Tag Archive for: bank connectivity

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

 

 

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

 

 

Bank connectivity – why it is not a one-size-fits-all issue

04-05-2021 | Luca Crivellari | treasuryXL |

Corporate to bank communication is still a very pressing issue in cash management. There are several alternatives that allow corporates to interface and exchange data with banks, and most of the times it is complex for treasurers to identify the best choice. The consequence of not adopting the best setup might be to receive inadequate or old information, or the inability to have the right level of control over the issue of payments. The aim of the article is to assist treasurers in identifying all the relevant variables, and to take a decision that factors in all the possible impacts of each alternative.


Introduction – Why bank connectivity is still a hot topic?

In 1973, over 200 banks from 15 countries created a cooperative body with the aim of easing the communication among banks. This organization was born under the name of SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.

SWIFT enables its customers to automate and standardize the processing of financial transactions, thereby lowering costs, reducing operational risk and eliminating inefficiencies from their operations.

The rise in global trade was the main reason why financial institutions were pressed by defining a common standard for international payments and reporting, and the aim was to avoid lengthy conversions, useless charges and operational inefficiencies that might derive from the use of different standards.

Fast forward to today, SWIFT is the undisputed backbone of financial markets, with over 11,000 financial institutions and corporations in more than 200 countries, processing a record of 46,3 million messages in a single day on the FIN service. SWIFT messages are nowadays used for both bank-to-bank and corporate-to-bank communication, and the organization has developed dedicated categories for messages that are related to payments, cash management, foreign exchange, trade finance, treasury markets, and securities.

Overtime, several other organizations with a similar aim were created, at national or international level. It is worth to mention the CBI (Customer to Business Interaction, former Corporate Banking Interbancario) consortium in Italy, and the EBICS (Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard) protocol in Germany.

We still live in a world of different standards and practices, where corporates often struggle in navigating among the different options they have when it comes to issue a payment or to receive a piece of account statement. This article is meant to be a guide for corporate treasurers on how to select the right connectivity setup, because there is no such a thing as a universal optimum, and every alternative has its own advantages and its own shortcomings.

From the experience I gathered during the last years of conversations with several corporates based throughout Europe, one of their most relevant priorities is to consolidate an accurate picture of the liquidity available in the company bank accounts, on a daily basis. Too many organizations, including some with a relevant experience in international business and with a very important turnover, are still relying on Excel files shared on a monthly basis, in order to get the information of the balance that is sitting in a certain bank. In a world where business is changing rapidly, this can be an issue.

Moreover, the ever-changing technology landscape is adding complexity to the issue. New trends as the API-based connectivity can definitely allow a more efficient exchange of information, shortening the gap to a real time treasury, while the migration from MT to MX messaging standard is going to heavily impact how payments are going to be settled in the near future.

In conclusion, bank connectivity is still a hot topic because it is yet perceived as being a complicated issue by many corporates, and there is a clear need for treasurers to figure out all the relevant variables before choosing the most valid option for their company.

The alternatives on the market

Years of innovation and progress in information technology and financial markets have developed a wide array of possible bank connectivity services. In order for a treasurer to take the most educated choice, it is essential to list and examine all the options available. The list goes from the simplest to the most complex.

  • E-banking or bank-proprietary platforms: the base scenario nowadays is for a company to exchange messages and documents over an e-banking platform. This kind of platforms are provided by most of the commercial banks, and they include a common range of functionalities such as the possibility to import payment files from the Enterprise Resource Provider, approve them and send them over to the bank for the execution of the transaction. On the informative side, banks can allow their clients to download account statement messages, and possibly to collect statements sent by other banks.

Additional features that an e-banking platform might have are, for example, the possibility to manage direct debit mandates, or to place FX dealing orders to the bank.

Most of the e-banking solution in the market are endowed with a scheduler function that allows to exchange files with external systems such as the Enterprise Resource Provider or the Treasury Management System.

Companies that are relying on an e-banking platform for bank communications should carefully examine the range of functionalities that are included in the solution, when looking for a bank to work with. Corporate e-banking platforms developed by international banks might be more adequate for companies with international business, while domestic banks might develop functionalities that are more fit to the domestic market.

Another variable to consider is the technology that runs behind the platform. Most banks are nowadays offering web-based solutions that are more flexible and easier to maintain than hosted solutions.

The main advantage of relying on e-banking connectivity is the fact that it requires virtually no effort for the channel to be available, especially if it is a web-based service.

Although it is a very practical solution, companies that have multiple banking relationship will need to activate multiple e-banking platform to issue transactions from these bank accounts. Another shortcoming is that the availability and the security of each e-banking platform relies on the systems of the bank who is providing the service, and this can be a potential risk if the financial institution is not disciplined enough to run a highly secure infrastructure.

  • Multibank platforms: one of the most annoying disadvantages of leveraging on e-banking connectivity is to maintain the access to multiple platforms, and to constantly need to switch from one to the other during the day. This shortfall can be bypassed by the adoption of a multibank platform. These solutions work just like an e-banking platform, but they give the possibility to manage bank accounts belonging to more banks via a single solution.

This possibility is often developed by multinational banking groups, that might allow to reach bank accounts within the same banking group via a single e-banking solution.

Alternatively, some banking communities have developed country-wide standards that allow the possibility to manage all the bank accounts that a company has in the country with a single e-banking channel. This is the case of Italy with the CBI service.

Technical advantages and disadvantages of this solution are essentially the same of the e-banking connectivity that was described in the previous point.

  • Host to host connectivity: some financial institutions allow their corporate clients to exchange files via a secured file transfer mechanism. This option is preferred when the company has a privileged relationship with a specific bank, and this is the case because the setup of a host-to-host connection can be a time consuming task both on the bank and on the corporate side.

It is important to bear in mind that a dedicated host to host connection can be a resource intensive solution to maintain, therefore it is key to agree with the partner bank who is responsible in the maintenance of the service, and which is the minimum uptime contractually agreed.

Having a host to host connection with a specific bank means that the company is clearly trusting the security protocol of the financial institution. Connections of this kind are normally secured by an encryption protocol, and this makes a host-to-host connection generally more secure than an e-banking connection.

  • SWIFT connection: most of the companies with a complex cash management infrastructure choose to connect directly to the SWIFT network.

Being part of the SWIFT network means for a company to be identified with a specific SWIFT code, the same identifier that is normally used by banks.

It also means that a company can securely exchange files with several banking partners from a single channel, and for this reason a SWIFT connection is the preferred option for companies that have implemented a central payment factory.

Two separate services are used within the SWIFT network: the FIN service is used to exchange single MT messages to banks connected to the network. This service is normally used to receive account statements such as MT940/2.

The second service used is called FileAct, and it is the service used to exchange any kind of file to banks. This service is mostly used for bulk payment files such as XML.

Joining the SWIFT network as a mean to consolidate payment operations in the company headquarter or in a shared service center can definitely bring efficiencies, but at the same time it makes sense to go through this road only if the company has the necessary resources to maintain a SWIFT connection overtime, or if it is willing to outsource the maintenance of the connection to a service bureau.

  • API-based connection: with the sharp rise of open banking in Europe, driven by the PSD2 regulation, the adoption of APIs is becoming more and more common among banks, corporates, and software vendors. An API, or Application Programming Interface, is an interface that allows a secure exchange of information among several software applications. Through an API, the company and the bank can exchange information such as payment files or account statements, without the need to setup and maintain a resource-intensive host-to-host connection.

Although it is a very interesting concept, most of the players in the financial industry still have to develop an adequate IT infrastructure in order to get the benefits of this new protocol.

An important role can be played by software vendors that are offering Enterprise Resource Providers or Treasury Management Systems, since they have a strong incentive to differentiate their offer by develop APIs that would connect their solution to the largest possible number of banks.

Who should manage your SWIFT connection, and why should it be FIS?

Every company that wishes to connect to the SWIFT network should ask itself which configuration is the best for them. The main question to consider for a company is if it has the adequate resources to manage and run a SWIFT connection, or if they want to leverage on a service bureau.

Companies that wish to setup and maintain their SWIFT connection should plan the IT resources required to host the SWIFT software, and the personnel that will be dedicated to fulfill all the functional and technical duties required by SWIFT or by the banks.

Because of the effort that is required to setup and maintain a SWIFT connection, a company might decide to outsource those tasks. A SWIFT service bureau can help companies to establish and ensure the availability of the SWIFT network overtime.

Via the Managed Bank Connectivity service, FIS offers its capabilities as one of the largest SWIFT service bureaus in the world, being a key partner for more than 350 groups of banks and corporates, spread in over 35 countries. As part of the Service Level Agreement that FIS has with its clients, service availability is set for a minimum of 99,5%, although the average uptime for 2020 was 99,99%.

Companies that choose to leverage on a service bureau are either those with a very limited staff within the treasury department, or those that have a very complex cash management infrastructure.

The cost of connecting to the SWIFT network via a service bureau can be quite relevant, therefore companies that are evaluating this kind of solution should create a comprehensive and accurate business case that includes both direct and indirect expenses for both alternatives.

Which variables should be considered?

A company should consider several variables when evaluating which is the most adequate connectivity setup.

  • The size of the business: it might sound overkill for a small corporate to adopt a SWIFT connection, in fact most of the small business normally rely on e-banking portals. More complicated connectivity choices are normally more expensive, and it might not be sustainable for a modest company to adopt more complex solutions
  • The number of markets the company is operating: multinational companies normally need several banks in order to do business internationally, therefore a company that is active in several countries might want to adopt a SWIFT connection in order to collect the daily account statements and to orchestrate their payment flows.
  • The number of banking relationships: a company that is operating with several banks might find difficult to maintain access to several e-banking portals. In this case, a company of this kind might want to evaluate a SWIFT connection, unless a country wide multibank standard is available.
  • The company treasury policies: there are several reasons for a company to centralize their payments at headquarter level, or to keep them at country or at division level. The choice of connectivity should reflect the processes in place within a company: in corporate groups where every country is responsible to issue their own transactions, and banking relationships are limited in number, e-banking platforms can work just fine, while on the other hand an international payment factory will most probably require access to the SWIFT network.

Whatever process should the company have in place, it should anyway explore a way to consolidate the account statements of all the subsidiary at headquarter level, in order for the holding company to have complete information on the liquidity situation at group level, and to make sure that liquidity is used in the best possible way.

How to choose the best connectivity solution?

If there is one thing that I have learned by talking to corporate treasurers overtime, it is that no treasury is alike, and every treasury has its own peculiarities.

Given the vast array of bank connectivity options, I will define a few examples of treasury infrastructure, and I will pair them to my recommended choice of connectivity.


Case

 

 

Recommended solution

 

 

Company Alfa

 
Alfa is a company based in the UK, producing semi-finished goods for the food industry. The production is completely sold to English companies, and all its suppliers are based in the UK.

Alfa has two bank accounts, with two English cooperative banks.

 Through the e-banking portal of the two banking partner, Alfa will be able to perform all the necessary operations for its daily business.

 

Company Beta

 
Beta is the headquarter company of a large conglomerate of ventures, operating in several industries. Since the subsidiaries operate in very different markets, the group policy is for every subsidiary to manage their treasury separately, and to orchestrate their payments independently.

The group has relationships with around 30 banks, counting more than 600 bank accounts.

 Every subsidiary of the Beta group will choose its most efficient setup, but the holding company will need to setup a channel to collect efficiently the account statement of all the 600 bank accounts of the group. This will allow Beta group to closely monitor the transactions and to efficiently use its liquidity.

Given the large number of bank relationship, my advice would be to setup a SWIFT connection.

 

Company Gamma

 
Gamma is a group of companies providing consulting services. The group has grown dramatically in the last years, acquiring smaller ventures around the world, and the CFO just hired a group treasurer that has the task to rationalize the banking relationships, and to setup the most efficient treasury infrastructure.

Payments are quite limited in number.

 It would make sense for Gamma to look for a global bank with which to open bank accounts around the world.

By having one main bank, Gamma will easily orchestrate a cash pooling from its headquarter, and it will be easy for the group treasurer to control the payments that are performed by the local staff.

The most efficient connectivity scenario is a host-to-host connection (or a connection via API if available), with the main banking partner, while payments from minor bank accounts will be done via the e-banking.

 

Company Delta

 
Delta is a telecommunication company operating at global level. Due to the nature of its business, the company sends and collects a vast amount of payments of any size from retail and business customers located in several countries.

The company needs to offer the widest range of payment options, therefore it needs to have relevant banking relationships in many countries.

 The best way to orchestrate payments and collections on such a complex company is to setup a connection to the SWIFT network.

Given the very complex cash management setup and the large number of banks involved, it will be essential to have the infrastructure served by a service bureau.

 

Company Epsilon

 
Epsilon is a company operating in the mining and trading industry, headquartered in Spain but with operations in other five countries.

The company needs to maintain a wide range of banking relationship due to the complex financing plans in place.

The treasury department employs a single person, and there is no plan for the company to hire more treasury staff.

 Due to the complex landscape of banking relationships, and the need for the company to control the incoming and outgoing information flows to the banks, my advice would be to implement a SWIFT connection.

As highlighted in the box, it would be extremely hard for a single person to handle the requirements coming from SWIFT and the banks, therefore my suggestion is to adopt a Service Bureau

 

Conclusion – a complex matter requires a complex answer

As I do with most of the complex questions I receive, when asked which is the ideal connectivity setup for my company, my natural answer is: “it depends”.

The aim of this article was to communicate how sophisticated it can be to identify the best possible way to connect a corporate to a bank, or to several banks. My wish is for every treasurer out there to carefully balance all the options, and to include all the relevant items into a specific business case, in order to have a functioning and sustainable infrastructure.

More about the author, who is Luca Crivellari?

Luca is based in Italy and he is a Sales Executive at FIS, specialized in Corporate Liquidity solutions. He has a solid experience in cash management and treasury, having matured experiences in banking and fintech.

Thank you for reading!

 

Is it time to revisit your bank connectivity solution?

| 29-09-2020 | treasuryXL | Enigma Consulting

A lot of organisations have implemented a corporate payment hub for bank connectivity at the time SEPA was introduced in Europe (2012). Since then the technology has changed drastically and new solutions offer richer functionality at a far more efficient operating model via Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). It is time to revisit your bank connectivity domain!

The usage of Corporate Payment hub solutions for bank connectivity between the corporate ERP/TMS systems and their bank relations is growing strongly. Trends as digitization, standardisation and the increased focus on fraud– and risk management make the automation of the connectivity with banks a topic on the management agenda. There are currently three interesting developments that result in an increased focus on bank connectivity in the Dutch marketplace:

  1. The increased focus of being in control by the Corporate treasurer

In the past the Treasurer was merely focused on the high value/low volume treasury payments and not too much looking at the commercial payment flows. From the discussions of Enigma with many corporate treasurers we see an increased focus on being ‘in control’ e.g. reduce manual activities, reduce the number of tokens for Electronic banking systems, have real-time insight in liquidity. The enhanced propositions of TMS systems and network facilitators like SWIFT, further encourages he logical step to automate the bank connectivity. This includes not only the automation of the payment flows but also the receipt and distribution of bank statements internally.

  1. New solutions are introduced with a revolutionary operating model

On the solutioning side we see interesting developments as well. New (fintech) vendors like Cobase, OpusCapita or TIS take (multi-tenant) SaaS as starting point reducing the IT footprint and enabling corporates to benefit from developments for other clients as well. Especially on the bank connectivity we see a shift in “tailor made customer demand” to “best-practise solution provider experiences” and therefore leveraging investments done for other clients which are already ‘part of the standard solution’. Some vendors even go further to support the entire bank onboarding ‘as a service’ making life very easy for corporates that do not want to know details about formats, channel options and contacts. Other (as well SaaS) vendors like BELLIN or Serrala focus on the creation of complete ecosystems and partnerships with other solution providers further strengthening the value proposition and relevance.  

  1. Replacing (legacy) Payment Hub solutions

A third interesting development is that ‘early stage’ payment hub solutions are at the end of their economic life cycle and need to be replaced. With the introduction of SEPA in 2012 a large number of corporates decided to implement a payment hub. Main focus at that time was on reducing the complexity of change to their existing IT landscape. At that time Payment hub solutions especially played a role in:

  • File conversion or enrichment capabilities from legacy (domestic in NL Clieop) formats to SEPA formats
  • SEPA Direct Debit mandate management to manage the (too complex) ‘first’ versus ‘recurrent’ rulebook guidelines and generation of mandate IDs
  • An alternative for ‘bank connectivity’ channels that banks decided to phase out to simplify their SEPA programmes (e.g. ING Finstream channel)

The state of technology at that time was completely different than nowadays. API’s, SaaS or Cloud did not exist. IT deployment method was ‘on-premise’ with a significant IT footprint and initial CAPEX investment.

In the past months Enigma Consulting has had multiple discussions on the necessity to replace these ‘early days’ payment hubs. Our Request-for-Proposal projects have interestingly resulted in a quite positive business case for different reasons:

  • Large additional investments (sometimes upgrades) are required in the legacy solutions to improve the IT security or make new business features available. New solutions immediately will eliminate these costs.
  • Pricing was high in comparison to current (often shared) solutions with more attractive pricing.
  • Some vendors have changed ownership and focus on the payment hub solution is gone (or ambitions at that time have not paid out) whilst new solutions do understand current market drivers and developments in the payment domain. One vendor recently informed their clients that they intend to withdraw entirely from the market.
  • New SaaS/Cloud solutions significantly reduce the IT footprint and therefore require far less (often scarce) capacity from IT for maintenance/upgrades.
  • Current Payment hub solutions offer a wider range of services and can be integrated far easier (API’s) with other solutions that are as well required (e.g. cash management, fraud, treasury, ERP).
  • Many payment hub solutions now offer a full support for ‘on-behalf’ POBO/COBO processing in combination with in-house banking and/or virtual account solutions.

Is bank connectivity a topic on its own?

Not per se. Although the topic itself can perfectly be addressed as single issue we see that our clients link the required change in this domain to a broader discussion on their financial value chain. Often a required change in the bank connectivity domain goes hand-in-hand with broader discussions on the Target Operating Model for payments, incorporating all market developments (outside in), internal ambitions (inside out) and discussion on the bank relation(s) itself. The selection of the best fitting vendor for the payment hub should than be seen in the broader perspective of a mid-term payments roadmap.

So what to do now?

We advise you to (let) revisit the solution you have in place for your bank connectivity. If not automated yet, there might be a strong business case to change this by improving efficiency and reducing risks. If a solution is already in place, there may be arguments to benefit from a replacement by one of the new solutions that offer more for less. You could even look beyond only bank connectivity and look at the entire payments domain to check if you are sufficiently prepared for the future taking into account all market developments in the payment domain.

Contact

Are you interested in how we can help you with your bank connectivity challenge or do you want to understand how we can support you with your Payment Roadmap?

Just contact me on: [email protected] or look at http://www.enigmaconsulting.nl

 

 

TIS – the single source of truth

| 29-03-2018 | treasuryXL | TIS Treasury Intelligence Solutions |

On Tuesday 27th March 2018, treasuryXL attended a seminar in Amsterdam organised by TIS. TIS stands for Treasury Intelligence Solutions and, during this seminar, Christian Werling from TIS  gave a very informative presentation about their services which focus on cloud solutions for managing the administration of bank accounts. These solutions offer real-time reporting on all bank accounts – worldwide – and the ability to use just one system to validate and release all payments. In a world where a treasury department might hold more than 100 bank accounts, dispersed over more than 10 banks spread out across different time zones  and having to maintain the possession and custody of numerous bank tokens and log in protocols, a one stop solution is very enticing.

Why?

In today’s world, companies can find themselves with a physical presence in a multitude of countries and locations. In the current environment, a corporate treasury would need to log on to the website of every unique bank where they hold accounts and extract the bank statements for the previous day. Using separate bank tokens and log in protocols, this process can quite easily take up to 1 hour. Furthermore, all the separate data needs to be collated and then uploaded into 1 system, Various subsets of the information need to be given to different internal departments so that they can perform their daily tasks – reconciliation, data input and verification.

The reality

In the modern age, you could find yourself as a Treasurer, within a large complex organisation, consisting of a head office, subsidiaries, legal entities and shared service centres. The underlying platforms can consist of book keeping systems, ERP, HR and different databases. Additional data flows come from e-banking systems, TMS and stand alone projects. The output from all these systems are then used to connect to the banks. Furthermore, all these layers of connectivity can be subject to fraud or attack from outside sources.

TIS provides a single point of contact via a SaaS (Software as a Service) platform that connects to all these systems, thereby offering a simple and effective control over the data flows in real time.

Advantages

  • Real time information
  • Control from a single point
  • Centralised bank account management
  • Centralised bank account mandates
  • Transparency
  • Cost efficiencies

After this we were informed about how the system works in the real world. Bas Coolen is the global head of treasury at Archroma – a colour and speciality chemicals company based in Switzerland. They have a physical presence in over 35 countries and 3,000 employees. Formed 5 years ago, they wanted a minimal  IT solution to their legacy banking operations. These operations stretch from Asia, via Europe to the Americas and involved many different banks.  They concluded that no single bank could provide the service they required within every country and that they needed a solution. By adopting the platform offered by TIS, they have been able to implement a global system that encompasses all their bank accounts – this provides them with a single source of truth. Importantly, the security aspects can now be maintained from one source – all the relevant authorisation matrices are now contained in one platform, along with the capability to perform all global e-banking operations from one location.

TIS were joined at this seminar by Cashforce, who presented their Smart Cash Forecasting and Treasury system – that will be the topic of our next blog.

treasuryXL would like to thank TIS for allowing us to participate in this seminar. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.

 

How to connect to your bank electronically

| 26-10-2017 | François de Witte |

One of the main challenges in treasury is ensuring the connectivity with your banking partners. Currently corporates use the e-banking, or “electronic banking” channels. ‘Electronic banking’ can be defined as the way in which a company can transmit transactions and obtain reporting instructions to a bank remotely and electronically.

In the present article about bank connectivity, we will outline the current types of e-banking channels in the market, their advantages and the attention points.

Interactive banking channels

For interactive e-banking channels, typically the communication is initiated by the corporate client from a PC within the finance department and the instructions are transmitted to the bank through the internet.

Banks are developing their portals more and more: ING Business Payment, Connexis, KBC-Online, IT Line, RABO Corporate Connect, etc. They also provide a full range of services through them.

Illustration of the interactive electronic banking channel:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Currently the interactive- banking channels are widely used by corporates and other organizations, because they are easy to implement, user-friendly, enable to work on a standalone basis and less expensive. However, the drawbacks are that they are not always that suited for mass payments, and that each bank has its own system. Consequently, if you work with different banks, you will have different electronic banking channels for each bank, which adds to the complexity.

In some countries, the banks have put their efforts together to create a multibank interactive electronic banking channels (e.g. Isabel 6 in Belgium and Multiline in Luxembourg).

In my view, the interactive e-banking channel is best suited for corporates having not too high volumes of transactions and working with only few banks, or in countries were multibank electronic banking channels are available.

Host to host electronic banking channels

Some corporates or public institutions have very high volumes to treat, and will need for this a specific direct connection with their bank, a so-called “host to host” (H2H) connection. This is an automated solution for high volume data transfer between banks and their corporate clients.

Sophisticated H2H connectivity solutions give banks the flexibility to exchange information with their corporate clients in preferred file formats, agreeing on network protocols, and security standards.

The following figure illustrates this type of e-channel:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H2H e-banking channels allows for automated payments and collections, attended (where the client needs to take an action) or unattended (directly initiated by the IT system) connection / authorization. They can treat very high volumes, and to integrate the data into ERP systems.

However, they are also more expensive, because they require a specific IT set-up and usually the services of a middleware provider to ensure the connectivity between your ERP or IT system and the bank.

Up to some years ago, corporates had to set up H2H connections with each of their banks, but now several multibank H2H solutions have been developed by the TMS (Treasury Management Systems) providers or by other multibank providers such as TIS, MultiCash and Power2Pay.

In some countries, the banks have set up common interbank protocols enabling an easier and standardized connection. The best know is EBICS, which is currently in use in Germany and France.

In my view, the host to host banking e-channel is best suited for corporates having very large volumes of transactions and requiring a high level of integration with their ERP or IT systems.

SWIFT e-banking

SWIFT has extended from a bank-to-bank platform to a corporate-to-bank platform, and has also launched its own bank connectivity solution, SCORE (Standardized Corporate Environment). SWIFT enables hence to replace the various e-banking systems with a single, bank-neutral multibank e-channel. This means that treasurers and finance managers can connect with their banks worldwide in a consistent way using industry-recognized standards.

Outline of a SWIFTNET Multibank set-up (source SWIFT):

Companies can connect to SWIFT in many ways. One option is to establish a direct connection to SWIFT, but this can be a technically complex exercise. As a result, many of the companies connecting to SWIFT do so via a SWIFT service bureau. In such a set-up, most of the technical challenges are resolved by the service bureau

The third SWIFT connectivity option is Alliance Lite2. This solution enables corporates to connect to SWIFT in a quicker and less expensive way.

The SWIFT channel offers, beside the multibank character, many other advantages, such as the SWIFT standards, services beyond payments, such as FX and deposit confirmation and securities transactions, and an improved security / reliability compared to the classic e-banking systems

However, the Swift e-banking solution is not easy to implement, and can be quite expensive (in particular for the direct connection and the connection through a service bureau. Hence this solution is more suite for very large corporates and institutions, working with many banks.

Conclusion:

When looking at setting up the e-banking connectivity, several factors need to be taken into consideration, such as the number of banks and transactions, the complexity of the organization and the treasury. Smaller organization can perfectly work with the interactive e-banking channels, whilst larger and more complex organizations need to consider the multibank H2H connections or a SWIFT setup.

In the framework of PSD2, with the XS2A (access to accounts), banks in the EU/EEA will have to provide access to authorized third parties. I expect that thanks to PSD2 the cost of multibank e-banking platforms will go down, which is good news for corporates.

 

François de Witte

Founder & Senior Consultant at FDW Consult