This article is written by Nomentia
With complex global operations, decentralized ways of working across treasury, finance, and accounting, a lack of process automation, and security concerns on the rise, you may be considering a payment hub for your enterprise. When juggling multiple priorities and all the operational tasks already stretching your organization, the implementation project may seem dreadful.
It’s not a secret: Setting up a payment hub can be heavy-duty. Depending on the complexity of the case (number of entities enrolled, in which countries you roll it out, how many banks and bank accounts you have, whether you connect multiple ERPs, etc.), it may take anywhere from several days to several years. Nevertheless, if it’s done right, the payment hub can have significant business impacts—not just in improving ways of working but also in realizing cost savings.
To explain how to set up a global payment hub on an enterprise scale, we will go through the main challenges, the project team and its setup, ways of working, lessons learned from our customers, and the benefits and business impact after the successful implementation.
All payment hub projects are different. While we have been working on small projects where we only connect one ERP and a few banks, and it only takes days to a few weeks, we have also been delivering large-scale projects for enterprises that could take even as long as one to two years of commitment. Whenever we undertake a massive project, both parties understand that it’s a long commitment and, therefore, a forward-looking project plan is essential.
The challenges of implementing a payment hub are unique for each organization, but in our example, we will focus on the complex, enterprise-scale implementations where clients were dedicated to creating a payment factory within their organization. Keep reading even if you are implementing a less complicated solution, as the article gives some great insights for planning any payment hub implementation.
Many Nomentia clients have undertaken massive payment hub projects with operations in over 100 countries. Even just operating in tens of countries has its challenges. If you must implement the payment solution in countries with strict legislation, like China or India, having a good implementation partner with experience is an advantage.
Why do global operations make implementation complicated? One reason is integrating ERPs, financial systems, and banks. The other reason is more abstract: people generally don’t like change.
It’s not unusual for local entities to have their own operational procedures; the process can also often be highly manual, if not entirely manual. In some cases, an integration between the internal system and the bank, like an ERP, may exist to execute payments automatically. Still, on a group level, you may have very little visibility on this. In addition to having localized operational procedures and local systems, each country and entity may have its own banking partner. Later on, we will discuss how working with many banks can complicate implementation.
Moving away from the current ways of working comes as a big shock for many, even though you are trying to implement improvements that can benefit everyone. If you want to implement an immediately successful project, you must involve all necessary stakeholders in managing the change and getting the essential project-planning information.
Based on our first challenge, you may have already guessed the next one: A scattered system landscape can make the implementation project complex. If you have acquired new units from different regions, it’s possible that instead of running the business on one central ERP system, you have several ones used locally. Payment files may also be generated in other systems. If system consolidation is not currently possible, you should at least connect all source systems to the selected payment hub, allowing the payment files to be automatically forwarded to the correct bank.
Having a scattered system landscape naturally poses a few challenges:
In an enterprise-scale project where tens of entities are involved, having good change management practices, ways of communication, and clear guidelines will set you up for success.
The new payment hub will impact how hundreds of people work daily; at worst, moving from manual processes or local ways of working to a centralized, automated approach could be something people may even fear or be concerned about.
Communicating how your operations will change positively when you introduce the new processes will help people perform their jobs well and make them feel involved in the project from day one. Your colleagues can also be great allies when you need to understand how to work with different banks globally.
Choosing your team is the most essential part of the project! You don’t need a big team, but you should include people who understand your financial processes, how they work now, and how they should work when you automate them.
Also, involve an excellent project manager to communicate with the payment hub provider, keep the project on track, and hold people accountable for the progress.
Having one or two IT resources can also be helpful throughout the project. As you deal with integrations, although the payment hub vendor usually takes care of most of the integration work, your IT team members will still need to help the vendor, participate in the end-to-end testing process, handle master data management, and provide all the necessary technical details.
It’s also a good idea to clearly outline the ways of working for your project team. Identify the core team, the communication channels for sending each other instant messages and following the progress, your meeting cadence, and where you will share information with the larger group.
‘Not all banks are the ‘same’—this is some of the best advice for when you start a payment hub project. Before you even begin, you must have a list of the banks you will need to connect with, and your local employees should be able to help point out the unique challenges with each (e.g., if the bank would not accept standard payment file formats and you would need to convert the file your ERP generates).
The list will also help you identify the best ways to connect with the banks, whether you create direct connections, use SWIFT, or have specific local connection requirements.
In your implementation plan, schedule plenty of time for setting up the bank connections. It is usually more challenging than creating connections with ERPs; in the case of the ERP, your IT team can control the pace. With banks, many factors are out of your hands, and sometimes, all you can do is wait or comply with the requests from the bank.
It’s tempting to create a very tight project timeline. In a recent survey, our client said smart time management positively impacted their implementation project.
‘Be wise and flexible; you can avoid delays in the projects, and you will have the flexibility to realize quick wins during the project, like adding different types of payments.’
Of course, delivering the project as soon as possible is still a priority, but leave room for surprises (e.g., when you deal with longer timelines than expected with the banks) and time for experimenting; maybe you will be able to realize a few unexpected features during the implementation project. Solution consultants from vendors will normally guide you almost effortlessly when you can implement a feature, even if you haven’t planned it before.
Companies come to us with different reasons why they would like to implement a payment factory. A very common theme is automation – in some cases, we are taking the client from 100% manual processes to almost 100% automation. (You can’t always avoid manual payments, but it’s still possible to process them through the payment factory, and that’s what manual payment templates are for.)
In many cases, having more control over outgoing payment processes is the main priority. The group wants more control over all payments, and centralization is the theme we need to focus on. The opposite can also be true, though: In one case, our client wanted to implement a payment factory but without centralization. They wanted to use one tool for all of their entities but still allow them some freedom in executing their payments.
Another emerging theme is, of course, security and compliance. As fraud increases, CISOs/CIOs often push the Treasury Department to implement a payment factory. Thus, most major providers offer two capabilities vital for the CISO office: fraud detection (often utilizing AI or a rule-based engine) and audit trails for every transaction.
Regardless of your priorities, you will most likely realize some of the following business impacts:
Even if you are not going for a centralized approach, you will have a tool that all global users can use to execute payments. If your goal is centralization, having a payment hub between your banks and systems will standardize the process and improve productivity in all units.
A scattered system landscape can become expensive for an enterprise. By integrating all ERP systems and financial software into the payment hub, you can achieve complete automation. The payment hub can fetch payment files from the different systems and send them to the correct bank. Depending on the size of the project, clients have reported that integrating all their IT systems where payment files are located can result in hundreds of thousands of savings.
Managing bank accounts takes time and effort. As a positive outcome, most of our clients are closing bank accounts and, thus, realizing savings from tens of thousands to over one hundred thousand euros.
A standardized way of working equals compliance. Adding audit trails, security measures like MFA, and the six-eyes principle are just the basics. Forward-thinking teams are investing in automated fraud detection and erroneous payment prevention to reduce the chances of payment fraud and errors that have increased over the last few years.
While reducing the number of FTEs should not be the project’s ultimate goal, at least you won’t be hiring people to do mundane manual tasks, and your workforce can focus on more critical projects, like forecasting future cash flows. This will also transform the role of your department within the organization. You will be able to take the department from an operational role to that of a strategic advisor if that’s your priority.
Implementing a payment hub on a global scale in tens of countries for tens of subsidiaries and hundreds of users is a large undertaking. It will require excellent project and time management and an exceptionally dedicated team. Establish a common goal initially, and make sure everyone knows their role and why the project matters. Also, for the implementation to succeed, you must choose the right supplier. The payment hub supplier should provide a payment hub with all the functionality you need to manage your payments. Still, in addition, they should be able to support you with IT integration, bank connections, project management, and communication. Working with a payment hub provider that fits your team well is very important because you will spend a lot of time together in weekly meetings. Choosing the best partner may involve more than just finding the best technology.
The best approach ultimately depends on your organization and requirements. Some clients start with creating a payment factory, knowing they will continue the project and create an in-house bank and moving away from working with hundreds or thousands of bank accounts, using internal accounts instead, implementing a POBO and COBO approach, and even managing intercompany loans in an in-house bank.
Some may want to implement something other than an in-house bank, and they can manage their cash flows very well with just a payment factory and add liquidity management to complement the service and forecast your company’s cash balances based on accurate data from the payment hub.
Whatever your approach is, setting up a payment hub can be a significant change for the better if you are not yet automating your payments on a global scale.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click [HERE] or fill out the form below to get more information.
This article is written by our partner, Cobase
For decades, large international banks have positioned themselves as gateways to the global financial system. Their pitch is straightforward: one partner, global reach, consistent service. For multinational corporates, the appeal is obvious – simplify banking by consolidating relationships.
But beneath the branding, the idea of a truly “global” bank starts to unravel.
The limitation is not ambition or scale. It is jurisdiction.
Banks do not operate across borders in the way technology companies or logistics networks do. They expand into countries, but once there, they become subject to local rules – rules that define, often in granular detail, what services they can provide, how they provide them, and to whom.
What emerges is less a single institution and more a network of locally regulated entities, loosely stitched together under a common name.
That distinction matters.
A corporate working with a global bank across Europe, Asia, and the Americas might expect a consistent experience. Instead, they encounter variation at almost every layer. A payment setup that works seamlessly in the Netherlands may require adjustments in the United States. A liquidity structure available in London may not be permitted in Mumbai. Even something as routine as onboarding can turn into a multi-country exercise, with separate documentation, timelines, and approval processes for each jurisdiction.
In some cases, the gaps are subtle. A bank may offer ISO 20022 payment formats globally, but local implementations differ. Files accepted in one country may fail in another, not because the standard changed, but because interpretation did. Error handling, cut-off times, and processing logic follow local conventions, not global ones.
In other cases, the limitations are more explicit.
Take liquidity management. In theory, a multinational corporate should be able to centralise cash across accounts worldwide, optimising funding and reducing idle balances. In practice, that depends heavily on where the cash sits. European markets allow relatively sophisticated pooling structures, including notional pooling across entities. Move into markets like China or India, and those structures quickly encounter restrictions. Capital controls, regulatory approvals, and tax considerations can prevent funds from being moved freely or at all.
The result is a familiar problem for treasury teams: cash that exists, but cannot be used.
Payments tell a similar story. While a global bank may offer local payment capabilities in dozens of countries, it does not always control the full chain. In markets where it lacks direct access to domestic clearing systems, it relies on local correspondent banks. For the corporate client, this dependency is largely invisible until something goes wrong. Delays, additional fees, and reconciliation issues emerge, often without clear transparency into where in the chain the problem occurred.
In certain regions, even data becomes fragmented. Regulatory regimes increasingly require financial data to be stored and processed locally. For global banks, this means that account information, transaction data, and reporting cannot always be fully centralised. A corporate attempting to build a real-time, global view of its cash position may find that some pieces simply cannot be integrated in the same way as others.
And then there are the markets where global banks are only partially present or absent altogether.
In parts of Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, even the largest international banks rely on partnerships with domestic institutions. In these cases, the “global” relationship effectively stops at the border, and the corporate is pulled back into the very fragmentation it was trying to avoid.
None of this is accidental. It reflects the underlying structure of the financial system.
.svg)
Banking is, at its core, a nationally regulated industry. Governments retain control over their financial systems for reasons that go beyond efficiency: monetary policy, financial stability, capital controls, and oversight. These priorities impose boundaries that even the largest banks cannot cross.
The consequence is a persistent gap between how corporates operate and how banks are structured. Corporates expand internationally and expect their infrastructure to scale with them. Banks expand internationally but remain constrained locally.
This is why even the most sophisticated multinationals rarely rely on a single banking partner. They build networks—combining global banks for reach, regional banks for depth, and local banks for access. Integration becomes their responsibility.
And that is where a different type of solution has started to emerge.
Rather than trying to replace banks or force uniformity where it cannot exist, platforms like Cobase sit above this fragmented landscape and act as an integration layer. They connect to multiple banks—global and local, across channels such as SWIFT, EBICS, APIs, and host-to-host, and standardise how corporates interact with them.
In that model, the complexity of dealing with multiple banking entities does not disappear, but it is absorbed. Payment formats are converted automatically to meet bank-specific requirements. Differences in file structures, validation rules, and communication protocols are handled centrally. Data coming back from banks—balances, transactions, statuses is normalised into a consistent format.
The effect is not that a corporate suddenly has a “global bank.”
It is that it gains a single, controlled interface across many banks.
This distinction is subtle, but important. The fragmentation remains at the infrastructure level where it is dictated by regulation and market structure, but it is no longer fully exposed at the operational level.
In that sense, the role of integration shifts. It moves away from trying to find the one bank that can do everything, toward building a layer that can manage many banks as if they were one.
The “global bank,” then, is less a reality than an abstraction.
What corporates increasingly build instead is their own version of it—on top of the system as it actually exists.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click the button below.
This article is written by our partner, FIS
Receivables finance (RF) has long been a cornerstone of corporate finance, enabling businesses to convert outstanding invoices into immediate liquidity. By selling their receivables to a funder, companies may access cost-effective funding and reduce risk, while investors may gain exposure to short-duration, diversified assets at a competitive return.
However, as recent events surrounding First Brands Group illustrate, this structure remains vulnerable to risks beyond credit, such as fraud. These vulnerabilities highlight the need for greater scrutiny and the adoption of new technologies.
Fraud in RF transactions typically manifests through misrepresentation of receivables quality, double pledging of assets and fabrication of invoices. These risks arise because RF relies heavily on the integrity of the originator’s reporting and servicing processes. If invoices are falsified or pledged to multiple financiers, the asset base becomes compromised, exposing investors and lenders to significant losses.
The First Brands case underscores these vulnerabilities. The U.S. auto parts supplier, which filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in September 2025, allegedly engaged in widespread financial misconduct, including doctoring invoices and double-counting receivables to secure billions of dollars in financing.
Several market features of RF contribute to fraud risk:
These factors can make RF particularly vulnerable when governance fails or liquidity pressures incentivize aggressive accounting.
The First Brands saga has accelerated calls for digital transformation in RF oversight. Advanced technology and reporting platforms can reduce fraud risk through:
The collapse of First Brands is a cautionary tale for all stakeholders in the RF ecosystem. While RF remains a powerful liquidity tool, its resilience depends on effective governance and technological safeguards. Platforms that deliver real-time transparency, automated controls and immutable records are no longer optional: They are essential to maintaining trust and confidence in this asset.
In essence, resilient frameworks are often built on digital efficiency and the irreplaceable insight of experienced practitioners.
As institutional investors continue to seek exposure to trade finance assets and corporates aim to unlock working capital, the combination of advanced technology and human expertise within complex RF structures will help to shape the market’s future.
While digitalization may stand as the frontline defense against fraud, it’s equally vital to maintain effective human oversight by having seasoned professionals conduct independent reviews and engage in regular dialog with originators and funders.
This interplay between technological innovation and expert judgment helps ensure that not only are anomalies flagged automatically, but also the nuances of complex transactions are properly understood and addressed. In essence, resilient frameworks are often built on digital efficiency and the irreplaceable insight of experienced practitioners.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click the button below.
This article is written by Nomentia
Why are manual treasury processes expensive?
Manual treasury processes become expensive because they require recurring effort to collect balances, prepare payment files, update forecasts, check approvals, and reconcile data. Even when each task seems manageable, the combined impact can reduce efficiency, slow down decision-making, and increase operational risk.
Treasury teams are used to making imperfect systems work.
A spreadsheet here. A bank portal there. A local ERP export from one entity, a payment file from another, and a cash forecast that still depends on email updates from the business. None of these workarounds may look dramatic on their own. In many organisations, they are even seen as normal.
The problem is that “normal” can become expensive.
Manual treasury operations rarely create one large, visible cost line. Instead, they create a pattern of hidden costs: time spent collecting data, delays in decision-making, duplicated effort, payment exceptions, outdated forecasts, missed visibility, and control gaps that only become urgent when something goes wrong.
That is why treasury automation ROI should not only be discussed as a technology question. It is also an operating model question. How much time does treasury spend managing the process instead of managing cash, liquidity, payments, and risk?
The cost of manual work is often underestimated because it is distributed across people, entities, systems, and routines.
A treasury analyst may spend hours preparing a daily cash position. A regional finance team may manually upload payment files. Another person may validate bank data, check approvals, update forecasts, or investigate why one bank statement does not match the expected format.
Each task may be manageable. Combined, they create a significant operational burden.
This is also why many teams struggle to build a cash forecasting business case. The value of better forecasting is not limited to “faster reporting”. It is the value of better decisions: knowing earlier where liquidity is needed, reducing dependency on outdated data, improving confidence in funding decisions, and giving leadership a clearer view of what may happen next.
External research points in the same direction. PwC’s 2025 Global Treasury Survey notes that treasury teams are under pressure to improve cash visibility, cost efficiency, and risk management, while leading organisations increasingly adopt real-time liquidity tools, AI-enhanced forecasting, and centralised payment models. HSBC also highlights that cash flow forecasting has remained a key treasury priority, reflecting the need for precise and timely forecasts in a volatile environment.
In other words, manual treasury processes are not only inefficient. They can slow down the organisation’s ability to respond.
Cash visibility is one of the clearest examples of hidden treasury cost.
When balances are collected manually across banks, accounts, currencies, and entities, treasury may technically have the data, but not necessarily in time to act on it. The team may know yesterday’s position, but not today’s. It may have a consolidated view, but only after several people have updated files, checked bank portals, and reconciled different formats.
That delay matters.
Without timely visibility, companies may keep too much cash idle in one place while borrowing elsewhere. They may struggle to identify trapped cash. They may make liquidity decisions based on incomplete information. They may also spend valuable time explaining numbers instead of improving them.
Nomentia positions its Smart Treasury Suite around visibility, control, and predictability across payments, cash, liquidity, and risk, integrating with ERPs, banks, and other systems. For companies operating across multiple banks and entities, that integration layer is not just technical infrastructure. It is the foundation for turning fragmented data into usable treasury insight.
Payments are another area where manual processes can appear cheaper than they really are.
At first glance, uploading files through bank portals or managing payments across local workflows may seem acceptable. The team knows the process. The banks are connected somehow. Payments are executed. Work continues.
But payment operations carry a high cost when they depend on scattered portals, inconsistent approvals, manual file handling, and local exceptions.
The hidden costs include time spent preparing and checking payment files, resolving format issues, validating approvals, tracking payment statuses, and answering questions from subsidiaries, AP teams, banks, and auditors. More importantly, weak payment control can increase exposure to duplicate payments, missed cut-offs, fraud attempts, and compliance issues.
This is where payment automation benefits become easier to explain. Automation is not only about faster payment execution. It is about standardising the process, improving traceability, reducing manual intervention, and making payment control easier to prove.
Forecasting is often where manual treasury processes become most visible to leadership.
The CFO does not necessarily see how many files were collected, how many emails were sent, or how many adjustments treasury made before the forecast was ready. But the CFO does see when the forecast is late, when confidence is low, or when the numbers change without a clear explanation.
A manual cash forecast can still be useful. Many experienced treasury teams are excellent at working around incomplete data. But as the business grows, expands into new markets, adds banks, or inherits systems through acquisitions, the limits become harder to ignore.
Forecasting depends on data quality, timing, ownership, and repeatability. If treasury spends too much time gathering inputs, it has less time to analyse drivers, challenge assumptions, and model scenarios. A forecast that takes days to prepare may already be outdated when it reaches decision-makers.
This is why the business case for treasury automation should include both time savings and decision quality. Faster data collection is valuable. But the larger value often comes from giving treasury more time to interpret what the numbers mean.
Manual controls are often built around expertise. The team knows which approvals are needed, which files need checking, which bank deadlines matter, and which exceptions require escalation.
That works until complexity increases.
As more entities, banks, users, and payment types are added, control becomes harder to manage consistently. Processes may differ across countries. Approval rules sit outside the system. Audit trails may require manual reconstruction. Exceptions depend on individual knowledge rather than embedded workflows.
In a stable environment, this may go unnoticed. During growth, restructuring, audit, staff changes, or periods of financial pressure, it becomes a risk.
The Nomentia Treasury Trends Report 2026 describes treasury teams facing pressure to deliver real-time insights, stronger controls, and more strategic input, often while dealing with fragmented systems and limited IT support. The report is based on 384 treasury and finance leaders across the Nordics, DACH, Benelux, and the UK.
That is the reality many treasury teams recognise: expectations are rising faster than operational capacity.
A strong treasury automation ROI discussion should not begin with software features. It should begin with operational impact.
From there, TMS cost savings become easier to frame. The value may come from fewer manual hours, lower operational risk, more efficient payment execution, improved cash visibility, reduced dependency on spreadsheets, or stronger audit readiness.
The most useful business case is not a generic promise that automation saves money. It is a structured estimate of where the organisation currently loses time and where better treasury processes could create measurable improvement.
Treasury Masterminds is a community of professionals working in treasury management or those interested in learning more about various topics related to treasury management, including cash management, foreign exchange management, and payments. To register and connect with Treasury professionals, click the button below.
