchain network can receive and send coins. The coins are structured as bearer instruments, giving the holder the rights to redeem the coins for US dollars at any time. This is especially relevant in the decentralized finance (DeFi) segment, where stablecoins play an important role to enable the ecosystem. Mainstream applications with stablecoins are also picking up in cross-border payments, where they are being used to facilitate cross-border trade and remittances.

Risks of stable coins

While stablecoins have the potential to enhance the efficiency of the provision of financial services, they may also generate risks to financial stability, particularly if they are adopted at a significant scale. Some stablecoins are actually riskier than they may seem. Stablecoins may bear risks in terms of asset contagion, collateral and accountability. We also shouldn’t ignore the risks that stablecoins potentially pose to the financial system in terms of systemic risks thereby undermining sovereign currencies.

Not all stablecoins are stable

Notwithstanding their name and the suggestion that their value is quite stable,  not all stablecoins are really 100 percent price-stable. Their values are dependent on their underlying assets. Stable coins can only be truly stable if they are 100% backed by cash. The reason for that is that the issuers of fiat-collateralized stablecoins need to manage the supply of their coins through issuing and redeeming to ensure the value of their coins maintains roughly 1-to-1 with the fiat currency. This stands true for commodity-backed and crypto-backed stablecoins as well. The promise can only work if the stablecoin issuer properly manages the reserves. Since cryptocurrency prices can fluctuate violently, crypto-backed stablecoins are more susceptible to price instability than other collateralized stablecoins.

Asset contagion risk

The rapid growth of stablecoin issuance could, in time, have implications for the functioning of short-term credit markets. Certain stablecoins are today’s economic equivalent of money-market funds, and in some cases their practices could lead to lower values, creating significant damage in the broader crypto market. There are potential asset contagion risks linked to the liquidation of stablecoin reserve holdings. These risks are primarily associated with collateralised stablecoins, varying based on the size, liquidity and riskiness of their asset holdings, as well as the transparency and governance of the operator.
Fewer risks are posed by coins that are fully backed by safe, highly liquid assets.
One of the most known and most widely traded stablecoin is Tether. Each Tether token is pegged 1-to-1 to the dollar. But the true value of those tokens depends on the market value of its reserves. Tether has disclosed that as of 31 March  it held only 26.2% of its reserves in cash, fiduciary deposits, reverse repo notes and government securities, with a further 49.6% in commercial paper (CP).

Collateral consequences

Also further collateral consequences, particularly because the recent rise in crypto prices, has been fuelled in significant part by debt. It is questionable whether stablecoins could liquidate sufficient investments quickly to satisfy the demand if needed. The consequences of such an inability to meet a sudden wave of withdrawals could be significant in the larger crypto ecosystem.

Lack of accountability

The drawback of fiat-collateralized stablecoins is that they are not transparent or auditable by everyone. They are operated just like non-bank financial intermediaries that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks, but outside normal banking regulation. They therefor may escape accountability. In the case of fiat-backed stablecoins traders need to blindly trust the exchange or operator to trade in these currencies or try to find and examine out its financial disclosers by themselves to ensure that the stablecoins are fully backed by fiat, even if they do not release audit results.

Financial stability and systemic risk

Stablecoins may also generate risks to financial stability. Some of these fiat currency-pegged tokens are not backed by actual fiat currencies, but by a combination of riskier assets. This puts not only stablecoin holders at risk but could potentially threaten financial stability in general, if a run on a stablecoin causes the asset and other cryptocurrency prices to collapse. And there is the systemic risk issue. A widely adopted stablecoin with a potential reach and use across multiple jurisdictions (so-called “global stablecoin” or GSC) like Facebook’s Libra, now called Diem, could become systemically important in and across one or many jurisdictions, including as a means of making payments.

Why is regulation needed?

These issues underline there is a large regulation gap concerning stablecoins that contributes to weak investor protection and fraudulent activities. There is no legal framework for regulating stable coins, so no requirements on how reserves must be invested, nor any requirements for audits or reporting. This lack of regulatory clarity also creates confusion when new products related to stablecoins are brought to market.

The activities associated with “global stablecoins” and the risks they may pose can span across banking, payments and securities/investment regulatory regimes both within jurisdictions and across borders. Especially if stable coins would become a significant part of the payments and finance universe there is urging need for a regulatory framework. Ensuring the appropriate regulatory approach within jurisdictions across sectors and borders will be important.

Regulatory scrutiny of stablecoins

A range of regulatory bodies, from the G7, the Federal Stability Board (FSB) to the BIS, have started publishing guidelines. They mostly highlighted risks and challenges, including issues such as financial stability, consumer and investor protection, anti-money laundering, combating financing of terrorism, data protection, market integrity and monetary sovereignty, as well as issues of competition, monetary policy, cybersecurity, operational resilience and regulatory uncertainties.

G7 Summit

At the recently held 2021 G7 Summit in Cornwall (UK) delegations concluded that common standards would be maintained through international cooperation, as well as, standards from the Financial Standards Board. They concluded that no global stablecoin project should begin operation until it adequately addresses relevant legal, regulatory, and oversight requirements through appropriate design and by adhering to applicable standards.

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision

Also released recently was a consultation paper from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on prudential treatment of stablecoin exposures. While the paper notes that bank exposure is currently limited the continued growth and innovation in crypto assets and related services, coupled with the heightened interest of some banks, could increase global financial stability concerns and risks to the banking system in the absence of a specified prudential treatment.

BIS

The BIS’ Basel Committee ‘posited’ in a recent announcement that the crypto classes would be divided between offerings such as stablecoins and tokenized assets that would be eligible for treatment under the Basel Framework, which provides standards for banking supervision. The proposed roadmap hints at more regulation such as stablecoins being governed by stricter capital reserve policies.

FSB recommendations

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has agreed on 10 high-level recommendations to address the regulatory, supervisory and oversight challenges raised by “global stablecoin” arrangements. They thereby respond  o a call by the G20 to examine regulatory issues raised by “global stablecoin” arrangements and to advise on multilateral responses as appropriate, taking into account the perspective of emerging market and developing economies.

According to the FSB, the emergence of global stable coins (GSCs) may challenge the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of existing regulatory and supervisory oversight. They therefor proposed some principles for regulating stablecoins, including restrictions on reserves, limits on risk and transparency requirements. That should promote coordinated and effective regulation, supervision and oversight of GSC arrangements These arrangements should address the financial stability risks posed by GSCs, both at the domestic and international level. The recommendations call for regulation, supervision and oversight that is proportionate to the risks. They thereby  support responsible innovation and provide sufficient flexibility for jurisdictions.

The final recommendations., including the feedback from the public consultation, will be published in October 2021, while the completion of international standard-setting work is planned by December this year.

Regulatory approaches

Notwithstanding the active work of the various international regulatory and oversight bodies it is still far from sure what regulatory approach would be chosen. There still remains uncertainty as to how they will regulate, either by proposing a bespoke regime for stable coins, banning it outright or assimilating the asset class into their existing regulatory frameworks. There is a number of regulatory approaches starting to shape how stablecoins might be governed and to more narrowly define their use. Most advanced are the EU where the EU Commission came up with their MICA proposal, though the timetable and details of planned changes remain unclear or subject to change. But now also in countries like the US and the UK regulatory activities are accelerating.

EU Market in Crypto-Asset Regulation (MICA)

Europe is currently assessing the large number of comments received during the consultation period on its proposed Market in Crypto-Assets regulation (MICA) that was issued last year September. MICA especially focuses on rules that regulate stablecoins, particularly those that have the potential to become widely accepted and systemic and crypto asset providers such as exchanges. Aim is to provide a comprehensive and transparent regulatory framework and establish a uniform set of rules that should provide investor protection, transparency and governance standard, while allowing the digital asset ecosystem to flourish.

The regulation thereby separates stablecoins into categories such as e-money tokens (stablecoins whose value is pegged to a single fiat currency) and significant asset referenced tokens’, which purport to maintain a stable value by referring to the worth of fiat currencies. These significant asset-referenced tokens are subject to strict regulatory standards of transparency, operation, and governance. Unlike other cryptocurrencies, stablecoins need to be authorised by regulatory institutions to be traded within the EU. The authorisation requirement applies also to stablecoins already in circulation. Except for existing credit institutions, everyone else that wishes to engage in stablecoin activities will also have to gain prior permission from their national supervisory authority.

MICA regulation makes it a legal obligation for stable coin projects to issue a white paper and submit it to their national financial supervisory authority. That supervisory body has the power to prohibit the issuer from releasing their planned stable coins. Most importantly, the regulation prohibits the issuance of interest to e-money tokens. With the interest ban, the EU legislator is arguably aiming to disincentivise the investment of crypto profits in stablecoins, and consequently to protect the interests of the European banking sector.

UK Bank of England

Though the UK is well behind with its regulatory activities around stablecoins compared to the EU, regulators in the UK are now also speeding up their steps to regulate stablecoins. Earlier this year the UK HM Treasury issued a general consultation and a call for evidence on crypto assets and stablecoins generally. The UK’s proposals however are narrower than the UK MICA proposals, reflecting an intention to take a ‘staged and proportionate approach’. In particular, the UK proposes to regulate only ‘stable tokens used as a means of payment’ initially.

The Bank of England Discussion Paper that was recently launched kicked of a conversation regarding digital money, stating that stablecoins, typically backed by fiat or another asset, but issued by a private firm, need to be regulated in the same way as payments currently handled by banks if they become widespread and can impact financial stabilities.

US Biden government

With the new Biden government also in the US activities surrounding regulating stablecoins are speeding up, and there is a growing optimism that 2021 will ‘bear witness to material progression’ from US regulators and law makers to better understand this technology and clarify the regulatory framework.

Stable Act

In December last 2020, just before the end of the US Congress tenure, a draft of the Stablecoin and Bank Licensing Enforcement Act (Stable Act) was introduced. The law would approve the use of stablecoins and cryptocurrencies as legitimate alternatives to other real-time payment systems. This Act however proposed significant increases in the regulatory oversight of stablecoins. It would limit who can issue the stablecoins, requiring that stablecoins be issued by a bank and would impose certain standards. It is however questionable if this Act in this form will really be approved by the US Congress.

US Fed

The US Fed is now also taking note of the rising usage of stablecoins. They announced it will issue a report later this year to begin a ‘major public consultation’ on crypto regulation, especially stablecoins, laying out the risks and benefits associated with stablecoins as well as a potential digital dollar.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that the US is at a ‘critical point’ for regulation of these digital currencies, advocating for the application of new rules on stablecoins that are similar to those applied to bank deposits and money-market mutual funds, where the US has a pretty strong regulatory framework. The issuance of a stablecoin should be conditioned on following risk-limiting practices designed to ensure that the tokens are in fact worth that price. There should be liquidity requirements as well.

The President’s Working Group for Financial Markets

The President’s Working Group for Financial Markets, the nation’s top financial regulators in the US, last week met to discuss stablecoins and how to react. This is marking the first publicly-announced meeting of this group of regulators since Joe Biden took office earlier this year. Topics of discussion included the rapid growth of stablecoins, potential uses of stablecoins as a means of payment and potential risks to end users, the financial system and national security. This conversation is clearly only just starting. The meeting promised that the group, would publish recommendations for stablecoin regulation within the next few months. From this discussion it is not yet clear what sort of regulatory framework we might see, and which one would make the most sense for stablecoins.

The regulatory way forward

Stablecoins present peculiar challenges to regulators that ask for narrow cooperation between regulators and the stablecoin industry and global regulatory cooperation.

Stablecoins do not stand for a uniform category but represent a variety of crypto instruments that can vary significantly in legal, technical, functional and economic terms. In order to be effective in limiting risks and not disturbing innovations the stablecoin industry must work together with the regulators to come up with a framework that helps put them at ease while protecting this nascent industry from overregulation.

Another major regulatory challenge relating to global stablecoins is international coordination of regulatory efforts across diverse economies, jurisdictions, legal systems, and different levels of economic development and needs. There is not (yet) a uniform regulatory approach of regulators worldwide relating to stablecoins. Calls for the harmonization of legal and regulatory frameworks include areas such as governing data use and sharing, competition policy, consumer protection, digital identity and other important policy issues.

This all should contribute to more stability of stablecoins.

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

 

 

 

Source

#4 Having No Insight into the Variety of Products Available for your Company (Dutch item)

05-08-2021 | XE |

Many companies are not aware of the total range of possibilities for the management of Currency Risks. For example, they only buy the necessary currency at the current rate, spot rate, and think any other strategy currency speculation. Hedging in particular is often misunderstood and therefore rejected. currency hedging is not gambling how the currency markets might behave in the coming days and weeks development, but is intended to insure the company against the possibility of unfavorable developments.

“Valutahedging is niet gokken hoe de valutamarkten zich de komende dagen en weken zouden kunnen ontwikkelen, maar is bedoeld om het bedrijf te verzekeren tegen de mogelijkheid van ongunstige ontwikkelingen.”

Er zijn diverse valutahulpmiddelen die u kunt gebruiken om dat te doen, maar laten we termijncontracten eens als voorbeeld nemen. Met deze transacties spreekt u af om in de toekomst een bepaalde hoeveelheid valuta tegen een vaste prijs te kopen. Neem bijvoorbeeld een supermarktketen die over een maand €10.000 moet betalen aan buitenlandse leveranciers. Een termijncontract dat vandaag specificeert hoeveel pond de keten voor die €10.000 zal betalen, elimineert het risico dat het pond de komende weken in waarde daalt waardoor de supermarktketen meer zou moet betalen dan verwacht. Dat is geen valutaspeculatie of gokken hoe de markten zich gaan ontwikkelen, het is
een verzekeringspolis.

Achteraf kan natuurlijk blijken dat hedging niet nodig was geweest. Als in ons voorbeeld het pond niet daalt ten opzichte van de euro of misschien zelfs stijgt, kan de supermarktketen denken dat het onverstandig was om van tevoren een koers vast te leggen. Maar dan zouden ze hedging beschouwen als speculatie en niet als een verzekeringspolis. Zo heeft u er aan het eind van het jaar ook geen spijt van dat u een opstalverzekering hebt betaald terwijl uw huis niet is afgebrand. Dat wil niet zeggen dat hedging de juiste strategie is voor alle bedrijven. Sommige zullen van mening zijn dat hun valutarisico niet zo groot is dat het dit soort verzekering nodig heeft. Maar dan nog moet u er niet vanuit gaan dat uw valutaprovider niet meer kan doen om uw bedrijf te helpen met uw valutabehoeften.

Klik hier voor meer Info en Download WhitePaper


Are You Still Thinking About Virtual Accounts or Already Implementing POBO and COBO?

| 04-08-2021 | treasuryXL | Nomentia |

Companies are increasingly focusing on harmonising their banking landscape to obtain better visibility of Cash balances, to mitigate Fraud Risks and to improve automation and security in their treasury processes.

In a world where the next fraud attempt is lurking around every corner, no company wants to create processes with different banks, tokens, and user lists for each of their different local entities. With this harmonisation, companies start to rethink their processes, and this naturally leads to in-house banking, including POBO and COBO. This is because the question soon arises as to why, for example, not all euro payments should be handled from one account, if that were possible within the regulatory context.

Setting up an in-house bank doesn’t happen overnight. It’s the result of several steps taken to centralise an organisation’s cash management. The six steps are:

  1. Managing corporate bank account structure. You can read more in our bank connectivity guide.
  2. Harmonising and centralising payment process. It’s also a way to mitigate the risk of payment fraud. You can read more in our payment fraud ebook.
  3. Streamlining internal payments. This is a logical next step after managing your corporate bank account structure.
  4. Establishing POBO.
  5. Establishing COBO.
  6. Centralising control over financing.

Today we would like to focus on POBO and COBO. They are the ultimate goals of a payments project because they create transparency and make cash management processes more efficient and automated. This sounds great, right? So why, then, aren’t all organisations just setting up POBO and COBO and calling it a day?

Moving from disparate processes, tools and a varied (if you want to be positive) banking landscape to a centralised treasury doesn’t happen easily. Companies might even feel hesitant about implementing on-behalf-of structures because their set-ups are too complicated. That’s an interesting point and I’d like to stress that the more complex a company is in its cash management or enterprise resource planning (ERP) structures, the more they will benefit from an on-behalf-of set-up.

Increased control, transparency, and efficiency

In the POBO model, the subsidiaries process the payment data in their systems according to internally harmonised processes, and the group treasury decides on the most cost-efficient payment method and banking connection. The group treasury is able to centralise cash outflows, which significantly enhances the safety of and control over the payment process.

COBO and POBO make it possible for the group to reach the highest level of independence from banks and maximise cost efficiency.

The benefits of POBO and COBO can be summarised into increased control, transparency, and efficiency. But there are also challenges associated with on-behalf-of structures that need to be evaluated before setting them up.

Where there’s a benefit there’s a challenge

POBO is possible for most payment types, but some are regulated in such a way that they cannot be completed by the on-behalf-of method. This is often related to tax or salary payments. Legal restrictions specific to each country can make it difficult to set up POBO and companies need to assess whether the benefits they will gain are worth the effort. There is no one true answer for all companies; it really depends on the level of complexity they are facing.

Another reason why companies might feel hesitant about implementing POBO is because they use multiple ERP systems. If that is the case, the mere idea of POBO is simply far too complicated. To be honest, when we hear that ‘excuse’ we see it as a challenge, and it makes us happy. Because this then means we can talk about payment factories –especially our payment factory solution. We can create a process that makes it possible for all entities to pay with internal bank accounts as payments-on-behalf-of. I’d even go so far as to say that the more ERP systems a company has, the more benefits it will get from POBO.

When it comes to COBO, the main challenge is that companies are dependent on their buyers to know what to collect from whom. Companies need to retrieve all accounts receivable (AR) information and maintain an overall view of account balances. In some countries that might be relatively easy, as invoices generally have a reference number. But that’s not the case in all countries. It comes back to identifying incoming payments correctly. For example, this can be achieved by matching payments to open invoices. A solution for automatic bank account reconciliation would be able to automatically match incoming payments based on information provided, for example in the message to the right AR account. We took a closer look at the topic in this blog post about how an in-house bank with modern matching solves the COBO challenge.

That said, of course, it’s not an easy task to create on-behalf-of structures, but it’s something that organisations will greatly benefit from if done correctly.