GTreasury Announces 2021 Cash Forecasting & Visibility Survey Report, Which Covers Key Trends in Corporate Treasury

03-11-2021 | treasuryXL | GTreasury |

The new report provides in-depth insight into cash reporting, cash forecasting, and technology practices and expectations across hundreds of treasury teams

CHICAGO, Ill. – November 3, 2021 – GTreasury, a treasury and risk management platform provider, and Strategic Treasurer, which delivers consulting services for treasury management, security, technology, and compliance, today announced the release of the 2021 Cash Forecasting & Visibility Survey Report.

The survey of nearly 250 treasury professionals from across industries and continents sheds light on the current state of corporate treasury’s cash reporting practices, cash forecasting methods, technology strategies, and expectations around technology spend.

Highlights from the 2021 Cash Forecasting & Visibility Survey Report include:

  • Treasurers want real-time global cash position updating. The majority of treasurers are seeking global cash positions that can update on a real-time or intraday basis, but many report being stuck with weekly (or less frequent) updates. Just seven percent of survey respondents are currently achieving real-time cash position updates.
  • Generating cash positions is three times harder without a TMS. Only 10% of treasurers using a treasury management system report difficulty generating their cash position, compared to 33% of those who use other methods.
  • The use of AI and ML in cash forecasting is nascent but accelerating. While just 6% of respondents are currently using AI/ML for forecasting, the report indicates that number should swell to 27% of organizations within the next two years.
  • More budget is being allotted for treasury and forecasting technology. Over the next year, more than 35% of companies plan “extremely heavy spending” on treasury systems and forecasting.
  • Generating cash forecasts is difficult for half of all treasurers. Just 23% of treasurers report that building cash forecasts is a simple process within their organization, compared to the 48% of respondents indicating difficulty with this task.
  • Excel forecasters are more dissatisfied than their TMS/ERP-using peers. Compared to treasurers relying on TMS/ERP technologies, treasurers using Excel spreadsheets for forecasts are more than three times as likely to be dissatisfied with their forecasting output: 23% of those relying on Excel report discontent, compared to 8% leveraging TMS/ERP solutions.

“The findings in this year’s Cash Forecasting & Visibility Survey Report provide a clear view into what matters to corporate treasury right now, and the areas that are particularly ripe for modernization,” said Craig Jeffery, Managing Partner at Strategic Treasurer. “AI and ML is arguably the biggest sea change coming to treasury teams, and it will move quickly. Treasury teams are realizing the challenges of building AI/ML-infused capabilities internally, and are instead adopting AI/ML forecasting capabilities within their existing systems. The rapid anticipated adoption here will empower corporate treasurers with transformative new practices and approaches, from treasury management to FX to payments.”


“The treasury ecosystem is constantly evolving, and this survey illuminates not just how treasury operates today, but how treasurers want – and expect – it to tomorrow,” said Michele Marvin, VP, GTreasury. “From CFOs to treasury and accounting teams, the results of this report are revelatory when it comes to navigating the current treasury technology landscape, adopting best practices, and capitalizing on the most advantageous opportunities going forward.”

Those interested in further results and analysis from the 2021 Cash Forecasting & Visibility Survey Report can view a recorded webinar, hosted by GTreasury and Strategic Treasurer, analyzing the results of this report: https://resources.gtreasury.com/Cash-Forecasting-Report-On-Demand-Webinar-Request.html

The downloadable report is available at: https://resources.gtreasury.com/Cash-Forecasting-Visibility-Report-Request.html

About GTreasury

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

About Strategic Treasurer

Strategic Treasurer provides consulting services for treasury management, security, technology and compliance. Corporate clients, banks and fintech providers throughout the world rely on their advisory services and industry-leading research. Strategic Treasurer is headquartered in Atlanta, with consultants based out of Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit and Washington D.C. To learn more, visit strategictreasurer.com.


 

 

The impact of miscommunication or missing knowledge occasionally! (Dutch Item)

03-11-2021 | Ger van Rosmalen | treasuryXL | LinkedIn

Laatst werd ik gebeld door een mevrouw van een financiële afdeling van een mooi bedrijf uit de maakindustrie. Ze wilde graag even met een expert spreken over een Letter of Credit (L/C) transactie. De levering ging over een kostbare machine, puur maatwerk voor een Egyptische afnemer.

Contract omtrent de levering

Afspraak volgens haar was contract 30% aanbetaling en 70% tegen directe betaling met een L/C. Haar eerste vraag was of bij niet-levering de 30% terug betaald moest worden. Wat staat daarover in het contract was mijn vraag. Er was niets afgesproken in het contract en er was ook geen terugbetaling/vooruitbetalingsgarantie gesteld. Ik maakte hieruit op dat er geen terugbetaling hoeft te volgen bij niet-levering. Overigens blijkt dat de 30% aanbetaling niet de totale kosten van de bouw van de machine dekken. Vanwaar deze vraag? De mevrouw gaf aan dat er discussie was over de directe betaling bij het laden van de machine in de haven van Rotterdam. Afgesproken Incoterm is CFR Alexandria. De producent wilde geen risico lopen en wilde betaling als de machine op de boot was gezet. De Egyptische afnemer gaf aan dat de betaling zal volgen bij aankomst van de boot in Alexandria zoals afgesproken in het contract. Ik vroeg haar wat staat er in jullie contract over met name de betaling van de resterende 70%? Ze leest voor “30% aanbetaling en 70% CAD”.

Conditie CAD en alternatieven

Ik leg haar uit wat de conditie CAD betekend. Hier is helemaal geen sprake van een Letter of Credit maar van een documentair incasso/documentary collection waarbij de actie tot betaling van de resterende 70% volledig bij de kopende partij ligt. Immers alle handelsdocumenten worden op incasso basis naar de bank van de Egyptische koper gestuurd. Die bank mag de handelsdocumenten alleen maar uitleveren tegen gelijktijdige betaling. Meestal zal de koper de documenten vlak voor aankomst van de boot opvragen bij de bank waarna bij uitlevering van de documenten ook gelijktijdige betaling volgt. “En als de koper niet wenst te betalen?”. Dan staat daar in de haven van Alexandria jullie dure op maat gemaakte machine die de klant nu even niet wil afnemen. Mogelijke demurrage kosten in de haven van aankomst liggen op de loer. De koper kan nu gaan marchanderen of er nog iets van de prijs af kan of besluiten de machine niet af te nemen. De koper is dan zijn 30% aanbetaling kwijt en jullie hebben slechts 30% betaling ontvangen maar die is niet voldoende om de volledige kosten van de bouw en verscheping van de machine te dekken. Dit hebben wij helemaal niet afgesproken zegt ze en haar stem slaat over van de schrik. Toch heeft de verkoper dit zo afgesproken en vastgelegd in een contract. Wellicht heeft het de verkoper ontbroken aan de juiste kennis over de verschillende betalingsinstrumenten of heeft hij uit commerciële overwegingen deze beslissing genomen? Ze ging direct met de directie contact opnemen. Wat zijn de alternatieven vroeg ze want die CAD transactie gaat het zeker niet worden. Er is een contract dus de koper kan de verkoper daaraan houden. Mogelijk zal er dan geen levering plaatsvinden en ontstaat er contractbreuk met wellicht vervelende (juridische/financiële) consequenties. De onderhandeling open gooien en nieuwe afspraken maken met de koper om de resterende 70% via een L/C te betalen is een mogelijkheid. Als de koper daar al in wil meegaan kan hij wederom een korting bedingen.

Hoe dit soort situaties voorkomen?

Kortom een vervelende situatie die voorkomen had kunnen worden als de verkoper de juiste kennis van betalingsinstrumenten had gehad of niet geheel zelfstandig had mogen handelen en tijdig gecorrigeerd had kunnen worden om een L/C te vragen. Het beleid binnen dit bedrijf is dat bij dit soort transacties er altijd op zeker gespeeld moet worden om geen risico’s te lopen met machines die speciaal voor klanten worden gemaakt. Er blijkt toch wel wat kennis te ontbreken niet alleen over de verschillende betalingsinstrumenten maar ook over de risico’s van bijvoorbeeld een L/C met een FOB leveringsconditie. Vergeet ook niet de impact van de tegenwoordig geldende Compliance/AML regels.

 

Wilt u niet in dit soort valkuilen terechtkomen laat u informeren. Tradelinq Solutions kan u bijstaan of trainen op het gebied van betalingscondities (L/C, Bankgarantie, Documentair Incasso etc). Ook trainingen over toepassing Incoterms of hoe om te gaan met Compliance/AML regels behoort tot de mogelijkheden. Voor meer informatie neem contact met ons op via [email protected] of bel mij op 0613377921 ik sta u graag te woord.

 

 

Ger van Rosmalen

Trade Finance Specialist

 

 

Refinitiv case study | How Haier Group uses a one-stop FX Management solution to mitigate currency volatility

1-11-2021 | treasuryXL | Refinitiv | LinkedIn

Haier Group Corporation is a Chinese multinational consumer electronics and home appliances company, designing, manufacturing and selling a full range of smart appliances, whilst also focusing on channel integrated services. Read more about how Haier Group treasury has succeeded in establishing an intelligent risk management model, covering their whole workflow by connecting with their internal accounting and funds settlement system and externally linking financial data resources (such as Refinitiv) and more than ten global banks.

Haier Group Corporation is a Chinese collective multinational consumer electronics and home appliances company headquartered in Qingdao, China. The FX risk management function under Haier Group’s treasury now controls 22 countries and areas and 20 currency pairs. Their centralised management is difficult due to the wide range of regions and currencies, while the traditional analysis and management from manual booking does not keep up with the current business development demand. Haier Group treasury has succeeded in establishing an intelligent risk management model, covering the whole process by connecting with the internal accounting system and funds settlement system and externally linking the financial data resources (such as Refinitiv) and more than ten global banks.

 

 

 

A Letter of Credit is still an undervalued payment instrument! (Dutch Item)

| 19-10-2021 | Ger van Rosmalen | treasuryXL | LinkedIn

Vorige week was ik aanwezig bij Trends in Export 2021 en vanuit mijn eigen achtergrond was ik nieuwsgierig naar de ontwikkeling van het afdekken van betalingsrisico’s. Interessant om te zien is dat veel ondernemers nog steeds kiezen voor vooruitbetaling op basis van eigen gemak en kosten. Deze trend lijkt zich ten opzichte van voorgaande jaren weinig te wijzigen. Daarnaast lees ik dat veel exporteurs aangeven om voor een bepaalde betalingsrisicoafdekking te kiezen ingegeven door diverse factoren.

Welke factoren zijn dit onder meer?

  • Onbekendheid met de afnemer: 87% van de exporteurs zegt dit belangrijk tot heel belangrijk te vinden.
  • Slechte betalingservaring met afnemer: 77% vindt dit belangrijk tot heel belangrijk.
  • Risicovol exportgebied: 75% vindt dit belangrijk tot heel belangrijk.
  • Hoog risico in verhouding tot de totale omzet: 67% van de exporteurs vindt dit belangrijk tot heel belangrijk
  • Kosten van eventuele wanbetaling zijn hoger dan afdekken hiervan: 60% van de exporteurs vindt dit belangrijk tot heel belangrijk.
  • Geen vertrouwen in afnemers in het algemeen: 31%  van de exporteurs geeft dit aan als belangrijk tot heel belangrijk.

Wat als een afnemer geen vooruitbetaling accepteert laat u de deal dan lopen? Indien ja dan denk ik dat u door geen gebruik te maken van het alternatief “Letter of Credit” u omzet laat liggen.

Bekendheid met dit product scoort bijzonder laag bij de exporteurs volgens Trends in Export.

Ik heb een mooi familiebedrijf mogen begeleiden die voorheen alleen op basis van vooruitbetaling zaken wilde doen. Geen vooruitbetaling, geen deal. Door ze mee te nemen in de wereld van Letters of Credit, stap voor stap kon ik ze maanden later los laten en gingen zij vol vertrouwen zelf aan de slag met deze uitstekende betalingsinstrumenten. Het heeft de omzet een mooie boost gegeven.

Laat u informeren over de mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden van het gebruik van Letters of Credit. Welke risico’s er zijn en hoe uit te sluiten. Welke kosten van toepassing zijn.

Tradelinq Solutions neemt u graag mee in de wereld van Letters of Credit. We verzorgen trainingen in combinatie met andere betalingsinstrumenten. Ook de samenhang met Incoterms en Compliance is een vast onderdeel van de training. Support op basis van slechts 1 transactie is ook mogelijk. Alle ondersteuning is gebaseerd op overdragen van kennis. Het is voor ons belangrijk dat u begrijpt welke risico’s u loopt of uitsluit en op basis daarvan beslissingen kan nemen.

 

 

Tradelinq Solutions neemt u graag mee in de wereld van Letters of Credit. We verzorgen trainingen in combinatie met andere betalingsinstrumenten. Ook de samenhang met Incoterms en Compliance is een vast onderdeel van de training. Support op basis van slechts 1 transactie is ook mogelijk. Alle ondersteuning is gebaseerd op overdragen van kennis. Het is voor ons belangrijk dat u begrijpt welke risico’s u loopt of uitsluit en op basis daarvan beslissingen kan nemen.

 

 

Ger van Rosmalen

Trade Finance Specialist

 

 

How Can Treasurers Gain from an Intercompany Netting Strategy?

18-10-2021 | treasuryXL | Gtreasury |

As a treasury tactic proven to deliver significant workflow efficiency and clear cost savings, intercompany netting is implemented far less common than its benefits merit. With a netting process, payables and receivables between multiple entities are no longer handled one at a time, but all at once. Furthermore, with intercompany netting, all the transactions between the subsidiaries are replaced with singular transfers between a Netting Center and each subsidiary, in the home currency of the subsidiary. For what kind of businesses is intercompany netting beneficial, and what are the key pain points that are leading organizations to consider intercompany netting strategies?

Read the full Article


About GTreasury

For more than 30 years, GTreasury has delivered the leading digital Treasury and Risk Management System (TRMS) to corporate treasurers across industries. With its continually innovating Software-as-a-Service platform, GTreasury provides customers with a single source of truth for all their cash, payments, and risk activities. The TRMS solution offers any combination of Cash Management, Payments, Financial Instruments, Risk Management, Accounting, Banking, and Hedge Accounting – seamlessly integrated, on-demand worldwide and fully secured. Headquartered in Chicago with offices serving EMEA (London) and APAC (Sydney and Manila), GTreasury’s global community includes more than 800 customers and 30+ industries reaching 160+ countries worldwide.

 

 

Refinitiv case study | How Mercuria manages risk across assets with a single platform

04-10-2021 | treasuryXL | Refinitiv |

Mercuria is a global energy and commodity group, operating in more than 50 countries with over 1,000 employees and offices worldwide. Read more about why Refinitiv Eikon was selected to fulfill the complex cross-asset requirements from pre-trade, trade, through to post-trade and credit screening.

Mercuria’s business lines cover a diverse range of commodities trading as well as large-scale infrastructure assets. For that reason, they searched for a cross-asset platform to manage credit, pre-trade, trade and post-trade  to quickly, efficiently and accurately access global market insights, trusted market data and ‘best-of-breed’ industry analytics to help price-up derivative products.

Refinitiv Eikon platform was selected to fulfil the complex cross asset requirements from pre-trade, trade, through to post-trade and credit screening.

 

 

Use gamification techniques in the checkout process

27-09-2021 | treasuryXL | EcomStream | Ramon Helwegen |

Gamification aims to increase engagement and create more loyalty through positive user experiences. Loyalty drives returning customers. It’s a loyalty risk if your checkout process is hard to complete.

The least exciting part of the online customer journey must be the checkout process, for sure. However, in a relatively simple way you can gain a lot here, limit abandoned shopping carts and drive loyalty of your visitor.

Imagine: Your customer has already chosen the product and has already agreed on the price. Isn’t it important to secure that conversion as quickly and as simply as possible?

What is the problem of a boring checkout process with all kinds of input fields? It is just not fun to do. Combine the pleasant with the useful. A gamified process is simply more pleasant to complete. With subtle adjustments, you can already achieve a lot and fortunately you do not have to reinvent the wheel yourself.

With a gamified checkout you set a goal, offer control, reward good behavior and deliver speed. By adding a gamified twist to the checkout process, you improve the necessary focus from your customer and limit the chance that he or she will be distracted and never finish the transaction again.

The checkout process is task-oriented and a number of things can be improved during this process. In the visual below you can see a number of thoughts and considerations that take place during the checkout process in the hearts and minds of your customers. By gamifying certain tasks you quite easily make checking out more pleasant. This also makes the overall customer experience just better as you remove friction.

A shopper who leaves the site even after the checkout has started? Make sure to avoid such a costly event.

A gamified checkout works. Just try it.

 

About EcomStream

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

The goal is to achieve much lower costs for you while creating a much better customer experience for your customers.

Thanks to its lean organisational model, EcomStream will help you to reduce the cost of ownership of your payment solution and to improve your ROI, fast.

 

Interested to know more about what gamification can mean for your business? I am ready to help!

 

 

 

Ramon Helwegen

 

 

 

 

About EcomStream

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

The goal is to achieve much lower costs for you while creating a much better customer experience for your customers.

Thanks to its lean organisational model, EcomStream will help you to reduce the cost of ownership of your payment solution and to improve your ROI, fast.

Your Last Call | International Treasury Management Virtual Week | September 27 – October 1

22-09-2021 | Eurofinance | treasuryXL |

It’s free, It’s Virtual…

International Treasury Management is the annual meeting place for 1000s of the World’s most senior treasurers to learn and share experiences in valuable peer to peer discussions. With a reputation for ground-breaking sessions and world-class speakers, our 30th anniversary event will explore the boundaries of the profession, take a glimpse into the future of business, treasury and working life as well as offer the practical case studies on the treasurer’s top agenda items.

Only one treasury event can deliver the comprehensive mix of big picture global insight and granular treasury knowledge you need to make the right choices for the future.


Back to the future, again

Over the past 30 years since EuroFinance’s inaugural conference on International Cash and Treasury Management, much has changed. Treasurers have firmly become business partners, technology experts, risk managers and opportunity spotters. They often lead fundamental change within the company as markets, business models and technology shifts.

What next? This event will delve into how treasury operations can gear up for the future, having learned the lessons from the past. Where, who, what and how will the corporate be in the coming years and what is treasury’s role?

Keynote sessions will offer big-picture insight alongside themed streams including:

  • Payments revisited
  • Risks and Rewards
  • Digital strategies
  • Practical solutions to day-to-day Treasury challenges
  • The power of partnership

What makes International Treasury Management the must-attend event of the year?

  • networking on a global scale – a significant rise in attendees in 2020 boosted the value networking with banks, providers and potential clients… all in one place
  • strategic insights and best practices – get solutions to the challenges you face from treasury and economic experts during keynotes, practical case studies, fireside chats, analytical panels and more
  • future trends – delve into the latest innovations and new technology driving change in treasury, and their practical applications
  • live Q&A with world-class treasurers – enjoy borderless networking and live Q&As with high-profile speakers directly after each session
  • cost and time-efficiency – tune in form anywhere in the world, at the click of a button with no long distance travel or accommodation costs
  • continued learning – catch up on any missed sessions and re-watch your highlights, on demand for up 2 months after the event
  • unite your international teams – as a free event, it offers an opportunity for your whole treasury team to attend. Perfect for encouraging learning and development at all levels

September 27th – October 1st | Virtual

Register Now for Free!

 

 

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.

  1. 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.
  2. There are two versions of the Refinitiv USD IBOR Cash Fallbacks: those for consumer products and those for institutional products.
  3. 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

 

 

$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.