Explore a curated stream of blogs, articles, podcasts and insights created by treasury professionals. Our content is designed to inform, challenge, and inspire. Stay up to date, sharpen your perspective and engage with ideas that move treasury forward in a complex financial world.
By Alexander von Schirmeister,
CEO at Nomentia
A bank portal still works. The ERP still produces data. A spreadsheet still calculates a forecast. A payment approval workflow still moves from one person to the next. Reports still reach the CFO, even if they arrive later than expected. From the outside, treasury appears to function. Inside the process, finance teams know exactly how much effort is required to keep that appearance of control intact.
Modern treasury cannot rely on disconnected systems because the questions it needs to answer are no longer isolated. Cash visibility depends on bank data, account structures, ERP information, payments in progress, forecast inputs, intercompany flows, financing activities, and exposures. Liquidity planning depends on operational data from the business, but also on treasury assumptions, market conditions, working capital movements, and funding plans. Risk management depends on reliable exposure data, but also on trade execution, hedge documentation, limits, reporting, and accounting. If each part of this picture sits in a different place, the treasury team becomes the integration layer.
That integration work rarely surfaces. It lives in copy-and-paste routines, manual file checks, email reminders, reconciliation notes, spreadsheet tabs, and individual memory. It is also where most treasury management challenges quietly begin.
Disconnected systems create time loss because data has to be gathered before it can be analysed. They create duplicated work because teams maintain local trackers even when central tools exist. They weaken cash visibility because the latest view may depend on which bank file has arrived or which entity has responded. They weaken controls because exceptions are harder to identify when workflows are not connected.
The CFO does not usually see the process friction. The CFO sees the answer. If the answer is late, inconsistent, or hard to explain, confidence falls. Senior leadership needs reliable responses to simple but high-stakes questions: How much liquidity is available? Which cash flows are expected? Where is working capital tied up? Are internal payments efficient? Which exposures are material? Are guarantees, hedges, and commitments under control? These questions cannot be answered well when the data behind them has to be rebuilt every time.
The 2026 Nomentia Treasury and Cash Management report highlights that many treasury teams are in a transitional phase. They have moved beyond purely manual treasury, but still rely on multiple systems and partial automation. The pattern is familiar: the organisation has invested in technology, yet treasury still spends too much time reconciling information and validating reports. The issue is not that systems are missing. The issue is that they are not connected enough to support the pace of decision-making.
Disconnected systems are especially risky in three areas.
The first is visibility. If cash positions, transactions, forecasts, and payment statuses are not consolidated, treasury may see parts of the picture but miss the direction of movement. A balance report can show where cash is today, but it does not explain whether the position is temporary, restricted, exposed, or needed elsewhere in the group. Visibility without context can create false comfort.
The second is control. Treasury policies often look clear on paper, but control depends on how processes actually run. Who can approve a payment? Which entities have followed the forecast process? Which exposures have been validated? Which guarantee is close to expiry? Which hedge relationship needs attention? When workflows are disconnected, control becomes dependent on manual follow-up. That may work when volumes are low, but it becomes unreliable as banks, entities, instruments, and reporting expectations increase.
The third is decision speed. In volatile markets, delayed answers are not neutral. A late forecast can affect funding decisions. A delayed exposure view can affect hedge timing. A slow payment status check can affect supplier confidence. A late view of guarantees or credit line usage can affect working capital decisions. Treasury does not need real-time data for every decision, but it does need enough connected information to avoid making decisions with yesterday’s understanding.
A modern treasury management system should not be judged only by feature breadth. The more important question is how well it reduces the gaps between systems, data, workflow, and reporting. A strong setup connects bank information, ERP data, payment processes, cash forecasting, risk workflows, analytics, and audit trails into a reliable operating model. That does not mean every company needs every module at once. It means the architecture should support growth without forcing the team to rebuild its processes every time complexity increases.
Most people researching a TMS today will start with a web search or ask Copilot, Gemini, or ChatGPT. The answer they get back is usually a feature list. That’s not wrong, but it’s incomplete. A good treasury management system helps finance teams centralise cash, payments, forecasting, risk, controls, and reporting so they can make better liquidity and financial risk decisions with trusted data. Features are how it gets there. That’s the distinction worth keeping in mind when evaluating whether your current setup is still fit for purpose.
The path away from disconnected systems does not always require a large replacement project. In many organisations, the better approach is to identify the most painful manual bridges first. Where does treasury re-enter data? Where does the team wait for local input? Where do reports need manual explanation? Where are approvals outside the system? Where is the same number calculated in different ways? These questions show where fragmentation is creating the most business risk.
Connected systems create reliable answers. They reduce the manual work behind cash visibility, improve the quality of cash flow forecasting, and support stronger controls and compliance. They help the CFO understand not only what the numbers are, but what they mean for liquidity, risk, and action. Disconnected systems may still function. But they make treasury work harder than it should, and confident decisions harder than they need to be.
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 TreasuryCube
In an increasingly complex financial environment, In-House Banks (IHBs) have emerged as a strategic imperative for corporations seeking enhanced cash visibility, optimized liquidity, and streamlined intercompany transactions. Drawing insights from a recent presentation by experts at Citi and seasoned treasurers, let’s explore what makes an IHB not just an option, but a cornerstone of modern treasury management.
An IHB is a centralized internal financial entity that manages cash, investments, foreign exchange exposures, and intercompany lending on behalf of corporate subsidiaries. Acting as a “virtual bank” for the organization, it reduces the volume of external banking transactions and provides critical advantages in cash management, governance, and compliance.
Importantly, an IHB is not a regional treasury center, shared service center, re-invoicing hub, or physical licensed bank. It’s a bespoke solution that integrates deeply with corporate finance operations.
An IHB addresses several core challenges that treasurers face:
Real-world IHB implementations, like those led by Brook Ballard at Oceaneering, showcase the tangible benefits:
Intercompany netting further reduces payment transactions, bank fees, and FX costs by consolidating cross-border intercompany settlements.
While beneficial for many, IHBs are particularly advantageous for:
At TreasuryCube, we recognize that the modern treasury is not just about managing cash, it’s about unlocking strategic value. An effective IHB is a critical tool to help achieve that vision, especially when supported by integrated technology, skilled people, and proactive governance.
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
The reality of payment fraud has shifted from a question of whether an attack will occur to a growing likelihood of when and how it will occur.
For finance and treasury leaders, the strategies that provided a sense of security a few years ago may be insufficient against a new breed of sophisticated and relentless criminals. A 2024 survey from the Association for Financial Professionals underscored this reality, revealing that a staggering 79% of organizations were victims of payment fraud attacks or attempts.
This is not a distant risk: It’s an active, daily threat that demands a fundamental change in an institution’s defensive posture. The traditional, reactive approach – detecting and responding to fraud after it occurs – is, in many cases, no longer a viable strategy. The time has come to build a proactive defense.
Today’s fraudsters are often not lone actors but organized, well-funded operations that use advanced technology and psychological tactics. They study organizational structures, identify process gaps and exploit the path of least resistance.
Business email compromise remains a dominant method, where criminals impersonate executives or vendors with alarming authenticity to redirect funds. We’re also seeing the rise of AI-powered deep fakes, where a trusted voice on a conference call can be convincingly spoofed to authorize a fraudulent transfer.
These criminals understand that the entire payment lifecycle, from the initial onboarding of a vendor to the final reconciliation, presents a landscape of opportunity. They target the seams in your processes, exploiting the very human desire for efficiency and speed. This “disharmony,” a term coined by a FIS® and Oxford Economics study, captures the friction between the drive for growth and the drag of persistent security threats.
According to the study, 75% of C-suite executives identify fraud as a critical challenge.
How can organizations overcome the evolving threat of fraud? The answer lies in shifting from a fragmented, manual and reactive stance to an integrated, automated and proactive one.
A truly effective defense begins by fortifying the most common entry points. The vendor master file, for instance, is the heart of the payables process and a prime target. A single fraudulent change to a supplier’s bank details can lead to catastrophic losses before anyone realizes an error has occurred.
Overcoming this type of threat typically requires more than just diligence: It often demands a standardized, technology-enforced process. It includes implementing out-of-band verification, such as a phone call to a preverified contact, for any change to payment instructions. It means moving beyond trust and implementing strict, automated validation protocols.
As transaction volumes grow, manual reviews can become an impossible bottleneck, creating the very noise that criminals use to hide their illicit activities. This is where modern solutions like AI-assisted anomaly detection become increasingly indispensable.
Unlike static, rule-based systems that can only catch what they are programmed to look for, AI and machine learning establish a baseline of “normal” payment behavior for each vendor and transaction type. These systems operate in real time, analyzing payments for subtle deviations in amount, frequency or timing that would be difficult for the human eye to detect. When an anomaly is detected, the payment is automatically flagged for investigation before it leaves the organization. This preemptive capability is a game changer.
Organizations can achieve a greater level of control by consolidating their payment flows through a centralized payment hub. Instead of managing disparate security protocols across multiple ERPs and bank portals, a payment hub provides a more unified point of visibility and control.
A payment hub enables the consistent application of security policies, approval workflows and fraud detection analytics across the entire enterprise. It standardizes an institution’s defense, creating a fortress rather than a series of disconnected fences. A payment hub integrated with a third-party account validation service provides another critical layer, confirming that a beneficiary’s name matches their account information before a payment is ever initiated.
Reduce fraud risk and strengthen controls with FIS Payment Hub – Enterprise Edition
The path forward for finance and treasury leaders requires a strategic pivot. It means recognizing that fraud prevention is not merely a compliance checkbox but a strategic enabler of business resilience and growth.
Building a proactive defense involves a holistic approach that integrates advanced technology, standardized processes and a culture of vigilant verification. By embracing AI-driven monitoring, centralizing payment operations and empowering employees with specialized training, you can transform your security posture from reactive to preemptive.
This shift does not just mitigate risk: It builds the confidence and operational integrity necessary to thrive in a complex financial world.
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 Jelle Goossens
I’ve been digging into academic research on how Corporate Treasury has evolved – and one conclusion stands out: Treasury didn’t just get more sophisticated. Its economic purpose changed.
Here’s the arc:
1. Cash custodian – payments, bank accounts, short-term borrowing. Success meant control and liquidity.
2. Financial risk manager – the end of Bretton Woods and floating rates forced Treasury to develop a market-oriented skill set: FX, interest-rate exposure, derivatives.
3. Balance-sheet manager – as companies globalised, Treasury’s remit widened to capital structure, refinancing, counterparty risk, credit ratings.
4. Guardian of financial resilience – the Great Financial Crisis taught boards that profitability does not guarantee survival. Liquidity and funding access became strategic, not operational.
5. Strategic financial risk and capital adviser – where we are now. Automation is eating payments, reconciliation, and reporting. That doesn’t shrink Treasury’s importance – it shifts where the value sits: scenario analysis, funding optionality, capital structure, risk appetite, M&A financing.
Here’s the part I think gets underdiscussed:
Treasury historically grew up inside Finance functions dominated by Accounting. In many companies, that legacy still shapes reporting lines, processes, and identity.
But the disciplines have diverged. Accounting is about recording and assuring outcomes that already happened. Treasury is increasingly about managing uncertainty in outcomes that haven’t happened yet.
Both matter. They’re just not the same job.
Research on management accountants shows the same pattern: rebranding a function as a “business partner” doesn’t make it one if the behaviours and identity underneath haven’t changed. I suspect Treasury faces the same trap – the profession has moved faster than its org chart.
I’ve told this story as Treasury’s rise being a response to volatility and crisis – a defensive evolution toward resilience. There’s a separate strand of academic work that reads the same balance-sheet shift less generously.
The “financialization” literature in economics looks at why non-financial companies have accumulated steadily larger cash and financial-asset positions since the 1970s and finds that the answer isn’t only precautionary. Some of this research shows that firms increasingly earn meaningful income from the spread between what they pay to borrow and what they earn on cash and securities – in other words, from financial intermediation, not just from managing risk around the operating business.
Read that way, part of Treasury’s ascent isn’t just “we got better at protecting the company.” It’s that Treasury quietly became a profit centre in its own right, and that changes the question. A resilience function is judged on whether the company survives a shock. A profit centre is judged on returns. Those two mandates can pull in different directions – the same expertise in liquidity, funding and market risk that makes a company harder to sink can also, if left unchecked, tilt Treasury toward optimising yield in ways that increase the very financial complexity it’s meant to be managing.
I don’t think this cancels the resilience narrative. But it’s a useful check on it. If Treasury is going to claim a bigger seat at the strategic table, the honest version of that pitch has to reckon with which mandate is actually driving the claim – and boards should probably be asking the same question.
Maybe the next stage of Treasury transformation isn’t another system implementation. It’s giving Treasury organisational room to actually be what it has become: the company’s specialist function for financial risk, resilience, and optionality.
Drawing on research from Donald Zorn (rise of the CFO), Hiebl, Quinn & Martínez Franco (Guinness treasury history), Goretzki, Strauss & Weber and Wolf et al. (Finance professional identity), Graham & Harvey (corporate financial decision-making), Polák, Masquelier & Michalski (Treasury 4.0), and Leila Davis and Joel Rabinovich (financialization and corporate cash holdings).
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, SAP Taulia
The concept of embedded finance is nothing new – it has been around for over a decade. Often lauded as a transformative “tool,” it’s more accurately understood as a paradigm shift – a new way of delivering financial solutions directly within business workflows.
What has changed today, however, is that, thanks to both the access to data and the AI tools to drive decision-making around it, vision is now becoming a reality, particularly in its capacity to unlock liquidity and revolutionize supply chain operations.
The core premise of embedded finance within the B2B landscape lies in integrating crucial financial services directly into the platforms that businesses already utilize for their daily operations.
This integration, exemplified by SAP’s robust ecosystem and SAP Taulia’s embedded finance capabilities, allows companies to address critical pain points, such as liquidity gaps, and significantly bolster their relationships with suppliers by providing them with early access to funds as needed.
Key financial services, once separate and often cumbersome to access, are now being woven into the fabric of core technology systems. The traditional friction associated with securing financing or managing payments is significantly reduced, leading to faster transaction cycles, improved cash flow predictability, and a more robust and resilient supply chain ecosystem that is accessible quickly and easily – with no extra investment or implementation required.
Beyond these core services, the impact of embedded finance extends to several other critical areas. For instance, it facilitates more granular data analysis within SAP systems, offering insights into payment behaviors, risk profiles, and operational bottlenecks that were previously difficult to unearth.
This data-driven approach enables companies to make more informed decisions, optimize their financial strategies, and proactively address potential issues before they escalate.
Furthermore, embedded finance is fostering greater financial inclusion within supply chains. Smaller and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which often struggle to access traditional credit due to stringent requirements or lack of collateral, can now leverage their transactional data within B2B platforms like SAP Business Network and SAP Taulia to qualify for financing.
This democratizes access to capital, enabling a broader range of suppliers to participate and thrive within global supply chains, ultimately leading to greater innovation and competitiveness.
Building the bridge between technology platforms and their function-based users has been at the heart of technology development since the first moves from green screens to modern UIs. However, when it comes to data analysis, this remained the domain of specialists until relatively recently.
The advent of natural language processing, however, means that the bridge has now been built, and for decision-makers in the finance function, this is a game-changer.
Through AI tools like Joule, they can not only find answers in the data but also turn answers into decisions and then actions. It is now possible to use AI tools to identify the best way to raise funds and then set in motion the processes required to do it.
The future of embedded finance in supply chains, particularly with advancements from SAP and SAP Taulia, promises even more sophisticated integrations. We can anticipate further blurring of lines between financial and operational activities, with real-time financing options triggered by events within the supply chain – for example, an invoice is issued and sold as a receivable at the same time, enabling a business to receive the funds immediately.
This level of automation and contextual relevance will further reduce manual intervention, minimize errors, and accelerate the flow of goods and capital.
As embedded finance continues to mature, its impact on operational efficiency and financial agility within B2B environments, heavily supported by solutions from SAP and SAP Taulia, is set to be truly transformative.
It’s not merely about offering financial products; it’s about fundamentally reshaping how businesses interact with money within their daily operations, creating a more connected, efficient, and resilient global economy.
This evolution marks a significant leap forward in managing liquidity and optimizing supply chain performance, ensuring that businesses are not only capable of meeting demand but also equipped to thrive in an increasingly dynamic but also unpredictable economic environment.
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 Kantox
In an era of algorithmic trading and real-time data, why do foreign exchange transactions remain shrouded in opacity? For treasury managers and CFOs overseeing multi-currency operations, this question has profound implications for their organisation’s financial performance.
The foreign exchange market represents one of the few remaining bastions of systematic pricing opacity in modern finance. Unlike equity markets where bid-ask spreads are transparent, or bond markets where yields are clearly quoted, FX transactions often conceal true costs within seemingly competitive exchange rates. This opacity isn’t accidental—it’s structural, and it’s costing your organisation more than you might realise.
Current research paints a concerning picture of FX cost awareness across corporate treasuries. Recent surveys of CFOs, treasurers and senior finance decision-makers reveal that 94% of corporates are actively reassessing their FX programs, yet fundamental cost transparency remains elusive.
The original ACCA-Kantox study findings remain strikingly relevant: 35% of respondents couldn’t quantify their FX costs, while the remaining 65% likely underestimated their true expenses. More troubling, documented cases show companies paying up to 2.5% on EUR/USD spot transactions—a cost that would be considered outrageous in most other financial services.
Banks and traditional FX providers, rather than charging explicit fees, they embed margins within exchange rates themselves. This approach creates several challenges for treasury teams:
The Rate Manipulation Dynamic: Without access to real-time interbank rates, corporations cannot accurately assess whether their bank’s quoted rate represents market value or includes substantial embedded margins. Bloomberg and Reuters terminals provide this transparency, but at costs that make them prohibitive for many mid-market companies.
The Compounding Effect: For companies with regular multi-currency operations—whether paying suppliers in emerging markets, managing subsidiary cash flows, or serving international clients—these hidden costs compound rapidly. A seemingly modest 0.5% margin on monthly transactions can represent hundreds of thousands in annual hidden costs for mid-sized multinationals.
The Negotiation Disadvantage: Without clear visibility into true costs, treasury managers cannot effectively negotiate with their banks. This information asymmetry fundamentally shifts negotiating power away from corporate clients.
The regulatory environment continues to reshape FX cost structures through multiple channels. The implementation of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book (FRTB) represents the most significant development, with European regulations effective from January 1, 2025, introducing FRTB-inspired approaches to calculating market risk capital requirements.
FRTB fundamentally alters how banks calculate capital requirements for market risk, including FX exposures. This new Basel framework seeks to standardise capital treatment to more accurately reflect trading desk risk levels, but implementation costs inevitably filter down to corporate clients through higher transaction spreads.
Simultaneously, the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation has created new compliance burdens for financial institutions. From December 30, 2024, only authorised crypto-asset service providers may offer crypto-asset services, forcing banks to reassess their digital asset and cross-border payment strategies. This regulatory convergence between traditional FX and digital assets creates additional operational complexity that banks pass through to corporate clients via embedded costs.
For treasury managers and CFOs, FX cost opacity represents more than an operational inefficiency—it’s a strategic risk. Consider these implications:
Budget Accuracy: Hidden FX costs can create significant variances between projected and actual cash flows, particularly for companies with substantial international operations. This impacts forecasting accuracy and can affect reported earnings.
Competitive Positioning: Companies with automated FX management process maintain competitive advantages in international markets. Conversely, those paying excessive hidden fees may find themselves at a disadvantage when competing for international contracts or serving price-sensitive global markets.
Capital Allocation: Excessive FX costs represent capital that could otherwise be deployed strategically. For a mid-market company processing $50 million annually in FX transactions, a 1% cost reduction creates $500,000 in additional cash flow.
As treasury leaders confront the opacity crisis, a fundamental question emerges: How can organisations transform FX from a cost center into a strategic capability?
The answer lies in currency management automation—sophisticated platforms that eliminate manual processes while delivering unprecedented transparency and control. This transformation extends far beyond simple cost reduction, encompassing risk mitigation, operational efficiency, and strategic market positioning.
Currency management automation addresses the core challenges that traditional banking relationships cannot resolve. Consider the operational reality: treasury teams managing multiple currencies, subsidiaries, and supplier relationships face exponentially complex decision-making processes. Manual approaches inevitably create inefficiencies, missed opportunities, and hidden costs.
Leading currency management platforms like Kantox exemplify this transformation through comprehensive ecosystem integration. Rather than requiring wholesale system replacement, these solutions seamlessly connect with existing infrastructure—ERP systems, treasury platforms, and multi-dealer platforms (MDPs)—creating unified visibility without operational disruption.
This integration strategy delivers immediate value through:
Given the current landscape, what should treasury managers and CFOs prioritise?
As global business operations become increasingly complex, treasury management evolves from a support function to a strategic capability. FX cost transparency isn’t merely about reducing expenses—it’s about gaining the visibility and control necessary to compete effectively in international markets.
Organisations that proactively address FX cost opacity position themselves advantageously against competitors who continue accepting traditional bank pricing models. In an environment where UK foreign exchange turnover exceeded $3.2 trillion daily in 2024, even marginal improvements in FX cost efficiency can translate into substantial competitive advantages.
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.
In this 45-minute live fireside chat, Treasury Masterminds brings together two experienced UK treasury consultants to explore what successful treasury transformation looks like in practice, where organisations commonly go wrong, and how to decide where external expertise and technology can genuinely add value.
In this 45-minute live session, Treasury Masterminds and SisID explore how Verification of Payee works in real treasury environments, where it delivers the most value, and where stronger processes are still required. This is not a discussion about regulation alone. It’s a practical conversation about payment controls, fraud prevention, and the realities of implementing VoP within corporate treasury.
In this 45-minute live session, Treasury Masterminds, ETR Digital, and Calculum explore how organisations can bridge the gap between working capital analysis and liquidity generation. This is not a discussion about dashboards and reporting. It’s a practical conversation about how companies can use data to make better decisions, unlock liquidity, and build more effective working capital strategies.
We are excited to sit down with Emma West, the driving force behind one of the world’s most influential finance events—EuroFinance.
Emma’s career spans prestigious names like the Financial Times and The The Economist Group, but her path to becoming a leader in the treasury and payments space is as fascinating as the events she curates.
Join us for a special episode of the Treasury Masterminds podcast featuring Meticulous Tendai Dube, a seasoned treasury professional who has led teams across Africa and the Middle East.
Join us for a fresh take on treasury with Pavlos Panagitsas, Junior Treasury Analyst at Avramar, ESG enthusiast, and founder of ESG news platform ESGenre.
