Tag Archive for: banking

Blockchain: Game-changer for Small & Medium Enterprises?

| 21-06-2019 | Carlo de Meijer | treasuryXL

In many countries Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are the backbones of their economy. Their role is crucial to worldwide economic and social developments, with more than half of the overall world population working in such companies. In the Netherlands for instance, more than 90% of the Dutch companies are SMEs and together they produce 60% of the added value of the Dutch Economy. SMEs however are confronted with a number of important challenges. including limited access to bank loans, inefficient procedures and lack of information necessary to conduct business efficiently.

While most people relate blockchain to large companies, blockchain also opens new opportunities to SMEs in every sector to solve existing challenges and enable them to optimise their business and develop new business models. Up till recently there were several obstacles which led to slower adoption of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies by SMEs. But that is changing.

Let’s have a look!

SMEs and present challenges

Despite their status as the backbone of any major economy, SMEs face many challenges. They have a great problem in finding  financing, scale their operations, process payments and recruit other ancillary services that are both necessary to grow or go global. For emerging economies, increasing access to credit is key to generate of new jobs and economic growth.

  • Bank loans

 A big problem for SMEs, esp. for beginning entrepreneurs is to get a loan from banks for starting or growing their business. This is why many of the new or ongoing small and medium-sized businesses disappear. Almost 30% of SME companies shut down in the first three years of operation due to lack of funding.

Since the banking (credit) crisis of 2008, banks are inherently risk averse, so their tolerance for SME lending has become relatively low. Last year’s report from the World Bank estimated that 70 percent of small, medium, and micro-enterprises are unable to access the credit they need. While the global demand for SME credit stand at $2,38 trillion, the truth is, only a fraction (about 15%) of businesses actually get the loan that they request from banks.

  • Trade finance

 Another challenge for internationally operating SMEs is to get trade finance. Trade financing, much like many forms of credit providing, is a key component of the success of SMEs, but that key is not always easy to obtain. SMEs face lots of hurdles in their quest for funding, especially when it comes to accessing traditional trade finance products. Trade has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. But trade finance has not. The $1.5 trillion trade finance gap is driven by data shortfalls. The industry is still heavily paper-based and follows outdated processes and procedures. Typical trade finance operations are as a result still time-consuming, bureaucratic, and simply too expensive for new SMEs. This disproportionately impacts small- and medium-sized firms and firms in Asia and the Pacific.

  • Cash flow issues

 Inability to bring in capital continues to cause enormous harm to small businesses–stifling growth and causing cash flow difficulties. In fact, 40 percent of small businesses reported cash flow issues within the past year. Businesses need cash flow to pay for materials, start the production process, pay employees, or cover any other business expenses. For smaller companies a late payment can be the difference between success and failure.

  • Limited alternative financing

 These SME companies nowadays often turn to alternative forms of financing to obtain funds and ease their cash flow issues. In recent years, the peer-to-peer (P2P) lending system emerged as an alternative to the bank loans. And this segment is growing. Crowdfunding has also emerged to fill the gap in the market, but is mainly focused on technology start-ups. This new funding route is closed to most SMEs from other sectors.

  • Personal identity

Personal identity and data control are major concerns for online retailers as most of the interactions between customers, and online retailers are controlled via usernames and passwords stored in centralized platforms. Such platforms are vulnerable to hacking, and user data can be accessed and misused by hackers. Next to that people can easily falsify documentation and identity proofs.

  • Adoption of new technologies

 Another major challenge for many SMEs is how to deal with new trends in digitalization and automation. While large corporates often have the resources to react promptly, experiment and develop new products and services and thus benefit from the new technologies like blockchain, this is not the case for many SMEs.

This while they are experiencing problems for which these solutions including blockchain could be a solution. Many small- to medium-sized companies find it difficult to get started with new technologies since the scale of SMEs is often too small, among other reasons. Most SME’s miss the manpower, skills and knowledge to develop new strategies on such new trends.

 

Use cases

Blockchain presents itself as a solution to these challenges. This technology could solve the problems in the areas of funding and trade finance. Though it makes sense to use blockchain for money-related businesses, they may also be used to solve many of their inefficiency problems. Safe and secure data transactions and smart contracts may optimise supply chains and improve client satisfaction by automated services.

  • Trade finance           

Blockchain could became a game-changer for SMEs that are looking to expand abroad in their search for trade finance. Trade finance products are being made more efficient due to transparency and the consensus mechanisms that replace multiple instances of verification and checking.

A new study by the World Economic Forum and Bain & Company shows that blockchain technology could play a major role in reducing the worldwide trade finance gap, enabling trade that otherwise could not take place. Another finding is that the impacts would be largest in the emerging markets and for SMEs which may display the use of the technology beyond well-established markets and corporations.

The Asian Development Bank forecasts the global trade finance gap currently stands  at $1.5 trillion, or 10% of merchandise trade volume and is set to grow to $2.4 trillion by 2025. But the results from the new study shows the gap could be reduced by $1 trillion using blockchain technology efficiently.

  • Supply chain finance

Blockchain technology may also contribute to solve the problem of getting supply chain finance. A bigger segment of the market is nowadays building open account solutions. But because of the difficulty in tracking how deep the supply chain is, often financing is only offered a few tiers deep. As blockchain is much more flexible with data than existing digital systems, this technology opens up the possibility of this level of financing.

On blockchain, both suppliers and buyers have access to necessary transactional information in real-time. Every step of the supply chain process is time-stamped and verified by all parties, meaning that information is accurate and immutable. This added level of visibility may also mean that businesses will have more invoice financing solutions available, too. This transparency may result in faster transaction processing improved cash flows for suppliers, and potentially better rates from invoice finance providers.

  • Smart contracts

One of the most attractive features that blockchain has is the potential to offer SMEs smart contracts, which not only define the terms and penalties around an agreement in the same way that traditional contracts do but also automatically execute and enforce those pre-agreed terms and conditions (but without the need for middlemen). Many labour intensive and expensive business processes can easily being replaced at little cost.

The largest opportunities could come from smart contracts, single digital records for customs clearance. Smart contracts can represent an invoice, or any similar financial document, and be used as collateral to support a loan. They would help mitigate credit risk, lower fees and remove barriers to trade.

To avoid the initial development costs of building on Ethereum, there are already blockchain companies like Confideal and dApp Builder that make it easy to create and launch a complete smart contract portal with just a few clicks.

  • Funding/collateral

Blockchain technology has the potential to completely “reinvent the wheel” when it comes to SME funding. Blockchain could help revive peer-to-peer lending practices that has emerged outside of the regular banking system, by digitizing what was once a manual process.

Through disintermediation, blockchain makes it significantly easier and faster for small and medium-sized companies – not just technology start-ups – to raise funds through equity. The removal of these barriers reduces the need for complicated paperwork, while the automated nature of the process may mean that  commissions, excessive brokerage fees associated with selling shares, and other overheads can all be left behind.

  • Identity management 

Another area where blockchain could become a game changing factor is in the area of online identity verification. A growing number of SMEs do their business online triggering demand for increased online security. The risk of identity theft and fraud could be eliminated with the use of a decentralized identity, such as blockchain. It allows a more effective and reliable form of identification of a person without the requirement for third party involvement. As well as the benefits in terms of the reliability of the verification, the speed at which checks can be performed is much faster. This can help businesses speed up processes and make them more reliable.

 

SME-focused initiatives/projects

To address the various challenges for SMEs in their search for blockchain solutions, a growing number of SME-focused initiatives have been launched.

  • Blockchers project

One of these programs is Blockchers, as part of the European Horizon 2020 project. Blockchers is a project that will facilitate the revolution of blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies (DLTs) across European SMEs. It is an acceleration process for SMEs and start-ups to build real world use cases of blockchain technologies, thereby financing real world use cases of this technology in traditional sectors.

One of the main goals of Blockchers will be fostering the matchmaking among traditional SMEs and potential DLT specialists, as technology providers, and “sensitize about the benefits and opportunities around DLTs to implement real use case scenarios in a variety of verticals”.

Alastria Blockchain Ecosystem has been chosen by the European Commission as the technological partner for the Blockchers Project. They will  provide the blockchain infrastructure to the start-ups participating in this EU Project, developing blockchain solutions to SMEs.

  • Project Blockstart

To make sure SMEs can experiment “if and which blockchain solution will help to tackle the problems in their activities”, Bax & Company, a leading European innovation consultancy, has set up the project Blockstart. The aim of Blockstart is to increase the competitiveness of SMEs in the health, agro-food and logistics sectors by providing business support, identifying and testing business opportunities from blockchain innovations. Working together, the partners that will form an international ecosystem of business networks, incubators and blockchain experts, will test the market readiness of different blockchain solutions in real-life settings. Blockstart will help small- to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) strengthen their competitive positions through the use of blockchain technology.

  • Dutch logistic project

And there is the project of RDM Knowledge Center and Sustainable PortCities in cooperation with Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, to investigate the opportunities for SMEs in the Dutch logistics sector to benefit from logistics applications of blockchain. In the project SMEs active in cold chains, the pharmaceutical industry, transport, forwarding and warehousing are involved.

They try to give answer on questions that SMEs ask, including: what are the consequences of blockchain for their business model?; what kind of knowledge should they have about the potential of blockchain?; could blockchain technology improve their logistic processes?; and, how can blockchain technology create added value for their company?

  • Singapore PLMP Project

Singapore blockchain company PLMP Fintech has launched the Blockchain Technology Creatanium Centre (BTCC). BTCC is a blockchain centre, focused on accelerating the blockchain ecosystem for Singapore small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across various industries, allowing businesses to compete on a global level and increase efficiencies in operations and funding. BTCC will also provide education and development as well as house a blockchain and ICO ecosystem.

Similar centres are planned for Indonesia and Thailand.

 

SME-focused blockchain platforms

Furthermore, to help increase blockchain’s adoption across multiple industries and enlighten businesses of the technology’s potential, a large number of open source collaborative blockchain platforms have been created such as Hyperledger, Ethereum etc. Their main goal is allow enterprises to build customised blockchains that would answer specific needs instead of letting companies solve issues on their own. In recent years also platforms specific focused on SMEs have been launched such as We.Trade, Karma and others.

  • We.Trade platform (trade finance) 

Nordea has launched a blockchain-based platform designed to make it easier for SMEs to trade with other companies in Europe. The we.trade platform, a blockchain network for trade finance, is available to all Nordea SME customers, with trading controlled through a set of rules designed to bring security to the process.

The new offering is built on the we.trade platform developed by a group of 12 banks using IBM blockchain technology. The aim of the project is to simplify trade finance processes for SMEs by addressing the challenge of managing, tracking and securing domestic and international trade transactions by connecting all of the parties involved (i.e. buyer, buyer’s bank, seller, seller’s bank and transporter), online and via mobile devices. Providing more companies more efficient access to trade financing and credit across Europe will allow them to grow their business by expanding into new markets and forging new trading partnerships.

  • Karma (funding)

Karma (Russia), launched early 2018, is a true P2P platform which is fully decentralized. By design, the platform is a unique enabler that gives SMEs access to additional liquidity. Based on the blockchain technology, it enables users to invest in any SME. The platform offers its users a wide spectrum of investment opportunities. One of the features that make Karma “stand out of the crowd” is its ability to let investors lend to SMEs anywhere around the world.

  • Traxia (trade finance)

Traxia is a decentralised global trade finance platform. The proposed new blockchain-based system used to assess the creditworthiness of SMEs, will build a bridge between the banks, the SMEs and the data provider.

By using the blockchain, and smart contracts they will be able to offer transparent, fast, and not so costly transactions for small businesses. Thereby solving the long waiting problem by allowing for a transparent platform for invoice trading designed just for SMEs.

The loan system will connect technology to how people think and behave to determine who is credit-worthy. The system will link alternative payment data to accounting certificates to mobile and social data to psychometrics. The alternative payment data thereby looks at utility payments, rental payments and accounting certificates.

  • Blockchain identity platforms

Already, a number of blockchain-based companies are taking advantage of blockchain’s identity tools. Its decentralized nature and security features to provide better and more transparent identification tools, offers a way for customers to identify themselves and have access to certified documents and notaries as well as a marketplace for customers to purchase services and products.

Instead of buying expensive, centralized server architecture or “paying hefty fees” to companies like Amazon Web Services or Google, a comprehensive start-up CEO might instead choose to rent custom-sized decentralized hosting space from a blockchain platform. This provides increased data integrity and a more efficient cost plan as well.

  • Other blockchain-based platforms for SMEs

A group of 11 Indian banks have teamed together to unveil the nation’s first blockchain-linked funding for SMEs. The goal is to revamp lending for “default-prone small firms”, by helping bring forth the virtue of transparency. The blockchain network will allow the banks to access public credit data so they can reduce risks when offering lending. In 2018, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) embarked on a similar undertaking and launched eTradeConnect. The blockchain-powered platform was aimed at solving the various challenges that hamper the link between banks and SMEs.

Later that year, the Abu Dhabi Global Market, another multinational financial hub located in the United Arab Emirates, entered into a joint agreement with HKMA and Singapore’s central bank. They aim to create a blockchain-powered, cross-border trade and finance platform for SMEs hassle-free access to funding.

 

What advantages may blockchain bring for SMEs?

Blockchain has the potential to offer a lot of distinct advantages to small and medium-sized businesses, such as trust, speed, more safety and security as well as risk reduction in terms of lesser identity fraud and hacking, thereby reducing time and unnecessary costs.

This may enable them to solve the cash flow problem, the paperwork issues, as well as the problem to go global (thanks to the globality of blockchain platforms), preventing them from going bankrupt.

  • Available funds

First of all the risk of getting no funds at all will be greatly reduced. Because there is no doubt about when funds will be released, companies can deliver services in time knowing that funds will always be available when they should be. Payments for goods from distant buyers and payroll to overseas employees may become easier and can be completed at a fraction of the current costs. As a result, it can help bring products and transactional services to market quickly and inexpensively.

  • More safe and secure transactions

Security and transparency will also prove to be value-added benefits of blockchain for businesses. For SMEs with global aspirations, blockchain technology using secure communication techniques may guarantee more safety and security in their transactions.

The blockchain technology will assist firms to overcome problems associated with asymmetric information, collateral requirements, a lack of sufficient credit reporting agencies and internet data security and cybercrime. Blockchain technology thereby ensures safe, automated and efficient data transactions that may be used in the exchange of private information, or monitoring goods in transport or tracing the origin of food products.

  • More cost efficient processes

To make their processes more efficient , blockchain applications will definitely streamline business processes and offer a great potential for reducing costs and complexity of processes.

Significantly reducing overhead costs is a major advantage for small businesses hosting services on the blockchain. Using blockchain means reducing the amount of resources and time entrepreneurs put in for administrative tasks. This may contribute to offload the traditionally high costs of security, Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, data storage and other overheads.

Apart from significantly reducing the investment that founders must make in these support activities, the cost savings can be passed onto customers to make prices more competitive. This may allow SMEs worldwide to compete on a more level playing field.

 

What are SMEs already doing?

A study conducted by the Emory University (US Atlanta) in collaboration with Provide Technologies and Aprio claims that the small and medium enterprises are investing twenty-eight times more in blockchain than large enterprises. The report furthers that most of the blockchain-based projects are aimed towards business process automation while authentication and compliance are the second and the third most significant blockchain usage across the globe. The report also marks that the payments industry stands fifth when it comes to blockchain adoption whereas, identity management and market place governance follow the top tier applications very closely.

There is a growing community of innovative start-ups that are developing SMEs focused blockchain solutions. However, the sectors in which DLTs really make sense, besides fintech, could be those in which existing SMEs do not (yet) have enough knowledge on how DLTs work nor how they could uptake these technologies (traditional SMEs).

Need for regulatory framework

Blockchain SMEs face uncertain regulation that limits their scope of action and imply a risk for their growth. The real challenge, going forward, will be the legality of smart contracts, and a global regulatory framework needed to establish true peer-to-peer lending across borders; just because it is legal in one country, does not make it so in the next.

A “good” regulatory framework should bring more clarity, fostering the uptake and prevent from fraudulent actions such as those linked to the anonymity of users in transactions. In the meantime, the power and potential of blockchain and smart contracts is increasingly being recognized across the business and political spectrum. While it may take regulators some time to catch up, broader adoption will lead to sensible regulation.

Forward thinking

Looking at these advantages, it is easy to see why a growing number 0f entrepreneurs  in the SME world is willing to invest more into blockchain. With the blockchain and related services such as smart contracts, the SME world may expect to see a total transformation of how they nowadays do their business. Blockchain will make international dealings more conducive for SMEs and may allow them to compete in ways that are unthinkable today.

Blockchain is however still in its early stages. The mass adoption of blockchain by SME companies has not yet started, and widespread adoption will take time. For this to happen, the biggest obstacle is getting more businesses to build on blockchain and drive customers toward these solutions. This asks for trust.

Trust will be built over time, and in order for the promises to become a reality, some businesses must start trusting the process. Proving to the world that there is a lot of opportunity in using the blockchain for absolutely everything related to business.  Given how this technology could boost trade by more than $1tn in the next ten years, according to World Economic Forum, this may be a call-up to the big blockchain companies to come up with SME friendlier solutions.

 

 

Carlo de Meijer

Economist and researcher

 

 

Bank independent payment platforms, ING and Cobase the new kid on the block?

| 22-1-2019 | by  Pieter de Kiewit |

With layman’s eye I follow what is happening in treasury and technology and am intrigued by the entrance of Cobase, owned by ING, in the market for bank independent payment platforms. This is not a new market with competitors like TIS, Serrala (formerly known as Hanse Orga) and PowertoPay.

If I understand the concept well, these platforms were build to make life easier for treasurers and other financials. The idea is to connect many bank accounts from different banks in one system, and this system into the company’s ERP. The system enables outgoing payments entered in the format of the ERP system, no adjustments needed, with one token to authorize. This way one can avoid using all the various authentication methods and payment formats different banks force upon users. Incoming payments through these platforms can streamline reconciliation. Security, clear information and efficiency are obvious advantages.

MNCs often work with many banks because there are only a few (some say no) banks that offer global coverage. Also many companies do not want to rely on the services of only one bank. Ending and starting cash management relations with banks is easier with an independent payment platform: a plug and play system creates a stronger negotiation position. So cost saving can be possible.

Now Cobase, fully owned by ING, enters the described market. Exciting news, but also a bit puzzling:
• Will clients, that already use a platform, switch to Cobase and put all their banking eggs in the ING basket?
• Will other banks, competitors of ING, be willing to cooperate in building the Cobase solution?
• If ING, or a competitor is present in (most of) the countries a company works in and this company is willing to work with only one bank, why use Cobase?
• And is Cobase planning to extend its services to other Treasury Management Software solution, thus entering the market of Kyriba, Bellin, IT2 and others?

From the side-line I will follow what will happen. I look forward to seeing your input. What do I overlook? I will keep you up-to-date,

Pieter de Kiewit

 

 

Pieter de Kiewit

Owner of Treasurer Search

 

 

Best read articles of all time – PSD 2: a lot of opportunities but also big challenges (Part II)

| 16-05-2018 | François de Witte |

After having examined the detailed measures of the PSD2 in my first article, in the 2nd part we will examine the impact of PSD 2 on the market. In order to help you read the text we will once more start with a list of abbreviations.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS ARTICLE

2FA    :   Two-factor authentication
AISP  :    Account Information Service Provider
API :       Application Programming Interface
ASPSP : Account Servicing Payment Service Provider
EBA :     European Banking Authority
PISP :    Payment Initiation Service Provider
PSD1:    Payment Services Directive 2007/64/EC
PSD2  :  Revised Payment Services Directive (EU) 2015/2366
PSP :     Payment Service Provider
PSU:      Payment Service User
RTS :     Regulatory Technical Standards (to be issued by the EBA)
SCA :     Strong Customer Authentication
TPP :     Third Party Provider

Impact on the market

A major implementation journey:

The ASPSP (mostly banks) will have to make large investments in order to comply with the PSD2, in the following fields:

  • Implementing  the infrastructure enabling the application of the PSD2 scheme to the currency transaction in the EU/EEA area, and to the one leg transactions.
  • Ensuring that they can respond to requests for payment initiation and account information from authorized and registered TPPs (third party providers), who have received the explicit consent of their customer for to this. They will have to develop interfaces that enable third party developers to build applications and services around a bank. Internal banking IT systems might need to be able to cope with huge volumes of requests for information and transactions, more than they were originally designed for.
  • Ensuring their security meets the requirements of the SCA (strong customer authentication). This will be a big challenge both for the banks and for the other payment service providers).

PSD2 will make significant demands on the IT infrastructures of banks. On the one hand the IT infrastructure has to be able to be interact with applications developed by the TPPs (PISP and AISP). On the other hand, banks have to develop their systems in such a way that they don’t have to do this from scratch every time a TPP approaches them. This will require a very flexible IT architecture. The banks have to have a middleware that can be used by their internal systems, but also by the applications of the PSP’s.

Although PSD2 does not specifically mention the API (Application Programming Interfaces),  most technology and finance professionals assume that APIs will be the technological standard used to allow banks to comply with the regulation.

An API is a set of commands, routines, protocols and tools which can be used to develop interfacing programs. APIs define how different applications communicate with each other, making available certain data from a particular program in a way that enables other applications to use that data. Through an API, a third party application can make a request with standardized input towards another application and get that second application to perform an operation and deliver a standardized output back to the first application. For example, approved third parties can access your payment account information if mandated by the user and initiate payment transfer directly.

In this framework, the real challenge is to create standards for the APIs specifying the  nomenclature, access protocols and authentication, etc.”. Banks will have to think about how their new API layers interact with their core banking systems and the data models that are implemented alongside this. The EBA (European Banking Authority) will develop RTS (Regulatory Technical Standard) with more detailed requirements regarding the interface between ASPSPs and TPPs. While these are expected to be published early 2017, based on the EBA’s recent draft RTS, the question is whether they will define the interface’s technical specifications.

Emergence of new players and business models

By integrating the role of new third party payment service providers (TPPs) such as the PISP and the AISP, the PSD2 creates a level playing field in the market. Several market experts expect that this will foster innovation and creating new services. For this reason PSD2 should increase competition.

This might lead to a unique open race between traditional players, such as the banks and newcomers for new services and a possible disintermediation of banking services, as illustrated in the figure down below:

Source: Catalyst or threat? The strategic implications of PSD2 for Europe’s banks, by Jörg Sandrock, Alexandra Firnges – http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/reports/catalyst-or-threat

PSD2 is likely to give a boost to the ongoing innovation boom and bring customers more user-friendly services through digital integration. One can expect that the automation, efficiency and competition will also keep the service pricing reasonable. PSD2 will foster improved service offerings to all customer types, especially those operating in the e-commerce area for payment collection. It will enable a simpler management of accounts and transactions. New offerings may also provide deeper integration of ERP functions with financial services, including of their multibank account details under a single portal, and smart dashboards.

PSD2 also enables a simplified processing chain in which the card network can be  disintermediated. The payment can be initiated by the PISP directly from the customer’s bank account through an interface with the ASPSP. In  this scheme, all interchange fees and acquirer fees as well as all the fees received by the processor and card network could be avoided. The market expects that new PISPs will be able to replace partly the transactions of the classic card schemes. A large internet retailer could for example ask permission to the consumers permitting direct account access for payment. They could propose incentive to encourage customers do so. Once permission is granted then the third-parties could bypass existing card schemes and push payments directly to their own accounts.

On the reporting side, the AISP can aggregate consumer financial data and provide consumers with direct money management services. They can be used as multi-bank online electronic banking channel. One can easily imagine that these services will be able to disintermediate existing financial services providers to identify consumer requirements and directly offer them additional products, such as loans and mortgages.

The PSD2 is for banks a compliance subject, but also an opportunity to develop their next generation digital strategy. New TPPs can provide their innovative service offerings and agility to adopt new technologies, enabling to create winning payments propositions for the customer. In turn, traditional players like banks can bring their large customer bases, their reach and credibility. Banks have also broad and deep proven data handling and holding capabilities. This can create winning payments propositions for the customer, the bank and the TPP.

Banks will have to decide whether to merely stick to a compliance approach, or to leverage on the PSD2 to develop these new services. The second approach will require to leave behind the rigid legacy structures and to change their mindset to ensure  quicker adaption to the dynamic customer and market conditions. A first mover strategy can prove to be beneficial.  Consumers and businesses will be confronted with the increased complexity linked to the multitude of disparate offerings. There also, the incumbent banks who will develop new services  can bring added value as trusted partners

Essentially, PSD2 drives down the barriers to entry for new competitors in the banking industry and gives new service providers the potential to attack the banks and disintermediate in one of their primary customer contact points. New players backed by strong investors are ready to give incumbents a serious run for their business. This is an important battle that the incumbent banks are not willing to lose.

The biggest potential benefits will be for the customers, who can access new value propositions, services and solutions that result from banks and new entrants combining their individual strengths or from banks becoming more innovative in the face of increased competition. Market experts also foresee an increased use of online shopping and e-procurement.

Several challenges to overcome

The PSD2 will be transposed in the national legal system of all the member countries. The involved market participants will have to examine the local legislation of their country of incorporation, as there might be some country-based deviations.

The authentication procedure is also an important hot topic. PISPs and AISPs can rely on the authentication procedures provided by the ASPSP (e.g. the banks)  to the customer but there are customer protection rules in place. Hence, they must ensure that the personalized security credentials are not shared with other parties. They also may not store sensitive payment data, and they are obliged to identify themselves to the ASPSP each time a payment is initiated or data is exchanged.

ASPSPs are required according to PS2 to treat payment orders and data requests transmitted via a PISP or AISP “without any discrimination other than for objective reasons”. A practical consequence for credit institutions will be that they must carry out risk assessments prior to granting payment institutions access – taking into account settlement risk, operational risk and business risk. One of  the main issue is the handling of the customer’s bank credentials by third party payment service providers. The bank needs to be able to perform strong authentication to ensure that the authorized account user is behind the initiation message

There are concerns about security aspects related to PSD2. An example hereof is the secure authentication. All the PSPs will have to ensure that they can demonstrate compliance with the new security requirements. How it will be achieved and monitored ? How will TPPs  interact with banks, since there is no need for a contract to be signed?

If something does not work correctly, there will also be discussions on the liability side. The PSD2 states that the TPP has to reimburse customers quickly enough that they are not bearing undue risk, but one will have to determine which TPP had the problem and work with them to resolve it. This will require further clarifications from the regulators.

In addition the PISP and the AISP vulnerable for to potential frauds. Web and mobile applications could become easy target for cybercriminals for various reasons, including the inherent vulnerabilities in the APIs that transfer data and communicate with back-end systems. The openness of the web could allow hackers to view source code and data and learn how to attack it. APIs have been compromised in several high-profile attacks that have caused significant losses and embarrassment for well-known players and their customers. The PSD2’s ‘access to account’  increases not only the number of APIs, but adds layers of complexity to the online banking/payments environment, adding to the risk of fraudulent attacks.

The market is waiting for the RTS (Regulatory Technical Standards) to give guidance on how some remaining security issues will be solved. These include:

  • Treatment of PSU’s (payment service user)security credentials
  • Requirements for secure communication between the PSP and banks
  • Full details and definition of strong authentication
  • Safety of the PSU funds and personal data
  • Availability of license registry for real-time identification of the PSP (PISP or AISP)

It is important that the required clarifications are published soon, in order to avoid a time lag between the implementation of PSD 2 in the national legislations and the real move in the market.

Conclusion

The PSD2 creates challenges, such as the huge investments to be made by the banks, compliance issues and protection against fraud and cybercrime. However several topics need to be clarified such as the RTS and the market players need also to agree on common standards for the interfaces. The clock is ticking in the PSD race.

Traditional players such as the banks appear to have a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis the new emerging third party payment service providers. However, the Directive opens up new forms of a collaborative approach that can overcome this. New players can provide their innovation and resilience, whilst banks can add value thanks to their large customer base, credibility, reach and ability to cope with high volumes.

The biggest potential benefits might be for customers, who will benefit from new value propositions, services and solutions from new entrants, from banks and new entrants combining their individual strengths, or from banks becoming more innovative in the face of increased and agile competition.

François de Witte – Founder & Senior Consultant at FDW Consult and Senior Expert – Product, Business development and sales manager at Isabel Group

 

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/francois-de-witte/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

Best read articles of all time – PSD 2: a lot of opportunities but also big challenges (Part I)

| 15-05-2018 | François de Witte |

The Directive 2015/2366 on payment services in the internal market (hereinafter PSD2) was adopted by the European Parliament on October 8, 2015, and by the European Union (EU) Council of Ministers on November 16, 2015. The PSD2 updates the first EU Payment Services Directive published in 2007 (PSD1), which laid the legal foundation for the creation of an EU-wide single market for payments. PSD2 came into force on January 13, 2016, and is applicable from January 13, 2018 onwards. By that date the member states must have adopted and published the measures necessary to implement it into their national law.

PSD 2

PSD2 will cause important changes in the market and requires a thorough preparation. In this article, we are summarizing the measures and highlighting the impact on the market participants. In today’s Part I we will focus on abbreviations and main measurers introduced by PSD2.

List of abbreviations used in this article

2FA    : Two-factor authentication

AISP  :  Account Information Service Provider

API : Application Programming Interface

ASPSP : Account Servicing Payment Service Provider

EBA :  European Banking Authority

EBF :  European Banking Federation

EEA :  European Economic Area

PISP :  Payment Initiation Service Provider

PSD1:  Payment Services Directive 2007/64/EC

PSD2  :  Revised Payment Services Directive (EU) 2015/2366

PSP : Payment Service Provider

PSU:   Payment Service User

RTS : Regulatory Technical Standards (to be issued by the EBA)

SCA : Strong Customer Authentication

TPP :  Third Party Provider

Main Measures introduced by PSD2:

The  PSD2 expands the reach of PSD1, to the following payments:

  • Payments in all currencies (beyond EU/EEA), provided that the two PSP (Payment Service Provider) are located in the EU /EEA (two legs)
  • Payments where at least one PSP (and not both anymore)  is located within EU borders for the part of the payment transaction carried out in the EU/EEA (one leg transactions)

A second important measure is the creation of the Third Party Providers (TPP). One of the main aims of the PSD2 is to encourage new players to enter the payment market and to provide their services to the PSU (Payment Service Users). To this end, it creates the obligation for the ASPSP (Account Servicing Payment Service Provider – mainly the banks) to “open up the bank account” to external parties, the so-called, third-party account access. These TPP (Third Party Providers) are divided in two types:

·        AISP (Account Information Service Provider) : In order to be authorized, an AISP is required to hold professional indemnity insurance and be registered by their member state and by the EBA. There is no requirement for any initial capital or own funds. The EBA (European Banking Authority) will publish guidelines on conditions to be included in the indemnity insurance (e.g. the minimum sum to be insured), although it is as yet unknown what further conditions insurers will impose.

·        PISP (Payment Initiation Service Providers): PISPs are players that can initiate payment transactions. This is an important change, as currently there are not many payment options that can take money from one’s account and send them elsewhere. The minimum requirements for authorization as a PISP are significantly higher. In addition to being registered, a PISP must also be licensed by the competent authority, and it must have an initial and on-going minimum capital of EUR 50,000.

Banks will have to implement interfaces, so they can interact with the AISPs and PISPs. However, payment initiation service providers will only be able to receive information from the payer’s bank on the availability of the funds on the account which results in a simple yes or no answer before initiating the payment, with the explicit consent of the payer. Account information service providers will only receive the information explicitly consented by the payer and only to the extent the information is necessary for the service provided to the payer. This compliance with PSD2 is mandatory and all banks will have to make changes to their infrastructure deployments.

A third important change is the obligation for the Payment Service Providers to place the SCA (Strong Customer Authentication) for electronic payment transactions based in at least 2 different sources (2FA: Two-factor authentication) :

  • Something which only the client knows (e.g. password)
  • A device (e.g. card reader, authentication code generating device, token)
  • Inherence (e.g. fingerprint or voice recognition)

 

The EBA (European Banking Authority will provide further guidance on this notion in a later stage. It remains to be seen whether the current bank card with pin code is sufficient to qualify as “strong customer authentication”. This “strong customer authentication” needs to take place with every payment transaction. EBA will also be able to provide exemptions based on the risk/amount/recurrence/payment channel involved in the payment service (e.g. for paying the toll on the motorway or the parking).

PSD2 also introduces some other measures:

  • Retailers will be authorized to ask to the consumers for permission to use their contact details, so as to receive the payment directly from the bank without intermediaries
  • There will be a ban on surcharges on card payments
  • There will be new limitations on the customer liability for unauthorized payment transactions

In a second article soon to be published on treasuryXL, François de Witte will focus on the impact PSD2 has on market participants. 

François de Witte – Founder & Senior Consultant at FDW Consult and Senior Expert – Product, Business development and sales manager at Isabel Group

 

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/francois-de-witte/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

 

Alternatives to banks – Is Fintech the answer?

| 14-12-2017 | treasuryXL |

With the steady rise of Fintech within the finance industry some people are already calling for the demise of banks as the historical financial partner of choice for corporates. Certainly, Fintech is showing itself to be very dynamic, offering many new products and solutions, and being a lot swifter than the banks. Banks seem to have grown too big and complacent, are being weighed down by new rules and regulations, are less prominent in the field of funding for corporates, and possibly have lost their focus on what used to be core businesses. But let us examine the relationship between bank and client.

The roles of a bank

Banks are, first and foremost, used so that clients can obtain and use financial services. Opening and maintaining accounts enable money to be received and paid – in this way the day-to-day financial operations of the client can be performed. Furthermore, banks offer additional services that compliment the needs of a client – business credit cards for key staff, sales services such as processing of credit card payments for goods, payroll services, online banking, loans and lines of credit.

What does a client want from a bank?

One of the main priorities is that there is an established history and a good working relationship – that the bank understands the client’s needs. A key indicator of a good relationship would be the ability and the willingness of the bank to provide funding to the client. If the bank wished the client to bank and deposit their money with them, then they should be prepared to extend credit where possible – if it meets the criteria of the bank. Running any business means there will be times when liquidity is scarce and a bank that refuses to extend credit runs the risk of losing the client. Other criteria can include the cost of banking services, support given, quality of delivery, credit rating and the overall efficiency of the services.

Fintech solutions

Fintech can provide genuine alternatives to existing banking services as they can compete with modern products – like giant ocean-going tankers, banks are large and very slow to turn around. Most bank services are still paper intensive and require many authorized signatures. By digitizing services, Fintech can reduce the transaction costs and the time taken to authorize a service. Fintech orientated lending services (like B2B) are entirely online and can be quickly approved. Through lending platforms, the risk can be spread out among many lenders.

Can the banks respond?

Banks have at their disposal very large existing customer bases and a wealth of proprietary data relating to the behaviour and patterns of their clients. This is a large untapped potential that does not need to be found or bought. If banks can utilize this data whilst offering a Fintech type of online service that is quicker and more efficient there is a possibility to fight back. The main option for banks would be to examine the Fintech companies and buy the ones that have the best products to compliment the requirements of the bank’s customers. As Fintech works in a different manner to traditional banking, this would require banks to develop internal incubators to discover new products and services that could be offered to customers. Alternatively, banks could look to design and implement their own solutions, but they appear to be behind the speed and knowledge of Fintech and might never be able to catch up.

One last word of advice

Realistically, Fintech offers attractive alternative solutions to banks. However, the power of the personal relationship should never be underestimated. We build relations slowly and by results – the cheapest offering does not get all the business. Having an account manager at a bank can be highly beneficial for a client – one point of contact, good understanding, a history. When things go wrong, you pick up the phone and call the account manager and he/she sorts out your problems. With Fintech, this could mean phoning numerous different companies to achieve the same result that can be obtained with just one account manager at a bank.

Choice is personal, but preference is normally determined by experience.

E-learning Banken en Financiële Markten in Vogelvlucht @ Financial Training Hub [ontvang korting via treasuryXL]

Ontvang via treasuryXL korting op deze e-learning en/of de e-learning MiFID II/ MiFIR.
Stuur een mail naar [email protected] voor meer informatie.  Read more

Trading places – is big tech the real threat to banks?

| 01-11-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

 

Reading yesterday’s article about Fintech banks reminded me that, in the last few weeks, I had seen articles in the news about the growing interest in providing banking services by so-called Bigtech companies. Bigtech is defined as established “platform” players such as Amazon, Google, Alibaba and Paypal. These companies are already providing finance to small businesses – Amazon has already lent USD 3 billion to online merchants.


Whereas Fintech startups are trying to find funding for their ideas, they do not have a large supply of capital to truly offer large scale lending facilities. They are well suited to participate in peer-to-peer lending initiatives and can certainly show established banks how to do things in a new way, but they do not have the true scale to compete against banks. Bigtech companies, with their vast cash reserves and huge databases, present a very serious problem for existing banks.

Bigtech already collect and analyse data from all their clients. This gives them a unique insight in how to review and redesign the processes for banking, allowing for faster services, reduced costs and reaching a critical mass for trading on an electronic platform.

According to research from consultants McKinsey & Company “Seventy-three percent of U.S. millennials say they would be more excited about a new offering in financial services from Google, Amazon, Paypal or Square than from their bank — and one in three believe they will not need a bank at all”. Platform companies therefore appear to have a very strong and loyal relationship with their customers.

Japan’s largest online retail marketplace – Rakuten Ichiba – offer their customers:

  • Loyalty points and e-money usable at hundreds of thousands of stores, virtual and real.
  • Credit cards issuance to tens of millions of members.
  • Financial products and services that range from mortgages to securities brokerage.
  • Run one of Japan’s largest online travel portals.
  • Instant-messaging app, Viber, which has some 800 million users worldwide.

This is a very comprehensive list of what are, basically, supporting services to their main function as a marketplace. Banks offer traditional services with little or no additional services.

Where can Bigtech make a difference in the current banking model?

All online marketplaces bring both buyers and sellers together. Most sellers are companies that can be classed as SME (Small and medium-sized enterprises). In the current market SME’s are experiencing difficulties arranging finance. A survey conducted by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) concluded that there is a gap in trade finance – based on bank rejections on applications for trade finance – of about USD 1.5 trillion. SME’s make up around 75 per cent of that total. Furthermore, 60 per cent of companies that responded, stated that rejection led to losing trade. Realistically, if 10 per cent of those rejections had been financed, that would lead to an increase of 1 per cent in staffing levels for SME’s worldwide.

Trade finance is a special form of banking. It provides finance for a relatively short time – the average tenor is less than 180 days. It is a crucial form of finance as shipping goods around the world places a great strain on working capital – all the costs are upfront and the goods are only paid for after receipt. Any form of lending entails risks and for trade finance a good source of information can be obtained at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). This organisation is responsible for the business conduct codes for international trade. They analysed data between 2007-2014 with an exposure of USD 7.6 trillion. Defaults for short-term finance for import/export stood at 0.06%.

Providing trade finance is complimentary to online marketplaces and certainly an area where Bigtech firms can increase their presence in the financial industry. With all their data, they are better equipped than a bank to analyse the financial health of an export company. They can see how many orders have taken place, their geographical distribution, their trade value etc. They are also able to offer finance to buyers – their data is also available to Bigtech fims.

Bigtech companies have the means to take on banks; they have the data; knowledge of the marketplace; work completely in an online environment; are open 24/7 and are better known and regarded by young people. The opportunities are there – the question is how much of the supply chain do they want to influence?

When I first started in banking I worked in import and export departments. It provided a good insight into how an economy really works. I was raised on the South coast of England and, as a child, regularly played around the local commercial harbour. I still recall the smell of fresh timber and casks of Sherry and Port. The harbour was the gateway to the world; it was where adventures started. I still live on the coast – some things never change.

 

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 

Uitgelicht: ECB strenger voor fintechbanken

| 31-10-2017 | Peter Schuitmaker |

 

Recentelijk lazen we een artikel over de verhoogde toezicht dat de ECB wil toepassen op Fintech-partijen die bancaire diensten aanbieden. (bron: FD ) De ECB schrijft in zijn eerder uitgebrachte gids Guide to assessments of fintech credit institution licence applications dat fintechs zorgen voor unieke risico’s in het financiële systeem. De ECB zegt “Fintechbanken moeten aan dezelfde standaarden voldoen als andere banken.” treasuryXL vroeg een van onze experts, Peter Schuitmaker, om zijn mening:

Is er een fintechzeepbel?

Peter Schuitmaker – Registered Advisor for Business Transfer and Succession

Door de opkomst van ICT, met name de mobiele platforms (telefoons en tablets) en de gebruikte software (apps) is de bancaire dienstverlening ook in een innovatieve stroomversnelling gegaan. Waar traditionele banken de nieuwe ICT gebruiken om hun diensten te vereenvoudigen en te verbeteren, deels ook om operationele kosten te drukken, zijn een groot aantal fintech bedrijven die juist -denkend vanuit de ICT technologie- producten en diensten aanbieden. Het zijn vaak niche producten of een producten met een beperkte functionaliteit die juist wel aansluit bij een zekere doelgroep.

De ECB heeft dat geconstateerd en wil op die fintech dienstverlening enige grip krijgen. Dat lijkt vrijwel onbegonnen werk, omdat het aanbod, zowel de functionaliteit als de onderliggende ICT, zeer divers is. Hoe dan ook, geen richtlijnen waarbinnen fintech bedrijven zich op de markt mogen begeven en ontwikkelen, lijkt ook geen optie. Vandaar deze eerste voorzichtige poging “Guide to assessement of fintech credit institutions”. De motivatie is nobel: men wel gelijke monniken, gelijke kappen. Maar hoe zaken zich zullen ontwikkelen en binnen welke termijn aanvullende of nieuwe richtlijnen nodig is laat zich lastig voorspellen. Maar erg optimistisch daarover ben ik niet!

 

Peter Schuitmaker

Registered Advisor for Business Transfer and Succession

 

 

World Payments Report 2017

| 21-9-2017 | François de Witte |

Each year, during the summer, Cap Gemini publishes with BNP Paribas the World Payments Report, aiming at providing a preview of the global payments landscape. In the following I present you a short summary with what I consider the main findings. If you want to access the full report please click on this link.      

Introduction

2017 is a quite exciting year, with new regulatory initiatives having a big impact on the payments industry. In the EU, the most important one being PSD2, which  opens the market to new players (third party providers), and which needs to be transposed on the national legislation of the EU member states by 13/1/2018. We also have the AML Directive, which had to be transposed in the legislation of the different member states and the GDPR Directive which needs to be transposed by  6/5/2018. The report is giving attention to these new developments, in particular the ones linked to PSD2.

Main findings

The World Payments Report reported that global non cash transaction volumes grew 11.2% during 2014-15 to reach 433.1 billion transactions, the highest growth of the past decade, and slightly above last year’s prediction. Overall global non cash transaction volumes are expected to continue to grow, due to the rising adoption of these payment instruments, the growing inclusion, the increasing financial literacy and the enhance payments infrastructure, in particular ion the developing markets.

Source: World Payments Report 2017, page 6

 

When looking at the breakdown of the non-cash transaction (see following chart), we see some interesting trends:

Source: World Payments Report 2017, page 11

Debit cards and credit transfers were the leading digital instruments in 2015, while the check usage continues to decline globally.
Despite the increased adoption of digital payments, cash continues to keep an important role, in particular for low value transactions. Key factors contributing to the persistency of cash include the anonymity associated with cash transactions, lack of a modern payments infrastructure, and limited or no access to the banking system in developing markets. However in some countries (e.g. Scandinavia), the usage of cash was reduced drastically.

When looking at Europe, during the coming years credit card transaction volumes are expected to be affected by the interchange fee cap in Europe and by the less proactive policy of banks in this respect.

Conclusion

The ongoing increase of the non-cash transactions and the reduction of the checks is encouraging. We move towards more efficient payment instruments. The next years will bring new challenging new regulatory and industry initiatives, which will have to be implemented by the banks. This will require huge investments, and in my view, some more regulatory coordination will be needed.

François de Witte – Founder & Senior Consultant at FDW Consult

[button url=”https://www.treasuryxl.com/community/experts/francois-de-witte/” text=”View expert profile” size=”small” type=”primary” icon=”” external=”1″]

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]

Brexit – hard or soft? What does it actually mean?

| 20-9-2017 | Lionel Pavey |

Brexit is a fact, no news here. Discussions about how this Brexit is going to look like are an ongoing topic in the newspapers. Hard Brexit or soft Brexit – what does it actually mean for the UK and the European Union? What are the consequences of a hard Brexit compared to those of a soft Brexit to all of us? It implies there are 2 paths that can be followed – actually there are 3.

3 paths

  • No deal
  • Hard – should really be called a clean Brexit
  • Soft – should really be called unclear Brexit

No deal

This is exactly as it says – if no deal is reached between both parties. UK would no longer be obliged to follow EU law and treaties. This would lead to a period of uncertainty and confusion and new treaties would need to be implemented, whilst both sides would not be receptive to each other. The EU could still try to pursue UK through international courts for monies that it felt were still owed. Highly turbulent, but could happen.

Hard

Leaving the EU by mutual consent but not actually agreeing on the future, UK would no longer have to observe the pillars of the EU that currently prevail. This includes such issues as immigration, free movement, asylum, fisheries and agriculture to name but a few. Trade would fall under WTO rules until a mutual trade policy could be drafted.

Soft

This implies links being retained between both parties, specifically towards trade. It would mean UK would gain entry to a tariff free EU market, whilst accepting free movement of people. UK would have to pay for entry, whilst being denied a vote in EU matters.

Scenarios and consequences

So, what are the chances of these scenarios and many others happening?
To answer that question we have to go back to the actual question asked at the referendum – “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The wording is very important – it was not worded should we leave the EU; yes or no. This was to remove any bias in people’s comprehension as to what they were voting for. As the majority of the electorate voted to leave the EU, this makes any attempt at a soft Brexit difficult to justify against the vote of the people. Any agreement where UK pays the EU and accepts EU rule negates the referendum question.
If the referendum is negated by the actions of politicians against the will of the people, then this could lead to a crisis in the country. Flagrantly ignoring the will of the people could lead to social and political unrest.
Politicians in the UK work in Parliament, work for their party and also, very importantly, work for their constituents. A MP has to make him/herself available to answer questions from their constituents.

In the UK, voting, whilst primarily for a political party, is specifically for your local MP who represents you in Parliament. It would take a very brave (or foolhardy) politician who would ignore the will of the majority of the people. That is not to say that it could happen, just that the consequences are far reaching and difficult to predict.

The divorce settlement

The EU is demanding a sum of money from UK (currently thought to be around EUR 100 million) to settle outstanding commitments. As the 2 were never legally married, it appears an affront to demand money. UK was entitled to grant a referendum, allowing the people to decide, and no laws have been broken. The argument used by the EU that there is an agreed rolling budget for the period of 2014-2020 makes it appear that it is set in stone and can not be changed. Based on current UK contributions and the fact that they will leave in 2019, then EUR 100 million sounds excessive for the 1 remaining year of the budget.
Furthermore, if the EU wishes to pursue a divorce settlement, then UK can look at obtaining their rightful share of the assets of the EU – that also happens in a divorce. UK has been a net contributor to the EU budget for the last 40 years.

What are the consequences for all involved?

Markets will remain volatile – uncertainty will prevail at least for the next 18 months. Certain markets and countries will be badly affected – the EU fishing industry will certainly suffer if the UK exercise control over their maritime waters. Banking will be in a state of flux – will large banks leave UK and resettle in EU to have access to EU markets? Where will settlement of EUR transactions take place? German car manufacturers could be denied access to one of their top markets or face stiff tariffs to import their vehicles into UK. Will we be able to freely move and live where we want to, whilst seeking employment or claiming benefit?

The chances of forming any agreement within the next 18 months are small. There is so much that needs to be agreed upon in a relatively short time frame. If the will of the people is to be honoured, then one must draw the conclusion that the end result will be a hard Brexit.
If UK politicians choose for a Soft Brexit, then they could face the wrath of the people and a second Glorious revolution could happen, though I do not see Rutte playing the role of the Prince of Orange.
He, after all, ignored the will of the people over the Ukraine referendum…

I always try to write from an objective point of view. Being English by birth, I realize that a lot of what I have written can be perceived as subjective.I was unable to vote in this referendum but, if truth be told, I would have gladly voted to leave.
The EU has lost its way and further integration will eventually lead to fiscal union. This would result in a permanent transfer of wealth from the wealthy countries to the poorer. There would be no incentive for poorer countries to improve their economies – the rich will pay.

Lionel Pavey

 

Lionel Pavey

Cash Management and Treasury Specialist

 





More articles from this author:

The end of the Euro as we know it – When the party ends?

The treasurer and data

Managing treasury risk : Risk management (Part I) (Parts II – VII to be found on treasuryXL)

Blockchain Innovation Conference 2017- An inspiring event

Treasury for non-treasurers: Data analysis and forecasting – seeing the future by looking at the past (Part I)
(Parts II – III to be found on treasuryXL)

Building a cash flow forecast model

[separator type=”” size=”” icon=””]