Partners Archives - Page 63 of 85 - treasuryXL

Readying Treasury for Hybrid Work

20-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Kyriba |

To say that the COVID-19 pandemic changed the way treasury departments and companies operate is a massive understatement. Treasury, a function already accustomed to ‘doing more with less,’ began operating remotely—often with a skeleton crew as companies were forced to reduce headcount.

Once mass distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine began, companies quickly began to strategise over what their post-pandemic workforce might look like. While the rise of the Delta variant has thrown a wrench into many organisations’ plans to reopen, eventually, that new work model will take shape. And it might look drastically different than what has come before.

Here are a few things to consider.

A hybrid work environment will very likely be the new normal.

Research from Harvard Business Review found that 70 percent of companies—including giants like Google, Citi and HSBC—are moving to a hybrid model. Just as treasury teams needed to adapt quickly to operating from home, now they’ll have to adjust to having some team members in the office while others are remote.

CFOs have an eye on emerging technologies.

The remote working environment brought on by the pandemic prompted, or perhaps forced, many organisations to digitise their processes. In a hybrid work environment (that could revert back to a fully remote one if COVID-19 variants continue to emerge), finance chiefs will continue to call for better technological solutions. New research from Gartner found that 82 percent of CFOs plan to increase investments in digital capabilities. CFOs named artificial intelligence (AI) as the technology that they expect to have the most impact over the next three years. Kyriba users can apply AI and machine learning (ML) to key cash management tasks like reconciling prior day bank files with their expected cash positions. For organisations that process high volumes of transactions, handling this process manually can take hours. Kyriba’s solution can identify and resolve discrepancies in minutes, and it learns from the data so that eventually, little to no human interaction is required.

Treasury’s role expanded considerably throughout the COVID-19 crisis.

More than 80 percent of treasury professionals said that greater value was assigned to treasury during the pandemic, according to the 2020 AFP Strategic Role of Treasury Survey. Furthermore, nearly 70 percent of respondents believe that treasury’s role will continue to be of greater significance. To maintain that influence over other, other departments, treasury professionals may need to revisit their soft skills. Just as employees may have faced difficulty giving presentations over Zoom, they may also find presenting in-person or to a mix of in-person and remote employees to be equally challenging.

Regional treasury centers might no longer need to be regional.

While it can be convenient to house a treasury center to manage cash and FX hedging in a region with unique regulations, the COVID-19 pandemic may prompt organisations to rethink that approach. Since the onset of the pandemic, those remote working has surged; the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research found that 42 percent of the U.S. labor force currently works from home. And perhaps more importantly, it’s been incredibly successful for both employers and workers, according to PwC’s U.S. Remote Work Survey. Ultimately, this could mean that treasury teams may no longer see a need to centralise their operations regionally even after the pandemic ends.

Continuous remote work means fraud threats will remain elevated.

According to the 2021 AFP Payments Fraud and Control Survey, business email compromise (BEC) scams increased last year. This was likely due to the remote work environment making it more difficult to verify emails with colleagues. Security will continue to be paramount for treasury, particularly if it moves to a permanent model where some employees regularly work from home. Treasury teams will need to continue to use strong controls like multifactor authentication, single sign-on and virtual private networks to ensure that only the appropriate people have access to their systems. Additionally, treasury employees must be even more meticulous about setting approvals for payments so that fraud attempts will be thwarted. With Kyriba Payment Fraud Detection, treasury can stop fraud in real-time. Users can set pre-defined detection rules, to screen for suspicious transactions. Additionally, ML algorithms can identify and quarantine dubious payments for further review.

The cloud provides a failsafe for business continuity planning (BCP).

Cloud-based treasury management systems aren’t only efficient modules to help treasury teams track cash and liquidity. They are also a key cog in BCP. Cloud-based solutions like Kyriba’s are hosted offsite in multiple locations, allowing your treasury department to function regardless of whether your team is working in the office or from a dozen different locations. So even if a new COVID-19 variant emerges, treasury teams can continue to function without interruption.

Making a Game Plan

While it’s unclear how soon offices will begin opening back up en masse, now is the time for treasury teams to begin planning for the shift. When the pandemic first hit, treasury functions had to respond quickly, and they did as best they could. Pivoting in this next phase won’t be seamless, but with the right protocols and technology in place, treasury teams can make smooth transitions.

Which Options Are There When It Comes To Bank Connectivity?

15-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Nomentia |

In this blog, we want to give an overview of the different options for bank connections from host-to host, direct connections through regional standards and SWIFT. On top of that we’ll also take a look at open banking APIs and what possibilities they might hold for the future.

Bank connections enable corporate customers to exchange messages with their banking partners. Companies need to have a relationship with at least one bank, in practice there are typically several banks involved, for example to exchange account information and sending payments. Bank connections are so to speak the backbone of your treasury department because they ensure the uninterrupted flow of information between your business process tools and banks, allowing you to create accurate cash forecasts, manage liquidity and the likes. Bank connectivity will remain a topic that corporate treasury departments need to decide how to approach. Now, let’s look at the different options for creating bank connections.

Direct host-to-host connections

One of our webinar polls showed there are still 30% of our respondents who maintain host-to-host connections with their banks. This means that typically the IT department sets up bank connections to specific banks. How those work in specific then depends on the bank. With some banks a host-to-host connection is needed for each country where the company is operating. Luckily many banks offer single point of entry connectivity which means that once you’re connected, you can use it to operate cash management messages in all or multiple countries where the bank has branches.

Since the bank is hosting the service, it also means that the bank is dictating all technical requirements and corporate customers need to adapt to changes the banks might make.

And change is imminent, especially when it comes to messaging formats, communication protocols and security requirements. There are for example client certificate renewals that come up usually every two years. Root certificates expire more infrequently but cause more maintenance work.

Another quite timely example is the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol version upgrade. TLS certificates not only have to be renewed from time to time, but older TLS protocol versions have known vulnerabilities and the banks are enforcing their clients to use newer versions all the time.

Maintaining direct host-to-host connection requires you and especially your IT department to make a commitment to maintain these connections day in and day out. Which requires special technical expertise from the IT department and a lot of resources, especially when you employ many host-to-host connections in your ecosystem.

Direct connections through regional standard protocols

The EBICS (Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard) is a standard protocol that is used in Germany, Switzerland, and France. Also, banks in other countries are testing this standard.

The challenge with EBICS has been that different countries have their own versions of the standard. In 2018 EBICS 3.0 was launched with the goal to harmonize the differences and to make it easier to communicate across borders. In practice Germany and Switzerland are still using EBICS 2.5 and it will take until November 2021 until EBICS 3.0 becomes mandatory for banks in Germany.

Some international banks have adopted EBICS into wider use. Which means that corporations familiar with EBICS may use it for message exchange and authorization in other countries as well. Only the future will show if EBICS fulfils its vision of becoming the pan-European standard protocol for bank communication.

Connections through SWIFT

Companies can connect directly to the SWIFT network and with that get connected with over 11 000 financial institutions in more than 200 countries. SWIFT is hosting and maintaining the global network for that. It’s highly secure and reliable. It’s a single gateway that almost sounds like it opens the door to paradise for you, at least in the mind of someone who spends his time building host-to-host bank connections for single banks. You are empowered to change banking partners based on your business needs without having to worry about establishing new connections.

SWIFT has a sort of do-it-yourself approach by providing Alliance Lite2 to companies. And here comes the other side of the coin. A direct connection to SWIFT is costly and requires time and resource-demanding integration. In addition, you need to comply in full scope with the SWIFT Customer Security Programme (CSP) that requires all their members to protect their endpoint, because naturally, they need to protect their network.

Most corporate customers use a SWIFT Alliance Lite2 Business Application (L2BA) provider or a Service Bureau for the connection. In the L2BA model, a service provider takes care of handling all necessary requirements to connect to the Swift network and you buy your bank connections pretty much as a service. Often this is packaged with other products and solutions you might use.

Open banking APIs

Open banking APIs are one of the most interesting developments. We already see banks all across Europe offering premium APIs for corporates that go beyond what is possible today.

Open banking APIs are set to bring a real-time component to the game that hasn’t been there so far. In the past there was no way for external systems to fetch for example real time balances from banks, but this is about to change. While as previously, corporations would execute batch payments, with open banking APIs this will be possible whenever a payment is needed with instant effect. Looking at balances and payments is the beginning of new solutions that will be available to corporate treasury.

Open banking APIs is something that companies and providers such as Nomentia will need to take into account for their roadmap because this is clearly where we will be able to provide innovative solutions for our customers in the future.

What’s the verdict?

It would be great to give an easy answer to this question. But it’s just not that simple. As I outlined above, all connection methods have pros and cons It really depends on your needs and internal structures what you need.

WATCH OUR WEBINAR ABOUT BANK CONNECTIVITY

Transitioning from LIBOR: Explaining the cash fallback rates

14-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Refinitiv | Jacob Rank-Broadley

The LIBOR transition: We explain what fallback rates for the USD cash markets are and provide practical insights on how these rates can be used.

Refinitiv USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks are designed to ensure existing USD LIBOR referencing products such as loans, bonds and securitisations can continue to operate post-USD LIBOR cessation.
There are two versions of the Refinitiv USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks: those for consumer products and those for institutional products.
Initially, market participants can use the prototype USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks to become more familiar with the rates and test technical connectivity.

For more data-driven insights in your Inbox, subscribe to the Refinitiv Perspectives weekly newsletter.

During my previous blog on fallbacks in April 2021, I outlined the importance of introducing robust fallback rates into the USD cash markets.

There is a substantial exposure of cash instruments that have no effective means to easily transition away from LIBOR upon its cessation. New LIBOR legislation signed into State of New York law reduces the adverse economic outcomes associated with the instruments by requiring them to use the Alternative Reference Rates Committee’s (ARRC) recommended fallback language.

In March, the ARRC announced Refinitiv as publisher of its fallback rates for cash products. Since then, Refinitiv has been working with the Federal Reserve and the ARRC to finalise the design of the USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks.

Refinitiv is committed to supporting you through the LIBOR transition with LIBOR Transition and Replacement Rate solutions

Fallback rate economically equivalent to USD LIBOR

The Refinitiv USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks provide the rates described in the ARRC’s recommended fallback language.

These are composed of two components: the adjusted Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) part measures the average SOFR rate for the relevant tenor. Added to this is a spread adjustment, which measures the difference between the USD LIBOR for each tenor and SOFR compounded in arrears for that tenor.

Adding these two components together gives an all-in fallback rate that is economically equivalent to USD LIBOR.

There are two version of the Refinitiv USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks: those for consumer products and those for institutional products. Both are published to five decimal places and include the adjusted SOFR rate, the spread adjustment and the all-in rate.

Watch: Refinitiv Perspectives LIVE – The LIBOR Transition: Risk-Free Term Rates

Consumer cash fallbacks

Refinitiv USD IBOR Consumer Cash Fallbacks are designed to ensure existing USD LIBOR referencing consumer cash products such as mortgages and student loans can continue to operate post-USD LIBOR cessation.

These rates are based upon compound SOFR in advance, which means the rate is known at the start of the interest period, plus the spread adjustment.

Prior to 1 July 2023, the spread adjustment will be calculated as the median difference between USD LIBOR and SOFR compound in arrears for the previous 10 working days, resulting in the spread adjustment changing on a daily basis.

This is an indicative rate, and while it should not be used as a reference rate in financial products, it is designed to aid familiarity with the USD IBOR Consumer Cash Fallbacks prior to adoption in July 2023.

Following 30 June 2024, the spread adjustment will be calculated as the median of the historical differences between USD LIBOR for each tenor and the compounded in arrears SOFR for that tenor over a five-year period prior to 5 March 2021.

For the period between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2024, the spread adjustment will be calculated as the linear interpolation between the two rates outlined above.

A floored version of the consumer cash fallbacks is also available, meaning that if the average SOFR across all days in the tenor is below zero, then the all-in published fallback rate will be solely the corresponding spread adjustment.

Refinitiv USD IBOR Consumer Cash Fallbacks will be published in 1-month, 3-month and 6-month tenors.

Institutional cash fallbacks

Refinitiv USD IBOR Institutional Cash Fallbacks are designed to ensure existing USD LIBOR referencing commercial cash products such as bilateral business loans, floating rate notes, securitisations and syndicated loans can continue to operate post USD LIBOR cessation.

In order to account for different conventions in different markets, there are a number of different versions of the Refinitiv USD IBOR Institutional Cash Fallbacks. There are three different ways of capturing the average SOFR rate: SOFR compound in arrears, Simple SOFR in arrears and SOFR compound in advance.

Added to this is the spread adjustment, which is calculated as the median of the historical differences between USD LIBOR for each tenor and the compounded in arrears SOFR for that tenor over a five-year period prior to 5 March 2021.

Unlike Refinitiv USD IBOR Consumer Cash Fallbacks, there is no transition period. This means that the spread adjustment remains fixed for perpetuity.

Each of the SOFR compound in arrears and Daily Simple SOFR rates will be available in up to seven tenors in a variety of different forms in order to conform to convention in different markets.

The 3-, 5- and 10-day lookback without observation shift versions give counterparties more notice by applying the SOFR rate from three, five and ten business days prior to the rate publication date.

The 2-, 3- and 5-days lookback with an observation shift versions also give counterparties more notice by applying the SOFR rate from two, three and five business days prior to the publication date, but in contrast to a lookback without observation shift, it applies that rate for the number of calendar days associated with the rate two, three and five business days prior.

The 2- and 3-day lockout versions fix the SOFR rate for the last two and three days prior to publication.

The plain version has no lookback, observation shift, or lockout.

The SOFR compound in advance rates for institutional products will be available in 1-month, 3-month and 6-month tenors.

Download now: Navigating the LIBOR transition

What’s the next step?

Initially, market participants can use the prototype USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks to become more familiar with the rates and test technical connectivity.

Following the ARRC’s recent endorsement of Term SOFR, Refinitiv plans to supplement the initial prototype with a forward-looking term rate version in due course.

During the prototype phase, we anticipate changes to the methodology based on user feedback to ensure full alignment with industry standards prior to publication of the production rates.

Production rates for the institutional cash fallbacks should be available from autumn 2021, and for the consumer cash fallbacks they will be available from July 2023.

How to access the rates

Prototype rates are now available from the Refinitiv website and through Refinitiv products including Refinitiv® Eikon, Refinitiv Real-Time and Refinitiv® DataScope.

For more information on these rates, including the methodology and identifiers (RICs), please visit our Refinitiv USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks page.

Refinitiv is committed to supporting you through the LIBOR transition with LIBOR Transition and Replacement Rate solutions

Our (interim) treasury labour market is extremely international

13-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Pieter de Kiewit Just before starting my vacation I created a small overview of the recent successes of Team Treasurer Search. Next to the fact that we see the speed of placements picking up, I think it is striking how international our treasury labour market is. This is not only for […]

Nomentia Acquires TIPCO: A union of exceptional products and teams

08-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Nomentia |

Nomentia announced yesterday that the company has acquired TIPCO Treasury & Technology. Shortly after the news was released, we had the chance to sit down with Jukka Sallinen, CEO of Nomentia, and talk about the announcement, what does the acquisition promise for finance and treasury professionals globally, and what does the future hold for Nomentia.

The acquisition of TIPCO is the latest milestone in Nomentia’s history. What’s the reason behind the transaction?

There are a couple of reasons. First and foremost, we’ve felt that both companies share a very similar mission. We want to provide unparalleled solutions for and with our customers. TIPCO’s Treasury Information Platform (TIP) is an exceptional treasury management solution that is widely known in the DACH region, and TIPCO has been also famous for its acumen in treasury. Our combined solutions and domain expertise make us one of the strongest players in the cloud treasury and cash management space. I have no doubt that our current and future customers will benefit from our combined product portfolio. Another good reason for joining forces with TIPCO is that we’ve strongly felt that both companies have had surprisingly similar cultures – both have a very healthy obsession for providing the best solutions for our clients and we take pride in what we do.

Tell us more about the merged product portfolio and how treasury teams will benefit from it?

Before the acquisition, Nomentia cash management was consisting of Bank connections, Payments, Cash Forecasting, In-house banking, Bank Account Management, and Reconciliation solutions. Adding TIP to the solution mix, we can now provide robust and sophisticated cash flow forecast and cash visibility solutions, as well as solutions for trade finance, FX risk, treasury reporting and treasury workflows, and more. TIP has been always loved by the users and now all Nomentia customers will have access to TIP.

Today, it’s not feasible for treasury teams and finance teams to choose one provider for all their needs or trust that their ERP system would provide a working solution alone. Treasurers should be able to choose the solutions that can best resolve their challenges and meet their needs. To get the best outcome, finance and treasury teams often need to work with multiple vendors – taking the best solution from each. Of course, that’s not always ideal from IT’s point of view, but that’s where our team comes in to take care of the implementation plan together with the client and integrate with their existing systems and banks. We trust that a lot of our current customers will find new solutions from our updated offering that can help them to overcome their current challenges.

New customers will find that Nomentia can offer the widest cash and treasury management solution portfolio on the market to help them build better treasury processes.

How does the acquisition affect Nomentia’s future?

During the past year, Nomentia has taken big steps toward becoming the global powerhouse for treasury and cash management. After last year’s merger of OpusCapita and Analyste, we’ve successfully got our footprint in many new markets, and we’ve been especially growing in the DACH and Benelux regions besides continuing to be the number one choice of treasurers in the Nordics. Acquiring TIPCO and merging the two product portfolios will help us to strengthen our position in Europe even more.

Our team has been also growing significantly – it’s always great to work with people that are experts in their field and can truly help our customers to develop their operations. Together, we will exceed our customers’ expectations with our strong product portfolio and even stronger team. Personally, I am thrilled about the news and can’t wait to roll up our sleeves and get to work together with our new colleagues!

Read the press release to learn more

Spreadsheet risk: the silent killer of FX performance

07-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Kantox

Imagine a perfectly designed currency hedging program for a company that seeks to protect its annual budget. Given the specific features of that company —especially its pricing dynamics— such a program would allow the finance team to systematically achieve a hedge rate that would be equal or better than the FX budget rate, avoiding overhedging all the while. The hedging strategy would also consider the firm’s degree of forecast accuracy, as well as the forward discount or premium of the currencies in which it trades.

Now imagine that this optimal FX hedging program was implemented on perfectly designed spreadsheets. Armed with super-efficient spreadsheets, the finance team would project forecasted revenues and expenditures, calculate the firm’s exposure to currency risk and set a time frame for the execution of hedges.

A treasurer’s dream come true? Not so fast.

Any reasonably well-designed currency hedging program goes through a process in three phases: the pre-trade phase, the trade phase and the post-trade phase. Each of these phases, in turn, comprises several intricate steps. And here’s where a wholly unexpected risk would sneak in, with potentially devastating consequences: spreadsheet risk, the silent killer of performance.

Spreadsheet risk is omnipresent

Spreadsheet risk comprises a series of errors stemming mostly from the requirement of data to be manually inputted into each cell. Manual management not only takes up much of the financial team’s resources and time — it makes human error inevitable. The most commonly observed errors and risks comprise:

Data input error, including ‘fat finger mistakes’
Copy & paste error
Formatting errors
Formula errors
Multiple versions across the firm
Lack of backups
Users’ lack of skills
Insufficient guidelines

spreadsheet risk in FX hedging

Despite all the efforts in spreadsheet risk management, the problem is not going away. In fact, more risk is being created as economies grow and businesses become more complex. The truth is that spreadsheets were originally designed for small pockets of data. They were never designed to handle large amounts of data in an interconnected environment.

Experts know well that the world’s most famous business spreadsheet saw the light of day before the World Wide Web and the internet browser — that is, before the explosion of interconnectedness. And interconnectedness lies at the heart of modern FX hedging programs.

Spreadsheets traveling back and forth

The most prosaic element of a FX program is the seemingly innocuous process of sourcing currency rates for multi-currency pricing purposes. Quite apart from the fact that many firms undertake it with irrelevant time-based criteria, the reality is that, once currency rates are sourced —for example, from the European Central Bank’s website— the commercial team receives the information on a spreadsheet.

Next, the FX exposure needs to be collected and processed. Budgeting, as we know, is a process that involves commercial and production teams, purchasing managers, economists, human resources departments and treasury teams. In other words: the cornerstone of the hedging program is the result of dozens, or more likely, hundreds of spreadsheets traveling back and forth across the enterprise. At this point, spreadsheets risk is only in its initial stages.

Depending on the forward discount/premium of the currencies involved, conditional FX orders are set. The information must be provided by the relevant commercial teams/purchasing managers — on a spreadsheet. Then the trade phase kicks in. If manually executed, several processes take place: approval request, first review, second review, final approval. Yet more spreadsheets are transferred in the process.

And what about the FX payments and collections process? And the FX accounting and performance analytics stages? You guessed it: critically important information is subject, once more, to data input errors, copy & paste errors, formula errors and formatting errors. These are the ingredients of a potentially nightmarish scenario. Even for the best-designed currency hedging programs. And even for programs implemented on brilliantly designed spreadsheets.

FX Automation: taming spreadsheet risk

In an increasingly interconnected world with more complex business models, spreadsheet risk can be a silent killer of performance. Business managers face enough risks in the day-to-day management of their operations, and treasurers in particular have enough on their plates to worry about the spreadsheet risk in their FX hedging programs.

It’s high time they work to better manage this risk. Here, Currency Management Automation is your company’s best antidote. These software solutions use Application Programming Interfaces to ensure that data can flow seamlessly between different systems (ERP, TMS) and software without any need for spreadsheets.

The time to act is now.

Strategic Treasurer’s Analyst Report Series: Treasury and Risk Management Systems

06-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Kyriba |

This document contains a comprehensive illustration of the current state of treasury technology and the exciting future direction using new tools that are already with us. This FinTech analyst report from Strategic Treasurer takes a look at the current health of the TMS space and what benefits can come from implementing a treasury management system in your operations. Additionally, this report covers emerging technologies within treasury, such as the use of robotic process automation, artificial intelligence, and more.

Understand the current TMS space and its benefits

The Treasury and Risk Management Systems Analyst Report offers a thorough evaluation of the TMS space by covering the emerging uses of AI/ML (artificial intelligence and machine learning), RPA (robotic process automation), and API (application programming interface) technologies in treasury.

It also discusses:

The place of a TMS/TRMS in business continuity planning and preparing for disruption and volatility
The best practices and proper mindsets for avoiding pitfalls in selecting, making a business case for, and implementing treasury technology
The varied ways in which these solutions address the day-to-day pain points and inefficiencies of treasury departments

Download it now!

What to Consider When You choose your Bank Connectivity Strategy? 7 Important Criteria

| 01-09-2021 | treasuryXL | Nomentia |

Most organizations would benefit from some form of Bank Connectivity as a service. But just deciding on outsourcing bank connectivity won’t magically make all those connections appear. In this blog, we’ll cover 7 important criteria you should think of when evaluating different options.

1. In which banks do the majority of your payments flow?

Make a list of all banks that your organization is connected with and include all banking relationships from all your subsidiaries. We have noticed in interactions with our customers that this first step can be eye-opening at times. Often, we have an idea of the different banking relationships but then there are still local bank relations that might not be that visual to your treasury function. It also provides you with a good understanding of how many bank connections you would need and whether you would benefit from simplifying your banking landscape before implementing a bank connectivity solution. If your organization is only working with 5 banks altogether the story is very different from an organization that has relationships with 20+ banks.

After mapping this out, you might want to apply the 80/20 rule: typically, you would first set up connections to the strategic banks that cover 80% of your payment flows. A cloud-based software from a Cash Management specialist will most likely be able to provide you these connections as part of their out-of-the-box functionality.

2. Evaluate your use of local banks

Even if you expand the use of strategic banks to more countries, you might still find a set of local banks that you cannot replace. Typically, a discussion about bank connectivity increases in complexity when the long tail of local banks comes into play. That’s where you need to ask yourself why you are working with local banks. Is it for collecting money, for making payments from a regulatory point of view or because of specific needs within your local business?

Having visibility on Cash is straightforward while covering payment flows is not easily justified from a direct cost savings point of view. At the same time payment fraud plays a role in the local banks. You might want to consider a solution to replace internet banks for manual payments with a centralized solution. Then, the business case cannot be backed up by direct cost savings, but cost-efficient risk mitigation.

3. How consolidated is your banking landscape?

After mapping out all your banks in a first step, you know your strategic banks. Now it’s time to take a look at which countries are covered by these strategic banks. Would it be a good time to reduce your banking relations by using a certain set of strategic banks in more of your countries in order to reduce the number of domestic banks?

4. How many file formats and payment types do you have in use?

It is a different thing to set up credit notes and treasury payments only, as opposed to also including domestic payments, salary payments, and tax payments. We recommend having a solution for all your payment types and file formats: this is the only way to get rid of the internet banks and the tokens.

5. Are you concerned about payment fraud and information security?

You should have a solution to cover all payment types in all countries with all banks. That is the only way to have a full audit trail and control in every country. A centralized payment process enables centralized validation and control. We have covered the topic of payment fraud extensively.

In our case, having bank connectivity as a cloud service lets you benefit from a platform, which invests annually roughly 1bn$ in information security. From an information security perspective, this lets us concentrate on application-level security, which is annually audited by 3rd parties.

6. Are you interested in having transparency in your bank fees?

Modern bank connectivity solutions enable transparency in banking fees: Having bank agreements and the related fees included and matched against the banks’ reports. Even more transparency can be gained with services like SWIFT GPI: SWIFT GPI enables banks to provide bank fee information for the e2e chain. Not all banks support these features yet.

7. Choose wisely

Once you go through the questions and mappings outlined above you are at a good place in making your decision for the right bank connectivity provider. It might seem tedious at times and one might think of bank connections as a mere technical thing, but they are so much more. We feel this is a perfect moment to evaluate all your processes and look at ways to harmonize them.

It’s also a great way to work closely together with your colleagues. We recommend approaching this topic in a project team between treasury, finance and IT: From an IT perspective you want to minimize the IT-footprint, finance will run the daily operations and treasury sets the policies and controls.

DOWNLOAD OUR BANK CONNECTIVITY WHITEPAPER

$20 Billion in Bank Service Fees: Are You Overpaying?

31-08-2021 | treasuryXL | Gtreasury |

By Heena Ladhani, Ecosystem Manager, GTreasury

Twenty billion dollars. That’s how many corporate treasurers in the U.S. are now forking over to banks in service transaction fees every year. It’s a big number and it’s growing every year. But there’s also vast potential for reducing that amount by optimizing the outlay for-fee services and becoming better-informed for price negotiations.

A recent survey from Treasury Strategies determined that 70 percent of corporate treasurers are reviewing their bank service fees on a monthly basis. However, the same survey determined that a fraction – just 21 percent of treasurers – will actually benchmark those service fees as part of their bank analysis and management. Among those treasurers who do use benchmarks, many only do so on a line-item basis, rather than at the product category level. A majority also don’t have processes to recognize the impact of volume on benchmark prices. In short, there is room – a lot of room – for opportunities to trim costs.

Accurate bank fee analysis backed by correctly applied benchmarking enables treasurers to preserve strong relationships with bank creditors as well. Too often, simplistic benchmark techniques give treasurers only a surface-level analysis of whether fees are in line with market averages. As a result, treasurers may falsely challenge their banks over small sums, while missing out on more appropriate and fruitful interventions – a ‘can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees’ scenario. Incomplete analysis comes with its own costs, absorbing misapplied resources and eroding creditors’ goodwill over insignificant or erroneous concerns.

Let’s look at two examples of how benchmarking, done right, can ensure treasurers’ accurate analysis and lead to optimized bank transaction costs:

Example 1: Benchmark beyond what you know

Wire transfer fees are an area in which effective benchmarking is especially ripe for opportunity. For example, suppose a treasurer’s initial internal benchmarking finds that the four banks the company uses offer rates spanning from $14 to $20. This self-benchmarking reveals the potential to move all wire transfer fees to the $14 rate. However, expanding benchmark horizons to the market at large makes clear that all the banks are charging fees well above the median.

There is no shortage of potential reasons for this, which should be investigated. The company could potentially reduce fees by using a bank portal, streamlining Fedwire, SWIFT, or CHIPS costs, opting for digitized communications, and beyond. Importantly, though, a small cost on each wire can quickly add up to significant savings. By benchmarking these fees at a more expansive scope, those savings can be found, pursued, and realized.

Example 2: True treasury management services costs are multi-dimensional

Take a hypothetical corporate treasurer examining lockbox item processing fees at two different banks. Bank X charges $0.30 per item; Bank Y charges $0.50. The treasurer’s organization directs 500 items to Bank X each month, and 5000 to Bank Y. On the surface, the treasurer’s analysis is simple: Bank Y is overly expensive and should be challenged.

A deeper and more holistic analysis, however, clarifies a more accurate picture. Factoring in bundled remittance processing services – such as monthly lockbox maintenance, daily deposit ticket charges, image and hardcopy fees, and courier fees – rewrites the story. Now it’s clear that Bank X provides a per item rate of $4.00, but Bank Y is just $3.00. The more simplistic cost benchmark analysis missed this crucial information.

That said, the analysis must also consider that volume is crucial to accuracy. Bank fees often vary by volume. Checking Bank X’s $4.00 per item rate against the market, the median benchmark price for a volume of 500 items a month is actually $5.00. The bank’s price is quite favorable at that volume. Now looking at Bank Y, the median benchmark price at a volume of 5000 is just $2.00 per item. Suddenly Bank Y is exposed as the truly expensive one.

There is a range of subsequent steps available to leverage this complete analysis into savings. The pricing may simply be too high, or active services may use overly expensive configurations. The treasurer should check for any unneeded services. Common redundancies can include receiving both electronic and hardcopies of checks, using packages featuring both electronic transmission and express mail, performing multiple daily deposits instead of a single batch, or using Fedwire rather than ACH. Accurate benchmarking makes each of these wasteful potential expenses easier to identify. Once recognized, streamlining such service costs can be simple.

When it comes to bank pricing, treasurers also have a variety of options for optimization. For example, treasury could consolidate the lockbox items to Bank Y’s lower cost. It could then restructure processing at that bank to the market’s median price. Alternatively, it could request a bid from Bank Yon on the total volume and explore that offer.

Apply robust benchmark analysis across the board

The same process for optimizing bank offers and options based on complete and accurate benchmark analysis applies to all bank services used by corporate treasury teams. All transaction processing and information services should be put to careful scrutiny to see what savings may emerge. In this way, implementing the right treasury management strategy and processes to make robust benchmarking an integrated component of regular bank fee analysis is an investment that pays equally robust dividends.

Author: Heena Ladhani is the Ecosystem Manager at GTreasury, a treasury and risk management system. She is a FinTech professional with more than seven years of experience working with global clients to design solutions and improve processes utilizing treasury systems. She resides near Chicago.

How global enterprises can finally end the cycle of redundant IT-related payments projects

30-08-2021 | TIS |

This article begins by examining the current state of enterprise treasury and finance technology implementations, including the standard project timelines, core challenges, and ultimate outcomes. This is followed by an analysis that outlines an improved methodology for enterprises to follow as they seek to ensure the global optimization and standardization of their payment systems, workflows, and technologies.

Modern enterprises are stuck in an endless cycle of payment technology upgrades

For enterprise finance and treasury professionals, why does it feel like the road to payments automation and technology optimization is never complete?

If you’re an active practitioner, you’ve likely asked yourself this very question (or at least a variation of it) within the past few years. Perhaps it was during a very long and arduous TMS or ERP implementation, a major acquisition of a new entity, or a rationalization of your global bank relationships. In any case, your musings were probably due to the fact that these types of projects have become an all-too-regular occurrence (and a subsequent thorn in the side) for enterprises around the world.

As recently as 2018, data showed that the average corporate timeline for a SaaS-based TMS implementation was 10-18 months. Technology overhauls involving larger and more widely used systems, such as global ERPs, may have taken up to 3-5 years. And although these respective timelines continue to grow shorter as cloud services and other innovations rise to the forefront, projects of this magnitude still represent a massive undertaking.

During these periods, it’s common for practitioners to wind up collaborating with dozens of internal and external stakeholders, joining hundreds of calls, and spending countless hours training, testing, and configuring the new system – all while continuing to perform their core list of daily responsibilities.

The ultimate result being?

Although seasoned professionals will tell you that every implementation is different, let’s think about the bigger picture. Of course, the results of each specific project can vary drastically, sometimes for reasons far outside of anyone’s control. There may be budget constraints, bandwidth constraints, technical limitations, and even geopolitical or environmental obstructions. Employee turnover may cause undue delays as well. And yet other times, the entire project may flow smoothly and on budget from start to finish.

But looking beyond the individual success or failure of any single project, how long after each project’s completion will it be until a new technology implementation is required?

One year? Two years? Five years?

Or, in the case of global enterprises, perhaps you are simultaneously working on numerous financial technology implementations all at once, and the completion of one only results in your reprioritization of another.
Unfortunately, this endless cycle of new technology and payment upgrades is what most enterprise treasury and finance teams find themselves dealing with today, and it has become one of the primary sources of confusion and headache for global companies.

Let’s quickly evaluate the underlying complexities in more detail.

Why does global expansion often lead to excessive payments complexity?

Although domestic companies operating in a single country or region undoubtedly face their own degree of technology and payments complexity, the level of difficulty associated with managing a global network of systems, data, and information is exponentially greater.

What are the main reasons for this?

To begin, consider the sheer volume of payments being made across a global enterprise, including all the various locations, currencies, and payment types. For the largest companies, there may be millions of inbound customer payments occurring every day through a combination of cash, check, card, and account-to-account options like ACH and SEPA. At the same time, an equally large and diverse variety of outbound payments must be generated by the enterprise to compensate employees, vendors, and partners. And every time a new entity, industry, or market vertical is added to the mix, these volumes intensify.

Adding further complexity, consider how the payment channels and formats in use across each world region can vary broadly as well. Just to name a few, there is EBICS in Europe, NACHA in North America, SWIFT for international payments, and H2H (direct) connections that may be utilized globally. Local variations of these channels also exist in other regions, and going a step further, each of the specific banks used by an enterprise will have its own connectivity preferences for payments and information reporting. Individual clients, partners, and vendors may also request payment data to be created in specific formats such as SWIFT MT, ISO 20022, EDI, BAI, and BAI2.

Finally, the diverse compliance and security standards that exist across various countries require unique filtering and monitoring workflows to be established in different regions. Although U.S. companies may be familiar in dealing with OFAC sanction lists, FBAR statutes, and data privacy laws like GDPR, the regulatory landscape in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East looks quite different. In fact, each specific country within these regions might have its own distinct set of rules and restrictions, and these protocols must closely adhere to any time that payments data and technology solutions are managed locally.

But despite all these challenges, perhaps the largest source of headache and confusion for enterprise practitioners stems from attempting to manage a disparate and unintegrated web of back-office payment solutions.

What do we mean by this?

The back-office conundrum: too many solutions and not enough integrations

In 2016, research from Fortune highlighted that global enterprises were undergoing merger and acquisition (M&A) activity at incredible rates, with the five most active companies absorbing 122 new entities between them on the year. Data from more recent years showcases a similar story, and at the same time, organic growth is also driving these enterprises to open new offices, enter into new markets, and expand into new world regions.

The challenge?

As these new acquisitions and locations ultimately go on to form new company entities and subsidiaries, the underlying systems used at each locality must be connected to the enterprise’s main technology stack in order to facilitate data transmission, cash and payment visibility, and other core financial functions. But for enterprises with hundreds of already-existing entities and a steady stream of new acquisitions, consider how many systems must be connected to the enterprise’s core technology stack each year. Also consider the amount of maintenance, upkeep, and investment that managing this global network of technology requires. And finally, reflect on how each of these systems will gradually become a legacy over time and need to be replaced as new technologies and solutions rise to the forefront of the industry.

We know from experience that not all of these global systems are able to connect or integrate with one another. Perhaps some solutions are too old, the budget too insufficient, or IT bandwidth is stretched too thin to prioritize the development of proper connections. As a result, it may take days, weeks, or even months for the data and information contained within these local systems to be made available across the entire enterprise. And if these siloed systems are not isolated occurrences but actually comprise a significant portion of the enterprise’s back-office infrastructure, then almost every single financial and payments-related function will be impacted.

Without automated connectivity and integration, visibility to cash balances and payment statuses will take a hit. Creating a standardized compliance and security process will be almost impossible, and stewarding the company’s liquid assets will be hampered by a lack of transparency to global data.

Today, these siloed entity technology stacks and legacy systems are often the unintended result of sustained business growth. In fact, it’s almost natural for them to occur. However, with today’s speed of change in commerce and technology, it is no longer an option to leave each of these functions, systems, and geographies unconnected. Siloes trap data, reduce communication and visibility, and ultimately stifle growth. And in the world of payments and technology, a lack of visibility and automation will directly impact liquidity, profitability, and exposure to risk across the entire enterprise.

So then, for enterprises that find themselves in this situation, what is the best approach to optimization?

Introducing a new framework for managing enterprise payment maturity

In a perfect world, enterprises that need to connect all of their global technology and payments solutions, including bank platforms and 3rd party solutions, would simply integrate every system with every other system. This would effectively enable complete unification and connectivity across the enterprise’s entire network, and data could flow immediately and seamlessly across any department, entity, and location for real-time visibility and control.

Of course, active practitioners understand how unrealistic this approach would be. In reality, it would require an almost endless variety of custom integrations to be established across each internal system and potentially hundreds of banks and external solutions. Despite innovations surrounding APIs and other connectivity methods, this task would still be insurmountable, from both a budgetary and bandwidth perspective. And even if an enterprise did somehow manage to connect all these solutions together, the maintenance and upkeep required to sustain each integration would require a whole army of dedicated IT personnel and even more investment.

An alternative solution?

Given the fragmented systems landscape that exists across most global enterprises, the most effective way to achieve a holistic view of (and control over) every siloed process, system, and geography is by implementing a single Enterprise Payments Optimization (EPO) layer that sits above all other solutions in an enterprise’s technology stack. Rather than connect every platform with every other, each solution need only connect to the EPO platform instead. This drastically simplifies the process of integrating new solutions with an enterprise’s tech stack, and also automates the process of transmitting payments data between any system that is connected to the EPO platform, including those used by different entities, offices, and departments.

Although the adoption of an EPO platform requires some up-front legwork, using a vendor like TIS ensures that the complexity of connecting to banks and performing other technical functions is almost entirely outsourced. This means that formerly difficult and time-consuming tasks that were managed by internal IT teams (such as configuring and maintaining the links between external banks and internal ERPs, HR systems, and TMSs) are now managed by the EPO vendor. As formats evolve or new regulations require changes in integration, EPO vendors like TIS automatically handle the upgrades and also manage the addition of new countries, banks, and users to an enterprise’s network as growth and expansion dictate over time.

Once this type of implementation has been performed, the EPO platform can become the sole channel through which all company payment workflows and data streams are managed and controlled.

As payment instructions or files from ERPs and other back-office systems pass through an EPO platform, they can be quickly transferred to the appropriate bank or end party. In addition, data can be shared with 3rd party vendors and other companies and partners within the network. Subsequent bank statements and reports can also be transmitted from the bank through an EPO platform to the various internal departments and systems where payment instructions are originating from.

Ultimately, the information stored on an EPO platform serves as the single source of truth for payments data across all corporate departments, subsidiaries, and geographies, and it prevents enterprises and their IT departments from having to manage a tangled mess of disparate back-office connections.

EPO solutions provide the perfect option to support ongoing enterprise growth and expansion

While the EPO orchestration strategy outlined above is very effective at breaking down geographic and entity-specific siloes, it is also the ideal platform for fostering a strategic, long-term approach to enterprise payment maturity.

Today, the technology landscape continues to evolve rapidly, as do the payment solutions and methods used by global enterprises. In the current era, this means that approximately once every decade, a company’s existing technology infrastructure will need to be overhauled. However, because various internal solutions are installed at different times and for different purposes, the upgrades and maintenance schedules for these solutions are rarely conducted in an organized and timely fashion. Sometimes, these upgrades are not completed at all. And as a result, it’s very easy for an “optimized” payment workflow and the underlying technology stack to start falling behind the curve.

This is why adopting an EPO orchestration layer is so essential for maintaining a constant state of consistency and control.

By connecting all of the various internal systems that comprise your global payments technology stack to an EPO platform, you effectively ensure that regardless of where an entity is located or what local systems are being used, the data and information stored on their platforms is never left isolated or unaccounted for. And as older or outdated enterprise payment solutions are eventually replaced by newer and more upgraded systems, connecting them to the EPO platform in a similar fashion will ensure ongoing cohesion and connectivity across your global networks, even as various technology overhauls and system migrations occur at specific entities or locations within the enterprise.

So, if you’re a treasury or finance professional working for an enterprise with significant process, system, and global complexity — complexity that is ultimately hindering your ability to operate efficiently — ask yourself whether a new approach to payments technology could be the answer.

And if that answer is yes, we invite you to consider TIS and our newly introduced Enterprise Payment Optimization (EPO) platform.

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.